manrush

If the contract doesn't go to Kawasaki, Bombardier, or Alstom, here are some additional options:

 

• Nippon Sharyo
  
• Ansaldobreda (hopefully not)
  
• Škoda
  
• Siemens
  
• Changchun Railway Vehicles
  
• CSR Sifang
  
• Tokyu Car Corporation
  
• Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles
  

Out of these, I think Nippon Sharyo, Siemens, Tokyu and CAF have the most experience and the most familiarity with US regulations.

I would add Kinki-Sharyo as well. Yes, their expertise Stateside is in light rail, but they also have experience building heavy rail metro trains.

As for the April date, was it an extension given to MTA by the Feds?

Good seating arrangement is good there now. LIRR is the only commuter railroad I know (besides SEPTA) to have 3+2 arrangement, especially compared to Europe where nothing is 3+2 on commuter railroads.

 

"Additionally, less seating and more standing room would increase capacity on any given train and reduce overcrowding."

 

If you're travelling a short distance, alright. But let's say you get in in Ronkonkoma in rush hour and you need to go to Penn. Rnkkm is crowded in rush hour and with less seats, you may not find a seat. So that means you would be standing the whole time. I bet you can't barely walk when you exit at Penn.

And that is only 1 branch, but there are several other crowded ones where you would have the same problem.

Actually, MBCR also has a 3+2 seating arrangement.

Capacity is just as important for longer distances. Express lines could use the extra space so that more people would be able to board, thus reducing the need for extra-long trains and increasing overall headway.

Those things sure are beautiful

But 3 doors means less seating and A LOT of people travel with LIRR daily and some lines already have a lof of standing people, so to have even less seating, seems a terrible idea to me.

 

I think the manufacturer will be Bombardier again. They built the current M7's for the LIRR and the MTA and most passengers are loving them (the M7's).

More doors equals better movement of people in and out of the train, thus leading to less idling at the station.

Additionally, less seating and more standing room would increase capacity on any given train and reduce overcrowding.

A good seating arrangement would be one similar to Australia's suburban EMUs.

Queensland Rail Citytrain Interurban Multiple Unit (for commuting between Brisbane and Gold Coast).

http://home.people.net.au/~jimmy88/Transport/IMU162/DSC00555%20with%20tag.JPG

http://ufies.org/~aleith/transit/brisbane/imu110_241004.jpg

Maybe one thing they could consider for M-9 is to give it three doors instead of two, similar to the Toshiba trains found in Buenos Aires.

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/8/8/6/6886.1236183766.jpg

As for a manufacturer, how about giving a potential M-9 contract to Nippon-Sharyo/Sumitomo?

Okay, then. How about Siemens AG as a potential builder?

They have a lot of experience with metro construction in Europe and Asia, plus some experience in the Americas (i.e. Boston and San Juan).

lets go Rotem!

I can only begin to imagine the reactions in railroad.net if Rotem got a hold of the R179 contract.

The M8's are probably the best-looking mainline stock in the 'States. They remind me a little of JR Central and JR Hokkaido regional EMUs.