New Dinky to Nassau Street

How about get rid of the rails and install people movers like at the larger airports? One for each direction. No need for Engineers, conductors, etc. Just a few NJT police and turnstile at entrance at each end. Roof above with solar cells for power.

I didn't even think of the people mover idea-how clever. Hopefully they would be able to fit the people mover right of way from the existing Princeton Station into Downtown Princeton.

They could pair an ALP46 with one cab and run push-pull. I recall a pair of MLs and an ALP ran on the line some years ago (for what reason I can't recall).

JamesRR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:44 pm They could pair an ALP46 with one cab and run push-pull. I recall a pair of MLs and an ALP ran on the line some years ago (for what reason I can't recall).

That seems like a bit much for a small branch line such as Princeton. Not to mention, Multilevels and ALP-46s are needed for frequent service on literally every other electric branch which NJT runs. Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two, since those coaches are being replaced by multilevels.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:51 pm Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two...

Really only one operable ALP44, if you can lease 2308 (but parts supply for one unit should be good, given four
mothballed at MMC and the rest in Stanhope).

This would seem to be an ideal circumstance for NJT and SEPTA to work with each other and have NJT lease a few MUs from SEPTA. SEPTA would provide maintenance as part of its fleet.

rcthompson04 wrote:This would seem to be an ideal circumstance for NJT and SEPTA to work with each other and have NJT lease a few MUs from SEPTA. SEPTA would provide maintenance as part of its fleet.

Pre-COVID, SEPTA had no cars to spare. Hell, they were leasing some coaches from MARC up until the virus hit. NJT will receive new equipment before SEPTA displaces any surplus or operable MUs.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:00 pm

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:51 pm Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two...

Really only one operable ALP44, if you can lease 2308 (but parts supply for one unit should be good, given four
mothballed at MMC and the rest in Stanhope).

2308 is not operable.

Does the car number font on this weekend's dinky look a bit strange to you? Doesn't match the ones I usually see.
Pic here: https://imgur.com/a/ZDVz1o2

That is an original (pre-overhaul) number font.

JamesRR wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:44 pm They could pair an ALP46 with one cab and run push-pull. I recall a pair of MLs and an ALP ran on the line some years ago (for what reason I can't recall).

JRR and Everyone:
I wanted to reply to this subject and will mention: That observation was likely a test to see if the use of a
ALP46 along with two multilevels would work out on Dinky runs. For this 2.7 mile line MU cars make
much more sense than a locomotive-hauled consist. ALP46 motors use more power than a long MU train
would and would take time to accelerate from a full stop slower than MU cars would.

This reminds me of when SEPTA first placed their AEM7s and push-pull cars into service back in 1987.
The equipment was tested on a weekly basis on most lines - on lines with stations close together (the
two Chestnut Hill lines were the best examples that I rode) it was noted that the motors were slow on
starting up from a station only to have to again stop at the next station. I later learned that one AEM7
uses as much power on average as 8 MU cars and that they draw their highest amperage starting up
from a station. Having a substation at PJC helps in the way of power supply for motors as needed.

The Dinky is a good "niche" for MU cars leaving the ALP46 motors and multilevels for the longer runs.
MACTRAXX

How possible would it be to use otherwise standard components in a non-standard configuration? The problem seems to be the smallest MLVEMU setup would be two cabs, and one power car which is overkill. Could Bombardier put the MLV power components in a single-level form factor? Sure, it'd be a non-standard car, but if enough of the components are standard, would the remaining non-standard stuff be too much of a problem?

MattW wrote: ↑Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:44 pm How possible would it be to use otherwise standard components in a non-standard configuration? The problem seems to be the smallest MLVEMU setup would be two cabs, and one power car which is overkill. Could Bombardier put the MLV power components in a single-level form factor? Sure, it'd be a non-standard car, but if enough of the components are standard, would the remaining non-standard stuff be too much of a problem?

the main issue is where to cram them. if it was doable, they wouldn't have this 3-car approach in the first place.

BBD still trying to create the biggest mistake of a EMU design? Hell the screwed up subway cars! Time to design the next gen Arrow IV