Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 159 posts
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  by Fan Railer
 
Jeff Smith wrote:So why the single designation? And a separate designation for LIRR for a second order M9-A. Doesn't make any sense.
Again, the "A" designation on the M9 order is simply to distinguish between the Federally funded cars and the locally funded cars. They are SUPPOSED to be nearly identical (if not completely identical), and be interoperable.
  by Penn Central
 
Jeff Smith wrote:Thinking VERY long-term, if MNRR ever gets to it, if you ran Hudson branch trains into Penn (part of the PSAS plan, not currently funded) you might want through running trains. That would require over/under. Or, say you have fleet issues on either side of the sound due to an incident such as Sandy, flat-spotting (remember when the 7a's first came out?), etc., it would be nice to be able to rotate in and out as needed.
As there is no third rail from 36 St to CP 12 (almost 10 miles) this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all unless you think NY State is going to pay to add third rail to the entire Empire Branch. That is never going to happen.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Agreed; merely postulating the possibilities out loud, even if far-fetched. We've talked about this both here, the PSA thread, and the Empire Connection thread. Sometimes it just takes a while to get there :wink: . At the Empire thread, even the subject of catenary was being discussed.
  by DutchRailnut
 
wait till you know who trows in his fantasies of Rohr Turboliners and the BB&T rr gets tracking rights..
  by Ridgefielder
 
What is the width of the aisles on the M7-8's and future M-9s? Can't seem to find the info anywhere online.
  by Backshophoss
 
That "lip" was always part of the M-series design,starting back to the Budd built M-1's and M-2's.
  by Head-end View
 
One of the things that always annoyed me about the M-7's was the excessively noisy door opening/closing machinery at least on LIRR's cars. I assume M-N's M-7A's have the same problem and I've wondered if the M-9's will also have noisy doors. :(

And this week I took my belated first ride on the New Haven Line's new M-8 cars and was surprised to note that the doors opened and closed quietly, like the double-leaf doors on the older M-series cars. :-D

So has door machinery improved since the M-7's were built or does Kawasaki just build a better product than Bombardier? Or did MTA maybe get enough complaints from the public about the noisy M-7 doors that they specifically spec'd something better on the more recent orders? :wink:
  by tommyboy6181
 
Vapor door controls in many cases have that noise that are heard on the M-7/M-7A cars. Even the PA-5 cars from PATH and the Alstom R160A cars have that noise but just not as loud. It could depend on the model of the door motors/electronics/components being used because the Vapor controls on the Bombardier R142/Kawasaki R143 don't have that noise.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Door operators and other auxiliaries are usually not made by car manufacturers but by outside vendors.
Be it: door operators, seats, toilet systems, HVAC , compressors etc etc .
  by BuddR32
 
M9 have door operators made by Fuji Electric. They're belt driven, and quiet. I think M8 has the same
  by DutchRailnut
 
Metro North has formally opted not to order M-9's , so this tread is now moot other than in LIRR forum.
the decision was made to continue overhaul of M-3 cars .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44jS1y ... e=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
  by Jeff Smith
 
Jaap, what does that leave MNRR with as far as future plans? Bilevels, joint acquisition of diesels, etc.? Thinking of what other topics are out there to use....
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11