• 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
  • 6
  • 26
  by AmTransit
 
Nasadowsk wrote:So your answer is, instead of explaining things, to just hurl insults? I can explain what I do in my line of work, and even answer questions (and yes, I answer a lot of dumb ones, so feel free to ask away, I've heard worse, trust me).

I don't hurl insults much, but when monkeys fling stuff, I'll fling it back.
I can respect that. Let me explain my reaction as least offensively as possible then. My initial "rant" had nothing to do with you at all, it was directed at Jersey_Mike in reference to his mindless dribble he was spouting. He makes comments and posts diatribes referring to rail operations like he's been doing it for a lifetime when really he hasn't spent 10 seconds in a locomotive cab (in the capacity of an employee anyway) or ever worked in the profession in any capacity for that matter. After I made my rather "witty" comment to him, you just happened to agree with him and naturally I assumed you were an ass clown on the same level as him. I admit I should have approached it differently with you and shouldn't have assumed such but your agreement made that difficult. Next time I will be more civil with you but I will make no such promise in reference to Jersey_Mike.
  by morris&essex4ever
 
So will these MPC's be existing ML cars converted into power cars or completely new cars? Either way it should cut down on maintenance/inspection since not all cars would be MPC's right?
  by AmTransit
 
morris&essex4ever wrote:So will these MPC's be existing ML cars converted into power cars or completely new cars? Either way it should cut down on maintenance/inspection since not all cars would be MPC's right?
Looks like completely new cars which makes sense.
  by M&Eman
 
These will be completely new cars that will be able to trainline with MLs. When these come, will this free up locomotives allowing NJT to double up ALPs on 8 9 and 10 car multilevel sets? That would do wonders.
  by Nasadowsk
 
AmTransit wrote: Looks like completely new cars which makes sense.
I agree - it's easier to fit everything in when you've got a 'clean sheet' than to retrofit. They'll likely use the same body shell, but who knows at this point? We'll have to wait for the final spec to come out - if I feel ambitious I'll bug NJT for that, the last one was the gift that kept on giving - I got a zillion revision CDs in the mail...

(I still have a few)
  by AmTransit
 
Nasadowsk wrote:I got a zillion revision CDs in the mail...

(I still have a few)
Oh that sounds like fun...lol
  by Nasadowsk
 
AmTransit wrote:
Nasadowsk wrote:I got a zillion revision CDs in the mail...

(I still have a few)
Oh that sounds like fun...lol
You should see what the NYC DEP sends - PRINTED specs. About a foot thick. Great door stops...
  by 25Hz
 
Nasadowsk wrote:
Multilevels on Trenton locals? Why would you put a piece of equipment that inherently can't get out of it's own way on a run that demands high performance? And please, save me the 'bububut the ALP-46As!!!' talk. An 8 or 10 car multilevel train's a dog, period. Maybe if NJT followed best practice elsewhere and put 2 motors per 8 cars*, you'd get somewhere, but with one ALP and 8 multilevels, they just don't accelerate. And who cares what the top speed is if you seldom hit it and stay there.
As a passenger of several hundred multilevel locals over the years, i can tell you they have NO problem keeping the schedule, and sometimes get in before the advertised if not held up by amtrak platforming at trenton ahead of it.

If/when the mlv's are cleared for over 100 mph and we see transit trains that go over 100 mph, you will see them hitting those top speeds between jersey ave and princeton junction, cutting 5 to 10 minutes off current trip times easily. If the expresses ever go over 100 you will see even more time savings, upwards of 15 to 20 minutes depending on what amtrak is doing around metropark & trenton at that specific moment.

The NEC through NJ is built for speed, it has a huge straight line with a few unavoidable curves. Those old railroad folks back in the day knew what they were doing.

If they can't build new tunnels right now they can increase capacity by maximizing train lengths and speeds on the nec line. Depending on how much faster you go, you could open up as much as 4 slots, 2 each direction. A 12 car multilevel train times 4 is a hell of a lot of people. Satisfied people.
  by Jtgshu
 
Goodness gracious....i got all these PMs asking for Popcorn while I was at work...sorry I wasn't able to fulfill them!

I think its a very out of the box idea, and I like it. Im sure they would plan on each power car being able to power a ML or 2, but who knows, they might find that they would work better with Comets (keeping schedule, HEP draw, etc). So you would have a ML power car and say 2 Comet 5 trailers.

We all know that NJT likes using coaches, and push pull trains. there are PLENTY of coaches around. Even plenty of retired coaches still on the property. Like I said earlier, they could get 100 power cars, and that would probably more than allow for a 1:1 replacement with the Arrow 3 MUs, especially if they could power 2 cars, or even 1.5 cars (2 power cars on each end of 3 trailers). Even if 1 power car could power only one trailer that would be 200 cars.

As for the performance of a '46 and coaches/MLs on a local, obviously, the more cars you have the slower its going to be, but a shorter train is right on par with the acceleration of the A3 MUs and a '46A and 6 Comets is faster than most MU trains. Ive timed it. Loco hauled trains on the NEC do work better than MUs. On NJT, the MU trains are more for the shorter trains, in particular on the Hoboken side, and also places where there are yard constaints, like Gladstone, where the length of an engine means that there is one less car collecting 100 plus revenue paying passengers on that train.

Also, these power cars would save in power consumption, as they would, especially for shorter trains, allow more realistic power to weight ratios. An ALP46 or even a PL42 on a very short train is an absolute waste and overkill.
  by sixty-six
 
There's a hell of a lot of butthurt going on here. Everyone has their opinions, this is an internet forum for chrissakes, not a top level management meeting. Everyone calm the hell down.
  by ACeInTheHole
 
Jtgshu wrote:Goodness gracious....i got all these PMs asking for Popcorn while I was at work...sorry I wasn't able to fulfill them!

I think its a very out of the box idea, and I like it. Im sure they would plan on each power car being able to power a ML or 2, but who knows, they might find that they would work better with Comets (keeping schedule, HEP draw, etc). So you would have a ML power car and say 2 Comet 5 trailers.

We all know that NJT likes using coaches, and push pull trains. there are PLENTY of coaches around. Even plenty of retired coaches still on the property. Like I said earlier, they could get 100 power cars, and that would probably more than allow for a 1:1 replacement with the Arrow 3 MUs, especially if they could power 2 cars, or even 1.5 cars (2 power cars on each end of 3 trailers). Even if 1 power car could power only one trailer that would be 200 cars.

As for the performance of a '46 and coaches/MLs on a local, obviously, the more cars you have the slower its going to be, but a shorter train is right on par with the acceleration of the A3 MUs and a '46A and 6 Comets is faster than most MU trains. Ive timed it. Loco hauled trains on the NEC do work better than MUs. On NJT, the MU trains are more for the shorter trains, in particular on the Hoboken side, and also places where there are yard constaints, like Gladstone, where the length of an engine means that there is one less car collecting 100 plus revenue paying passengers on that train.

Also, these power cars would save in power consumption, as they would, especially for shorter trains, allow more realistic power to weight ratios. An ALP46 or even a PL42 on a very short train is an absolute waste and overkill.
An ALP45 on a short train (especially in electric mode) is overkill as well. The 45s have had no problem running 855 right up the behind of the express ahead of it on the M&E, whereas when the Geeps had that train, there would typically be a cushion of at least a couple minutes.
  by nick11a
 
Hmmm, this'll be fun on the Gladstone. I know the curve and grade in Bernardsville is a big part of the reason why the MLs never (or rarely) go to Gladstone, at least on the MidTOWN Direct sets, but hopefully, the "power cars" will be able to handle the curve in the fall with the leaf season. I guess there's one way to find out.

I'd be curious to see the setup of these trains. Having power cars in the middle of the train only (with no cabs to control them) with cab cars on each end would be a very efficent way to do this, in terms of having the most long doors possible.... however, that would make it somewhat painful if you have to shuffle a train around... and you didn't have an engine to do so.

So, likely, there'll be cabs (or a cab) built into the power cars.
  by amtrakowitz
 
Hawaiitiki wrote:I know the prospect of scrapping the arrows might be a sore topic for some traditionalists but yeesh.

Anywhooo

People who are claiming that this idea has no precedent are way off. Here's vintage Swiss set using roughly the same methodology NJT is suggesting to use these new MLVs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SBB_H ... Pendel.jpg

All but one (the NEC) of NJTs Electrified Lines are better suited for EMUs than Push-Pulls anyway.
The NEC is "better suited" to push-pull? Perhaps when one is a proponent of "Shirley Time", but not when one wants a 47-mph average speed for Trenton Locals (a standard established by the PRR and maintained by NJT until the advent of schedule padding so named).

And for the record, why would so-called "traditionalists" be bothered by motor plus trailers with EMU when such is how the PRR's MP54s and DL&W's MUs operated?
  by R3 Passenger
 
I honestly can't see this mixing of power and non-power cars working out. The multilevels are just heavy, and without the traction equipment!

I'm going to make some predictions now:
[*]NJT will go ahead with the design
[*]NJT will use three gutted multilevels (as a result of the ultimate conversion of ACES cars to NJT livery) to build in-house technical design mockups of a single unit and a married pair in conjunction with Bombardier
[*]NJT will find that they cannot fit the traction equipment in without sacrificing seats on the lower level
[*]NJT will decide to have married pairs only in order to save a few seats.
[*]Bombardier will build prototype cars for testing
[*]NJT will find that cars are heaver than expected with traction motors
[*]NJT will test prototype powered cars with existing trailer cars and find that the insufficient traction power does not produce acceptable acceleration
[*]NJT will abandon the idea of mixing powered and unpowered cars and use the multilevel MUs together.
[*]NJT will begin to retire arrows and convert some Comet 5 cabs to powered units to work with the multilevel MUs.
  by amtrakowitz
 
Multilevels "heavy"? Compared to what?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 26