• MLV EMU Procurement

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: Tadman, nick11a, Kaback9, ACeInTheHole

  • 383 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 26
  by Amtrak7
 
http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet. ... rdAgendaTo
RAIL ROLLING STOCK PROGRAM: ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR DESIGN OF MULTILEVEL POWER CARS

Since 2005, NJ TRANSIT's multilevel vehicles have enhanced the comfort and quality of service for customers and improved the reliability of rail service wherever they are operated. The vehicles feature state-of-the-art onboard communications, wider seats and more leg room, and improved mechanical systems that are less prone to weather conditions.

NJ TRANSIT's rail fleet management strategy includes use of more multilevel rail cars to maximize capacity for customers in the capacity-constrained Hudson River Tunnels and Penn Station New York. NJ TRANSIT has already deployed 321 multilevel vehicles in revenue service and an additional 100 multilevel vehicles have been ordered and will be delivered in the year ahead.

The single-level, self-propelled Arrow III Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) rail cars, which were manufactured nearly 35 years ago, are the next vehicles in NJ TRANSIT’s fleet that require replacement. NJ TRANSIT will replace these outdated Arrow III vehicles with new Multilevel Power Cars (MPCs). These new self-propelled rail cars will feature all of the customer amenities that are provided on the existing multilevel fleet including the two by two seating, but will also include onboard propulsion that will allow the cars to operate without a locomotive.

The MPCs will be mixed with the current fleet of Multilevels to provide self-propelled train sets without locomotives. Since these new train sets will utilize rail cars from the existing fleet, there are significant capital cost advantages to these new MPC vehicles versus replacement of the Arrow III fleet on a car for car basis.

The new multilevel trains with MPCs will increase the peak hour capacity into New York Penn Station by approximately eight percent. The Multilevel Power Cars will meet all current Federal regulations and accessibility requirements. These vehicles will provide operational flexibility for both smaller trains that operate in low ridership areas as well as with longer trains that operate in places such as the Northeast Corridor.

Authorization is requested to enter into a procurement-by-exception to amend Contract No. 05-078 with LTK Engineering Services, Inc. of Ambler, Pennsylvania, for engineering assistance to modify the previously-developed single-level, self-propelled electric multiple unit rail car specification for a Multilevel Power Car and support NJ TRANSIT's procurement activities for the new vehicles at a cost not to exceed $1,400,000, plus five percent for contingencies, for a total contract authorization of $5,208,000, subject to the availability of funds.
These sound like conversions not new cars...
  by Patrick Boylan
 
If it's to be conversions then what does "new vehicles" mean?
I can't figure the arithmetic. "$1,400,000, plus five percent for contingencies, for a total contract authorization of $5,208,000"
$1,400,000, and $1,400,000 don't go evenly into $5,208,000. So how many multi level MU's are we supposed to get?
  by Amtrak7
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:If it's to be conversions then what does "new vehicles" mean?
I can't figure the arithmetic. "$1,400,000, plus five percent for contingencies, for a total contract authorization of $5,208,000"
$1,400,000, and $1,400,000 don't go evenly into $5,208,000. So how many multi level MU's are we supposed to get?
Then what does this mean?

"Since these new train sets will utilize rail cars from the existing fleet..."

The only way both statements are true is if the EMU's are to be interspersed among the regular MLV fleet and replace locomotives, which is what it sounds like. Given that 10+ALP46 isn't the fastest thing out there, how do they expect to make do with a few EMU's hauling their own weight and more?

The pricing here is just for design/modification of the existing single level EMU spec.
  by amtrakhogger
 
It sounds like shades of the Lackawanna motor/trailer m.u. sets.
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Amtrak7 wrote:
Patrick Boylan wrote:If it's to be conversions then what does "new vehicles" mean?
I can't figure the arithmetic. "$1,400,000, plus five percent for contingencies, for a total contract authorization of $5,208,000"
$1,400,000, and $1,400,000 don't go evenly into $5,208,000. So how many multi level MU's are we supposed to get?
Then what does this mean?

"Since these new train sets will utilize rail cars from the existing fleet..."

The only way both statements are true is if the EMU's are to be interspersed among the regular MLV fleet and replace locomotives, which is what it sounds like. Given that 10+ALP46 isn't the fastest thing out there, how do they expect to make do with a few EMU's hauling their own weight and more?

The pricing here is just for design/modification of the existing single level EMU spec.
Seems more like the EMUs will run with the MLs as in you might have a six car set MU-MU-ML-ML-MU-ML. They will basically use the existing MLs as trailer coaches in much the same fashion that the MP54 sets used trailers.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Kind of sounds like they are going for a power cab car to bracket a set of MLV's in same fasion as Dutch MDDM's

they even may have to go for same Bo-Bo-Bo wheel arragement to get the power to rail

Image
  by M&Eman
 
Given the MLV's weight, this has boondoggle written all over it. These things will have to be at least 500 hp each in order to give acceptable (not ideal) acceleration in a 50-50 powered/nonpowered train.

If these actually work and do their job, however, this has a good chance of opening up the possibility of tightening schedules a bit on some of those Hoboken-side locals. These things should be used as much as possible on Montclair-Boonton and M&E locals, where acceleration matters more. Leave the push-pulls for expresses, the NEC, and the Coast line.
  by alewifebp
 
engineering assistance to modify the previously-developed single-level, self-propelled electric multiple unit rail car specification for a Multilevel Power Car and support NJ TRANSIT's procurement activities for the new vehicles
From what I've bolded, it seems as though they are looking to take the specs they already have, amend the previous design, then issue a contract for this new car design.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
amtrakhogger wrote:It sounds like shades of the Lackawanna motor/trailer m.u. sets.
Weren't there also unpowered trailer versions of the MP54 (without the "M" motor designation)?
  by Nasadowsk
 
M&Eman wrote:Given the MLV's weight, this has boondoggle written all over it. These things will have to be at least 500 hp each in order to give acceptable (not ideal) acceleration in a 50-50 powered/nonpowered train.
500? Try more like 2000-2500HP per car, if you want to get acceleration up to a realistic level. Without a diet on the multilevel, you're looking likely on the order of 150,000 - 170,000 per car, once you add all that exciting traction gear and a transformer to support it. The actual weight will depend on the HP they go for, and how hard they want to push the main transformer.

I'd expect it'll be M-T-T-M setups, like most other double decker EMUs are .

I think Dutch has the right form factor here - you'll see the entire (or part of) the lower level taken for traction gear. It'll be like the Dutch units or the old Swiss locomotive cars on the Zurich S Bahn (which SUCK - hot, noisy, ride like crap).

The flip side? Can you get a M-T-T-M-M-T-T-M train to be lighter than an ALP and 8 MLVs, yet still get 7000-8000 HP to the rails? I think it'll be a wash, though you'd have better wet traction with a motor trailer set.
  by DutchRailnut
 
The Dutch MDDM's are configures as M-T-T-TC and have a Bo-Bo-Bo truck configuration due to light axle loads in Europe.
their traction equipment is about 2500 Kw, small these days but sufficient 20 years ago when they came on line.
With todays lighter traction gear a better Motor to trailer amount is possible with a Bo-Bo truck arragement.
  by Ken S.
 
There's all this talk about transformer placement and stuff on these things. One question. How do they do all of this on the Highliner and Gallery MUs used by METRA and NICTD or am I missing something about those cars?
  by Fan Railer
 
Ken S. wrote:There's all this talk about transformer placement and stuff on these things. One question. How do they do all of this on the Highliner and Gallery MUs used by METRA and NICTD or am I missing something about those cars?
Those cars are regular double deck cars with sufficient underfloor clearance to mount equipment. Our cars have a much lower clearance under the floor, so I have no idea where they're going to shove all of the electrical equipment unless they plan to do away with some of the seating space.
  by Fan Railer
 
Nasadowsk wrote:
M&Eman wrote:Given the MLV's weight, this has boondoggle written all over it. These things will have to be at least 500 hp each in order to give acceptable (not ideal) acceleration in a 50-50 powered/nonpowered train.
500? Try more like 2000-2500HP per car, if you want to get acceleration up to a realistic level. Without a diet on the multilevel, you're looking likely on the order of 150,000 - 170,000 per car, once you add all that exciting traction gear and a transformer to support it. The actual weight will depend on the HP they go for, and how hard they want to push the main transformer.

I'd expect it'll be M-T-T-M setups, like most other double decker EMUs are .

I think Dutch has the right form factor here - you'll see the entire (or part of) the lower level taken for traction gear. It'll be like the Dutch units or the old Swiss locomotive cars on the Zurich S Bahn (which SUCK - hot, noisy, ride like crap).

The flip side? Can you get a M-T-T-M-M-T-T-M train to be lighter than an ALP and 8 MLVs, yet still get 7000-8000 HP to the rails? I think it'll be a wash, though you'd have better wet traction with a motor trailer set.
Well, Bombardier is selling their MITRAC 1000 traction motors at up to around 400 kW (536 hp) a piece. So if they were able to place an ample traction transformer somewhere on the motor car, you could get 2100 traction HP from a motor car. Weight wise, I would say that considering the MLs already come in at around 110,000-120,000 lbs, you'd have to add maybe 20,000-30,000 lbs of traction equipment. So with that said, you could probably get around 8,000 hp from 4 motor cars. 4 x 30,000 = 120,000 lbs, so I suppose you're still saving about 1 to 1.5 MLs worth of weight on a train.
  by DutchRailnut
 
The Highliners and Metra equipment are 1500 DC and do not need transformers.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 26