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

[engineerboy6561]

On 1/29/2023 at 9:35 PM, 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).

Honestly it sounds like the ideal solution would be for the next order (M11/M11A) to be comprised of lightweight Euro-style stock with trap doors, a universal powertrain (25Hz/60Hz AC plus both varieties of third rail), and a dual mode option; that would basically let the units run anywhere along the NEC they want, as well as all over MNR/LIRR territory. If you go with something FLIRT-based that gets even easier, because the powertrain mostly lives in dedicated sub-units about 20' long that combine four small diesel engines to get 1500-2000kW available electric power in diesel territory. At that point you could probably even do a split MNR/LIRR/NJT order; the dual-mode equipment would be able to run on the third rail and under the wire where those options are available (conceivably at up to 125-150mph under wire; probably still limited to 100 on third rail (and in practice probably to 79 along most MNRR/LIRR routes)) and then up to 80-100mph on diesel.

The best part of that approach is that if/when the MTA and NJT add electrification along the entirety of their turf you can just drop the diesel power packs from the equation (or if fuel cell technology gets better we could replace the diesel power packs with fuel cell stack-based power packs; right now that's expensive as hell given that a 6kW fuel cell station goes for $27k, so a 6MW stack capable of running an 8 car train would cost like $27M off the Internet. Even if you assume a 30-50% discount from economies of scale and the contract being between large companies you'd still be looking at $10-15M extra per train for hydrogen power). Do a joint order of that MU between all three agencies in the NYC area plus SEPTA, use the cost savings from the order size to drive down unit cost, order enough trains for a meaningful service increase in the spots that need it, and then we can get to a place to start fixing the other issues.

Edited February 3, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

On 2/3/2023 at 1:06 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

Honestly it sounds like the ideal solution would be for the next order (M11/M11A) to be comprised of lightweight Euro-style stock with trap doors, a universal powertrain (25Hz/60Hz AC plus both varieties of third rail), and a dual mode option; that would basically let the units run anywhere along the NEC they want, as well as all over MNR/LIRR territory. If you go with something FLIRT-based that gets even easier, because the powertrain mostly lives in dedicated sub-units about 20' long that combine four small diesel engines to get 1500-2000kW available electric power in diesel territory. At that point you could probably even do a split MNR/LIRR/NJT order; the dual-mode equipment would be able to run on the third rail and under the wire where those options are available (conceivably at up to 125-150mph under wire; probably still limited to 100 on third rail (and in practice probably to 79 along most MNRR/LIRR routes)) and then up to 80-100mph on diesel.

The best part of that approach is that if/when the MTA and NJT add electrification along the entirety of their turf you can just drop the diesel power packs from the equation (or if fuel cell technology gets better we could replace the diesel power packs with fuel cell stack-based power packs; right now that's expensive as hell given that a 6kW fuel cell station goes for $27k, so a 6MW stack capable of running an 8 car train would cost like $27M off the Internet. Even if you assume a 30-50% discount from economies of scale and the contract being between large companies you'd still be looking at $10-15M extra per train for hydrogen power). Do a joint order of that MU between all three agencies in the NYC area plus SEPTA, use the cost savings from the order size to drive down unit cost, order enough trains for a meaningful service increase in the spots that need it, and then we can get to a place to start fixing the other issues.

None of what you said makes sense... Through running makes no sense. LIRR/MNRR will not be utilizing off the shelf since it does not meet their requirements and they are not married pairs.

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, xD4nn said:

None of what you said makes sense... Through running makes no sense. LIRR/MNRR will not be utilizing off the shelf since it does not meet their requirements and they are not married pairs.

In all seriousness, it makes no sense for MNRR/LIRR's next order to just be a slightly tweaked copy of the M9s; they're heavy and slow as hell. The main reason for the heavy/slow issue is that up until 2018 existing laws required all mainline rail cars to comply with a massive buff strength requirement that made them super heavy to build; that rule has been updated to allow much lighter stock that uses crash energy management structures (basically crumple zones) to provide the same level of protection in the event of something happening. The M8s weigh about 72 tons per car; the M9s are probably around 65 tons per car, if the NYPost article is to be believed. If we take advantage of the change in laws on the next order it's entirely possible that we could procure something in the realm of 40-45 tons per car, maybe 50 tons for cars that have to run on the NEC (which in turn would allow them to be built with 25Hz capability so they could run south of Harold under the wire; my understanding is that the M8s were almost built that way but the extra transformer weight would have pushed the M8s up to something like 80 tons).

Furthermore, as power electronics gets better and better it becomes possible to shave a lot of weight on overhead line units by replacing the existing 25- and 60-Hz transformers with solid-state power conversion systems; you'd still have transformers and inductors, but they'd be sized for several kHz operation instead of 25 or 60 Hz (which in turn would let them be 50-500 times smaller depending on the power system design; you'd basically be trading a ridiculous amount of copper and iron mass for some added complexity and a bunch of silicon and silicon carbide modules). If you combine solid-state power converters with the sort of construction allowed by the 2018 law change, you could basically adapt one of any number of European off-the-shelf designs to match whatever MNRR and LIRR want to do fairly easily. Married pairs and singles are nice from a redundancy perspective, 8- and 12-car sets work well because you can increase capacity and mobility through the set with them; if they're really that afraid of long sets then they could order a mix of 4-car sets and triplets; that would basically let them run 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12-car trains while still providing enough redundancy that a bad set wouldn't cost them an entire train, and still gaining some benefit in terms of usable passenger space from that integration. Even if they want to be truly conservative and stick with married pairs that can still be made to happen while achieving massive weight savings. That in turn should allow for significantly faster acceleration (though we'd also need to improve signaling and track top speeds to be able to truly take advantage of that increase).

I brought up dual-mode options because the weight savings from going to aluminum construction and solid-state power converters would easily be enough to fit something like a Cummins QSX15 under the cars (it weighs about two tons dry; with oil, coolant, and a few hundred gallons of diesel underneath it you're at about three tons, and when you add in the alternator and power converter that would let it drive the traction bus you're probably looking at about four to five tons all told); that would then let you stop running diesel locomotives in third rail or overhead line territory, reducing emissions and total costs as well. Furthermore, an M8 replacement that's 25Hz capable, has an option for trap doors, and has a diesel option is basically capable of running anywhere in the country and is especially useful in places that have partial electrification and partial high platforms, like the MBTA, SEPTA, and NJT.

What I'm proposing is basically that for the next procurement cycle for trains, MNR and LIRR design a unit that takes advantage of advances in power electronics and the 2018 FRA rule change to order trains that are significantly lighter and faster than the M9s are, and then work with NJT, SEPTA, CTDOT, the MBTA, and maybe MARC if they want in to place a very large combined order of that unit with different options (LIRR gets the third rail and dual mode versions with high platform doors; MNR gets third rail, catenary, and dual-mode versions with high-platform doors; NJT, the MBTA, and SEPTA all get catenary and dual-mode versions with trap doors) with a unit cost that gets pushed significantly down from where the M9 procurement was because of the sheer volume of trains being ordered, and MNR and LIRR take advantage of the reduced unit cost to order more trains than they would otherwise be able to afford as part of a fleet expansion program to allow for things like half-hourly service along the Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson branches with more direct trains into Penn and GCT from non-electrified territory. In the interim, if there was a regional rail reorganization of the sort that Alon Levy wants before procurement happens, then we just buy the units with pantographs, overhead line power converters, dual position third rail shoes, trap doors, and a Cummins engine and they can then go anywhere, offering the new agency full logistical freedom for how it chooses to structure service patterns. Like it's fairly ambitious as a plan goes, but significantly less ambitious than it sounds on the engineering side.

Edited February 8, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

16 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

In all seriousness, it makes no sense for MNRR/LIRR's next order to just be a slightly tweaked copy of the M9s; they're heavy and slow as hell. The main reason for the heavy/slow issue is that up until 2018 existing laws required all mainline rail cars to comply with a massive buff strength requirement that made them super heavy to build; that rule has been updated to allow much lighter stock that uses crash energy management structures (basically crumple zones) to provide the same level of protection in the event of something happening. The M8s weigh about 72 tons per car; the M9s are probably around 65 tons per car, if the NYPost article is to be believed. If we take advantage of the change in laws on the next order it's entirely possible that we could procure something in the realm of 40-45 tons per car, maybe 50 tons for cars that have to run on the NEC (which in turn would allow them to be built with 25Hz capability so they could run south of Harold under the wire; my understanding is that the M8s were almost built that way but the extra transformer weight would have pushed the M8s up to something like 80 tons).

Furthermore, as power electronics gets better and better it becomes possible to shave a lot of weight on overhead line units by replacing the existing 25- and 60-Hz transformers with solid-state power conversion systems; you'd still have transformers and inductors, but they'd be sized for several kHz operation instead of 25 or 60 Hz (which in turn would let them be 50-500 times smaller depending on the power system design; you'd basically be trading a ridiculous amount of copper and iron mass for some added complexity and a bunch of silicon and silicon carbide modules). If you combine solid-state power converters with the sort of construction allowed by the 2018 law change, you could basically adapt one of any number of European off-the-shelf designs to match whatever MNRR and LIRR want to do fairly easily. Married pairs and singles are nice from a redundancy perspective, 8- and 12-car sets work well because you can increase capacity and mobility through the set with them; if they're really that afraid of long sets then they could order a mix of 4-car sets and triplets; that would basically let them run 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12-car trains while still providing enough redundancy that a bad set wouldn't cost them an entire train, and still gaining some benefit in terms of usable passenger space from that integration. Even if they want to be truly conservative and stick with married pairs that can still be made to happen while achieving massive weight savings. That in turn should allow for significantly faster acceleration (though we'd also need to improve signaling and track top speeds to be able to truly take advantage of that increase).

I brought up dual-mode options because the weight savings from going to aluminum construction and solid-state power converters would easily be enough to fit something like a Cummins QSX15 under the cars (it weighs about two tons dry; with oil, coolant, and a few hundred gallons of diesel underneath it you're at about three tons, and when you add in the alternator and power converter that would let it drive the traction bus you're probably looking at about four to five tons all told); that would then let you stop running diesel locomotives in third rail or overhead line territory, reducing emissions and total costs as well. Furthermore, an M8 replacement that's 25Hz capable, has an option for trap doors, and has a diesel option is basically capable of running anywhere in the country and is especially useful in places that have partial electrification and partial high platforms, like the MBTA, SEPTA, and NJT.

What I'm proposing is basically that for the next procurement cycle for trains, MNR and LIRR design a unit that takes advantage of advances in power electronics and the 2018 FRA rule change to order trains that are significantly lighter and faster than the M9s are, and then work with NJT, SEPTA, CTDOT, the MBTA, and maybe MARC if they want in to place a very large combined order of that unit with different options (LIRR gets the third rail and dual mode versions with high platform doors; MNR gets third rail, catenary, and dual-mode versions with high-platform doors; NJT, the MBTA, and SEPTA all get catenary and dual-mode versions with trap doors) with a unit cost that gets pushed significantly down from where the M9 procurement was because of the sheer volume of trains being ordered, and MNR and LIRR take advantage of the reduced unit cost to order more trains than they would otherwise be able to afford as part of a fleet expansion program to allow for things like half-hourly service along the Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson branches with more direct trains into Penn and GCT from non-electrified territory. In the interim, if there was a regional rail reorganization of the sort that Alon Levy wants before procurement happens, then we just buy the units with pantographs, overhead line power converters, dual position third rail shoes, trap doors, and a Cummins engine and they can then go anywhere, offering the new agency full logistical freedom for how it chooses to structure service patterns. Like it's fairly ambitious as a plan goes, but significantly less ambitious than it sounds on the engineering side.

The MTA does know about the rule change. They will not buy off the shelf because it does not meet their requirements. 

[engineerboy6561]

12 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

The MTA does know about the rule change. They will not buy off the shelf because it does not meet their requirements. 

The first American agency to try to run a full service schedule with Euro EMUs is starting this year or next; the M7s are going to be up for replacement in the mid-2040s, by which time there will be twenty years of data demonstrating that modified Euro stock can do everything the MTA needs it to do faster, better, and more cheaply and efficiently than an order of updated M9s will; frankly at this point their requirements haven't meaningfully been updated in a very long time, and if they aren't updated by the mid-2040s will have gone from being merely conservative to actively self-defeating, and it's worth remembering this and bringing public pressure to bear on them in the mid-2040s when the M7s come up for replacement to get them to reconsider those requirements (quite frankly a new governance regime wouldn't be a bad thing, but that would require getting Albany to stop messing with the MTA, which is politically difficult if not impossible to achieve).

Edited February 8, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:27 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

The first American agency to try to run a full service schedule with Euro EMUs is starting this year or next; the M7s are going to be up for replacement in the mid-2040s, by which time there will be twenty years of data demonstrating that modified Euro stock can do everything the MTA needs it to do faster, better, and more cheaply and efficiently than an order of updated M9s will; frankly at this point their requirements haven't meaningfully been updated in a very long time, and if they aren't updated by the mid-2040s will have gone from being merely conservative to actively self-defeating, and it's worth remembering this and bringing public pressure to bear on them in the mid-2040s when the M7s come up for replacement to get them to reconsider those requirements (quite frankly a new governance regime wouldn't be a bad thing, but that would require getting Albany to stop messing with the MTA, which is politically difficult if not impossible to achieve).

Once again it does not meet LIRR's requirements. They do not fit, have different platform heights, are not married pairs, etc. I can go on and on and on.

[engineerboy6561]

3 hours ago, xD4nn said:

Once again it does not meet LIRR's requirements. They do not fit, have different platform heights, are not married pairs, etc. I can go on and on and on.

I don't think you're following what I'm saying either; most of the attributes that LIRR and MNR actually need (platform height, outer car dimensions, signaling system, etc.) can easily be accommodated by a new design based on an existing Euro platform; train platforms are fairly flexible in that regard. UK trains have different carriage lengths, widths, platform heights, etc. than continental European stuff does, continental Europe itself has like ten different signaling systems, and and most modern Euro designs are set up as modular platforms specifically to accommodate that sort of diversity. Like the difference between NYC and the EU is similar in magnitude to the difference between the UK and the EU, and most new UK trains are based on modified versions of common European trains.

For example, the Stadler FLIRT in its base form is 9'3"-9'5" wide and has a floor height of 600mm (23 inches) to match with the 550mm platform height common across most of Europe. That same train has been manufactured with widths ranging from 8'11" (UK, about even with A Division subway cars) to 10'6" (for Norway, also the maximum width of the M7s and M9s) and all the way out to 11'5" for use in Belarus, and floor heights up to at least 915mm (36 inches, UK version). Similarly, the Siemens Desiro can be manufactured with floor height ranging from 23 inches (European mainline) to 1.4m (55 inches, Russian version) and carbody width from 8'11" (UK) to 11'5" (Russian version). Most of the dimensions relevant to the LIRR land somewhere comfortably between UK railways and Russian railways, and a fair number of European train platforms have variants designed for both of those; developing an NYC-spec FLIRT or Desiro wouldn't be that hard for them, nor would an NYC-spec Aventra be hard for Bombardier to build.

In all seriousness, give me a week and access to Solidworks and I can whip up a pretty solid rendering of a FLIRT (or Aventra or Desiro) modified to fit the LIRR's platform height and loading gauge; give me a $750k power electronics budget, a mechanical engineer, a controls/embedded engineer, and a year and I can whip up a compact, lightweight power system capable of taking in 10-50kV any frequency plus 750V top- and bottom-contact third rail and providing 1MW continuous power per car (840kW continuous traction, 160kW HEP) None of this is that difficult; the only thing stopping there from being Northeast-compatible variants of most common Euro train families was pre-2018 FRA rules, and that obstacle is now gone.

Can you at least give me a list of things the LIRR needs (or believes it needs) that you believe Euro stock can't do?

Edited February 10, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

4 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I don't think you're following what I'm saying either; most of the attributes that LIRR and MNR actually need (platform height, outer car dimensions, signaling system, etc.) can easily be accommodated by a new design based on an existing Euro platform; train platforms are fairly flexible in that regard. UK trains have different carriage lengths, widths, platform heights, etc. than continental European stuff does, continental Europe itself has like ten different signaling systems, and and most modern Euro designs are set up as modular platforms specifically to accommodate that sort of diversity. Like the difference between NYC and the EU is similar in magnitude to the difference between the UK and the EU, and most new UK trains are based on modified versions of common European trains.

For example, the Stadler FLIRT in its base form is 9'3"-9'5" wide and has a floor height of 600mm (23 inches) to match with the 550mm platform height common across most of Europe. That same train has been manufactured with widths ranging from 8'11" (UK, about even with A Division subway cars) to 10'6" (for Norway, also the maximum width of the M7s and M9s) and all the way out to 11'5" for use in Belarus, and floor heights up to at least 915mm (36 inches, UK version). Similarly, the Siemens Desiro can be manufactured with floor height ranging from 23 inches (European mainline) to 1.4m (55 inches, Russian version) and carbody width from 8'11" (UK) to 11'5" (Russian version). Most of the dimensions relevant to the LIRR land somewhere comfortably between UK railways and Russian railways, and a fair number of European train platforms have variants designed for both of those; developing an NYC-spec FLIRT or Desiro wouldn't be that hard for them, nor would an NYC-spec Aventra be hard for Bombardier to build.

In all seriousness, give me a week and access to Solidworks and I can whip up a pretty solid rendering of a FLIRT (or Aventra or Desiro) modified to fit the LIRR's platform height and loading gauge; give me a $750k power electronics budget, a mechanical engineer, a controls/embedded engineer, and a year and I can whip up a compact, lightweight power system capable of taking in 10-50kV any frequency plus 750V top- and bottom-contact third rail and providing 1MW continuous power per car (840kW continuous traction, 160kW HEP) None of this is that difficult; the only thing stopping there from being Northeast-compatible variants of most common Euro train families was pre-2018 FRA rules, and that obstacle is now gone.

Can you at least give me a list of things the LIRR needs (or believes it needs) that you believe Euro stock can't do?

LIRR is looking for married pairs... All Euro stock is not married pairs. In addition, since the platform heights do not match, you have to jack up the LIRR platform height which results in it not being able to fit in ESA. Off the shelf European trains are off the table and will not be considered.

[Lex]

10 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

LIRR is looking for married pairs... All Euro stock is not married pairs. In addition, since the platform heights do not match, you have to jack up the LIRR platform height which results in it not being able to fit in ESA. Off the shelf European trains are off the table and will not be considered.

Clearly, you didn't read much of any of that reply.

Let me point out that in recent years, the subway has dealt with married pairs and mere units assembled to form trains in addition to linked sets. If the subway and its significantly more demanding environment can make the transition, why can't the railroads?

[engineerboy6561]

6 hours ago, xD4nn said:

LIRR is looking for married pairs... All Euro stock is not married pairs. In addition, since the platform heights do not match, you have to jack up the LIRR platform height which results in it not being able to fit in ESA. Off the shelf European trains are off the table and will not be considered.

I don't think you read a damn word I said; a FLIRT or Desiro with a 10' width at the door, a 10'6" width at the beltline, a 48" floor height and a 12'10" overall height to clear ESA restrictions would be trivially easy for Stadler or Siemens to make. Most of the Desiro UK units are also short sets of 3-5 cars with flat fronts designed to let people walk between sets; dropping a center car to make married pairs is also trivial if so required. Like the LIRR could literally take the Class 450 Desiro design from the UK, drop the trailer cars from the set to make a 2MW married pair, widen it about 9-12 inches, lengthen the car bodies to 85', update the signaling system to ACSES/LIRR pulse code, and be done with it; you wouldn't even need to lower the roof because the British loading gauge tops their trains out at 12'4". I'm pretty sure Siemens would happily do that for a customer ordering several hundred railcars; furthermore, the Desiro UK also comes in a dual voltage version that can handle 25kV AC and third rail (because Thameslink uses a mishmash of old rail lines electrified to various standards), so it wouldn't even be that hard to get a train that can fit through ESA with pantographs on it, which means you could totally order one MU to rule them all (25-60Hz AC, top contact third rail, bottom contact third rail, trap doors, underslung diesel engine for branch lines, and ability to fit through ESA) and have the weight for the whole thing come in at like 50 tons per car.

[xD4nn]

14 hours ago, Lex said:

Clearly, you didn't read much of any of that reply.

Let me point out that in recent years, the subway has dealt with married pairs and mere units assembled to form trains in addition to linked sets. If the subway and its significantly more demanding environment can make the transition, why can't the railroads?

Subways don't need to change their train lengths... You do not understand how LIRR operations work. I suggest you speak to someone who works there.

[xD4nn]

7 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I don't think you read a damn word I said; a FLIRT or Desiro with a 10' width at the door, a 10'6" width at the beltline, a 48" floor height and a 12'10" overall height to clear ESA restrictions would be trivially easy for Stadler or Siemens to make. Most of the Desiro UK units are also short sets of 3-5 cars with flat fronts designed to let people walk between sets; dropping a center car to make married pairs is also trivial if so required. Like the LIRR could literally take the Class 450 Desiro design from the UK, drop the trailer cars from the set to make a 2MW married pair, widen it about 9-12 inches, lengthen the car bodies to 85', update the signaling system to ACSES/LIRR pulse code, and be done with it; you wouldn't even need to lower the roof because the British loading gauge tops their trains out at 12'4". I'm pretty sure Siemens would happily do that for a customer ordering several hundred railcars; furthermore, the Desiro UK also comes in a dual voltage version that can handle 25kV AC and third rail (because Thameslink uses a mishmash of old rail lines electrified to various standards), so it wouldn't even be that hard to get a train that can fit through ESA with pantographs on it, which means you could totally order one MU to rule them all (25-60Hz AC, top contact third rail, bottom contact third rail, trap doors, underslung diesel engine for branch lines, and ability to fit through ESA) and have the weight for the whole thing come in at like 50 tons per car.

You cannot change the platform height without redesigning the whole thing... Off the shelf European trains will never work. I suggest you go and speed with someone who works at LIRR.

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, xD4nn said:

You cannot change the platform height without redesigning the whole thing... Off the shelf European trains will never work. I suggest you go and speed with someone who works at LIRR.

Except they already have; the same core train platform is available in variations ranging from 60' to 85' long, 8'11" to 11'5" wide and 12'4" to 14'5" tall with floor heights ranging between 1'11" and 4'7". Like we know a Desiro or FLIRT Northeast is possible because both platforms have been used to produce trains both smaller and larger than LIRR loading gauge, and those trains have run just fine with no issues. A Desiro Northeast or FLIRT Northeast would be a new sub-product based on the same platform, in much the same way that the Audi A4, Q5, and S8 are all sub-products based on VW Group's MLB platform, and while I'll give you that you couldn't just drop a European mainline version of the Desiro or FLIRT onto LIRR without running into a host of issues, a Desiro Northeast or FLIRT Northeast wouldn't require that much new design effort.

To stretch the analogy a bit further, you're basically telling me that the Audi Q7 doesn't exist and can't exist in any reasonable universe because you've only ever seen a Q5, and there's no way you can make something Q7 sized on the same platform as a Q5; I legitimately don't buy it, especially given that Buy America means that construction of a Desiro or FLIRT Northeast would require the trains be built over here anyway and so they'd be either building a new facility or significantly retooling their existing one to work on that contract. They've built Desiros with 85' long cars before; they've built full FLIRT sets that are 170' long (the same length as a married pair of M-series MUs); they've built both types of train with both lower and higher platform heights than we have in the US, and it wouldn't really be that hard for them to do it with specifications to match Northeastern operating conditions.

Seriously, I work for a company that makes large-scale solar inverters, and while I can't talk about details it's totally normal and common for different products of the same family to share a shitton of engineering work and design underpinnings. That sort of sharing means that the effort to develop a new product or variant based on an existing family is far lower than that required to design that product from scratch, and the development time for Siemens, Alstom or Stadler for an M11 with European underpinnings and aluminum construction would probably be the same as or less than the development time for Kawasaki to create an M11 that's basically just an M9 with new LCD screens.

It also wouldn't surprise me if LIRR thinks they're too special and unique to benefit from modern things like aluminum construction and solid-state power supplies (because by American standards NYC-area services are far and away the best passenger rail in the country), but compared to NYC's actual peers in public transportation (London, Paris, Tokyo) we're an obsolete embarrassment.

Edited February 10, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Except they already have; the same core train platform is available in variations ranging from 60' to 85' long, 8'11" to 11'5" wide and 12'4" to 14'5" tall with floor heights ranging between 1'11" and 4'7". Like we know a Desiro or FLIRT Northeast is possible because both platforms have been used to produce trains both smaller and larger than LIRR loading gauge, and those trains have run just fine with no issues. A Desiro Northeast or FLIRT Northeast would be a new sub-product based on the same platform, in much the same way that the Audi A4, Q5, and S8 are all sub-products based on VW Group's MLB platform, and while I'll give you that you couldn't just drop a European mainline version of the Desiro or FLIRT onto LIRR without running into a host of issues, a Desiro Northeast or FLIRT Northeast wouldn't require that much new design effort.

To stretch the analogy a bit further, you're basically telling me that the Audi Q7 doesn't exist and can't exist in any reasonable universe because you've only ever seen a Q5, and there's no way you can make something Q7 sized on the same platform as a Q5; I legitimately don't buy it, especially given that Buy America means that construction of a Desiro or FLIRT Northeast would require the trains be built over here anyway and so they'd be either building a new facility or significantly retooling their existing one to work on that contract. They've built Desiros with 85' long cars before; they've built full FLIRT sets that are 170' long (the same length as a married pair of M-series MUs); they've built both types of train with both lower and higher platform heights than we have in the US, and it wouldn't really be that hard for them to do it with specifications to match Northeastern operating conditions.

Seriously, I work for a company that makes large-scale solar inverters, and while I can't talk about details it's totally normal and common for different products of the same family to share a shitton of engineering work and design underpinnings. That sort of sharing means that the effort to develop a new product or variant based on an existing family is far lower than that required to design that product from scratch, and the development time for Siemens, Alstom or Stadler for an M11 with European underpinnings and aluminum construction would probably be the same as or less than the development time for Kawasaki to create an M11 that's basically just an M9 with new LCD screens.

It also wouldn't surprise me if LIRR thinks they're too special and unique to benefit from modern things like aluminum construction and solid-state power supplies (because by American standards NYC-area services are far and away the best passenger rail in the country), but compared to NYC's actual peers in public transportation (London, Paris, Tokyo) we're an obsolete embarrassment.

Talk to a WORKER first...

[engineerboy6561]

31 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

Talk to a WORKER first...

What about this has you so worked up, and why are you so afraid of running something different and better? Like the existing buff strength standard was questionable at best, and lighter stock with crumple zones should actually be safer in a collision because less energy is being expended, and it's not like American stock is actually going to protect you if something happens 

Edited February 11, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[danielhg121]

 

46 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

What about this has you so worked up, and why are you so afraid of running something different and better? Like the existing buff strength standard was questionable at best, and lighter stock with crumple zones should actually be safer in a collision because less energy is being expended, and it's not like American stock is actually going to protect you if something happens 

His narrow-mindedness is truly appalling to say the least to the point where he doesn't have much of an argument. 

While I can't comment on the technical specifications you mentioned, I've heard a locomotive engineer say that they've never ran late due to a slow-accelerating train. Even if the LIRR were to buy lighter trains which could accelerate faster, I'm not sure if they would upgrade the power stations located throughout the island. Allegedly, the M7's can accelerate faster but it's speculated that they've been downgraded for reliability purposes. LIRR also wouldn't want to damage its OTP (on-time performance) by cutting schedule time and scheduled run times have only gotten longer as the years go by. So I'm not sure if this is the same LIRR that would buy off-the-shelf European trains but here's hoping to that.   

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, danielhg121 said:

 

His narrow-mindedness is truly appalling to say the least to the point where he doesn't have much of an argument. 

While I can't comment on the technical specifications you mentioned, I've heard a locomotive engineer say that they've never ran late due to a slow-accelerating train. Even if the LIRR were to buy lighter trains which could accelerate faster, I'm not sure if they would upgrade the power stations located throughout the island. Allegedly, the M7's can accelerate faster but it's speculated that they've been downgraded for reliability purposes. LIRR also wouldn't want to damage its OTP (on-time performance) by cutting schedule time and scheduled run times have only gotten longer as the years go by. So I'm not sure if this is the same LIRR that would buy off-the-shelf European trains but here's hoping to that.   

That's fair; I was on that same Reddit thread where that came up, and that makes sense. As far as faster acceleration is concerned, a lighter train actually needs less power to achieve the same acceleration (force is mass times acceleration, and also torque times wheel radius, which means a train that weighs 20-30% less needs 20-30% less peak torque (and thus 20-30% less power draw) to achieve the same acceleration, or can accelerate 20-30% faster with the same power draw as the M9s. Logistically, it strikes me that the way to handle this would be to actually put in the work to raise MAS on a lot of the portions of track that are currently rated for 40-45mph and get them to 60-70mph so you can actually keep the schedules as written, then move the M7s and M9s to semi-fast and express services where possible (if the train is running express along segments of track whose MAS doesn't actually change that much, then it only has to accelerate at the beginning of each segment, and so the cumulative impact of the slower acceleration on the timetable is much lower). If we're really serious about making a half-and-half fleet work then you'd either need to push the M7s and M9s onto the expresses to minimize the impact of slower acceleration, or just putting the old stock primarily on specific branches that don't run much on the mainline (Far Rockaway, Port Washington, Long Beach) in order to keep the mainline clear for optimized timetabling on longer runs that could benefit more from decreased travel times. That also means that you'd only need to beat the shit out of the M7s and M9s west of Jamaica (so for 2-4 accelerations each way out of 10-15 total accelerations), which means that you'd still get decent reliability out of them if you did it that way.

Edited February 11, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

On 2/10/2023 at 8:01 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

What about this has you so worked up, and why are you so afraid of running something different and better? Like the existing buff strength standard was questionable at best, and lighter stock with crumple zones should actually be safer in a collision because less energy is being expended, and it's not like American stock is actually going to protect you if something happens 

You don't understand how railroad operations work. I'm tired of attempting to explain how things work when you refuse to accept them. Talk to a railroad worker and maybe you'll finally understand how the railroad works.

[engineerboy6561]

49 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

You don't understand how railroad operations work. I'm tired of attempting to explain how things work when you refuse to accept them. Talk to a railroad worker and maybe you'll finally understand how the railroad works.

I don't know that you do either (unless you work for them), and you haven't explained a damn thing; you've made a bunch of assertions that don't really hang together (some of which are provably false) and then gotten really offended that I won't take you at your word. I'm not entirely convinced that it would cause that much pain for the LIRR to adapt its operations to what it can buy off the shelf (though I'm open to being convinced that it wouldn't be worth the cost and hassle to do so), but I remain completely unconvinced that faster, lighter trains are incompatible with LIRR's operations as they are (and fairly certain it would be a small extra cost for a lot of operational breathing room). Amtrak is basically ordering modified OBB Railjet sets to replace the existing Amfleet sets, and the new Acelas are basically a very lightly modified Avelia Horizon, which is the new generation of France's TGV stock (with far fewer modifications than the original Acela sets had); TEXRail has ordered (and Caltrain is ordering) basically off-the-shelf Euro stock with a few tweaks, so the LIRR is very much the odd one out here.

The other thing is that there are no American peer railroads to the LIRR/MNR/NJT that we can evaluate against, because most American commuter rail systems have far more interaction with freight, are unelectrified, and for the most part are a joke. The closest peer on this continent we're going to have is GO Transit sometime in the next three to five years once they finish electrifying everything and increasing branch frequencies to every 15-30 minutes. Honestly the closest peer NYC has for commuter rail is London, and for the LIRR that would probably be the pile of franchises in the UK that used to be bundled as Network Southeast under British Rail (all of which basically run with Euro stock that's been modified to match the UK loading gauge, platform height, and capacity needs). Like the Brits take trains from continental Europe, modify them significantly to match the smaller loading gauge and higher platform heights, and then run them; we would basically be doing the same (take a design from continental Europe, modify it to meet AAR Plate B, possibly tweak it to be a married pair of 85' cars, and raise the floor to 48" for level boarding).

Edited February 13, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[xD4nn]

On 2/12/2023 at 8:10 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

I don't know that you do either (unless you work for them), and you haven't explained a damn thing; you've made a bunch of assertions that don't really hang together (some of which are provably false) and then gotten really offended that I won't take you at your word. I'm not entirely convinced that it would cause that much pain for the LIRR to adapt its operations to what it can buy off the shelf (though I'm open to being convinced that it wouldn't be worth the cost and hassle to do so), but I remain completely unconvinced that faster, lighter trains are incompatible with LIRR's operations as they are (and fairly certain it would be a small extra cost for a lot of operational breathing room). Amtrak is basically ordering modified OBB Railjet sets to replace the existing Amfleet sets, and the new Acelas are basically a very lightly modified Avelia Horizon, which is the new generation of France's TGV stock (with far fewer modifications than the original Acela sets had); TEXRail has ordered (and Caltrain is ordering) basically off-the-shelf Euro stock with a few tweaks, so the LIRR is very much the odd one out here.

The other thing is that there are no American peer railroads to the LIRR/MNR/NJT that we can evaluate against, because most American commuter rail systems have far more interaction with freight, are unelectrified, and for the most part are a joke. The closest peer on this continent we're going to have is GO Transit sometime in the next three to five years once they finish electrifying everything and increasing branch frequencies to every 15-30 minutes. Honestly the closest peer NYC has for commuter rail is London, and for the LIRR that would probably be the pile of franchises in the UK that used to be bundled as Network Southeast under British Rail (all of which basically run with Euro stock that's been modified to match the UK loading gauge, platform height, and capacity needs). Like the Brits take trains from continental Europe, modify them significantly to match the smaller loading gauge and higher platform heights, and then run them; we would basically be doing the same (take a design from continental Europe, modify it to meet AAR Plate B, possibly tweak it to be a married pair of 85' cars, and raise the floor to 48" for level boarding).

You don't understand how the LIRR works. You provided examples of how other railroads work but they are OTHER railroads. This is the LIRR. Go speak to a worker and understand how it works...

[GojiMet86]

52 minutes ago, xD4nn said:

You don't understand how the LIRR works. You provided examples of how other railroads work but they are OTHER railroads. This is the LIRR. Go speak to a worker and understand how it works...

 

......How old are you again?

[TheMTAEmprie]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:56 PM, GojiMet86 said:

 

......How old are you again?

Well, I see your sense of humor hasn't changed....

[GojiMet86]

3 hours ago, TheMTAEmprie said:

Well, I see your sense of humor hasn't changed....

I see your spamming behavior hasn't either.

[TMC]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:56 PM, GojiMet86 said:

.....How old are you again?

He's a teenager who says this stuff all the time. Just so everyone knows, the railroad workers he cites are actually not opposed to through-running and electrification, I know the same people he apparently speaks with.

[TMC]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:04 PM, xD4nn said:

You don't understand how the LIRR works.

What's not important is how it works, what's important is changing dysfunctional practices.