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
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11
  by DutchRailnut
 
MNCR is not interested in ALP45DP as it has very limited use for MNCR.
MNCR is looking into next generation DC dual mode for GCT, but you won't see those for at least 8 years.
  by Clean Cab
 
The NJT ALP-45's have only a 1600 gallon fuel tank which rather limits their usefullness as a deisel engine.
  by Silverliner II
 
Clean Cab wrote:The NJT ALP-45's have only a 1600 gallon fuel tank which rather limits their usefullness as a deisel engine.
Yeah, that is true...
DutchRailnut wrote:MNCR is not interested in ALP45DP as it has very limited use for MNCR.
MNCR is looking into next generation DC dual mode for GCT, but you won't see those for at least 8 years.
I don't even know why I brought up the ALP45DP now. Granted, I was just tossing it out there, knowing it is not going to happen. But your comment made me think of something else that it is already too late for (only because MNCR has no locomotives to spare): what if some of the existing Gennies had their third rail shoes modified to work like Amtrak's? Voila! service into Penn Station with Shoreliners when space became available.

But, what's already done is done and cannot be undone.
  by Clean Cab
 
Once again the M9 discussion has been derailed!!! :)
  by Silverliner II
 
*calls out the block truck* All we need are some wedges....
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Save your breath arguing with Dutch, all its going to do is just derail the thread.
  by Fan Railer
 
Clean Cab wrote:The NJT ALP-45's have only a 1600 gallon fuel tank which rather limits their usefullness as a deisel engine.
Actually, they have the standard 1800 gallon tanks, but I believe that fuel for any locomotive entering the hudson tunnels is capped to 1600 gallons.
  by DutchRailnut
 
How do you explain Genesis with 2000 gallon or DM with same.
  by NH2060
 
The LIRR M-9s are for the additional capacity that will be needed for ESA. The cancellation of ARC by GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (which was flawed to begin with btw) has nothing to do with it. MNR's M-9s (if they do decide to buy MUs instead of push-pull sets with DC power cars/power heads) will be to replace the M-3As.
  by Jeff Smith
 
lirr42 wrote:Nope. GCT's switches are tighter. Especially on the lower level.
I would guess this would definitely rule out the upper level loop track (which I think is OOS anyway).
  by Jeff Smith
 
lirr42 wrote:
Thomas wrote:Will the M9A's be able to go into Penn Station?
Yes......but for LIRR. There is only going to be one M9 that is going to work on both railroads (so the Metro-North M9 and the LIRR M9 will be virtually the same with the exception of the name stenciled on the side). The LIRR is also going for a separate procurement for 160 M9A's, and if you believe everything you read in the LIRR forum, they'll have a couple interesting modifications, but will be interoperable with the M9 fleet.

So MNR is just getting plain M9's and the LIRR is getting both M9's and M9A's.

Hudson Line PSAS would need dual modes since the Empire Connection is not powered anyways.
I'm trying to think of what the modifications could possibly be, what else they would need. As diverse as their branch system is compared to MNRR's, the operating system is fairly homogeneous with one type of third rail and diesel territory. MNRR/CDOT's fleet will operate on two types of catenary, two types of third rail, and diesel.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Clean Cab wrote:There would be no way for MN M9's to get into Penn Station unless they put 3rd rail on the Empire Connection, which is rather unlikely.
That's what I was thinking. They could also extend third rail to New Rochelle although Shell and the station would be a tough job to do (maybe simpler since the reconfig). And that would leave M9's needing catenary; a non-starter. Which leaves M8's. And as Dutch frequently points out, that's a non-starter with CDOT.

Now to do it like the G train and make it non-Manhattan service? I could see extending DC to New Rochelle for transfer service from the other branches. But I'm way off in fantasy land. The M3a's seem to have a bit of life left in them from what I hear, and MNRR can delay a change in fleet strategy and just tack on to LIRR. That's what makes the most sense in the short-term.
  by Jeff Smith
 
NH2060 wrote:The LIRR M-9s are for the additional capacity that will be needed for ESA. The cancellation of ARC by GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (which was flawed to begin with btw) has nothing to do with it. MNR's M-9s (if they do decide to buy MUs instead of push-pull sets with DC power cars/power heads) will be to replace the M-3As.
Wow, an "on-topic" post! ;) Let me not say anymore lest I be accused of over-moderation!
  by lirr42
 
Jeff Smith wrote:
lirr42 wrote:Nope. GCT's switches are tighter. Especially on the lower level.
I would guess this would definitely rule out the upper level loop track (which I think is OOS anyway).
The upper level loop is still active and in use on a pretty regular basis, the lower loop, however, that's gone thanks to ESA. Weather or not MLV-style cars would fit through the loop, that I can't be sure of.
  by NH2060
 
Jeff Smith wrote:
NH2060 wrote:The LIRR M-9s are for the additional capacity that will be needed for ESA. The cancellation of ARC by GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (which was flawed to begin with btw) has nothing to do with it. MNR's M-9s (if they do decide to buy MUs instead of push-pull sets with DC power cars/power heads) will be to replace the M-3As.
Wow, an "on-topic" post! ;) Let me not say anymore lest I be accused of over-moderation!
My post was a response to someone else who has apparently removed it along with a few others. But I digress :-P
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 11