Passenger Trains > NJ Transit issues RFP for Multilevel III EMU’s

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/commuter-regional/nj-transit-to-order-113-double-deck-emu-cars.html

Siemens doesn’t have anything rapidly available but Stadler does have the new plant in Utah and the double-deck design for Caltrain.

Anyone have thoughts on who will bid?

Posted from iPhone

Maybe that Chinese outfit to build similar trailer cars for SEPTA.

Might be Bombardier since that is who NJT has privately been talking to apparently.

Bombardier definitely has the basic car shell design.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/17 10:37 by Jishnu.

Given the weight of the un-powered NJT multilevels, putting propulsion in the shells will be a challenge.

Wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the platforms at NY Penn to take longer conventional NJT multi-levels with ALPs?

RFP also includes dual powered units. The last time NJT ordered dual powered units, it was a joint order with Montreal commuter agency. Perhaps this would be an opportunity for Amtrak and/or New York State to order new dual power units for Empire Service and for MTA to order new dual power units for Metro North and the LIRR.

swirsk53 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RFP also includes dual powered units. The last
> time NJT ordered dual powered units, it was a
> joint order with Montreal commuter agency. Perhaps
> this would be an opportunity for Amtrak and/or New
> York State to order new dual power units for
> Empire Service and for MTA to order new dual power
> units for Metro North and the LIRR.

No.

Because MNRR needs third rail dual power unit, whereas NJT needs catenary dual power units. Very different things.

Platform length at NYP is dictated by overall layout and placement of tunnels and leads. Longer platforms don't really seem to be an option.

NJT, probably at Amtrak's urging, doesn't want to degrade their performance any further with more MLV/loco-hauled slug trains.
The performance difference with Arrow EMU's is quite evident. Trenton - NYPS, with 3 fewer local stops into the early 1990's, took 70 minutes. Now it is more like 95 - 100 minutes.

LIRR and MN policy is single level EMU's for their electric service. All LIRR platforms in NYPS can handle 12 cars.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/17 12:33 by joemvcnj.

The acceleration difference between the ancient Arrow III and the newer ALP46A units with 8-9 cars is like day and night. With the Arrows, you feel like you're in a rocket.

The problem with NJT is that their planning department had their heads up a very dark place when they decided that performance did not matter, in arriving at the decision to go for push-pulls with very heavy cars.

Now that they are stuck with several hundred heavy trailer cars, a monument to the oversized ego of the then CEO, they are trying to make lemonade out of the lemons that they've got. And that is what they will get. Slightly better performance, but nothing like what they could have if instead of trying to be original they had simply followed the more logical approach of their brethren across the river.

But then again, sometimes it seems that NJT management thinks they are running a railroad in the sticks of Iowa too, so who knows what they think?

Re power collection, I think back to the Pennsy's DD-1 straight electrics. They were third rail on Long Island and the initial PRR electrification to Manhattan Transfer.

Other PRR electric equipment like the MP-54 MU cars were equipped with pantographs for use on PRR and with third rail power collection for use on the LIRR.

NH EP-5 jets, and I think the EP-4 electrics were equipped for both catenary and third rail.

Even the FL-9's, though intended for diesel or third rail, had a small pantograph like device for overhead power collection across third rail gaps at Grand Central and in the Park Avenue tunnels.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the weight of the un-powered NJT
> multilevels, putting propulsion in the shells will
> be a challenge.
>
> Wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the platforms at
> NY Penn to take longer conventional NJT
> multi-levels with ALPs?

Nope. Interlocking switches right at the end of the platforms prevent any lengthening of the platforms. The tunnels on the other side of the interlockings prevent the switches being moved further out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/17 14:45 by 3rd_Raton.

< Other PRR electric equipment like the MP-54 MU cars were equipped with pantographs for use on PRR and with third rail power collection for use on the LIRR. >

2 entirely separate fleets. They were not dual-voltage. The Pennsy MP54 actually outlived the LIRR cousins by about 10 years (1971 - 1981).

Looking through it, Siemens is likely booked up with the California/Midwest single-levels order and they don’t have a ready US-optimized design.

Bombardier is having intense trouble with their current contracts (Bart especially) and I don’t think they could handle it. In addition, as is well pointed out in this thread, the current bi-levels are far too heavy. Virtually no way to get traction equipment in there without a severe weight penalty.

The only two left are Stadler which has a ready-to-use design that they are constructing for caltrain, and CRRC. However, due to the current political climate I doubt CRRC would be allowed to bid.

Posted from iPhone

Is there a prototype electric MU that anybody has constructed for this request?

The Alstom TGV uses powered coaches, but relies on powered cabs.

Posted from Android

Nope!

The only double-deck (and technically actually gallery-car) EMU's around in the US are the Nippon Sharyo ones for Metra and the South Shore. I'm not sure those would fit within the NY Penn Station height requirements.

All other EMU procurement so far has been for single level cars (MN M8, Silverliner V, etc.)

Though...that does remind me that Hyundai Rotem has a strong EMU game and a proven platform with the Silverliner V, as does Kawasaki with the M8 and M9.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is there a prototype electric MU that anybody has
> constructed for this request?
>
> The Alstom TGV uses powered coaches, but relies on
> powered cabs.
>
> Posted from Android

swirsk53 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Even the FL-9's, though intended for diesel or
> third rail, had a small pantograph like device for
> overhead power collection across third rail gaps
> at Grand Central and in the Park Avenue tunnels.

Very different. The tiny pantograph was for 600vdc collection - essentially a third rail shoe on the roof. Far less complicated electrically than collecting 25Kvac and converting it for propulsion.

Dave

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NJT, probably at Amtrak's urging, doesn't want to
> degrade their performance any further with more
> MLV/loco-hauled slug trains.
>
> The performance difference with Arrow EMU's is
> quite evident. Trenton - NYPS, with 3 fewer local
> stops into the early 1990's, took 70 minutes. Now
> it is more like 95 - 100 minutes.

???

The degraded performance comes from the Jersey Arrows being downgraded from 100 mph to 80 mph due to their wheels/trucks. That added 8 minutes to the schedule all by itself. The rest of the schedule slowdown comes from Secaucus, Newark Airport, and Hamilton being added to the schedule and schedule pad Hamilton to Trenton to boost "on-time" performance. Amtrak suffered the same schedule degradation with Secaucus Transfer opening and it doesn't even stop there. Went from 12/13 minutes to 16/17 minutes Newark to NYPS.

3rd_Raton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Given the weight of the un-powered NJT
> > multilevels, putting propulsion in the shells
> will
> > be a challenge.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be cheaper to extend the platforms
> at
> > NY Penn to take longer conventional NJT
> > multi-levels with ALPs?
>
> Nope. Interlocking switches right at the end of
> the platforms prevent any lengthening of the
> platforms. The tunnels on the other side of the
> interlockings prevent the switches being moved
> further out.

That isn't correct.

The platforms most certainly could get longer, and the ladder tracks shifted, were anyone interested in spending the money. You realize LIRR did exactly that to lengthen Tracks 20 and 21 to 12 cars, right? As a basic outline, you extend Track 1 into Track 3D next to M ladder and rejoin it near 129-133 slip. Then you sever Track 2 from U ladder and join it to M ladder. Then you extend Track 3 into the 141 turnout and Track 4 into 135-141 slip and remove 137 turnout off of Track 5. It's not simple, but it's hardly as though it can't be done. We did exactly this sort of thing on the north side for LIRR.

NJT could also extend the east end of the platforms under 7th Avenue into the spaces between columns reserved for leads to future tunnels under 31st Street.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> joemvcnj Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > NJT, probably at Amtrak's urging, doesn't want
> to
> > degrade their performance any further with more
> > MLV/loco-hauled slug trains.
> >
> > The performance difference with Arrow EMU's is
> > quite evident. Trenton - NYPS, with 3 fewer
> local
> > stops into the early 1990's, took 70 minutes.
> Now
> > it is more like 95 - 100 minutes.
>
> ???
>
> The degraded performance comes from the Jersey
> Arrows being downgraded from 100 mph to 80 mph due
> to their wheels/trucks. That added 8 minutes to
> the schedule all by itself. The rest of the
> schedule slowdown comes from Secaucus, Newark
> Airport, and Hamilton being added to the schedule
> and schedule pad Hamilton to Trenton to boost
> "on-time" performance. Amtrak suffered the same
> schedule degradation with Secaucus Transfer
> opening and it doesn't even stop there. Went from
> 12/13 minutes to 16/17 minutes Newark to NYPS.

Hard to believe it's been that long since running time between NYP and Newark has been lengthened....

Not sure if NJT will be able to create an EMU as good as what the Arrows are/were. The acceleration and ride quality is superior. NJT has gone for the investment of multilevel push-pull than th efficiency of what an improved EMU could offer - faster running times, leading to better schedules, and perhaps less "congestion." 

Why the need for more dual modes? Aside from assigning them to the NJCL (one seat ride to NYP), where else to put them? Atlantic City Line? Raritan Valley line is constrained from additional trains due to capacity constraints into NYP. Can't imagine any capital money  in near term that would allow the loop tracks to be built at Secaucus, and that shouldn't happen anyway till Hudson River tunnel capacity is fully upgraded (eg new tunnels and old ones rehabbed). So why the push for more expensive electrics in the form of dual modes? Expensive to buy and expensive to maintain. I understand fleet standardization, but still.....NJT will always need a diesel. Curious as to the rationale. Wishful thinking, but I'd like to see NJT restore rail passenger service to interior Monmouth, Ocean, Middlesex (the MOM rail line), or re-establishment of NJT service on the West Trenton line to allow for some relief on the NEC. Extending back to Philipsburg would be third on the list. All would require BIG MONEY.......but so jas NJT's fleet renewal. All these services would dump into Newark, or possibly Hoboken, which is under utilized at present.