|
|
| Re: Usage of Arrow III (973918) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1113463) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 17:48:45 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by WillD on Sun Oct 30 17:34:32 2011. Wow thanks, so I guess the original source was correct. Interesting choice for a section of a line that probably doesn't see trains traveling much faster than 80mph. |
|
|
| (1113465) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Oct 30 17:56:03 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 16:54:22 2011. Why the bump? |
|
|
| (1113466) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Dr. Casca on Sun Oct 30 18:12:04 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Sep 1 18:36:42 2010. It's an Interurban! No, it's a modern streetcar! No, it's Stadtbahn? I suppose... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1113467) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 18:25:58 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 30 17:06:08 2011. Well they could, if they had a mechanical department change every transformer tap manually once they rolled past the phase break. |
|
|
| (1113469) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:37:11 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Oct 30 17:56:03 2011. I was trying to figure out why exactly the current changes south of Aberdeen-Matawan, turns out that it's somehow cheaper for NJT to have 25kV power. |
|
|
| (1113470) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:38:38 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:37:11 2011. Too bad Amtrak backed out of converting the corridor to 25kV to match up with the Midtown Direct and NJCL, it's part of the reason why I wouldn't count on the Gateway Project ever coming to fruition. |
|
|
| (1113471) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 18:47:38 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:38:38 2011. Maybe NJT should have converted the M&E to 11kV 25Hz instead.But think about the kind of bizarre mindset in New Jersey; they had the Arrow Is back in the late 60s/early 70s, yet never thought of converting them to run on the 3kV DC so that the Erie-Lackawanna could use them. Over in France, they have MUs that can run on both 1.5kV DC and 25kV 50Hz AC; no reason to not have converted the MUs instead of bothering to convert the infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1113472) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 30 18:57:24 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Wed Sep 1 20:02:54 2010. Been there..coffee was great..for 7-11,that is. |
|
|
| (1113480) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 30 19:29:44 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:37:11 2011. Indeed, 25K 60Hz power requires less infrastructure, especially those converters Amtrak needs to change it to 25Hz. |
|
|
| (1113482) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 19:32:20 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 18:47:38 2011. Maybe NJT should have converted the M&E to 11kV 25Hz instead.Yeah, but you can't blame them, they didn't expect that Amtrak would back out for whatever reason. But think about the kind of bizarre mindset in New Jersey; they had the Arrow Is back in the late 60s/early 70s, yet never thought of converting them to run on the 3kV DC so that the Erie-Lackawanna could use them. Over in France, they have MUs that can run on both 1.5kV DC and 25kV 50Hz AC; no reason to not have converted the MUs instead of bothering to convert the infrastructure. Good post, but can't the M2/M4/M6/M8 all run on two power currents too? The Arrow III is one of a kind in the tri-state area apparently, built like a commuter car, but almost accelerates and brakes as fast a subway car yet still smoothly, I'm not sure if it's because of the different power sources or different company operating procedures, but they're also much quicker than the M7. It's too bad that they can't operate the Midtown Direct locals where they'd be most ideal, and that NJT prefers to operate push-pulls on the NEC over them for whatever reason. I also don't know why NJT decided not to use the external electric destination signs they had anymore. |
|
|
| (1113489) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Sun Oct 30 19:53:06 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 18:37:11 2011. OIC. |
|
|
| (1113500) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sun Oct 30 20:52:56 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 18:47:38 2011. It was Gibbs and Hill's study on the subject that said to dump 3kv.The choices it looked at were: * 12.5kv 60hz. * 25kv 60hz. * Ditching electric for dual mode (600v) diesel operation. They explicitly ruled out multisystem MUs for some reason I don't get. The basic thought was since the NEC was 'going to be 25kv' that they should repower at 25kv. Moral of the story: watch out for stupid consultants. The other issue was the 3kv substations were all SHOT by the time they made a decision. They were maintenance bears, and there was serious talk about converting them to solid state, though that fell through after the decision to go AC was made. The stupid thing was every time NJT ordered MUs, GE offered them multi voltage capability, and every time NJT turned it down. They didn't even consider adding it during the rebuild. Whomever does equipment planning for NJT is a fucking idiot. (Though the LIRR's handling of the M-1s near the end was braindead also) |
|
|
| (1113501) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sun Oct 30 20:54:02 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 30 19:29:44 2011. But it was 12.5kv 60 hz years ago. The whole electrification was BUILT to be either 12.5 or 25kv. |
|
|
| (1113502) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 20:55:07 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by nasadowsk on Sun Oct 30 20:52:56 2011. You took the thoughts right outta my mind. The more I learn about the NJT circus, the more I grit my teeth.As for "multi-voltage capability", they sure didn't mind spending $12 million per unit for the ALP-45DPs that were always going to see limited use. Go figger. |
|
|
| (1113504) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 21:00:58 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 19:32:20 2011. Yeah, but you can't blame them, they didn't expect that Amtrak would back out for whatever reasonSure they could have expected it; they knew what kind of games were going on in DC with Amtrak. And even barring that, the MUs that GE were offering still could have been bought with on-the-fly multi-voltage switchover capability; certainly the single-unit locomotives have them, and the MU precedent always existed on the New Haven Line. can't the M2/M4/M6/M8 all run on two power currents too? Exactly my point. The Arrow III is one of a kind in the tri-state area apparently, built like a commuter car, but almost accelerates and brakes as fast a subway car yet still smoothly, I'm not sure if it's because of the different power sources or different company operating procedures, but they're also much quicker than the M7. It's too bad that they can't operate the Midtown Direct locals where they'd be most ideal, and that NJT prefers to operate push-pulls on the NEC over them for whatever reason. I also don't know why NJT decided not to use the external electric destination signs they had anymore. Who knows what goes on at NJT. They junked the Arrow IIs after 23 years without rebuilding them too. The IIIs should have had the voltage-switchover capability built in during the '92-93 rebuild (it's not a new thing), and not left one truck on the MUs without traction motors (don't know if that is the primary cause of the IIIs no longer being able to run at 100 mph, but it seemed to contribute); and since the Comet IIIs proved that the "long door" concept worked (which got retired after 20 years for no good reason), they should have had those installed on the Arrows as well so that they could have had push-button door operation at low platforms as well as high. |
|
|
| (1113508) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Oct 30 21:30:42 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 18:47:38 2011. Why would NJT want to convert the M&E to 25hz when 60hz offers the same interoperability so long as the voltage remains around 12kv? |
|
|
| (1113519) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Sun Oct 30 23:25:16 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 30 19:32:20 2011. . . . and that NJT prefers to operate push-pulls on the NEC over them for whatever reason.Correct me if I am wrong. Doesn’t the FRA inspection regulation scheduling classify MU cars as locomotives instead of classifying them as passenger cars? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the cost of complying with FRA inspection regulations are higher for MU cars compared to conventional passenger cars. Hence the reason why New Jersey Transit prefers to use push pulls instead of MU cars. I also believe this inspection regulation was one of the reasons why Amtrak went with the Acela train sets instead of replacing the Metroliner service with MU cars that would have been several generations newer then the original Metroliner MUs. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1113522) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 23:37:37 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Sand Box John on Sun Oct 30 23:25:16 2011. Doesn’t the FRA inspection regulation scheduling classify MU cars as locomotives instead of classifying them as passenger cars? I seem to recall reading somewhere that the cost of complying with FRA inspection regulations are higher for MU cars compared to conventional passenger cars. Hence the reason why New Jersey Transit prefers to use push pulls instead of MU carsThat's quite hilarious that they suddenly cannot afford MUs while the LIRR, Metro-North and even lowly SEPTA can. Meanwhile, the brake inspections for the multilevel cars are more frequent than for any other kind of equipment on the railroad, including the MUs. I also believe this inspection regulation was one of the reasons why Amtrak went with the Acela train sets instead of replacing the Metroliner service with MU cars that would have been several generations newer then the original Metroliner MUs No, that's not why. The FRA does not permit passengers to be carried in the forward power car(s) of a Tier II passenger train traveling faster than 125 mph. |
|
|
| (1113530) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Oct 31 00:56:08 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 21:00:58 2011. Sure they could have expected it; they knew what kind of games were going on in DC with Amtrak. And even barring that, the MUs that GE were offering still could have been bought with on-the-fly multi-voltage switchover capability; certainly the single-unit locomotives have them, and the MU precedent always existed on the New Haven Line.Thanks for clearing that up, I thought that D.C. taking Amtrak issues lightly was a new thing. Exactly my point. I was talking about 3rd Rail and Catenary though. The M4 and M6 apparently can't go to Penn like the Arrows though since they can't handle 25 cycles 12.5 KV, which is weird because I also read that the older M2 could handle 25 cycles, I guess Metro-North thought that the M4 or M6 would never last to the day Penn-New Haven commuter service starts running. I'm not sure about the M8 though right now. Who knows what goes on at NJT. They junked the Arrow IIs after 23 years without rebuilding them too. The IIIs should have had the voltage-switchover capability built in during the '92-93 rebuild (it's not a new thing), and not left one truck on the MUs without traction motors (don't know if that is the primary cause of the IIIs no longer being able to run at 100 mph, but it seemed to contribute); and since the Comet IIIs proved that the "long door" concept worked (which got retired after 20 years for no good reason), they should have had those installed on the Arrows as well so that they could have had push-button door operation at low platforms as well as high. That is crazy. I rode a train past the MMC the other day and saw a conga line of ALP 44s there, I wonder if NJT is planning on retiring those prematurely too. I always thought it was interesting that the Comet IIs got rebuilt over the newer Comet IIIs since the former doesn't have a center door and shouldn't last as long as the Comet III would if it were rebuilt. The Arrows are great to ride on those Hoboken-Gladstone/Dover/Montclair local runs, but it sucks riding one on the NEC, it's a wonder why Amtrak even asks NJT to use them for Holiday service over those ALP 44s that I saw collecting dust. I read that crews didn't like operating Arrows when the NJCL was all 12kV for that manual door reason, what a shame, almost makes you question why NJT ordered cars it doesn't seem to fond of in the first place. |
|
|
| (1113533) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Oct 31 01:24:09 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Osmosis Jones on Mon Oct 31 00:56:08 2011. I was talking about 3rd Rail and Catenary though. The M4 and M6 apparently can't go to Penn like the Arrows though since they can't handle 25 cycles 12.5 KV, which is weird because I also read that the older M2 could handle 25 cyclesIt was under the government agencies that the New Haven wires got switched from 25 cycles to 60. That is crazy. I rode a train past the MMC the other day and saw a conga line of ALP 44s there, I wonder if NJT is planning on retiring those prematurely too They already did. You're looking at ALP-44s that have been mothballed for maybe about ¾-year. The last ones to run were on the ACES train, apparently due to the pantograph switch in the P40DC not working with the ALP-46s, otherwise those would have been gone too. I read that crews didn't like operating Arrows when the NJCL was all 12kV for that manual door reason, what a shame, almost makes you question why NJT ordered cars it doesn't seem to fond of in the first place With the Arrows, it's a matter of why they weren't rebuilt with the long doors. The Comet III had arrived a year before the Arrows were rebuilt, with the long doors in working order. Besides, IIRC, the crews having a problem with operating the Arrows with the manual traps had to do with NJT banning the operation of the Arrows with the doors open between low-platform stations, which was a practice that dated back to before the Arrows. |
|
|
| (1113545) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Oct 31 06:19:38 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 23:37:37 2011. Thank you.I was lead to believe that the regulations for locomotives compared to passengers went beyond just brake inspections. So sometime between the demise of the Metroliner program and the inception of the Acela train set the FRA changed the regulation on how fast MUs are permitted to operate. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1113548) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Mon Oct 31 08:15:46 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 23:37:37 2011. That's quite hilarious that they suddenly cannot afford MUs while the LIRR, Metro-North and even lowly SEPTA can."Lowly" SEPTA cannot afford to upgrade the Reading side's power grid to handle the load of anything more than 2 or 3 locomotive hauled consists at one time. Hell, there is still a substation feeding that side located on the Reading Terminal viaduct! As an example, check out this fossil at Hatboro:  |
|
|
| (1113552) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Oct 31 09:41:50 2011, in response to Re: Usage of Arrow III, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Oct 30 23:37:37 2011. Ahh, that would explain why the Metroliners lost their motive power. I thought it was an age/maintenance issue. |
|
|
| (1113570) | |
Re: Usage of Arrow III |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor FOR ALL 3 LINES!!! on Mon Oct 31 11:23:21 2011, in response to Usage of Arrow III, posted by Larry,RedbirdR33 on Wed Sep 1 15:07:06 2010. Yesterday on MNR/NJT 3148 to NH, I spotted a rarity, a Comet IV 5000-series cab car on the west end, and running up this way in Meadowlands MNR NH service!! Of course, always when I do not have my camera (I had my smartphone, but shooting with it at night would result in a blur as the train was moving!!) |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
