|
|
| NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars" (1170624) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1170624) | |
NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars" |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012 Horse's Mouth: Minutes for September board meetingsKinda self-righteous, trying to justify their gross overspending over the last decade, never mind the premature retirements of rolling stock and motive power, as well as the Arrow III's botched rebuild. At least the ability to use MLV trailer cars with these "power cars" is somewhat clever.
|
|
|
| (1170661) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Aug 4 22:52:55 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. These new self-propelled rail cars will feature all of the customer amenities that are provided on the existing multilevel fleet including the two by two seatingA.K.A. the end of reversible seats on new rolling stock purchases. I don't see how they expect a significantly heavier EMU to be powerful enough to pull trailers, but maybe it would be something like 1 unpowered car for every 2 powered cars. |
|
|
| (1170663) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Aug 4 22:58:39 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. I get the strange feeling that NJT is going to ape Nederlandse Spoorwegen DD-AR sets which operate as double level stock that's either hauled by a 1700 locomotive or by a multiple unit with the bottom level turned into component space for electric traction equipment.Admittedly, I suspect this may explain NJT's purchasing habits, and why they've been so reluctant to buy traditional multiple units. The idea isn't that new as these Dutch units are from the mid-1990s. Here's a sample image of a recently refurbished model, and note the lack of a lower level in the first car. 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1170664) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 23:07:17 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Aug 4 22:52:55 2012. Yes; reversible seats will be missed. NJT's got themselves convinced that the passengers "love" the MLVs though.Weight's got nothing to do with horsepower, never mind tractive effort. There aren't very prohibitive grades on the Newark Division or even the Hoboken Division. What will be interesting is seeing AAR couplers on a new EMU type (they're going to need them if they're going to use existing MLV trailer cars) and to see EMUs with automatic variable-tap transformers in operation (they can't avoid installing them now, like when they avoided installing them as well as "long doors" when they rebuilt the Arrow IIIs in the early 1990s) . . . |
|
|
| (1170668) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Aug 5 00:01:32 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. Not liking this move, I was really looking forward to new single level MUs, oh well. Can't wait to see this train on the rails. |
|
|
| (1170669) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Sun Aug 5 00:09:50 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Aug 4 22:58:39 2012. So it's basically an electric locomotive with an added deck for passenger seating? |
|
|
| (1170671) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 00:12:15 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. Somehow I get the feeling that the acceleration is going to really suck compared to the Arrow III. |
|
|
| (1170723) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sun Aug 5 10:32:42 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by VictorM on Sun Aug 5 00:09:50 2012. Pretty much.most double decker EMUs are motor trainler sets anyway. |
|
|
| (1170729) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Aug 5 10:52:59 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 23:07:17 2012. The grade through the North and East river runnels is considered significant. |
|
|
| (1170744) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 12:31:45 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Aug 5 10:52:59 2012. Perhaps by freight rail standards. 1.93 percent is still not four percent. |
|
|
| (1170746) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 12:38:51 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by VictorM on Sun Aug 5 00:09:50 2012. All MUs are. |
|
|
| (1170747) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 12:40:00 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by r33/r36 mainline on Sun Aug 5 00:01:32 2012. The holdovers from Warrington's reign are still in place there, so it's "MLV Madness" until they leave. Just wait until we hear what these "power cars" finally cost. |
|
|
| (1170751) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 12:59:35 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012.  Would like to see 2 or 3 of these beasts making every stop on the Gladstone or Montclair branches. |
|
|
| (1170752) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 13:00:32 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 00:12:15 2012. Ya think? And no word about being able to use both NJT and Amtrak voltage. |
|
|
| (1170754) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:06:30 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 12:59:35 2012. Depends on how powerful they are, I think. If you had one power car with one MLV trailer per train, I'd say it could keep up. |
|
|
| (1170756) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:07:51 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 13:00:32 2012. That's the biggest trick, ain't it.And no, I don't think that SEPTA would be interested in any, myself. At least one implication is that they'll have AAR couplers what with being able to run with MLVs. |
|
|
| (1170757) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 13:08:24 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:06:30 2012. It will be hard to fit powerful traction motors on these things. Too little space. NJT's obsession with multilevels must end. |
|
|
| (1170758) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:12:59 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 13:08:24 2012. You don't need the kind of power that the ALP-46 has, to pull a whole train. Just enough for one trailer or perhaps two. Now as for room to install any kind of traction equipment, then that's the mean trick. |
|
|
| (1170770) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 14:02:56 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:07:51 2012. In theory, could the proposed MU also link with other Comet cars with that coupler? |
|
|
| (1170774) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 14:11:28 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 14:02:56 2012. I'd say yes. HEP power cables ought to match up too. |
|
|
| (1170777) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 14:20:51 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:12:59 2012. You'll still need a transformer on top. It will be a tight fit. I bet compromises on performance will have to be made to adjust for limited space. Just like the ALP45DP. |
|
|
| (1170782) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Aug 5 14:44:11 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 13:07:51 2012. That's the biggest trick, ain't it.Not entirely. The biggest trick would be doing all this without giving the entire lower level to the traction electronics, ala the DD-AR. Eliminating the 60 seats on the lower level for every third car would give these MPCs a woefully inadequate seating capacity when compared with an equivalent length Arrow or Comet set. I'd suspect they'd place the traction equipment behind the cab, where the impact on seating will be minimized. And no, I don't think that SEPTA would be interested in any, myself. It remains to be seen if the MLVs meet their clearances. At least one implication is that they'll have AAR couplers what with being able to run with MLVs. Why make that assumption? What better profit margin for BBD than rebuilding, for a few hundred thousand dollars a pop, the 'trailers' these MPCs will be coupled to mere years after they were built in the first place? After all, if it has an AAR coupler on the front end the MMC crews might try to put an ALP on the front end of an EMU train. |
|
|
| (1170789) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:07:56 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 14:11:28 2012. I sure hope not. Nothing grinds my gears more than multi-levels and single levels in the same train. Talking to you, MARC and MBTA.
|
|
|
| (1170790) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Aug 5 15:14:20 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 14:20:51 2012. on top ? why?? make room for it at lower level same with traction gear, just like Dutch MDDM's, yet in last few years traction gear has gotten smaller so probably entire level is no longer needed |
|
|
| (1170791) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:27:37 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Aug 5 15:14:20 2012. If you have to sacrifice space on the lower level, there's really no advantage to using multilevels, no? If you want to do this on the cheap, maybe motorizing some Comet V's is the way to go. There's really no need to use MU's on the NEC. They are absolutely needed on the electric routes out of Hoboken, though. |
|
|
| (1170792) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:33:29 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:07:56 2012. That doesn't bother me. That kind of stuff goes back to when bilevel cars first came out; even gallery cars ran with single-level cars in the same train (see below), and of course the El Capitan high levels transitioned to single-level cars in the same train. (Pity that the MBTA doesn't have automatic trapdoors though.) |
|
|
| (1170793) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:34:41 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by WillD on Sun Aug 5 14:44:11 2012. What better profit margin for BBD than rebuilding, for a few hundred thousand dollars a pop, the 'trailers' these MPCs will be coupled to mere years after they were built in the first place?Read the first page. The intent is to use existing MLVs, which have AAR couplers. That means that NJT has no intention of buying extra trailer cars. |
|
|
| (1170794) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:36:03 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:27:37 2012. There's really no need to use MUs on the NECThere is if you want the 47-mph average speed back (which they even had with MP54s). It's currently 10 mph slower than that. |
|
|
| (1170795) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:39:32 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:36:03 2012. NEC stations are spread out farther than Morris & Essex stations. The latter NEEDS MU's. |
|
|
| (1170796) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:40:42 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:33:29 2012. Heck, even Comet salads bug me. I like general consist uniformity. Even bothered me when ENY mixed the R40M and R42's in the same train. |
|
|
| (1170797) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Aug 5 15:41:54 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:27:37 2012. If you have to sacrifice space on the lower level, there's really no advantage to using multilevels, no?If they convert them to 3-2 seating there really wouldn't be any loss in seating. But more than likely we'll see the traction electronics on the mid level behind the cab, as is done on a number of bilevel EMUs. After all, the middle deck is somewhat wasted space on the MLVs. It is also possible we may have half or a quarter the lower level given to the traction systems and that could result in a single-ended compartment on the lower level which I'm sure NJT's conductors would appreciate. If you want to do this on the cheap, maybe motorizing some Comet V's is the way to go. A rebuild that radical is hardly going to be cheap because the Comet Vs are not compatible with the latest FRA regs. A rebuild of that sort would eliminate their grandfathering and require that they be brought up to compatibility. It'd probably be cheaper to check with Rotem or Kawasaki and see if they could do a more powerful Silverliner V or M8 which could haul an MLV trailer. There's really no need to use MU's on the NEC. Spoken as one who has never gotten stuck on a NEC local with an MLV set and counted the minutes as your train rapidly heads toward being late because the MLV can't even keep up with the padded schedule when making all stops. |
|
|
| (1170798) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:46:01 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:39:32 2012. NJT closed quite a few stations on the M&E. If anything needs MUs badly, it'd be the Montclair line. And the history of MUs on the NEC does bespeak the continued need there; the push-pulls turned the service into a pile of manure. |
|
|
| (1170800) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:58:28 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:46:01 2012. Stations between East Orange and South Orange are quite close together. |
|
|
| (1170801) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Aug 5 15:58:43 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 15:34:41 2012. But whose definition of "existing"? They could very well mean existing carbodies and frames.Yes, I agree that it'd be great to get them with AAR couplers such that NJT could arrange the powered cars within a train to provide for whatever is required. But this is NJT we're talking about, and chances are it'll be BBD building the cars. As such if BBD says they need automatic couplers or permanently coupled pairs and triplets, I have no doubt NJT will go right along with that proposal and that's what we'll get. |
|
|
| (1170802) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 16:10:24 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:40:42 2012. That's interesting, because I have the exact opposite reaction. Mixed consists were always much more interesting, though uniform consists look neater. |
|
|
| (1170803) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 16:19:13 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:58:28 2012. Those aren't usually the province of the much-lauded Midtown Direct service though. |
|
|
| (1170809) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Sun Aug 5 16:51:02 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by WillD on Sun Aug 5 15:41:54 2012. There's really no need to use MU's on the NEC.Spoken as one who has never gotten stuck on a NEC local with an MLV set and counted the minutes as your train rapidly heads toward being late because the MLV can't even keep up with the padded schedule when making all stops. And NJT agrees with you as they are ordering EMUs! |
|
|
| (1170813) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Bill West on Sun Aug 5 17:16:55 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. I’m surprised nobody has commented on what’s under the exact center of that DD-AR. It’s enough of a difference for an MPC and 5 trailers to achieve the same tractive effort as 3 pairs of married MUs that use only one motor truck per pair.I don’t think this is an MU versus loco hauled issue nor a comparison of their relative seating capacities. I think it is nothing more than putting seats in a modest HP locomotive to add a bit to the train capacity. It will challenge what rules differences there may be between locos and MUs. I can’t see an advantage to 2 six car sets of MPC over 12 MLVs and a loco but where shorter trains are normally sufficient there might be some advantages. Other points: -the lower HP per ”loco” will carry a price premium. Two 3500hp propulsion packages will cost 1/3 to 1/2 more than one 7000hp package. -Check your physics Olag, weight on drivers is EVERYTHING in the maximum TE department. And PRR considered that 1.93% grade serious enough to require an acceptance test on it when they wrote specs for the DD-1 to be able to start a 10 car train there. -dual voltage transformers just need a small motorized switch in the tank or a second vacuum circuit breaker. It would take no more than a 24” cube weighing less than 500 pounds. -there’s no advantage to MU couplers over AARs here because there would still be HEP connections to make each time. M7s, M8s, etc avoid this because each car has its own access to the third rail or catenary. Bill |
|
|
| (1170822) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 17:45:15 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:40:42 2012. If you think that's bad, what is your opinion of the typical pre R-62 IRT train which often contained every possible postwar IRT R type from R-12 through R-36s in the same train? |
|
|
| (1170823) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 5 17:46:15 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Bill West on Sun Aug 5 17:16:55 2012. I’m surprised nobody has commented on what’s under the exact center of that DD-ARI wasn't going to comment on it unless it was actually something (or something similar) being considered here. the lower HP per ”loco” will carry a price premium Even when bought in bulk? weight on drivers is EVERYTHING in the maximum TE department The ALP-46 and ALP-46A have rather low weight on the drivers (49,600 lbs per axle for ALP-46, 50705.5 lbs for ALP-46A). Why was this suddenly not a consideration at NJT? That's quite a bit lower than the weight on drivers of an E60, never mind any diesel. |
|
|
| (1170825) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sun Aug 5 17:55:21 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 15:27:37 2012. yes there is, vs locomotive hauled a twelf car train would take 14 car lenghts of platform in NYP. By using power cars the same twelf unit train is only 12 units long with only slight loss of seating.It would be possible to build a MDDM type unit with enough HP to power 6 cars per power unit and still have high acceleration. |
|
|
| (1170847) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 19:53:53 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by randyo on Sun Aug 5 17:45:15 2012.  |
|
|
| (1170858) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 5 21:25:49 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. Something tells me, this isn't going to work well. |
|
|
| (1170861) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by RockParkMan on Sun Aug 5 21:55:00 2012, in response to NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with "Multilevel Power Cars", posted by Olog-hai on Sat Aug 4 18:39:29 2012. Truth from Olog. CHRISCO, STOP THIS SHIT!!! |
|
|
| (1170882) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 23:44:20 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 19:53:53 2012. One of my favorite discordant pics. :-) |
|
|
| (1170883) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 23:46:03 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by SUBWAYMAN on Sun Aug 5 21:25:49 2012. Dunno, it might not be too bad if they only use the trailers for shuttles or if they have a large ratio of motorized/trailer cars. |
|
|
| (1170886) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 6 00:08:01 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by 3-9 on Sun Aug 5 23:46:03 2012. I just hope that they have some double-cab "power cars" for the Princeton Dinky . . . which they would likely keep around in spite of itself; if not, then it's one "power car" and one cab car. |
|
|
| (1170904) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Mon Aug 6 07:12:32 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Aug 5 19:53:53 2012. That actually WORKED?? |
|
|
| (1170933) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Aug 6 10:00:45 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sat Aug 4 22:58:39 2012. That would be interesting, and judging from the new post, would make the most sense.Perhaps, if they are build similarly to the DD-AR cars, they will return to the "12 car Multilevel" trains they had back in the day.  But then again, it's a pity they didn't really think of this when they decided to order the ALP-46As... |
|
|
| (1170934) | |
Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'' |
|
|
Posted by The Flxible Neofan on Mon Aug 6 10:03:34 2012, in response to Re: NJT to replace Arrow IIIs with ''Multilevel Power Cars'', posted by Olog-hai on Mon Aug 6 00:08:01 2012. I wouldn't surprised to see one power car and cab car for the Dinky.NJT seems to basically run 2 cars on the line anyway, unless things changed again very recently. 
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
