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.
Sign in to follow this  
imagineverything

3rd Rail Compatability LIRR/MNRR - would side mounting the 3rd rail solve the problem?

Recommended Posts

I know that the LIRR used top running 3rd rail shoes. I also know that MNRR uses under-running 3rd rail shoes.

 

If the 3rd rail were mounted on the side rather from the top or bottom, would both systems become compatible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the LIRR used top running 3rd rail shoes. I also know that MNRR uses under-running 3rd rail shoes.

 

If the 3rd rail were mounted on the side rather from the top or bottom, would both systems become compatible?

Third rail can not be contacted through the side because of several reasons one being the loss of power while hitting curves and if the cars sway it would cause damage to the third rail. Having that wouldn't really cut spending. Think of how much it would cost to replace the whole MTA railroad system with side running third rail.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third rail can not be contacted through the side because of several reasons one being the loss of power while hitting curves and if the cars sway it would cause damage to the third rail. Having that wouldn't really cut spending. Think of how much it would cost to replace the whole MTA railroad system with side running third rail.

 No side running. Side Mounting. so that a top or bottom shoe can use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No side running. Side Mounting. so that a top or bottom shoe can use it.

I'm not getting what you mean by side mounted. The shoes are already on the sides of the trucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not getting what you mean by side mounted. The shoes are already on the sides of the trucks.

The 3rd rail for top running shoes is mounted to the bracket via the bottom of the 3rd rail.

 

The 3rd rail for bottom running shoes is mounted to the bracket via the top of the 3rd rail.

 

I am asking if instead of mounting the 3rd rail from the top, shown here:

Derde_rail.jpg

 

or having bottom mounting, shown here:

Third_rail_pickup.jpg

 

Note the green box, it is the bottom mounting.

 

I propose mounting the 3rd rail from outside (side not facing the track) onto a bracket similiar to the method used to mount bottom running 3rd rail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3rd rail for top running shoes is mounted to the bracket via the bottom of the 3rd rail.

 

The 3rd rail for bottom running shoes is mountedf to the bracket via the top of the 3rd rail.

 

I am asking if instead of mounting the 3rd rail from the top, shown here:

Derde_rail.jpg

 

or having bottom mounting, shown here:

Third_rail_pickup.jpg

 

Note the green box, it is the bottom mounting.

 

I propose mounting the 3rd rail from outside (side not facing the track) onto a bracket similiar to the method used to mount bottom running 3rd rail.

Oh I see what you are saying now, so that both MNR and LIRR trains can utilize the same third rail. Great suggestion. Now we would just have to figure power issues. LIRR uses 750 and MNR use 700.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figure it can succeed the current system through atrophy - whenever 3rd rails need replacement or repair they can install these, and worry about the power issues later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a shoe than contact both rails? I figure that would be way less costly.

That would require a moving shoe - simple in concept, but with 3rd rail replacement projects going on anyway...why not replace the 3rd rail this way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this would be a massive waste of capitol.

 

what would be the point anyway? They don't share tracks, and the only issue that would even require discussing this is the Hudson line using the Empire connection.

 

Why do then even need to play nice in the first place; they're two tottaly diffrent railroads. Helena Williams can't show up at Grand Central and start barking orders,

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this would be a massive waste of capitol.

 

what would be the point anyway? They don't share tracks, and the only issue that would even require discussing this is the Hudson line using the Empire connection.

 

Why do then even need to play nice in the first place; they're two tottaly diffrent railroads. Helena Williams can't show up at Grand Central and start barking orders,

Long term after ESA full implementation would allow LIRR trains to in theory interline with MNRR trains which would drastically reduce operating expenses big time so a moving shoe would be a good mid to long-term investment just not for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long term after ESA full implementation would allow LIRR trains to in theory interline with MNRR trains which would drastically reduce operating expenses big time so a moving shoe would be a good mid to long-term investment just not for now.

I sincerely hope that the two railroads & NJT are taken over by the Port Authority. Sooner, rather than later.

 

The reasoning for this is that the PANYNJ can do whatever the F*** they want since they are autonomous. 

 

Therefore, they can run a regional railroad, not a political agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that the two railroads & NJT are taken over by the Port Authority. Sooner, rather than later.

 

The reasoning for this is that the PANYNJ can do whatever the F*** they want since they are autonomous. 

 

Therefore, they can run a regional railroad, not a political agency.

 

Based on my experiences I can say that PANYNJ runs PATH as a very tight ship and it would be nice to see MNRR, LIRR and NJT run with that same kind of efficiency. Furthermore, from what I can tell the Port Authority has alternate sources of income (including rental income from whatever the hell eventually becomes of Ground Zero) and thus political shenanigans in Albany and/or Trenton will presumably have less overall impact on the agency's bottom line (and by extension rail fares and service levels) than they currently do on their respective railroad agencies. Finally, having all three railroads under one umbrella would open up room for a number of interesting service patterns (including maybe through-running certain trains using ALP45s and DE30ACs during rush to maximize throughput at NYP). This could conceivably have long-term positive consequences for Amtrak NEC service, including possibly the opening of more Amtrak slots on the Metro-North tracks and an overall increase in speed limits due to better maintenance and more track work.

 

As far as the original proposal of installing dually accessible side-mounted third rail over time (thus replacing the current top- and bottom- mounted third rail over time), I have to say I like it, and it would be especially awesome if <foam> side-mounted third rail was installed along the Amtrak line from Sunnyside Yard through the New Rochelle station on the New Haven line, as well as along the Empire Connection from NYP to Yonkers. That way, all EMUs on the Hudson and New Haven Lines would be able to access Penn Station without the need for cross-compatibility with Amtrak's catenary system, and installation of side-mounted rail at NYP would let Metro-North and LIRR trains use the same tracks regardless or rolling stock type. </foam>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long term after ESA full implementation would allow LIRR trains to in theory interline with MNRR trains which would drastically reduce operating expenses big time so a moving shoe would be a good mid to long-term investment just not for now.

 

How about we leave la-la land and play in the real world instead.

 

ESA will NEVER allow them to interline, it's 100 feet below the lower level. It's a two track tunnel who's slots are all probibly already assigned.

 

 

Secondly, it wouldn't save anything. They need every last train they're runing now to keep up with demand. sharing trains might incress capcity, but it's not going to reduce costs. and, worse comes to worse, something goes wrong in one key place, and the entire region comes to standstill. How'd you like to explain to someone at Jamaica that the 6:08 to Huntington isn't coming becuase it's not done being the 4:07 from Chappaqua because of a back up caused by issues with the New Haven line made it late getting to Chappaqua so it's late coming back?

 

This does not sound wonderful. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

and don't even get me started on turning over the system to the nazis at the Port authoirty. You want every railfan in the northeast out to get you? You want the photo-gestapo chasing everyone all day?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long term after ESA full implementation would allow LIRR trains to in theory interline with MNRR trains which would drastically reduce operating expenses big time so a moving shoe would be a good mid to long-term investment just not for now.

The ESA isnt going to interline the two railroads. Like the above poster stated, it's way below the lower level. The LIRR ESA line is only for one Branch anyway. Customers will have to transfer for other branches. Also take into account that even though these railroads are both managed by the MTA, they are almost completely different in how the run down to the "watch the gap" announcement.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we leave la-la land and play in the real world instead.

 

ESA will NEVER allow them to interline, it's 100 feet below the lower level. It's a two track tunnel who's slots are all probibly already assigned.

 

 

Secondly, it wouldn't save anything. They need every last train they're runing now to keep up with demand. sharing trains might incress capcity, but it's not going to reduce costs. and, worse comes to worse, something goes wrong in one key place, and the entire region comes to standstill. How'd you like to explain to someone at Jamaica that the 6:08 to Huntington isn't coming becuase it's not done being the 4:07 from Chappaqua because of a back up caused by issues with the New Haven line made it late getting to Chappaqua so it's late coming back?

 

This does not sound wonderful. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

and don't even get me started on turning over the system to the nazis at the Port authoirty. You want every railfan in the northeast out to get you? You want the photo-gestapo chasing everyone all day?

 

I have worked with the PANYNJ and yes, even as a contractor, they are extreme when it comes to security.

 

Consider though, that most of the Port Authority Staff currently at the Gateway Center in Newark was displaced by 9/11.

 

The staff still feels it quite strongly, even today. The PA Police that handles security lost a large portion of their force in 9/11 so it is a little understandable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that the two railroads & NJT are taken over by the Port Authority. Sooner, rather than later.

 

The reasoning for this is that the PANYNJ can do whatever the F*** they want since they are autonomous. 

 

Therefore, they can run a regional railroad, not a political agency.

 

 

How about we leave la-la land and play in the real world instead.

 

ESA will NEVER allow them to interline, it's 100 feet below the lower level. It's a two track tunnel who's slots are all probibly already assigned.

 

 

Secondly, it wouldn't save anything. They need every last train they're runing now to keep up with demand. sharing trains might incress capcity, but it's not going to reduce costs. and, worse comes to worse, something goes wrong in one key place, and the entire region comes to standstill. How'd you like to explain to someone at Jamaica that the 6:08 to Huntington isn't coming becuase it's not done being the 4:07 from Chappaqua because of a back up caused by issues with the New Haven line made it late getting to Chappaqua so it's late coming back?

 

This does not sound wonderful. It sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

 

and don't even get me started on turning over the system to the nazis at the Port authoirty. You want every railfan in the northeast out to get you? You want the photo-gestapo chasing everyone all day?

i think the overall long run idea is that with LIRR having trains to the LL GCT(No connection to MNR tracks BTW), There has been proposals to allow New Haven and Hudson line cars into slots in Penn Station. Now with the NH, I believe the NH M8s have the ability to run under Amtrak's wire with their voltage into Queens and Penn but the benefit of a single car order for both Railroads with dual retractable shoes for both third rail systems and voltages for ease of use. Not really for the same sets to run on both lines during its day, but for example, say a HUdson train thats not being used is sitting in Penn or the West Side Yard and an LIRR set is needed because there was a failure of equipment, said Hudson train can be used. It can also eliminate the need for two separate fleets i.e. M1/M1A, M3/M3A, M7/ M7A. As the delivery of cars come in, the MTA can distribute them to which system needs them now instead of waiting for one fleet to finish delivery for the second fleet to start arriving like with the M7 cars. 

 

Its just a theory, but one to look into for any long-term benefits.

Edited by Far Rock Depot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No kidding. They also run different voltages. But a train can run using a variety of voltages. Look at the M8 sets. I know its possible. I Majored in engineering for railcar design. Ive studied it all my life. It can be done and i know its not just about liveries. The fact is having a fleet for both LIRR and MNRs Hudson and Harlem lines may have its benefits. Like maintenance. Both railroads will only have to have the parts for that fleet instead of two separate fleets. Like i said n my comment above, the fleet can be designed and built for both voltages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ESA isnt going to interline the two railroads. Like the above poster stated, it's way below the lower level. The LIRR ESA line is only for one Branch anyway. Customers will have to transfer for other branches. Also take into account that even though these railroads are both managed by the MTA, they are almost completely different in how the run down to the "watch the gap" announcement.

I meant LONG-TERM.

 

i think the overall long run idea is that with LIRR having trains to the LL GCT(No connection to MNR tracks BTW), There has been proposals to allow New Haven and Hudson line cars into slots in Penn Station. Now with the NH, I believe the NH M8s have the ability to run under Amtrak's wire with their voltage into Queens and Penn but the benefit of a single car order for both Railroads with dual retractable shoes for both third rail systems and voltages for ease of use. Not really for the same sets to run on both lines during its day, but for example, say a HUdson train thats not being used is sitting in Penn or the West Side Yard and an LIRR set is needed because there was a failure of equipment, said Hudson train can be used. It can also eliminate the need for two separate fleets i.e. M1/M1A, M3/M3A, M7/ M7A. As the delivery of cars come in, the MTA can distribute them to which system needs them now instead of waiting for one fleet to finish delivery for the second fleet to start arriving like with the M7 cars. 

 

Its just a theory, but one to look into for any long-term benefits.

Interesting that was my point.  That was what I was trying to say. However you are saying that M8 and M9s in theory can run on 600V 3rd rail and catenary 750V if configured?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, the two agencies (MNRR and LIRR) are somewhat already connected because MTA Police oversees police operations on MNRR and LIRR. As far as I know, the same MTAPD cop can be assigned to either MNRR or LIRR, though somebody correct me on that if I am wrong on that account. Not that this is anything like replacing 3rd rails, but maybe like MTA Bus and MTA NYCT, the two related organizations can join in some ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory, the two agencies (MNRR and LIRR) are somewhat already connected because MTA Police oversees police operations on MNRR and LIRR. As far as I know, the same MTAPD cop can be assigned to either MNRR or LIRR, though somebody correct me on that if I am wrong on that account. Not that this is anything like replacing 3rd rails, but maybe like MTA Bus and MTA NYCT, the two related organizations can join in some ways. 

 Actually no....an MTA Police Officer working in Long Island or for Metro-North can't be assigned on either place. They have to know the area. Can't send a cop from Long Island to go patrol Stamford.

 

____________

 

In the future the only feasible solution is to make train have the ability to flip their contact shoes so that they can use over-running & under-running 3rd rail as seen with the M8s... But that technology is not really being used at the moment.

Edited by QSC TMC 295

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.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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