MTA set to pay nearly 3 billion for old, overweight LIRR, Metro North cars

[trainfan22]

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority is preparing to spend nearly $3 billion to buy hundreds of overweight and overpriced train cars that will saddle riders with longer commutes — and the cash-strapped agency with higher costs for decades to come, The Post has learned. 

The MTA still wants to move ahead with another purchase of the steel dinosaurs even though federal authorities approved a massive regulatory overhaul in 2018 that now allows the agency to buy high-tech trains — common in Europe — that are dramatically faster, lighter and cheaper. 

“MTA rolling stock procurement is too conservative and is asking for trains that are less advanced than what the international vendors make — too heavy, for one,” said Alon Levy, who is part of a team at NYU’s Marron Institute of Urban Management studying why US transit agencies struggle to build and operate as efficiently as their major international counterparts. 

“So just building to these specs costs more than building to the specs of standard European regional trains.” 

 

So far, the MTA has spent $723 million to purchase 202 M9 cars for the Long Island Rail Road — a program that was first approved in 2013. 

That’s enough to add roughly 10 new, 10-car-long trains to its schedule when they all finally arrive, following a slew of delays chronicled in a report last year by state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli.

Despite the problems, the transit agency hopes to double down and buy at least 432 more cars — lightly updated and known as the M9-A — for both the LIRR and MetroNorth, officials confirmed to The Post.

The value of the new order is at least $1.4 billion – and the likely cost rises to $2.8 billion when factoring in the cost of financing, a Post analysis found.

Officials are still pushing ahead even though federal officials OK’d the regulatory overhaul — known as alternative compliance — which allows railroads like the LIRR and Metro-North to operate train cars commonly used in Europe with only tiny modifications.

The European trains make extensive use of aluminum and other advanced materials, which makes them substantially lighter — reducing wear and tear on switches and tracks, dramatically improving acceleration and increasing energy efficiency.

A 10-car, steel-bodied M9 train weighs more than 660 tons — with each car clocking in at more than 131,000 pounds. A Post comparison against three comparably long European models — built by Siemens, Alstom and Stadler — with similar passenger capacities found that the heaviest one weighed in 450 tons, making the trains at least a third lighter.

 

 

Link to article: https://nypost.com/2023/01/17/mta-opting-for-overweight-trains-that-will-cost-millions-more-analysis/

 

[trainfan22]

Some time savings if European rolling stock was used on LIRR and MNR.....

 

"It would cut the 46-minute local service between Port Washington and Penn Station to 40 minutes, making it practically as fast as the express;"

"It would shave nine minutes off the 75 minute, 18-stop trip between Babylon and Penn, making it almost as quick as the 62-minute limited-stop service;"

"It would knock eight minutes off the 59-minute ride between North White Plains and Grand Central, making it nearly as fast as the express."

 

The biggest issue I see with using Europe trains here in NY is they are in fixed sets rather than married pairs, both LIRR and MNR runs different length sets over its various routes, that could kill flexibility. Here's an pic found on google of the "Stadler FLIRT" which is some of the euro rolling stock being suggested to run on MTA commuter railroads...

 

 

 

Maybe if they could find a way to put these things in married pairs and flatten the front of the train, maybe they could work over here.

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by trainfan22

[Lawrence St]

14 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

Some time savings if European rolling stock was used on LIRR and MNR.....

 

"It would cut the 46-minute local service between Port Washington and Penn Station to 40 minutes, making it practically as fast as the express;"

"It would shave nine minutes off the 75 minute, 18-stop trip between Babylon and Penn, making it almost as quick as the 62-minute limited-stop service;"

"It would knock eight minutes off the 59-minute ride between North White Plains and Grand Central, making it nearly as fast as the express."

 

The biggest issue I see with using Europe trains here in NY is they are in fixed sets rather than married pairs, both LIRR and MNR runs different length sets over its various routes, that could kill flexibility. Here's an pic found on google of the "Stadler FLIRT" which is some of the euro rolling stock being suggested to run on MTA commuter railroads...

 

 

 

Maybe if they could find a way to put these things in married pairs and flatten the front of the train, maybe they could work over here.

 

Messing with the design of the front of the train affects the aerodynamics which will make it slower.

[Lex]

This whole thing requires ignoring the fact that the change in regulations was made years after the ink dried on the M9 contract.

A completely new order can be drafted with something like the FLIRTs, ideally for the short LIRR branches and locals on the Hudson, Harlem, and New Haven branches (the M7s and M9s can instead be used on other routes). Of course, the cars would also need to be short enough to fit into the 63rd Street Tunnel, preferably without sacrificing the ability to use overhead wires.

[trainfan22]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

This whole thing requires ignoring the fact that the change in regulations was made years after the ink dried on the M9 contract.

A completely new order can be drafted with something like the FLIRTs, ideally for the short LIRR branches and locals on the Hudson, Harlem, and New Haven branches (the M7s and M9s can instead be used on other routes). Of course, the cars would also need to be short enough to fit into the 63rd Street Tunnel, preferably without sacrificing the ability to use overhead wires.

The LIRR MUs run on different branches in the system over the course of the day. So odds are they wouldn't buy equipment just for the short LIRR branches. It would kill flexibility.

[trainfan22]

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Messing with the design of the front of the train affects the aerodynamics which will make it slower.

I think that mainly applies to High Speed Rail consists, not commuter rail trains. There's a train in London that was suggested in the article that's flatter faced (but still curved), but I was too lazy to post a photo of it.

 

 

The Europe trains are faster than LIRR & MNR trains cause they are lighter.

Edited January 20, 2023 by trainfan22

[Lex]

5 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

The LIRR MUs run on different branches in the system over the course of the day. So odds are they wouldn't buy equipment just for the short LIRR branches. It would kill flexibility.

Go over it again.

[xD4nn]

On 1/19/2023 at 3:35 PM, trainfan22 said:

Some time savings if European rolling stock was used on LIRR and MNR.....

 

"It would cut the 46-minute local service between Port Washington and Penn Station to 40 minutes, making it practically as fast as the express;"

"It would shave nine minutes off the 75 minute, 18-stop trip between Babylon and Penn, making it almost as quick as the 62-minute limited-stop service;"

"It would knock eight minutes off the 59-minute ride between North White Plains and Grand Central, making it nearly as fast as the express."

 

The biggest issue I see with using Europe trains here in NY is they are in fixed sets rather than married pairs, both LIRR and MNR runs different length sets over its various routes, that could kill flexibility. Here's an pic found on google of the "Stadler FLIRT" which is some of the euro rolling stock being suggested to run on MTA commuter railroads...

 

 

 

Maybe if they could find a way to put these things in married pairs and flatten the front of the train, maybe they could work over here.

 

This article is complete bullshit. The author does not know what he is talking about and lack zero knowledge of railroad operations. The people he interviewed also do not know anything about how railroad ops work and have been eurobrained to the max. This article is completely false. 

[xD4nn]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:40 PM, Lex said:

This whole thing requires ignoring the fact that the change in regulations was made years after the ink dried on the M9 contract.

A completely new order can be drafted with something like the FLIRTs, ideally for the short LIRR branches and locals on the Hudson, Harlem, and New Haven branches (the M7s and M9s can instead be used on other routes). Of course, the cars would also need to be short enough to fit into the 63rd Street Tunnel, preferably without sacrificing the ability to use overhead wires.

1. FLIRTs don't work because they are not married pairs.
2. FLIRTS only work for low level boarding.
3. If you were to jack up the platform height, it wouldn't fit in the 63rd street tunnels.
4. Off the shelf European trains will never work. The FRA allowing off the shelf european trains only works in certain situations.

[Lex]

4 hours ago, xD4nn said:

1. FLIRTs don't work because they are not married pairs.
2. FLIRTS only work for low level boarding.
3. If you were to jack up the platform height, it wouldn't fit in the 63rd street tunnels.
4. Off the shelf European trains will never work. The FRA allowing off the shelf european trains only works in certain situations.

If you actually bothered to read, you'd notice I said "something like the FLIRTs", which does not necessarily mean ordering those specific cars.

[40MntVrn]

Are there any US agencies with a similar infrastructure as MNR/LIRR that have successfully supported European-styled cars?

[FLX9304]

6 hours ago, xD4nn said:

This article is complete bullshit. The author does not know what he is talking about and lack zero knowledge of railroad operations. The people he interviewed also do not know anything about how railroad ops work and have been eurobrained to the max. This article is completely false. 

Thank you. That’s why I don’t post from ppl who don’t know their rails from the top of their heads. I want to hear it from the experts. 

[xD4nn]

2 hours ago, 40MntVrn said:

Are there any US agencies with a similar infrastructure as MNR/LIRR that have successfully supported European-styled cars?

No there isn't.

[GojiMet86]

10 hours ago, xD4nn said:

This article is complete bullshit. The author does not know what he is talking about and lack zero knowledge of railroad operations. The people he interviewed also do not know anything about how railroad ops work and have been eurobrained to the max. This article is completely false. 

 

3 hours ago, FLX9304 said:

Thank you. That’s why I don’t post from ppl who don’t know their rails from the top of their heads. I want to hear it from the experts. 

Alon doesn't pull that information out of his ass. Time savings from EMU acceleration and deacceleration vs. Diesel performance has been studied thoroughly.

Has it crossed your minds that maybe American railroad experts aren't as great as as Japanese or European railroad experts?...

 

 

[FLX9304]

4 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

Alon doesn't pull that information out of his ass. Time savings from EMU acceleration and deacceleration vs. Diesel performance has been studied thoroughly.

Has it crossed your minds that maybe American railroad experts aren't as great as as Japanese or European railroad experts?...

 

 

Until Them new Airos start hitting the tracks of Amtrak 3 years from now, I’ll just wait and see from those gas jugglers who think they know how to run slow trains on railroad tracks. 

[xD4nn]

On 1/27/2023 at 9:11 PM, GojiMet86 said:

 

Alon doesn't pull that information out of his ass. Time savings from EMU acceleration and deacceleration vs. Diesel performance has been studied thoroughly.

Has it crossed your minds that maybe American railroad experts aren't as great as as Japanese or European railroad experts?...

 

 

Alon does in fact pull information out of his ass. He lack knowledge of how railroads work. He once said that trains LIRR should through run into NJ under current circumstances and only hold at the station for 1 minute. He clearly lacks knowledge of how railroads operate. Has it crossed your mind to study rr ops and maybe talk to workers before spewing incorrect information?

Edited January 30, 2023 by xD4nn

[GojiMet86]

5 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

Alon does in fact pull information out of his ass. He lack knowledge of how railroads work. He once said that trains LIRR should through run into NJ under current circumstances and only hold at the station for 1 minute. He clearly lacks knowledge of how railroads operate. Has it crossed your mind to study rr ops and maybe talk to workers before spewing incorrect information?

What's incorrect about saying diesel engines have slower acceleration than EMUs? That's a fact.

These is the same LIRR that has refused for decades to electrify the Port Jefferson and Oyster Bay lines. And they want to buy those new diesel engines and only 20 new coaches. They also cancelled that BEMU project.

[xD4nn]

16 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

What's incorrect about saying diesel engines have slower acceleration than EMUs? That's a fact.

These is the same LIRR that has refused for decades to electrify the Port Jefferson and Oyster Bay lines. And they want to buy those new diesel engines and only 20 new coaches. They also cancelled that BEMU project.

Do you not understand the reasons for not electrifying?? 
1. Money
2. Environment
3. Lack of Ridership
4. etc. 
Do some PROPER research before talking...

[Lex]

7 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

Do you not understand the reasons for not electrifying?? 
1. Money
2. Environment
3. Lack of Ridership
4. etc. 
Do some PROPER research before talking...

The first one comes down to will. I was born less than a decade after the stretch between Hicksville and Ronkonkoma was electrified, and east of Farmingdale, this stretch was merely single-tracked with sidings. The latter project was only somewhat cheaper than the last estimate for electrifying the rest of the Port Jefferson Branch, but finishing PJ electrification has never been considered a high priority, hence the lack of investment for the last 40+ years. Oyster Bay also has a short electrified portion and that's it, yet it's almost entirely double-tracked, which is insane when trains almost never run more frequently than every 120 minutes.

The third is hardly surprising when you lack the ability and/or will to provide even remotely better service, which is a common issue with diesel service, as they have (at best) mediocre C3 availability and laughably poor locomotive availability, hence the lack of service east of Ronkonkoma and along the aforementioned Oyster Bay Branch (which is further influenced by the flat junction in Mineola). This and the above create a negative feedback loop that could be addressed with greater electrification and a fleet expansion, among other things.

The second one is absolute bullshit. Diesels emit far more particulates than electric trains and require a far more finite power source with inherently terrible efficiency (internal combustion produces plenty of waste heat in addition to those aforementioned particulates).

[xD4nn]

40 minutes ago, Lex said:

The first one comes down to will. I was born less than a decade after the stretch between Hicksville and Ronkonkoma was electrified, and east of Farmingdale, this stretch was merely single-tracked with sidings. The latter project was only somewhat cheaper than the last estimate for electrifying the rest of the Port Jefferson Branch, but finishing PJ electrification has never been considered a high priority, hence the lack of investment for the last 40+ years. Oyster Bay also has a short electrified portion and that's it, yet it's almost entirely double-tracked, which is insane when trains almost never run more frequently than every 120 minutes.

The third is hardly surprising when you lack the ability and/or will to provide even remotely better service, which is a common issue with diesel service, as they have (at best) mediocre C3 availability and laughably poor locomotive availability, hence the lack of service east of Ronkonkoma and along the aforementioned Oyster Bay Branch (which is further influenced by the flat junction in Mineola). This and the above create a negative feedback loop that could be addressed with greater electrification and a fleet expansion, among other things.

The second one is absolute bullshit. Diesels emit far more particulates than electric trains and require a far more finite power source with inherently terrible efficiency (internal combustion produces plenty of waste heat in addition to those aforementioned particulates).

Electrification in the current day is very expensive and pointless... Oyster Bay lacks the ridership to be electrified... What I meant by environment is the environmental challenges for electrification. Many areas on the PJ branch are flood risk areas preventing electrification. There are also other environmental challenges. It is pointless to electrify more. If you really wanted to run more trains you could always buy more equipment.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, xD4nn said:

Electrification in the current day is very expensive and pointless... Oyster Bay lacks the ridership to be electrified... What I meant by environment is the environmental challenges for electrification. Many areas on the PJ branch are flood risk areas preventing electrification. There are also other environmental challenges. It is pointless to electrify more. If you really wanted to run more trains you could always buy more equipment.

Those fumes aren't good for you, you know.

[xD4nn]

10 hours ago, Lex said:

Those fumes aren't good for you, you know.

Trains produce much less fumes than cars and trucks...

[Lex]

5 hours ago, xD4nn said:

Trains produce much less fumes than cars and trucks...

Huh, I guess it worked.

Do you recall what happened to Broad Channel after Sandy hit? Maybe you could talk about what happened in Port Washington a little under three years ago? Is the Hudson Line protected by some magical barrier?

If flooding had really been such an issue for electrification, it would be an issue for general train service, and neither the Port Jefferson nor Montauk Branches would be safe from that, to say nothing of the aforementioned Hudson Line.

[xD4nn]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, Lex said:

Huh, I guess it worked.

Do you recall what happened to Broad Channel after Sandy hit? Maybe you could talk about what happened in Port Washington a little under three years ago? Is the Hudson Line protected by some magical barrier?

If flooding had really been such an issue for electrification, it would be an issue for general train service, and neither the Port Jefferson nor Montauk Branches would be safe from that, to say nothing of the aforementioned Hudson Line.

Montauk especially is a flood risk area. They flood yearly making electrification costly...

[xD4nn]

On 1/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, Lex said:

Huh, I guess it worked.

Do you recall what happened to Broad Channel after Sandy hit? Maybe you could talk about what happened in Port Washington a little under three years ago? Is the Hudson Line protected by some magical barrier?

If flooding had really been such an issue for electrification, it would be an issue for general train service, and neither the Port Jefferson nor Montauk Branches would be safe from that, to say nothing of the aforementioned Hudson Line.

You do not understand that electrification is costly and is not cost effective. Trains produce way less fumes then cars and trucks. If you really want to do something go regulate that instead.