Top 10 M-7 weird noises

Disclaimer: Parody...not to be taken seriously.

(With apologies to David Letterman)

In order from 10 (less annoying) to 1 (very annoying)

10) acceleration noise "wheeeeeeeee" (kind of neat, actually)

9) deceleration noise "eeeoooooooooo" (kind of neat, actually)

8) Inverter blower fans coming back on after gap "re-oooooo" (not real noticeable)

7) propulsion system noise at min power/low torque (can't really describe it)

6) chime sound "bloop bloop bloop bloop bloop" (only not really annoying because not used that often)

5) toilet door sliding back and forth while train in motion "chichichichichichichi" (pro rata because toilet only in "B" car)

4) PA / automated announcements "bee-boo-puchkt [crackle], 'Keep your damn feet off the seats.' puchkt" ....."puchkt-bee-boo, 'This is the last train to Clarksville. Change at Jamaica for the Midnight train to Georgia.' puchkt" (ASI announcements too often.)

3) Buzzing noise during Dynamic brake "brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr"

2) Haunting (intermittent) noise at higher speeds. "oooooooooohhhhhhhh" (teeth fillings start to get into harmonics with the noise, if prolonged)

And the number one annoying M-7 noise is:

1) "Clack-Br roob roob roob roob roob roob roor" Door opening (can opener- let the Sardines out!)

Feel free to rearrange them to your own tastes/likes/dislikes!

P.S. Engineers add "beepbeepbeepbeep" (ATC downcode and/or overspeed) and "dee-doo...dee-doo" (Alerter) where you see fit.

P.P.S. Forgot the screechy doors closing noise "eep eep eep eep".
Throw that in under #1 and make it general door operation annoying noises.

Some of the early 7000 series, at least, do this REALLY weird noise on acceleration that sounds like the traction motors about to fall out. I guess they need to go back and tweak the inverters again

Oh yeah, I was on 7046 the other day heading to NYC from Mineola (And, of course, I get the one train that makes ALL stops to Jamacia, except for Floral Park and Hillside...). Wow, those things ride like crap at times. Not bouncy, but bam bam bam back and forth. Which doesn't surprise me at all, but it really sucks. The acceleration was decent, though I wish it were more on the level of a Silverliner or Arrow - they'd be able to shorten a few schedules with that.

The seats suck, still...

Having gone around the NYC area that day, I noticed other systems around here use the same annoying talking announcement system...

So, what does the LIRR hate so much about the M-7s that they're already looking to do M-9s? (Yeah, read the MTA's capital plan for the next few years - 2.5 million for the design of M-9s)

Wow, those things ride like crap at times. Not bouncy, but bam bam bam back and forth. Which doesn't surprise me at all, but it really sucks.

It did surprise me. I was naive enough to think that by 2003, they'd have this thing down pat, and the M-7 would have a smooth ride. (Other than flat spots clackety clack.)
Not being as smart as the designers, I still think it's the bolsterless design that is the culprit. But, we're stuck with that. Bolsterless designs are here to stay. So, they'll keep trying modifications until there is some semblance of a decent ride.
If you look at an M-1 or M-3, there are all sorts of shock absorbers, shock links, shock motors, etc. Guess what? Many of them are attached to the most outboard part of the bolster. IMHO, there is better shock absorbtion available when you have a bolster.

The lateral motion problem of several years back in the M-3 was due to the lateral bumpers ("snubbers") delaminating from the metal backing plates, and falling out, allowing excessive back and forth motion. That problem was rectified.
Bouncy up and down motion is usually due to defective C-1 leveling valve ("Load Leveler") That can make even seasoned riders such as myself ready to barf after awhile of that on an express train.

Once all LIRR have the same modification with lateral shock, the ride will be lots smoother. all MNCR car have the lateral shocks and the ride is fine.
The early 120 or so LIRR cars still need to be modified.
now if LIRR could only move the seats like MNCR the arm rest problem would be solved too.
on MNCR cars all seats face oposite of LIRR seats. making the awkward turn to the door while leving your pants pockets non existant on MNCR.
LIRR seats face to center of car, away from vestibules.
MNCR seats face to vestibules away from center of car.

Tom - I wasn't surprised at all, I was actually expecting it (heck, it's IS Bombardier ). IIRC, the C-3s had some sway problems at first, too.

As one friend of mine pointed out - if you equally dumped 40,000 lbs of dead weight on the floor on an M-1 and ran it around, it'd probbably act much the same way. I'm not sure how valid that is, but it's an interesting thought. I'm guessing with that much weight and the spring rates beefed up, you probbably WOULD get signs of the same effect.

I find the ride quality a bit funny, though. When the M-7's were new, Beauer (I think it was him) commented that the things, being heaiver, would ride better. Then again, 'better' is subjective, I despise the soft spring and no damping design of older equipment, which, while not transmitting small bumps much, bounces and sways and makes you seasick. I've found that the M-1s (And the Amfleets, which also use Pioneer III trucks), tend to be horrid on marginal track, but surprisingly good on well maintained track - they ride amazingly well on the concrete portions of the LIRR. I think this is a function of the truck design more than anything else, and really, I find overall that anything with them rides like crap on marginal track. It'd be interesting to see how a design like the C-3 or the M-7's truck, suitably modified, would do with those cars, and I suspect the answer is they'd do quite well.

What was the reason for the LIRR dumping inboard bearing trucks anyway? Were they maintenance headaches, or is it just nobody really uses them anymore? (I understand that they are basically unheard of outside North America...)

I find the MN car's seats facing the normal way interesting, because the official excuse for the existing arrangement on the LIRR was that the FRA* wouldn't allow the old one, though this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Frankly, I don't see why the LIRR changed it, since as DRN points out, it makes the armrest and issue - the other way, it doesn't.

*And, I'm starting to think that the FRA is being used as a cheap excuse for a LOT of the design deficiencies on a lot of recent equipment, much like car makers use the EPA as a cheap excuse for everything.

What was the reason for the LIRR dumping inboard bearing trucks anyway? Were they maintenance headaches, or is it just nobody really uses them anymore? (I understand that they are basically unheard of outside North America...)

I can't speak authoritively on that, but I suspect you have it correct.
When you look to order new MU cars after the last time you bought MU cars was 1984, you take whatever the manufacturers are making these days. A hefty price tag would accompany manufacturers tooling up for inboard bearing trucks, if everybody is making outboard bearing trucks.
I don't see it as a "must have" thing either way.

Nasadowsk wrote:I find the MN car's seats facing the normal way interesting, because the official excuse for the existing arrangement on the LIRR was that the FRA* wouldn't allow the old one, though this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Frankly, I don't see why the LIRR changed it, since as DRN points out, it makes the armrest and issue - the other way, it doesn't.

Where did you hear that? I never heard anything about the seat configuration being due to FRA regs from anyone. We specifically told the reason is in response to customer surveys which requested more face to face seating. Having the seats arranged as they are creates 6 sets of face to face seats per car instead of 4 per car as in the M1/M3s.
Is it possible that they cannot be changed in the middle of the production run because they would have to be recertified by the FRA ? Doesn't make much sense to me since as you said MN cars use the old arrangement, but the FRA is a gov't organization so anything is possible.
BTW my choice of most annoying M7 noise is the muttered curses of passengers and crewmembers(myself included) when the smash their elbows on those stupid handles when walking through the isle. (this noise is also common to the C3s.)

I'm with you 340! As we previously discussed, that stupid door mechanism noise is (IMO) the most noticeable glaring fault of this supposedly modern product. And I agree that the acceleration and deceleration whine is really cool! I've never noticed those dynamic brake and high speed noises you mentioned.

Re: the seating arrangement, I think Metro-North was smart to stay with the old configuration. Being used to the M-1's, I find the reversed M-7 seating odd. But if as Bluebelly says, there was an actual method to it then okay, it's reasonable to try something different.

Blue - I dug around and found it. It was a comment by Dermody at the 2/26/04 LIRRCC annual president's meeting, open to the public. apparently, someone asked about the seating arrangement, he claimed it was the result of FRA crash testing of the M-1s, and injuries to the crash dummies in, which makes no sense to me either, because AFAIK, the FRA never has crash tested the M-1s, and they don't normally use crash dummies in their tests anyway. They've used them as 'ballast' cars in testing (one with a Silverliner where the Silverliner got obliterated), but I've never seen any actual tests of them, or publishes results.

Head-end,

The buzzing noise during dynamic is pretty noticeable. Listen for it next time your train brakes from track speed to make a station stop. I can't think of anything to liken it to.

I think it sounds like that because the propulsion inverter rapidly switches the dynamic brake current through two identical sets of resistor grids in each cage, so the grids don't overheat. IMHO, it's either an electronic switching noise and/or the grids rapidly expanding and contracting.

Tom

It's comming right from the grids. What you're hearing is the chopper on the brake unit regulating the current through the grids. Why two sets of grids? Two brake units would be my guess.

NJT MUs are noticeably noisy in dynamic...

Phil,

There's two identical sets of resistors in each grid cage. Then there are two grid cages, one for each propulsion inverter. The functioning is as aforementioned. Rapid alternation between each bank of resistors within the same cage, to prevent overheating.

Tom

That's weird. Then again, there's probbably a heck of a lot of heat being tossed off from those things...

That's weird

Maybe that's why it makes a weird noise...goes with the territory?

how about " CHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH" which would be the sound of money being sucked outta your pocket,
im not trying to start a fight so dont take it personally, just a little humor