Multi-Level Cars—Delivery/Status

[srock1028]

(Are the ML-IIs still restricted to 90?)

No

[ThirdRail7]

This can go in multiple threads, so I'll post it and let the mods work it out.


http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/2 ... /15426223/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please allow a brief "fair use" quote:

Plans call for NJ Transit to replace all of it’s single level rail cars by 2020 with multi-level cars which have capacity to haul more people, Lavell said. Doing that will allow NJ Transit to decrease the total number of rail cars it owns from 1,124 to 1,050 cars by 2020, but increase the number of available seats by 6 percent, hesaid.

A 12 car train of single level Arrow III cars has 1,380 seats while a 12 car multi-level train has 1,522 seats, he said.

A similar plan for the bus operation would replace the current 40-foot-long cruiser buses in service with 45-foot-long buses which would provide 8 more seats per bus, and increase over all seating capacity by 7 percent when the cruiser bus fleet is replaced, Martin said.

Both strategies are intended to address projected increases in trans-Hudson ridership to and from New York, where the aging Port Authority Bus Terminal and Penn Station are at capacity.

“It’s a factor in how to deal with a bus terminal that’s at capacity,” Martin said. “We’re seeking to balance ridership demands with the most efficient bus.”

On the rail side, officials hope to replace the current five different types of rail cars now in the fleet with two types by 2040, both of which would be multi-level cars, Lavell said. Still to be designed is a self powered multi-level car which would replace the aging Arrow III electric cars.

Plans call for retiring 176 single level rail cars by 2020 and replacing them with 113 multi-levels, Lavell said. In addition to increasing seating capacity, the multi-level cars also travel five times more miles between break downs than single level cars do, he said.

“It’s an important project,” said Bruce Meisel, board vice chairman “This is the future of rail and bus.”

It looks like double decker MUs are still on the horizon. By the way, when is the last time someone saw a 12 car double decker consist?

[andegold]

Since they are comparing the 12 car multi-level to a 12 car Arrow IIi set they are probably referring to the as yet to be designed multi-level MU. Whether they will be able to get 254 seats out of a married pair with two cabs and bathroom I don't know but it would make sense that they could still run 12 car sets wouldn't it?

[F40]

It's a good thing that MU's are still on the horizon for NJT. They will be especially fitting for trips with short-stops, short platforms, and short train lines (such as those on the Gladstone & M&E). It does not make economic sense for NJT (or in general) to run a push-pull set with 3 cars or less (even 4 cars may be a stretch but NJT has no choice now with the diesel lines). The big, very expensive, heavy locomotive is deadweight equivalent to 2 railcars operated by a highly paid engineer which does not generate any revenue. For each car you add on a push-pull (ideally filled with passengers) the revenue loss diminishes by a factor. That being said, push-pulls are suitable for longer trains such as those on the NEC. They would be the highest money losers if used on the short trains.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Take 2 Bombardier MLV carbodies, conjoin them as conventional married-pair EMU's, and spread the components across both halves of the pair and I bet there's hardly any seat loss whatsoever vs. a similarly-configured MLV cab car (or comparison vs. 2 cab cars lashed together with 1 having a bathroom). You'd be talking at most a half-dozen seats per car times 2 cars in seating nearest to the vestibules claimed by any electrical components that don't fit entirely underneath the car or underneath the vestibules. If even that much. This is one case where the more limited space underneath may get them wanting to standardize on married-pair EMU's and not do a mix of powered singlets in the order this time. Because then you'd have to design 2 wholly different seating configurations and component layouts to stuff all those electronics in a singlet vs. a married-pair, and there's not compelling enough reason to complicate the procurement by doing that. If they want to lash up odd-numbered EMU consist lengths that badly they can get the manufacturer to produce unpowered singlets like the M8 trailers. And I doubt anyone's going to care that the Dink runs with a slightly under-capacity married pair instead of a more compact powered singlet if it lowers the design cost enough to not have to fuss with doing 2 different carbody and seating layouts.

[ryanov]

Some quality reporting there: wrong "it's", and claiming that mutli-level cars can go longer between maintenance than single-level cars.

[trainbrain]

I am not surprised that they want to go all Multilevel. They could benefit from running one standardized fleet as they would only need to keep spare parts for one fleet and only need to know how to maintain one fleet. I personally like the Multilevels as the seats are bigger and more comfortable than on the Comets and Arrows. If the railroad needs replacement cars and they already have a proven design that customers like, why not stick with it. Also, would this include replacing the Metro North Comet 5's on the Port Jervis Line? Those will probably be the last to go as they won't even be 20 years old by 2020. I would assume that if these are replaced, they will end up getting transferred to Metro North East of Hudson, or sold to another railroad as they have plenty of life in them. The Metro North Shoreliner fleet is getting old, and I could see them picking up some ex-NJT Comet 5's to replace some of the older Shoreliners if they are replaced with Multilevels on NJT.

[mvb119]

Also, would this include replacing the Metro North Comet 5's on the Port Jervis Line? Those will probably be the last to go as they won't even be 20 years old by 2020. I would assume that if these are replaced, they will end up getting transferred to Metro North East of Hudson, or sold to another railroad as they have plenty of life in them. The Metro North Shoreliner fleet is getting old, and I could see them picking up some ex-NJT Comet 5's to replace some of the older Shoreliners if they are replaced with Multilevels on NJT.

I recall reading somewhere that there is clearance issues with them in Grand Central due to the low lying signals, so they won't be used on the east side of the Hudson.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Also, would this include replacing the Metro North Comet 5's on the Port Jervis Line? Those will probably be the last to go as they won't even be 20 years old by 2020. I would assume that if these are replaced, they will end up getting transferred to Metro North East of Hudson, or sold to another railroad as they have plenty of life in them. The Metro North Shoreliner fleet is getting old, and I could see them picking up some ex-NJT Comet 5's to replace some of the older Shoreliners if they are replaced with Multilevels on NJT.

I recall reading somewhere that there is clearance issues with them in Grand Central due to the low lying signals, so they won't be used on the east side of the Hudson.

Nope. They are doing MLV clearance test scoping work right now and will relocate those GCT signals that are currently a problem (on some platforms, not others). The MTA just released its fleet plan for LIRR and MNRR a few weeks ago. All coaches--MNRR Shoreliners and LIRR's wonky C3's--will be replaced by 2025 with MLV's. As will all LIRR + MNRR dual-mode locos be replaced by a new unified order.

If anyone buys some surplus Comet V's as short-term capacity it might be CDOT for their non-Metro North territory (NHHS, Hartford-Waterbury commuter rail if that comes to fruition).

[F40]

Does this mean all of the Geeps will be yanked by 2020?

[sammy2009]

I think this is pretty cool. But im gonna be crying like a baby when the comets and arrows are gone. Since my first time riding NJTRANSIT was on one of the comets and arrows its just the normal for me. I Love how they have like three types of fleets. Since they want to use MLV's on ALL LINES ? I GUESS THE AC LINE Will see them also ? , and another thing aren't there some lines on NJTRANSIT where the MLV's dont run due to weight and height restriction or something ? I thought i read it somewhere awhile back.

[DutchRailnut]

they weigh less than an engine and are only 14'6" height which is less than most njt engines ?

[deathtopumpkins]

and another thing aren't there some lines on NJTRANSIT where the MLV's dont run due to weight and height restriction or something ? I thought i read it somewhere awhile back.

MLVs can't run to Bay Head. But I'm sure NJT has a plan to address this by the time the fleet would go all-MLV.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I think this is pretty cool. But im gonna be crying like a baby when the comets and arrows are gone. Since my first time riding NJTRANSIT was on one of the comets and arrows its just the normal for me. I Love how they have like three types of fleets. Since they want to use MLV's on ALL LINES ? I GUESS THE AC LINE Will see them also ? , and another thing aren't there some lines on NJTRANSIT where the MLV's dont run due to weight and height restriction or something ? I thought i read it somewhere awhile back.

Don't forget. They are ordering new EMU's. "MLV" in this context only means that all coaches and all EMU's are going to be the same bi-level dimensions and roughly the same seating configuration...not that the entire fleet is going push-pull and being replaced by one and only one type of car. Your putative Arrow IV's are just going to look like MLV's with a pantograph on the roof: http://www.railroad.net/forums/download ... hp?id=5525" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

It's not a straight 1:1 replacement of this car type for that car type. It just means they want the total number of seats on the total number of cars in the total mixed global fleet to be consolidated into nothing but bi-level vehicles. That way they have fewer total number of cars in that global fleet to contain the current butts that sit in those seats, and make it so that future expansion capacity is easier to plan around a uniform car size. This could mean that some of the displaced Comets end up getting displaced by EMU's, instead of a straight Arrow-for-an-Arrow and coach-for-a-coach replacement. What proportion of these new orders skew to MLV coaches and which skew to MLV EMU's has yet to be determined, and it'll take years more planning before they actually pin down what the quantities of MLV coaches and MLV EMU's are that they'll be ordering. But there will be new EMU's.


I suppose the odds would favor greater % of the new orders tilting to EMU's, if only because it would allow them to simplify some routes that currently have a hodgepodge of equipment driving up ops costs and complexity like the NJCL. Any new-purchase EMU's are frequency-agile on 25Hz/12.5kV and 60Hz/25kV overhead, so the equipment segregation at the phase break finally goes away and they can run one type of consist only to Long Branch. And they'd no longer have to intermix electric push-pulls and EMU consists on the same all-electric lines based on acute seating capacity needs of certain schedules. So if it's a line they have a natural inclination (close stop spacing or whatever) to want to run Arrows on all were it not for the fact they were so overstuffed and there's too few of them...they'll now be able to simplify a lot and just run EMU's instead of throwing the kitchen sink out there. There'll always be plenty of places to lash up an ALP-46 (the NEC, for one, will surely swallow up enough of the electrics freed up from elsewhere), so any freed-up units will certainly get used to the hilt elsewhere. But being able to significantly simplify equipment assignments by line, yard, crew base, etc. does a lot to make operating costs more efficient. And, yes, the ability to put together shorter consists carrying same number of people and having less need to assign push-pull trainsets everywhere for the schedules that have to cover the Arrows' 25/60Hz and seating capacity limitations means they can probably simplify enough to knock off a few more old diesel locos as an incidental benefit of having to prepare fewer total consists in every yard systemwide.



But it's WAY too early to speculate exactly how those numbers of EMU cars vs. coaches are going to break down. All this announcement means is 1) yes, there will be EMU's going forward, and 2) the whole metrics of train capacity are being radically rewritten here around bi-level capacity, and it'll be a different spread than before. It's going to take them a few more years of number-crunching to fine-tune what they actually order. And it won't be until the back half of these orders that the equipment assignments actually start to reflect this no philosophy...because first priority will be the same old replacing worn bodies with new as previous car orders. So stay tuned and don't over-speculate. Whether the continuing existence of EMU's means additional electrification is prudent to fast-track for finishing off the NJCL or Montclair-Boonton gaps, or taking the M&E wires to Port Morris...is a whole other conversation that could factor in. This announcement just outlines the philosophical change to buying cars. It doesn't set the hard numbers of EMU's they're going to buy, coaches they're going to buy, and where they ultimately end up running.

[Tadman]

they weigh less than an engine and are only 14'6" height which is less than most njt engines ?

On one hand this is a good point from a nominal perspective. On the other hand, your duty cycle on the track is going to go way up because the average weight per each axle is going to go way up. We would have to prove that we're reducing axle count to make up from the additional wear.

It doesn't really matter, though, because it appears the capacity issue is far more pressing. That's a good thing. I was just looking at a 1994 picture and thinking "this was the dark ages when we weren't certain commuter trains were going to make it". How many of us in 1994 thought some of the non-core commuter routes were going to get canned sooner or later? I know I did. I figured it was a matter of time until many transit and commuter systems got the ax. You'd get run out of town for such today.