Metro-North New Haven Line Penn Station Access

GirlOnTheTrain wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 10:29 am The third rail shoes on the M8s are designed to accommodate both MNR-style and LIRR-style third rail. They're more or less spring loaded and can bend up or down to accommodate the under-running and over-running.

So theoretically if a single track had MNRR third rail immediately followed by LIRR third rail, then the shoe just goes up/down?

FL9s had retractable shoes as built that would work with either NYC or LIRR third rail. It's not a new idea. As with all compromises it was less than perfect. When Amtrak operated to GCT a couple of years ago the shoes were changed out for MNRR shoes because Amtrak's shoes are not set up for NYC-style third rail.

GojiMet86 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 11:35 am So theoretically if a single track had MNRR third rail immediately followed by LIRR third rail, then the shoe just goes up/down?

As I understand it, yes. It's not something that needs to be physically changed, like when Amtrak had to flip the shoes on the P32s for the diversions to Grand Central.

Extending the third rail seemed kind of stupid at first, compared to getting equipment that can run on 25hz AC power, but the ability to divert trains on the fly from GCT to Penn seems to be a huge flexibility/reliability advantage. Long term, however, MN should be operating with 25hz capable equipment pooled with NJT for run-through, probably a mix of loco-hauled and EMUs that don't have third rail equipment. It's probably possible to build an M-8 with 25hz transformers that could go to Penn and beyond, but it would be too heavy to operate on the Park Ave Viaduct, so the third rail shoes would be rather useless, and it would be just a very, very heavy train that's too expensive and overweight to be practical for dual-mode use with LIRR.

The long-term plan should be overhead wire Highbridge to Poughkeepsie, 25hz-capable run-through New Haven to NJT, and capacity improvements on LIRR and the Harlem Line, which would mean that the current equipment would all have a home plus some as improvements are made.

The availability of 25 hZ equipment is going to become relativety more expesive compared to 50 or 60 hZ equipmet. IMO why not start proceeding to convert SSY and NYP to 60 hZ? By the time M-8s are retired the coversion to 60 hZ would be complete and the next equipment itteration would only need a 60 hZ transformer and under runing shoes.

Hudson river tunnel bores to Dock would allow NJT to dedicate 60 hZ equipment for NY direct service and Hoboken service.

west point wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:57 pmThe availability of 25 hZ equipment is going to become relativety more expesive compared to 50 or 60 hZ equipmet. IMO why not start proceeding to convert SSY and NYP to 60 hZ? By the time M-8s are retired the coversion to 60 hZ would be complete and the next equipment itteration would only need a 60 hZ transformer and under runing shoes.

It's all part of the PRR 25hz power system. It's not particularly hard or expensive to make trains that work on 25hz, they just need a larger transformer, and it would have made the M-8s too heavy to operate on the Park Ave Viaduct.

It might be possible today to make EMUs built to the newer, lighter crash standards that could operate anywhere, but there really needs to be three standard EMU designs anyway, one for 60hz/third rail for the New Haven Line and eventually Hudson Line, one for third-rail only for the Harlem Line and the entire LIRR, and one that can do all three overhead voltages and have traps for low-level platforms for TriBoroRX, SEPTA, RTD, MARC, CDOT, MBTA, etc. TriBoro shouldn't need low-level boarding or 25hz, but all the others do, so may as well just make it a common design for all of them.

Hudson river tunnel bores to Dock would allow NJT to dedicate 60 hZ equipment for NY direct service and Hoboken service.

It's better to have fleet commonality since they don't use third rail, and have everything work on the 25hz PRR system. There is also a role for loco-hauled push-pull ML cars, they wouldn't be so pokey if they had a proper (6:1) loco to car ratio, either with a loco at each end, or two at one end on 12-car trains.

west point wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:57 pm The availability of 25 hZ equipment is going to become relativety more expesive compared to 50 or 60 hZ equipmet. IMO why not start proceeding to convert SSY and NYP to 60 hZ? By the time M-8s are retired the coversion to 60 hZ would be complete and the next equipment itteration would only need a 60 hZ transformer and under runing shoes.

Hudson river tunnel bores to Dock would allow NJT to dedicate 60 hZ equipment for NY direct service and Hoboken service.

The issue there is Amtrak, as it's stuck at 25 HZ service... and SEPTA. Switch the NEC, Keystone, and SEPTA services to 60 HZ and you'll be set. Of course, you need money to do it, which is the big part of the issue.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Jun 25, 2022 7:46 am have traps for low-level platforms for TriBoroRX, SEPTA, RTD, MARC, CDOT, MBTA, etc. TriBoro shouldn't need low-level boarding or 25hz, but all the others do, so may as well just make it a common design for all of them.

RTD 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.

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.

Aren't the new METRA and VRE cars bi-levels and not Gallery cars?

Why does MBTA need 25 hZ?

west point wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 12:44 am Why does MBTA need 25 hZ?

They don’t, but it’d sure be nice to buy highly standard EMU equipment. Swapping in a 60hz-only module would be fine if it saved a little weight and cost

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:43 pm New London also sucks with the M-8s

Highly disagree; it's wonderful to have to use the high-level platforms that are much more accessible for all.

High-levels need to go away in most places. Build gauntlet tracks. Trap steps for high-level equipment are notoriously steep and dangerous, especially in winter.

Gauntlet tracks are expensive -- I think starting at 7 figures for each end, and they have to be interlocked just like crossovers, plus maintained after that. Maybe OK if it's only a few, but a whole string of stations would really run up the tab. The cars that NJ Transit bought for the EL served only low-level stations and had doors that extended all the way down to the bottom step -- I assume that did a lot to keep ice and snow out.

"Aren't the new METRA and VRE cars bi-levels and not Gallery cars?" VRE's entire fleet is gallery cars. I don't know about Metra.