• New Dinky to Nassau Street

  • 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

  • 240 posts
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  by Pensyfan19
 
JamesRR wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:44 pm They could pair an ALP46 with one cab and run push-pull. I recall a pair of MLs and an ALP ran on the line some years ago (for what reason I can't recall).
That seems like a bit much for a small branch line such as Princeton. Not to mention, Multilevels and ALP-46s are needed for frequent service on literally every other electric branch which NJT runs. Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two, since those coaches are being replaced by multilevels.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
Pensyfan19 wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:51 pm Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two...
Really only one operable ALP44, if you can lease 2308 (but parts supply for one unit should be good, given four
mothballed at MMC and the rest in Stanhope).
  by rcthompson04
 
This would seem to be an ideal circumstance for NJT and SEPTA to work with each other and have NJT lease a few MUs from SEPTA. SEPTA would provide maintenance as part of its fleet.
  by R3 Passenger
 
rcthompson04 wrote:This would seem to be an ideal circumstance for NJT and SEPTA to work with each other and have NJT lease a few MUs from SEPTA. SEPTA would provide maintenance as part of its fleet.
Pre-COVID, SEPTA had no cars to spare. Hell, they were leasing some coaches from MARC up until the virus hit. NJT will receive new equipment before SEPTA displaces any surplus or operable MUs.
  by CNJGeep
 
R36 Combine Coach wrote: Wed Sep 30, 2020 8:00 pm
Pensyfan19 wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:51 pm Why not an ALP-46 (or even an ALP-44) with a comet cab car or two...
Really only one operable ALP44, if you can lease 2308 (but parts supply for one unit should be good, given four
mothballed at MMC and the rest in Stanhope).
2308 is not operable.
  by planespotting
 
Does the car number font on this weekend's dinky look a bit strange to you? Doesn't match the ones I usually see.
Pic here: https://imgur.com/a/ZDVz1o2
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
That is an original (pre-overhaul) number font.
  by MACTRAXX
 
JamesRR wrote: Tue Sep 29, 2020 6:44 pm They could pair an ALP46 with one cab and run push-pull. I recall a pair of MLs and an ALP ran on the line some years ago (for what reason I can't recall).
JRR and Everyone:
I wanted to reply to this subject and will mention: That observation was likely a test to see if the use of a
ALP46 along with two multilevels would work out on Dinky runs. For this 2.7 mile line MU cars make
much more sense than a locomotive-hauled consist. ALP46 motors use more power than a long MU train
would and would take time to accelerate from a full stop slower than MU cars would.

This reminds me of when SEPTA first placed their AEM7s and push-pull cars into service back in 1987.
The equipment was tested on a weekly basis on most lines - on lines with stations close together (the
two Chestnut Hill lines were the best examples that I rode) it was noted that the motors were slow on
starting up from a station only to have to again stop at the next station. I later learned that one AEM7
uses as much power on average as 8 MU cars and that they draw their highest amperage starting up
from a station. Having a substation at PJC helps in the way of power supply for motors as needed.

The Dinky is a good "niche" for MU cars leaving the ALP46 motors and multilevels for the longer runs.
MACTRAXX
  by MattW
 
How possible would it be to use otherwise standard components in a non-standard configuration? The problem seems to be the smallest MLVEMU setup would be two cabs, and one power car which is overkill. Could Bombardier put the MLV power components in a single-level form factor? Sure, it'd be a non-standard car, but if enough of the components are standard, would the remaining non-standard stuff be too much of a problem?
  by lensovet
 
MattW wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2020 4:44 pm How possible would it be to use otherwise standard components in a non-standard configuration? The problem seems to be the smallest MLVEMU setup would be two cabs, and one power car which is overkill. Could Bombardier put the MLV power components in a single-level form factor? Sure, it'd be a non-standard car, but if enough of the components are standard, would the remaining non-standard stuff be too much of a problem?
the main issue is where to cram them. if it was doable, they wouldn't have this 3-car approach in the first place.
  by Backshophoss
 
BBD still trying to create the biggest mistake of a EMU design? Hell the screwed up subway cars! Time to design the next gen Arrow IV
  by amtrakowitz
 
What with BBD in the midst of being bought out by Alstom, it seems doubtful they're working on anything new for NJT at any rate of speed. And aren't the MLV EMUs NJT's idea anyhow?
  by Backshophoss
 
Trying to shoehorn EMU guts into a MLV II is a fools mistake,design the Arrow IV instead.Stop the waste oF R&D funding.
  by Eric S Strohmeyer
 
Good morning folks,

Since I see this thread has recently been revived, I just wanted to pass along some information for those who might not have been aware. Rodney Fisk, a longtime resident of Princeton and fervent supporter of the Dinky, (and the "creator" of this very thread) passed away back on September 9, 2020. I only recently learned of his passing so I apologize for not sharing this in a more timely manner.

Rodney's National Interurban organization made headlines back in the 1980's and 1990's when he proposed to take over operation of the Dinky from NJT. His proposal called for using new DMU equipment and a European style operation. Despite his idea being mocked in certain circles, Rodney was actually able to advance his privatization effort further along than most thought would be possible. Unfortunately, the powers that be were not inclined to give his ideas a chance.

While Rodney's dream of seeing a for-profit Dinky never came to reality, his pioneering work did help to create an important legal and legislative mechanism which permitted a number of other new commuter start up operations to emerge. It was Rodney's work regarding general railway liability issues and the need for indemnifications for carriers that created the framework for the legislation which ultimately lead to the formation of the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) operations in Washington, DC. and others. This critical framework is now standard throughout the rail industry. However, back in the 1980's, it was unheard of until Rodney attempted to startup a "for profit", privately held commuter rail operation.

For those who actually knew Rodney and had the chance to work with him, I've provided a link to his obituary below. I figure it was only fitting to share this news in this thread since Rodney created it himself many years ago.

https://matherhodge.com/tribute/details ... tuary.html

Rest in peace good sir!
  by pumpers
 
I am very sorry to hear that. Thank you for letting us know. Jim S
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16