Stupid Question but Why do Metro North stations look nicer than LIRR stations?

[Joel Up Front]

The M1s and M3s had much more leg room. Given, the interiors looked beat to hell, but only because they'd been in service for 20-40 years.

 

The M7s have awful headrests and the chairs aren't that great, but the cushioned ride helps when running along bumpy sections of track (in between Freeport and RVC).

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The M1s and M3s had much more leg room. Given, the interiors looked beat to hell, but only because they'd been in service for 20-40 years.

 

The M7s have awful headrests and the chairs aren't that great, but the cushioned ride helps when running along bumpy sections of track (in between Freeport and RVC).

 

A lot of jerking in some parts so the seats do help to a degree. Are they planning on replacing those cars anytime soon?

[Vistausss]

Also, for the LIRR, so much of Long Island was built up only in the '50s and later, when passenger rail was having a lot of financial problems, and stations were perhaps built more as inexpensive "park 'n ride" stops for new suburban areas, with little more than a platform and a tiny box since people could wait in their cars, vs. older Metro-North stations that were built by the New Haven and NY Central Railroads when they were doing well (1920s and earlier), and when they were built, they were in centers of existing towns, and were not originally intended to serve passengers who'd just wait in their cars- thus Metro-North stations are higher-quality construction and seem so often to be "real" train stations.

 

Ehm, a lot of stations on the LIRR were also built way back in the 1920's and some of them are even older (Smithtown and Greenport for example).

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[Forest Glen]

There's a 9:05 PM train from Penn Station to Babylon that's always SRO, and it's not even a peak train.

[AgedPolaris]

I believe the Metro-North, since the take-over, has guzzled up chunks of money for High-floor platforms while the LIRR has been high-floor for a while. Also probably because the LIRR has been a commuter rail agency for as long as the NYC Subway existed. Or maybe it's because of the Penn Station effect because a lot of LIRR and NJ Transit station all look old-ish even after renovations, =P...

 

The LIRR began receiving their fleet of M1s only a few years before Metro North began getting the M1As. ('68 and '71 respectively) Although the LIRR had high platforms at major stations, logically we'd assume Metro North would have their electric territory entirely high platform by the time the M1As were roaming the central division, and then the New Haven would follow suit by '72 when the M2s began service.

 

Also keep in mind the LIRR's third rail didn't extend past Mineola until an extension to Huntington in 1971 and then Ronkonkoma in 1987. Even then, the LIRR maintained low-level platforms at certain stations until they absolutely had to convert at the end of the 90s when the new C3 coaches replaced a pool of archaic equipment in diesel territory. Also, the LIRR hasn't merely been around as long as the subway existed, it seriously predates it. They were celebrating their 75th anniversary in 1910! Gotta at least give em' credit for their longevity.

 

Also, for the LIRR, so much of Long Island was built up only in the '50s and later, when passenger rail was having a lot of financial problems, and stations were perhaps built more as inexpensive "park 'n ride" stops for new suburban areas, with little more than a platform and a tiny box since people could wait in their cars, vs. older Metro-North stations that were built by the New Haven and NY Central Railroads when they were doing well (1920s and earlier), and when they were built, they were in centers of existing towns, and were not originally intended to serve passengers who'd just wait in their cars- thus Metro-North stations are higher-quality construction and seem so often to be "real" train stations.

 

Just a hypothesis, but it's my take.

 

Sidenote: what's the point in having two separate railroads when the MTA runs both of them? Why not merge them together? I recall the MTA thought about this a few years ago but didn't proceed.

 

Hmm, so Keystone thinks a "Penn Station" effect causes stations in LIRR/NJT territory to look older, but you contend they were built as modern park n' rides in the 50s... Well, I think there is some truth to this, although the stations themselves mostly predate their "modern" enhancements.

 

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrmapexpansion.htm

 

I'm unsure if you're referring to the placing of track and stations themselves, or just "improvements." But just for reference, the system we know today was pretty much all there in 1898 - when the automobile was little more than a thought. Grade elimination projects, platform heightening, and in some cases just plain neglect for the historic structures (note that preserving historic architecture didn't seem like much more than an afterthought mid-century, until the actual "Penn Station effect") led to a lot of stations that seem quite dull and redundant. Conversely, there's also a lot of historic station houses still standing though.

 

As for the sidenote, I think there's quite enough different about the LIRR vs. Metro North to keep them both as separate railroads at this time. I think they should always been separate at least in name alone, as the LIRR has indeed operated under that name for over 175 years. Otherwise, just below the surface the two roads have different third rails, different signaling, (at least in regard to the LIRR still having PRR position signals) and the New Haven line with it's whole DC/AC operating equipment pool. Hell, the M7 and M7A even have different seating arrangements.

 

I think the key to their differences and what's central to the whole discussion is in their history, though. The LIRR seemed to be kind of the redheaded stepchild (no idea where that phrase comes from, but it works haha) of the PRR from 1904 until the state takeover, while the NYC was going strong up until the bitter end. Apparently the NYC was liberal with spending on improvements during that time while the PRR was reluctant to spend such capital on the LIRR when they discovered it wasn't making them any money.

 

Also we must remember the Metro North is also a younger railroad, and was able to start from fresh in '83 from the ashes of Conrail's short lived time running passengers. They got to start from scratch more or less, while the LIRR was experiencing the quagmire of being a branch of the PRR that could've been run better to a branch of the MTA that could've (and should be) run better. Evidently from it's inception, Metro North more or less got lucky as far as the people who ran it, and they put a lot more effort into their repair facilities, station rehab, and it doesn't take a trained eye to figure out which railroad puts their cars through a wash more often.

[AgedPolaris]

A lot of jerking in some parts so the seats do help to a degree. Are they planning on replacing those cars anytime soon?

 

At this time, I don't believe the LIRR plans to replace any series of cars, although this doesn't mean an unfortunate set of M3s might end up burning out and being taken to the boneyard every now and then. IIRC, word was that the next batch of cars weren't going to be replacing anything, but rather just adding trains when the East Side Access is complete, but that's nothing but hearsay at this time.

 

It will be interesting to see how the M7s hold up in the coming years. I especially hate the ones with the damn squeaky trucks. Gives the impression that they're complete crap. :tdown:

[Vistausss]

They do plan on replacing the M3's with new M9's according to the MTA plans for 2010-2014.

[AgedPolaris]

Ah, I stand corrected then. I thought the M9s were still additional only.

 

Sad... the M3s have plenty of potential life left in them. Oh well, as with any railroad plans, everything can change with the flow of money.

[Rutgers Tube]

The LIRR began receiving their fleet of M1s only a few years before Metro North began getting the M1As. ('68 and '71 respectively) Although the LIRR had high platforms at major stations, logically we'd assume Metro North would have their electric territory entirely high platform by the time the M1As were roaming the central division, and then the New Haven would follow suit by '72 when the M2s began service.

 

Also keep in mind the LIRR's third rail didn't extend past Mineola until an extension to Huntington in 1971 and then Ronkonkoma in 1987. Even then, the LIRR maintained low-level platforms at certain stations until they absolutely had to convert at the end of the 90s when the new C3 coaches replaced a pool of archaic equipment in diesel territory. Also, the LIRR hasn't merely been around as long as the subway existed, it seriously predates it. They were celebrating their 75th anniversary in 1910! Gotta at least give em' credit for their longevity.

 

 

 

Hmm, so Keystone thinks a "Penn Station" effect causes stations in LIRR/NJT territory to look older, but you contend they were built as modern park n' rides in the 50s... Well, I think there is some truth to this, although the stations themselves mostly predate their "modern" enhancements.

 

http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrmapexpansion.htm

 

I'm unsure if you're referring to the placing of track and stations themselves, or just "improvements." But just for reference, the system we know today was pretty much all there in 1898 - when the automobile was little more than a thought. Grade elimination projects, platform heightening, and in some cases just plain neglect for the historic structures (note that preserving historic architecture didn't seem like much more than an afterthought mid-century, until the actual "Penn Station effect") led to a lot of stations that seem quite dull and redundant. Conversely, there's also a lot of historic station houses still standing though.

 

As for the sidenote, I think there's quite enough different about the LIRR vs. Metro North to keep them both as separate railroads at this time. I think they should always been separate at least in name alone, as the LIRR has indeed operated under that name for over 175 years. Otherwise, just below the surface the two roads have different third rails, different signaling, (at least in regard to the LIRR still having PRR position signals) and the New Haven line with it's whole DC/AC operating equipment pool. Hell, the M7 and M7A even have different seating arrangements.

 

I think the key to their differences and what's central to the whole discussion is in their history, though. The LIRR seemed to be kind of the redheaded stepchild (no idea where that phrase comes from, but it works haha) of the PRR from 1904 until the state takeover, while the NYC was going strong up until the bitter end. Apparently the NYC was liberal with spending on improvements during that time while the PRR was reluctant to spend such capital on the LIRR when they discovered it wasn't making them any money.

 

Also we must remember the Metro North is also a younger railroad, and was able to start from fresh in '83 from the ashes of Conrail's short lived time running passengers. They got to start from scratch more or less, while the LIRR was experiencing the quagmire of being a branch of the PRR that could've been run better to a branch of the MTA that could've (and should be) run better. Evidently from it's inception, Metro North more or less got lucky as far as the people who ran it, and they put a lot more effort into their repair facilities, station rehab, and it doesn't take a trained eye to figure out which railroad puts their cars through a wash more often.

 

 

A more thorough and accurate response to this thread's question cannot be offered.

[SouthernRailway]

It will be interesting to see how the M7s hold up in the coming years. I especially hate the ones with the damn squeaky trucks. Gives the impression that they're complete crap. :tdown:

 

Same. They sound like they're about to fall apart.

 

For Metro-North vs. LIRR stations, I'm thinking of stations such as Carle Place, which is basically just a platform and a half-shed, vs. ones such as Yonkers, which has a real building and is pretty nice.

 

Maybe Metro-North stations are also better because some of them are Amtrak stations too, seemingly requiring more than just a platform and a half shed?

[Nova RTS 9147]

At this time, I don't believe the LIRR plans to replace any series of cars, although this doesn't mean an unfortunate set of M3s might end up burning out and being taken to the boneyard every now and then. IIRC, word was that the next batch of cars weren't going to be replacing anything, but rather just adding trains when the East Side Access is complete, but that's nothing but hearsay at this time.

 

It will be interesting to see how the M7s hold up in the coming years. I especially hate the ones with the damn squeaky trucks. Gives the impression that they're complete crap. :tdown:

 

By the time ESA is done, the oldest M3s will be around thirty years old. Probably old enough to retire. But like you said, everything is hearsay at this point.

 

As for the M7s, they're approaching 10 and don't appear to be as bad as people said they were going to be when they first came in. Having said that, looks can be deceiving.

[Vistausss]

By the time ESA is done, the oldest M3s will be around thirty years old. Probably old enough to retire. But like you said, everything is hearsay at this point.

 

It's not hearsay. The M3's will retire when the M9's are coming in the next few years: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26872

I quote: "M-3 cars are experiencing performance challenges and technological obsolescence. This project will begin replacing the worst-performing units with new M-9 cars, completing the fleet replacement in the next Capital Program." (which is 2010-2014)

[Nova RTS 9147]

It's not hearsay. The M3's will retire when the M9's are coming in the next few years: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26872

I quote: "M-3 cars are experiencing performance challenges and technological obsolescence. This project will begin replacing the worst-performing units with new M-9 cars, completing the fleet replacement in the next Capital Program." (which is 2010-2014)

 

Yea, but 84 new cars will not be enough to replace 174 M3s and increase service. Though I hope the MTA chooses to be proactive and increase the amount to start retiring the entire fleet, instead of waiting until they turn 40 and are even worse.

[Vistausss]

Well, 84 is at least something and while service may not be increased that way, at least service becomes more reliable, more accurate thanks to faster motors and more comfy.

 

Hmm, increasing service or stabilizing and more comfy current service... I wonder which one is more important.

[Rutgers Tube]

Can we please get back on topic or lock this thread and create a new thread to discuss rolling stock? M-9 production hasn't even advanced beyond budgetary allocation, and 95% of the combined number of stations used by these two railroads were built long before the M-9's were even a pipe dream.

[traildriver]

The overall architecture of Metro-North stations seems better- maybe due to its main predecessor, the New York Central, putting more money into station construction?

 

What I don't get is the crosswalks from the platform on one side of the tracks to another being elevated. Stations in Europe and even Charlotte, NC have underground passageways from one side of the tracks to another, and the distance you have to schlep on the stairs that way is much less.

 

I have thought about this and I have thought of one possible explanation as far as the 'crosswalks' go.

While it is true that you travel a lot more to go over the tracks due to clearing the height of a train than you would have to go under the tracks where you would only have to allow for the height of a person (would be different from a ground level vs high level platform), I believe that the answer could be a matter of public security. Namely, going through an underpass where criminals could hide is not as safe as crossing an open or glass covered bridge.

[Joe]

Underpasses have a tendency to collect human scum.

[lilbluefoxie]

if they ever decide to add a third track to the mainline, heres to hoping they can redo those intermediate stations to look less dumpy, the worst are Carle Place and Merillon Ave stations

[Rutgers Tube]

Very few stations in Connecticut have overhead passenger crossings, due in no small part to the presence of catenary and transmission lines. Of the Connecticut stations with overhead walks, almost all are located where topography probably made it a more logical choice to build a skywalk than to tunnel beneath the trackbed. I'm assuming that New York stations with side platforms generally have overhead crossings because third rail prescence made this a more cost-effective move for both construction and maintenance purposes. I don't believe that architectural preferences of the different railroads that comprised the present-day Metro-North railroad played a large role in determining which type of crossing would be used. Rather, I believe the trackage itself dictated that call, as much of the Hudson and Harlem lines are double-tracked where stations are located, making passenger crossovers an obviously logical choice over crossunders. As far as New Haven Line stations within NYS, crossovers tend to be more prevalent because a number of stations are located within open cuts or below existing overhead structures. A number of Harlem and Hudson lines are also either located within open cuts or at grade level.