N4 Via Merrick Rd Posted July 12, 2012 Share #76 Posted July 12, 2012 http://www.mta.info/lirr/about/Procurement/M9/M-9-RFI-1.pdf http://www.mta.info/lirr/about/Procurement/M9/ResponsesToCarbuilderInquiries.pdfi found this 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted July 12, 2012 Share #77 Posted July 12, 2012 The trucks are similar yes, but the M8s is more similar to the 160s just to railroad specs. The m7s are horrible indeed. A few years ago they removed the yaw bars which made the cars rock side to side more than the m7As. Now as far as the front of the m8s, thank Ceasar Vergara. He was he one who designed the exterior. I've been following his work for 20 years. He's worked on the X2000, MNR's Genesis engines, when he worked for njt, he designed he comet V's, alp46s,P42s, the bi levels, and tell exterior graphics for those cars, and the M8s. The plan for the m8s was to give them a fleet wide look while being distinguished as new Haven cars only. As for the M9s, I expect carbon copies of M7s. Like the 143s, 160s and upcoming 179s. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted July 26, 2012 Share #78 Posted July 26, 2012 I hate the M7's on the MetroNorth! Really! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qjtransitmaster Posted July 30, 2012 Share #79 Posted July 30, 2012 M8 looks like a pimped out subway car so hot and beautiful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vistausss Posted August 10, 2012 Share #80 Posted August 10, 2012 Not to say the M9's aren't needed, but shouldn't the LIRR focus on the diesels first? I remember them saying last year that it costs way too much to mantain the locs of the C3's. If they want to cut costs, shouldn't they look at replacing those with less costly locs first? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted August 14, 2012 Share #81 Posted August 14, 2012 Not to say the M9's aren't needed, but shouldn't the LIRR focus on the diesels first? I remember them saying last year that it costs way too much to mantain the locs of the C3's. If they want to cut costs, shouldn't they look at replacing those with less costly locs first? They're looking into DMU's or Diesel Multiple Units for scoot service, but really the truth is that the DE/DM30's suck, the LIRR should've gone with GE Genesis as Dual Mode Locomotives and PL42AC's Diesel Electric Locomotives instead. If you want to read all about that DMU topic, look at this article below: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/04/30/lirr-evaluates-use-of-dmus-for-low-ridership-branch-lines/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MF Ensembleson Posted August 17, 2012 Share #82 Posted August 17, 2012 I'm slightly curious here- with the new M9's that are being delivered to the LIRR, are they planning to get rid of the M7s? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 18, 2012 Share #83 Posted August 18, 2012 I'm slightly curious here- with the new M9's that are being delivered to the LIRR, are they planning to get rid of the M7s? no....why would they do that? the M7s are still relatively new. The first batch of M9s will be for East Side Access fleet expansion, and any more that are ordered after that will be to replace the M3s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion VII 4 Life Posted August 18, 2012 Share #84 Posted August 18, 2012 They're looking into DMU's or Diesel Multiple Units for scoot service, but really the truth is that the DE/DM30's suck, the LIRR should've gone with GE Genesis as Dual Mode Locomotives and PL42AC's Diesel Electric Locomotives instead. If you want to read all about that DMU topic, look at this article below: http://www.thetransp...p-branch-lines/ LIRR DMs should've been catenary powered. The catenary is in Penn Station and the tunnels, and with that you won't have incidents like that one with the pushcart. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted August 18, 2012 Share #85 Posted August 18, 2012 LIRR DMs should've been catenary powered. The catenary is in Penn Station and the tunnels, and with that you won't have incidents like that one with the pushcart. In my opinion, LIRR would be better off with a Catenary System or Under-Running Third Rails. However, this conversion would be very expensive considering that the LIRR has Over-Running Third Rails in the entire "electric" system east of Sunnyside Yard. I'd be all for a ALP46 dashing to Huntington while ALP45DP's go to Port Jeff, Montauk and such if it is the case, =P. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4 Via Merrick Rd Posted August 18, 2012 Share #86 Posted August 18, 2012 In my opinion, LIRR would be better off with a Catenary System or Under-Running Third Rails. However, this conversion would be very expensive considering that the LIRR has Over-Running Third Rails in the entire "electric" system east of Sunnyside Yard. I'd be all for a ALP46 dashing to Huntington while ALP45DP's go to Port Jeff, Montauk and such if it is the case, =P. If they were to do that they should convert electric territory into under-running third rail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 19, 2012 Share #87 Posted August 19, 2012 Not to say the M9's aren't needed, but shouldn't the LIRR focus on the diesels first? I remember them saying last year that it costs way too much to mantain the locs of the C3's. If they want to cut costs, shouldn't they look at replacing those with less costly locs first? Ehh... As Diesel costs less, it also costs more to maintain, especially in the long run. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MF Ensembleson Posted August 19, 2012 Share #88 Posted August 19, 2012 no....why would they do that? the M7s are still relatively new. The first batch of M9s will be for East Side Access fleet expansion, and any more that are ordered after that will be to replace the M3s. Okay, that's what I thought- I was worried that the M7s would disappear. Those M3s- I expect they'll be gone shortly. :/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 19, 2012 Share #89 Posted August 19, 2012 Okay, that's what I thought- I was worried that the M7s would disappear. Those M3s- I expect they'll be gone shortly. :/ M-8s are supposed to replace M-3s on the LIRR. M-9s are pretty much discussing that R211 I heard Lance talking about a while back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan Railer Posted August 19, 2012 Share #90 Posted August 19, 2012 M-8s are supposed to replace M-3s on the LIRR. M-9s are pretty much discussing that R211 I heard Lance talking about a while back. Can't tell if this is sarcasm, or pure ignorance.... please forgive me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted August 19, 2012 Share #91 Posted August 19, 2012 (edited) Seems like it is f*ck Brighton Express day. Screw it. I forgot that this was the MNR thread also. I was wondering why the hell are we discussing M-9s. And I was saying that because Lance mentioned something a little way back about R211s. We don't know smack about them yet. The damn R179s aren't even here. But since this is the MNR thread also, and the MNR has M-8s, I can see why we are discussing the M-9s. Edited August 19, 2012 by Brighton Express 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted August 19, 2012 Share #92 Posted August 19, 2012 I wonder how the R179 would look anyways On topic: The M7 are new, the average life is 35 years for a train. The M7 still have a while to go. The M9 will be identical to the M7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 20, 2012 Share #93 Posted August 20, 2012 I wonder how the R179 would look anyways On topic: The M7 are new, the average life is 35 years for a train. The M7 still have a while to go. The M9 will be identical to the M7 Oh god... more M7's I hear. They should make the M9's like the M8's but with a blue stripe and blue colors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N4 Via Merrick Rd Posted August 21, 2012 Share #94 Posted August 21, 2012 Oh god... more M7's I hear. They should make the M9's like the M8's but with a blue stripe and blue colors. I was gonna say that too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted August 21, 2012 Share #95 Posted August 21, 2012 M8s were specifically designed for New Haven. And with 3 electrical systems, they became heavier than all the other fleets MTA has on their rails. Adding a pantograph to LIRR for tunnel/Penn station use is ridiculous. That's adding an extra electrical system, increasing its weight and maintenance costs. Converting the entire electrified territory to underrunning third rail is a waste of money and time. It's fine as is. MNR has those 3rd rails because it was inherited from NY Central. Remember, the differences in cantinary, voltage and 3rd rails were done purposely duringthe golden age of railroading when every region had different multiple companies and to limit one companies trains in another's territory without payment. Like during the days of 3 subway companies here in NYC. The M9 order is to replace the M3s and have extra trains for ESA. Having them almost identical to the M7s is the most logical and cost effective solution. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quill Depot Posted August 21, 2012 Share #96 Posted August 21, 2012 The M9 order is to replace the M3s and have extra trains for ESA. Having them almost identical to the M7s is the most logical and cost effective solution. Agreed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kentsfield Posted August 21, 2012 Share #97 Posted August 21, 2012 (edited) M8s were specifically designed for New Haven. And with 3 electrical systems, they became heavier than all the other fleets MTA has on their rails. Adding a pantograph to LIRR for tunnel/Penn station use is ridiculous. That's adding an extra electrical system, increasing its weight and maintenance costs. Converting the entire electrified territory to underrunning third rail is a waste of money and time. It's fine as is. MNR has those 3rd rails because it was inherited from NY Central. Remember, the differences in cantinary, voltage and 3rd rails were done purposely duringthe golden age of railroading when every region had different multiple companies and to limit one companies trains in another's territory without payment. Like during the days of 3 subway companies here in NYC. The M9 order is to replace the M3s and have extra trains for ESA. Having them almost identical to the M7s is the most logical and cost effective solution. Yeah sure 3rd rail is fine as is compared to catenary. 3rd rail is a trashcan. Thats why in continental europe they ripped up 3rd rail on non-subway lines decades ago and installed catenary. Its not that cost prohibitive; The upgrade of the NY-Boston route for HSR for 2 billion dollars in the 90s included electrification. how much could adding catenary for 15 miles between the end of the NHV line and GCT really cost? Edited August 21, 2012 by kentsfield 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted August 23, 2012 Share #98 Posted August 23, 2012 Yeah sure 3rd rail is fine as is compared to catenary. 3rd rail is a trashcan. Thats why in continental europe they ripped up 3rd rail on non-subway lines decades ago and installed catenary. Its not that cost prohibitive; The upgrade of the NY-Boston route for HSR for 2 billion dollars in the 90s included electrification. how much could adding catenary for 15 miles between the end of the NHV line and GCT really cost? I would say that one type of third rail is fine, that's the one used on Metro-North Railroad. Under-running third rail is safer to track workers and much more weather-proof than over-running third rail on the LIRR. As for catenery, it's on par with under-running third rail, mainly because catenery uses regular wire cables that are prone to weather related damages. If I had the guts and the money, I'd rip out all the over-running third rail on the LIRR and replace them with under-running ones, mainly because it'll be a slight benefit for the LIRR and an overall benefit to the Railroads because it streamlines the fleets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Vandelay Posted August 23, 2012 Share #99 Posted August 23, 2012 Catenary is not on par with either third rail at all. It is far superior as it allows for higher speeds, and is MUCH cheaper to install and maintain. If you are going to replace third rail with another system, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that the new system would be another type of third rail. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainfan22 Posted September 1, 2012 Share #100 Posted September 1, 2012 Yeah sure 3rd rail is fine as is compared to catenary. 3rd rail is a trashcan. Thats why in continental europe they ripped up 3rd rail on non-subway lines decades ago and installed catenary. Its not that cost prohibitive; The upgrade of the NY-Boston route for HSR for 2 billion dollars in the 90s included electrification. how much could adding catenary for 15 miles between the end of the NHV line and GCT really cost? Is there even clearance in the Park Ave Tunnels for caternary? I can those P32s bouncing up down and rubbing against the wires in the Park Ave tunnels for example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.