RailRunRob Posted January 10, 2017 Author Share #26 Posted January 10, 2017 Subway trains should be able to run on Railroad tracks at least LIRR or MNR tracks have third rail like Subway tracks. Then you'd have to bring everything to one standard it's a lot more than just putting a train on 1435mm rails. Bob made an excellent point what happens when a 85foot 144,000lbs M8 hits a 80,000lbs 60foot R160 subway car? Carnage! How would a 150hp subway motor keep pace with a 250hp M7 motor? How about Voltage differences the power types of motors ? And how would that not slow service? An train maxed at 55mph With a train of M8s trailing it. Sure you can make a hybrid unit that could run both. But then you would isolate that from the rest of the fleets in the subway. Way too many inconsistencies for the trouble currently at least. Track separation is the only way .Unless you have some solutions or ideas? Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HenryB Posted January 10, 2017 Share #27 Posted January 10, 2017 btw, talking about the max speed of subway car, weren't R44s/R46s supposed to have max speed 80mph for SAS? (but failed) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caelestor Posted January 10, 2017 Share #28 Posted January 10, 2017 The regulatory setup is different. FRA and FTA here have wildly differing standards on what is safe and what is not in terms of vehicles, to say nothing about operations standards. That also is not easy to change; if an R160 and a freight train were to crash in a head-on collision, the R160 would probably crumple up. The only other country that I am aware of that does this is Japan. European networks like the S-tog, Overground, RER, and S-bahns are railway operations run as if they were a subway network, but none of them actually interline with the subway. In Japan, the subways are really just underground extensions of the commuter railroads. With all the private operators there, there is rail service everywhere, but the transfers between various lines aren't great at all. btw, talking about the max speed of subway car, weren't R44s/R46s supposed to have max speed 80mph for SAS? (but failed) The R44 reached a maximum speed of 140 kph on the LIRR test track, but maximum speed in operations would have been 55 mph like all the other subway cars. In practice, the cars would probably have been slowed down by signals and other constraints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrispyBassist Posted January 10, 2017 Share #29 Posted January 10, 2017 Subway trains should be able to run on Railroad tracks at least LIRR or MNR tracks have third rail like Subway tracks. Then you'd have to bring everything to one standard it's a lot more than just putting a train on 1435mm rails. [...] Additionally, Metro-North uses an under-contacting 3rd rail whereas LIRR and NYCT use over contacting. Thus the power distribution system for one or more of the systems would have to be overhauled to allow interchange of vehicles (not even considering actual power supplied). I don't have any better ideas though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted January 10, 2017 Share #30 Posted January 10, 2017 Plus also wouldn't an NTT fry at 750 volts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted January 10, 2017 Share #31 Posted January 10, 2017 R46 and R68 could probably run on railroad tracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak706 Posted January 11, 2017 Share #32 Posted January 11, 2017 R46 and R68 could probably run on railroad tracks. For starters, I don't think any railroad has NYCT's type of 600V DC over-running third rail. Also, as was previously mentioned, the signalling and safety systems are totally incompatible, subway cars are not fast enough to inter-operate with commuter equipment, and most importantly the crash standards are very different. Square peg in a round hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted January 11, 2017 Share #33 Posted January 11, 2017 R46 and R68 could probably run on railroad tracks. No subway car, I repeat: none, can operate on railroad tracks. Sure you could have one pulled dead-in-tow in the middle of a freight train, but that's about it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted January 11, 2017 Share #34 Posted January 11, 2017 FWIW, the MTA just tested a set of M8s with dual shoes that work on both LIRR and MNR. The FRA is coming out with new regs for commuter passenger cars soonish, so stay tuned on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak706 Posted January 11, 2017 Share #35 Posted January 11, 2017 FWIW, the MTA just tested a set of M8s with dual shoes that work on both LIRR and MNR. The FRA is coming out with new regs for commuter passenger cars soonish, so stay tuned on this Weakened crash regulations won't change the inherent system incompatibilities. Signaling systems, power systems, propulsion systems, and more would have to be completely changed on both the host railroad and NYCT. If it takes the MTA as long as it does to install CBTC for example, something as huge as this interoperability is a non-starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share #36 Posted January 11, 2017 Plus also wouldn't an NTT fry at 750 volts? Not necessarily the NTT's are built to handle voltages up to 780VDC. 600V is the nominal voltage. LIRR's voltage peaks might be upward of 900 to 1000 VDC. Additionally, Metro-North uses an under-contacting 3rd rail whereas LIRR and NYCT use over contacting. Thus the power distribution system for one or more of the systems would have to be overhauled to allow interchange of vehicles (not even considering actual power supplied). I don't have any better ideas though... Yep, fully aware. Our focus was LIRR to NYCT but there are cars that can work on both overriding and under on our commuter lines as someone stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share #37 Posted January 11, 2017 FWIW, the MTA just tested a set of M8s with dual shoes that work on both LIRR and MNR. The FRA is coming out with new regs for commuter passenger cars soonish, so stay tuned on this That change on the fly? or has to be fixed? Couldn't they just have an adaptive stretch that adjusts the position on the fly? If it's spring loaded could you just have an overriding rail that starts off at the same height as an underriding rail and just pushes the railshoe up gradually up few hunderd feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstar1 Posted January 11, 2017 Share #38 Posted January 11, 2017 No subway car, I repeat: none, can operate on railroad tracks. Sure you could have one pulled dead-in-tow in the middle of a freight train, but that's about it... R44 were tested on Railroad tracks right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amtrak706 Posted January 11, 2017 Share #39 Posted January 11, 2017 R44 were tested on Railroad tracks right. They were tested on LIRR's 650V DC system before it was upgraded to 750V. Also it was not in revenue service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucey Posted January 11, 2017 Share #40 Posted January 11, 2017 IIRC, isn't the Staten Island train's R44s modified to meet FRA standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted January 11, 2017 Share #41 Posted January 11, 2017 That change on the fly? or has to be fixed? Couldn't they just have an adaptive stretch that adjusts the position on the fly? If it's spring loaded could you just have an overriding rail that starts off at the same height as an underriding rail and just pushes the railshoe up gradually up few hunderd feet? FWIW, the MTA just tested a set of M8s with dual shoes that work on both LIRR and MNR. The FRA is coming out with new regs for commuter passenger cars soonish, so stay tuned on this The M8s came with the dual performing 3rd rail shoes from the factory. It can change on the fly, but the problem is that the M8s can't run through most of the LIRR territory (especially over the HillsHells Gate) because of the different voltage systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share #42 Posted January 11, 2017 IIRC, isn't the Staten Island train's R44s modified to meet FRA standards? I believe so or just enough to meet the standard. Extra grab handles testing procedures ect. I don't they have the same level of impact safety as say a Amtak,LIRR ect reinforced anti-climbers cab recorders and so forth. I think PATH is in the same boat as well just more on paper than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share #43 Posted January 11, 2017 The M8s came with the dual performing 3rd rail shoes from the factory. It can change on the fly, but the problem is that the M8s can't run through most of the LIRR territory (especially over the HillsHells Gate) because of the different voltage systems. Umm, are we talking AC or DC? What's the voltage difference between Metro North, LIRR 3rd rail wise is more than 100VDC difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh Pond Posted January 12, 2017 Share #44 Posted January 12, 2017 Umm, are we talking AC or DC? What's the voltage difference between Metro North, LIRR 3rd rail wise is more than 100VDC difference?Had to do some searching on Facebook, but I found the post explaining it. It's actually the catenary voltage: (Names removed) *****, the voltage change actually occurs in Astoria between 47th Street and 50th Street (just north/timetable east of Gate Interlocking). In other words, the M8s can run on overhead power from New Rochelle into Astoria over the Hell Gate Bridge. To add on what ***** said, the Kawasaki M8 EMUs have equipment to handle 12.5kV and 25kV both at 60 hertz. Timetable west of 50th Street in Astoria the overhead voltage is 12kV, but only 25 hertz (all the way to Washington, DC and Harrisburg). Unfortunately, there isn't enough room to put the 12kV, 25 hertz electrical equipment in the M8s (nor do they have the space). Short version: Designers and Metro-North had to choose which part of the NEC the M8s are more likely to run on because there isn't enough space to hold all the necessary electrical components to run to Boston and Penn Station. Hopefully that makes sense (I'll be happy to clarify, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted January 12, 2017 Share #45 Posted January 12, 2017 Hmmmm. How do they plan to work out PSAS then? Also, I've heard differently about the 8s not working on LIRR. There was a pair sent for testing a few weeks back, so they must see a way around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted January 12, 2017 Share #46 Posted January 12, 2017 Hmmmm. How do they plan to work out PSAS then? Also, I've heard differently about the 8s not working on LIRR. There was a pair sent for testing a few weeks back, so they must see a way around it. I think they would extend third rail territory to compensate... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itmaybeokay Posted January 12, 2017 Share #47 Posted January 12, 2017 Why are they able to have subway and rail road service share tracks in other countries? Subway trains should be able to run on Railroad tracks at least LIRR or MNR tracks have third rail like Subway tracks. IIRC, isn't the Staten Island train's R44s modified to meet FRA standards? Yes, the R44s are modified to meet FRA standards. If you look at PATH, those are cars that run in a rapid transit/subway configuration, but are actually Federally Regulated railcars, because PATH and the NEC share some right of way. They don't technically share tracks, but close to it. The issue really isn't a technical one. Yes, the signalling systems are different - but it wouldn't be that hard to have both signalling systems concurrent on a section of track. I'm pretty sure, not positive about this: The issue is, once you connect the systems - uh oh. The FRA waiver is no longer valid. Every. Single. Car. in the NYCT fleet has to meet federal regulations. Every train operator has to be a certified Engineer. Every conductor has to be a certified railroad conductor. The game changes on a whole mess of levels. You don't want that hot potato. Umm, are we talking AC or DC? What's the voltage difference between Metro North, LIRR 3rd rail wise is more than 100VDC difference? Had to do some searching on Facebook, but I found the post explaining it. It's actually the catenary voltage: (Names removed) I think we're conflating issues here. Overhead catenary is AC, third rail is DC. Most of metro north is 750vdc under-running third rail. All of LIRR 750vdc over-running third rail. Metro north that goes into connecticut (former New Haven territory) is Overhead Catenary. The M8 catenary can run off 12500vac and 25000vac at 60 cycles, but not at the legacy 12000vac 25 cycle system that exists past Gate interlocking and down to washington. For the purposes of this discussion, this would not prevent from a technical perspective rapid transit cars from running to penn station, as that territory has both third rail and catenary. If the M8's needed to run to penn, the easiest way to achieve this would be to extend third rails to the gate interlocking. (editors note: around the horn JUST beat me to the punch on that one :-) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #48 Posted January 12, 2017 Yes, the R44s are modified to meet FRA standards. If you look at PATH, those are cars that run in a rapid transit/subway configuration, but are actually Federally Regulated railcars, because PATH and the NEC share some right of way. They don't technically share tracks, but close to it. The issue really isn't a technical one. Yes, the signalling systems are different - but it wouldn't be that hard to have both signalling systems concurrent on a section of track. I'm pretty sure, not positive about this: The issue is, once you connect the systems - uh oh. The FRA waiver is no longer valid. Every. Single. Car. in the NYCT fleet has to meet federal regulations. Every train operator has to be a certified Engineer. Every conductor has to be a certified railroad conductor. The game changes on a whole mess of levels. You don't want that hot potato. I think we're conflating issues here. Overhead catenary is AC, third rail is DC. Most of metro north is 750vdc under-running third rail. All of LIRR 750vdc over-running third rail. Metro north that goes into connecticut (former New Haven territory) is Overhead Catenary. The M8 catenary can run off 12500vac and 25000vac at 60 cycles, but not at the legacy 12000vac 25 cycle system that exists past Gate interlocking and down to washington. For the purposes of this discussion, this would not prevent from a technical perspective rapid transit cars from running to penn station, as that territory has both third rail and catenary. If the M8's needed to run to penn, the easiest way to achieve this would be to extend third rails to the gate interlocking. (editors note: around the horn JUST beat me to the punch on that one :-) ) Yep, I'm fully aware I know all the backstory Once again not to pull rank but I did work for a railcar company so all the basics I have down packed. I was asking about the voltage different between the MNR and LIRR. Plus The only DC overhead is Hudson Bergen Lightrail. So DC in my case was 3rd rail. I think they would extend third rail territory to compensate... Yep, just a mile and half of 3rd rail and 2 DC substations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RailRunRob Posted January 12, 2017 Author Share #49 Posted January 12, 2017 I remember Metro-North having a voltage of 650VDC when was this upgraded. Not in the 70's with LIRR I know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted January 12, 2017 Share #50 Posted January 12, 2017 You can have shared ROW without meeting FRA standards. OTOH Examples: LA metro blue line HBLR PATCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.