Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
East New York

M-9 Discussion

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

NJT is ordering EMU versions of the MLV to replace remaining Arrows. I think it’s a safe assumption that those cars will be able to clear Penn, so I see no reason that the LIRR couldn’t order a similar fleet with 3rd rail shoes. They wouldn’t be able to make it into ESA, sure, but any new capacity to Penn is certainly worth investigating. 

Kinda forgot the LIRR had double deck EMU's before the MP70's 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HereComesWhitey said:

New employee, can confirm that crashed cars are with us. Just stripped down the crashed trucks and we're working on the M9 ones as well. ☺️

Kawasaki?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Kawasaki?

Yup. Bit of a change of pace for me. I've always worked on cars. But as I've always said, turning a wrench is turning a wrench. Haha

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, HereComesWhitey said:

Yup. Bit of a change of pace for me. I've always worked on cars. But as I've always said, turning a wrench is turning a wrench. Haha

Awesome I did some work up there years back (16-17 years ago..) P2 Force testing and some simulation stuff. Is William Moore still working up there? 

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Awesome I did some work up there years back 16-17 years ago.. P2 Force testing and some simulation stuff. Is William Moore still working up there? 

I don't recognize that name, but then again I'm brand new and I suck with names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

What's the clearance for the ESA?  less than 16 feet?

In another example of our region's great foresight, the ESA East River tunnel was built to exactly fit the clearance profile of the M1 -- so 13 feet. This is now the LIRR's favourite excuse not to look at anything which isn't a single level EMU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, HereComesWhitey said:

I don't recognize that name, but then again I'm brand new and I suck with names.

Gotcha he was the Quality acceptance guy back in the day.. I heard he moved up from someone I know a few years back. Had a great experience and learnt a lot while there I'm sure you'll have success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RR503 said:

In another example of our region's great foresight, the ESA East River tunnel was built to exactly fit the clearance profile of the M1 -- so 13 feet. This is now the LIRR's favourite excuse not to look at anything which isn't a single level EMU. 

🤦‍♂️ man. This was the 1960's spec id take it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RR503 said:

In another example of our region's great foresight, the ESA East River tunnel was built to exactly fit the clearance profile of the M1 -- so 13 feet. This is now the LIRR's favourite excuse not to look at anything which isn't a single level EMU. 

Oh joy :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RailRunRob said:

🤦‍♂️ man. This was the 1960's spec id take it?

Yes. In the MTA’s defense, the Program for Action — under which this tunnel was built — would’ve vastly changed the LIRR, making it much more of an interurban railroad than it is today. We would’ve had extremely high frequencies, more electrification, and a generally more subway-like service product, factors which may have suggested to planners that all they had to accommodate were basically FRA-standard subway cars (which are indeed what the M1s were — even stylized by the same company which did the R44/46 IIRC). That said, bi-level cars had existed for years then (including, as has been noted by others, on the LIRR), so any body with real foresight probably would have opted to at least leave Penn Station level clearances. Always better to leave provision for unplanned changes — look at how Dual Contracts was all built to BMT. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. In the MTA’s defense, the Program for Action — under which this tunnel was built — would’ve vastly changed the LIRR, making it much more of an interurban railroad than it is today. We would’ve had extremely high frequencies, more electrification, and a generally more subway-like service product, factors which may have suggested to planners that all they had to accommodate were basically FRA-standard subway cars (which are indeed what the M1s were — even stylized by the same company which did the R44/46 IIRC). That said, bi-level cars had existed for years then (including, as has been noted by others, on the LIRR), so any body with real foresight probably would have opted to at least leave Penn Station level clearances. Always better to leave provision for unplanned changes — look at how Dual Contracts was all built to BMT. 

 

And to think that today, in 2018, there are some people who can't stand the thought of commuter rail acting like a subway with high frequencies.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes. In the MTA’s defense, the Program for Action — under which this tunnel was built — would’ve vastly changed the LIRR, making it much more of an interurban railroad than it is today. We would’ve had extremely high frequencies, more electrification, and a generally more subway-like service product, factors which may have suggested to planners that all they had to accommodate were basically FRA-standard subway cars (which are indeed what the M1s were — even stylized by the same company which did the R44/46 IIRC). That said, bi-level cars had existed for years then (including, as has been noted by others, on the LIRR), so any body with real foresight probably would have opted to at least leave Penn Station level clearances. Always better to leave provision for unplanned changes — look at how Dual Contracts was all built to BMT. 

Indeed, Even if just for routing flexibility.  The MP70's ran until the 1970's IIRC another 24 inches could have pulled it off for some bi-level cars. I guess looking back the 63rd street barely made it as is with The financial crisis and all the starts and stops. But that still shouldn't stop them from looking into bi-level cars in out of Penn.

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

And to think that today, in 2018, there are some people who can't stand the thought of commuter rail acting like a subway with high frequencies.

With the population tripling in some cases in the surrounding areas! Have to move these people somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

With the population tripling in some cases in the surrounding areas! Have to move these people somehow.

 

1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

And to think that today, in 2018, there are some people who can't stand the thought of commuter rail acting like a subway with high frequencies.

Absolutely true. Enough of this suburban exclusionism bullshit -- if the suburbs aren't firmly linked to each other and to the city with transit soon, they're simply gonna fade away. We need robust (bidirectional), frequent (>3tph during the day) train service throughout our electrified commuter system -- or else. 

Not to stray too far off topic, but the implementation of a new fare payment system for NYCT presents a unique opportunity to finally integrate regional rail and city transit fares. What we should be doing is installing entry/exit fare gates at all MTA stations, compatible with a single fare medium. If you tap in and tap out within city limits -- regardless of mode -- you should be charged 2.75. Beyond that, fares should be set as zone-based differences -- say 1.25 per zone traveled, on top of the city zone charge of 2.75 if applicable. If you transfer from bus/subway to commuter rail, you should be charged solely the additional zones traveled by commuter train -- in essence, a free transfer. This'd save millions in labour costs, and would make all MTA services infinitely more integrated and thus attractive. 

With such integration, then you could really start going to town. One of the biggest deterrents to service experimentation by our city's regional railroad services is the fact that the fixed cost of any new train service is extremely high. Not only are you paying the increased maintenance/power charges, but regardless of ridership, you're paying 3+ crew members. Supplanting conductors with fare control would eliminate that barrier and moreover vastly ease the implementation of intra-city heavy rail services by not requiring separate fare control for their operation (assuming that we'd want free transfers from them to the subway). Don't even get me started on the service patterns possible...

56 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Indeed, Even if just for routing flexibility.  The MP70's ran until the 1970's IIRC another 24 inches could have pulled it off for some bi-level cars. I guess looking back the 63rd street barely made it as is with The financial crisis and all the starts and stops. But that still shouldn't stop them from looking into bi-level cars in out of Penn.

Yeah it is a real shame. ESA as it is is such a boondoggle, but to think of all its operational restrictions... 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Absolutely true. Enough of this suburban exclusionism bullshit -- if the suburbs aren't firmly linked to each other and to the city with transit soon, they're simply gonna fade away. We need robust (bidirectional), frequent (>3tph during the day) train service throughout our electrified commuter system -- or else. 

Not to stray too far off topic, but the implementation of a new fare payment system for NYCT presents a unique opportunity to finally integrate regional rail and city transit fares. What we should be doing is installing entry/exit fare gates at all MTA stations, compatible with a single fare medium. If you tap in and tap out within city limits -- regardless of mode -- you should be charged 2.75. Beyond that, fares should be set as zone-based differences -- say 1.25 per zone traveled, on top of the city zone charge of 2.75 if applicable. If you transfer from bus/subway to commuter rail, you should be charged solely the additional zones traveled by commuter train -- in essence, a free transfer. This'd save millions in labour costs, and would make all MTA services infinitely more integrated and thus attractive. 

With such integration, then you could really start going to town. One of the biggest deterrents to service experimentation by our city's regional railroad services is the fact that the fixed cost of any new train service is extremely high. Not only are you paying the increased maintenance/power charges, but regardless of ridership, you're paying 3+ crew members. Supplanting conductors with fare control would eliminate that barrier and moreover vastly ease the implementation of intra-city heavy rail services by not requiring separate fare control for their operation (assuming that we'd want free transfers from them to the subway). Don't even get me started on the service patterns possible...

Crossrail should serve as a shining example of what it could be both in frequency and integration RER as well. Your 100% it's time to rethink what's current and what was and focus on the future and what's need to optimize this vital infrastructure. The one thing you learn in studying any Civil Engineering discipline is that these are invisible to the public for the most part. If people only knew how important transportation is to there lives and all the spoils they enjoy daily it's frustrating at times.(facepalm) But I think I've stated this before the low hanging fruit IMO creating a third NYCTA rail division with FRA standards (RX & SIR) interline these routes with the LIRR and MNRR and as you stated rethink regional rail and it's integration anything within a 100 mile radius. This could be done. In fact it has too.

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Crossrail should serve as a shining example of what it could be both in frequency and integration RER as well. Your 100% it's time to rethink what's current and what was and focus on the future and what's need to optimize this vital infrastructure. The one thing you learn in studying any Civil Engineering discipline is that these are invisible to the public for the most part. If people only knew how important transportation is to there lives and all the spoils they enjoy daily it's frustrating at times.(facepalm) But I think I've stated this before the low hanging fruit IMO creating a third NYCTA rail division with FRA standards (RX & SIR) interline these routes with the LIRR and MNRR and as you stated rethink regional rail and it's integration anything within a 100 mile radius. This could be done. In fact it has too.

Then again, in Britain, they have lots of government support, on their "Federal" level. They also have a lot fewer regulations when it comes to finding contractors e.t.c., and their construction process takes much less time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesman8 said:

Then again, in Britain, they have lots of government support, on their "Federal" level. They also have a lot fewer regulations when it comes to finding contractors e.t.c., and their construction process takes much less time.

I don't understand the logic in that? So we're doomed to be subpar? Subpar construction, Subpar service and transportation? You know this type of thinking and regulations do have real-world consequences? How is New York Supposed to stay competitive on the world stage?  So London is and always will be a better City than New York?  Nothing said here is physically limited by anything in the real world. We're not building a floating City here. (Not yet at least) These are man-made issues and laws.. A man passes a law or deal A man can change it or take it away correct?

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RailRunRob @RR503 

Totally agree with everything you two have said re: commuter rail/RER. Its why the current state of SEPTA Regional Rail is so disappointing especially considering they've already cleared the infrastructure hurdle with the CCCT.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Gotcha he was the Quality acceptance guy back in the day.. I heard he moved up from someone I know a few years back. Had a great experience and learnt a lot while there I'm sure you'll have success.

He's currently the VP.  Another good guy (many of the people there have great experience and there's a lot to learn from them).

 

21 hours ago, HereComesWhitey said:

New employee, can confirm that crashed cars are with us. Just stripped down the crashed trucks and we're working on the M9 ones as well. ☺️

Welcome aboard!  Definitely a great time to be working at Kawasaki.

Edited by Bosco
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

@RailRunRob @RR503 

Totally agree with everything you two have said re: commuter rail/RER. Its why the current state of SEPTA Regional Rail is so disappointing especially considering they've already cleared the infrastructure hurdle with the CCCT.

The politicians and the public just can't correlate how Transportation affects a region it's growth and output. That's honestly the Problem!  Something drastic has to happen before people get it.  The (L) Closure is a great Opportunity to start the narrative of Cause-and-effect. But that's a story for another day another thread.

Edited by RailRunRob
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

@RailRunRob @RR503 

Totally agree with everything you two have said re: commuter rail/RER. Its why the current state of SEPTA Regional Rail is so disappointing especially considering they've already cleared the infrastructure hurdle with the CCCT.

What needs to be done is more frequent service-subway-like frequencies in the core, lower fares in the core, and more high-level platforms (they are working on this, albeit gradually).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What needs to be done is more frequent service-subway-like frequencies in the core, lower fares in the core, and more high-level platforms (they are working on this, albeit gradually).

Then all the low-lives and homeless people will take the LIRR making it what the NYC Subway is today and the good neighborhoods the LIRR serves well become bad just like the Rockaways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EphraimB said:

Then all the low-lives and homeless people will take the LIRR making it what the NYC Subway is today and the good neighborhoods the LIRR serves well become bad just like the Rockaways.

This has been proven wrong on multiple occasions all over the world but sure go off...

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.