Kamen Rider Posted April 19, 2021 Share #1 Posted April 19, 2021 Also just noticed no one updated the copyright tag... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted April 19, 2021 Share #2 Posted April 19, 2021 So they're converting four wrecked or OOS M7's into M7E's? That's not such a bad idea... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielhg121 Posted April 19, 2021 Share #3 Posted April 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Lawrence St said: So they're converting four wrecked or OOS M7's into M7E's? That's not such a bad idea... Why do you assume they're using wrecked M7's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawrence St Posted April 19, 2021 Share #4 Posted April 19, 2021 1 minute ago, danielhg121 said: Why do you assume they're using wrecked M7's? In the NY Trolleys & Railroads group on Facebook, someone quoted something from the article that states "will be using out of service M7 units for conversion to the battery electric program". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GojiMet86 Posted April 19, 2021 Share #5 Posted April 19, 2021 Yeah, 7603-7604 were brought out for the MTA press conference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielhg121 Posted April 19, 2021 Share #6 Posted April 19, 2021 4 hours ago, GojiMet86 said: Yeah, 7603-7604 were brought out for the MTA press conference. Were those previously wrecked sets? I only know of 7425, 7044. Back to the original topic, I'm genuinely surprised that the LIRR decided to do this. Frankly, I didn't think they had the intelligence capability to even think this one up seeing how many other archaic practices they keep in place and corners they cut in other aspects of their day-to-day operation (i.e. copying and pasting schedules from the 80's, adding runtime to boost their numbers, making bad decisions in general with procuring their fleet, delayed expansion projects, not to mention how the LIRR MoW department has some overtime scandal every few years). Even if this BEMU doesn't work out, it's weird seeing LIRR step out of their comfort zone and at least try, they've always been one to maintain the status quo. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QM1to6Ave Posted April 20, 2021 Share #7 Posted April 20, 2021 3 hours ago, danielhg121 said: Were those previously wrecked sets? I only know of 7425, 7044. Back to the original topic, I'm genuinely surprised that the LIRR decided to do this. Frankly, I didn't think they had the intelligence capability to even think this one up seeing how many other archaic practices they keep in place and corners they cut in other aspects of their day-to-day operation (i.e. copying and pasting schedules from the 80's, adding runtime to boost their numbers, making bad decisions in general with procuring their fleet, delayed expansion projects, not to mention how the LIRR MoW department has some overtime scandal every few years). Even if this BEMU doesn't work out, it's weird seeing LIRR step out of their comfort zone and at least try, they've always been one to maintain the status quo. Probably they are guessing that there will be federal $$$ at play for this type of thing in the next few years coming out of Biden's focus on infrastructure (and perhaps his particular love of trains lol) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 20, 2021 Share #8 Posted April 20, 2021 If they just extended electrification again and bought the same units they use everywhere else we could stop doing this song and dance every generation. The last time around they thought dual modes were going to be the future, and the custom LIRR dual modes ended up being unreliable lemons. I'm not super positive about repeating this but with battery, particularly when battery powered trains elsewhere are premature at best and the MTA has no great track record at brand new technology. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted April 20, 2021 Share #9 Posted April 20, 2021 (edited) Yes, they keep dragging their feet on genuine efforts at electrification- if they had simply done electrification as originally planned back in the early '80s, LIRR would be 10 steps ahead of where it is currently. That and the Main Line third track are way overdue. Edited April 20, 2021 by R10 2952 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
40MntVrn Posted April 21, 2021 Share #10 Posted April 21, 2021 I'm confused a bit. If this tech proves to be useful, is the idea to retrofit ALL the M7's or just ~enough to work the diesel territory? A part of me wonders if they couldn't just build independent battery-operated cars that could trail/lead an M7. Retrofitting feels....like a waste of time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted April 21, 2021 Share #11 Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, 40MntVrn said: I'm confused a bit. If this tech proves to be useful, is the idea to retrofit ALL the M7's or just ~enough to work the diesel territory? A part of me wonders if they couldn't just build independent battery-operated cars that could trail/lead an M7. Retrofitting feels....like a waste of time. Honestly, I wouldn't push for maintaining high push-pull service. MUs have motors for every car, allowing for better acceleration profiles. All they'd be doing is retrofitting the cars so they can actually spend an appreciable amount of time away from the third rail (and maintain _some_ amount of service if it's turned off without diverting rolling stock from elsewhere). They could then incorporate such technology in future orders. Considering the fact that they're around 20 years old, it makes sense to look into this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 21, 2021 Share #12 Posted April 21, 2021 I think the confusing place for me is where you would put batteries. They're big and heavy, and there's not exactly space just lying around on M7s and M9s. The current trend is to put them on the roof, but the clearance in the 63rd St tunnel is tight enough as it is. I suppose you could fit them where the overhead racks are? I've never seen anyone really use those. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted April 21, 2021 Share #13 Posted April 21, 2021 3 hours ago, 40MntVrn said: I'm confused a bit. If this tech proves to be useful, is the idea to retrofit ALL the M7's or just ~enough to work the diesel territory? A part of me wonders if they couldn't just build independent battery-operated cars that could trail/lead an M7. Retrofitting feels....like a waste of time. The M7s are going to be around for at least two more decades so retrofitting will be useful enough. Also, given current trends, at the end of those 20 years batteries will probably have improved enough that we'd want to dump cars with the early days of the tech anyways. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted April 21, 2021 Share #14 Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said: I think the confusing place for me is where you would put batteries. They're big and heavy, and there's not exactly space just lying around on M7s and M9s. The current trend is to put them on the roof, but the clearance in the 63rd St tunnel is tight enough as it is. I suppose you could fit them where the overhead racks are? I've never seen anyone really use those. How feasible would it be to put them under some of the seats? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamen Rider Posted April 22, 2021 Author Share #15 Posted April 22, 2021 Using the batteries out of a Telsa as an example, which are extremely powerful and still very flat, they could easily mount them as a module hung below the all the equipment under the car. If the project doesn't work out, unhook the module, remove the mount point and the connector cable and it's like it never happened. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BreeddekalbL Posted April 27, 2021 Share #16 Posted April 27, 2021 On 4/19/2021 at 9:45 PM, bobtehpanda said: If they just extended electrification again and bought the same units they use everywhere else we could stop doing this song and dance every generation. The last time around they thought dual modes were going to be the future, and the custom LIRR dual modes ended up being unreliable lemons. I'm not super positive about repeating this but with battery, particularly when battery powered trains elsewhere are premature at best and the MTA has no great track record at brand new technology. On 4/20/2021 at 2:43 PM, R10 2952 said: Yes, they keep dragging their feet on genuine efforts at electrification- if they had simply done electrification as originally planned back in the early '80s, LIRR would be 10 steps ahead of where it is currently. That and the Main Line third track are way overdue. Thank you at least you can finish off oyster bay first then do the rest in phases 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.