|
|
| Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars (219397) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (219621) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:39:21 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:37:34 2006. He's not designing railcars. He's quoting facts. And everything he said is true, makes sense, and is certainly not BS.What he says makes little sense and he is just complaining about a few flaws with the designs of the new railcars. |
|
|
| (219622) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:39:33 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by mr_brian on Wed Feb 22 16:38:09 2006. I agree. He has shown this through his posting here. |
|
|
| (219623) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by r7 torresdale express on Wed Feb 22 16:40:34 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:35:22 2006. They may have been facts but he is not an expert. He has little credibility when it comes to Railcar design.And you do? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (219624) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:42:02 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:39:21 2006. Again, please copy and paste what does not make sense to you, since it all makes sense to me. |
|
|
| (219626) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:43:20 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:42:02 2006. Ah what do you know? |
|
|
| (219627) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by r7 torresdale express on Wed Feb 22 16:44:18 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 12:33:09 2006. Why not just scrap seats altogether in favor of a really big couch along each wall? |
|
|
| (219628) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:44:52 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:43:20 2006. I know that what he said makes sense, and that no one else is supporting your position that what he said didn't make sense. And obviously they wouldn't support your position since he stated facts and facts make sense. |
|
|
| (219629) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:46:45 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:44:52 2006. Well he does have his own opinion which I don't agree with, but I also stated a fact that railcars are getting heavier not lighter, that also includes subway cars as well. |
|
|
| (219631) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Line 13 on Wed Feb 22 16:48:26 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:46:45 2006. Well he does have his own opinion which I don't agree withThen why did you accuse him of "not knowing what he was talking about"? He may have an opinion, but he wasn't stating his opinion - he was stating the facts. |
|
|
| (219633) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 22 16:50:00 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:22:23 2006. 128,000 LB + 30,000 LB = 158,000 LB.....simple math! |
|
|
| (219635) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:50:42 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:46:45 2006. but I also stated a fact that railcars are getting heavier not lighterThat's not a fact. It's a conclusion based on limited knowledge and evidence, and WillD showed you why it doesn't have to be true. |
|
|
| (219636) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 16:51:26 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by mr_brian on Wed Feb 22 16:38:09 2006. Hey hey hey, no. Don't put me on a pedestal, I just happen to guess right sometimes, like everyone else. I've been wrong before and if I'm wrong on this I'll gladly eat my words. |
|
|
| (219637) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:52:31 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:50:42 2006. It's a conclusion based on limited knowledge and evidence, and WillD showed you why it doesn't have to be true.Then why are alot of railcars and subway cars are getting heavier? |
|
|
| (219638) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:55:24 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Line 13 on Wed Feb 22 16:48:26 2006. He may have an opinion, but he wasn't stating his opinion - he was stating the facts.Ok. Then why did you accuse him of "not knowing what he was talking about"? Because sometimes he doesn't understand why railcars are getting heavier. The addition of components and FRA requirements are usually the cause. |
|
|
| (219641) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 16:59:20 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:52:31 2006. Then why are alot of railcars and subway cars are getting heavier?That's for you to find out. I have never claimed to know the answer to that. |
|
|
| (219645) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:16:39 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:22:23 2006. If you doubt my numbers you can check here: http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a6.pdfThe M7 is given as the second entry in that document. You can cite the weight sans toilet, which saves you all of 3,000lbs, but doesn't really fix anything. Note the second entry in the document, the Montreal MR90 EMUs which AMT uses on the Deux-Montagnes line. They were ordered in 1992 and were perfectly legal for purchase in the US at that time, indeed I believe NJT considered an up-rated version, but rejected it for more push-pulls. The MR90s are designed to work on 25 kilovolt, 60 cycle AC power and thus, like the M2s, M8s, Arrows, Silverliners and Metroliners they have to lug those heavy AC transformers around. Note the weights given for the MR90, at 126,000lbs for a powered car with cab that EMU is lighter than a bathroom equipped M7, and only 1000lbs heavier than the same car without such facilities. Also check out the difference between the trailer car with cab weight and the power car weight (126,000lbs minus 100,000lbs), at 26,000lbs it's almost right for a transformer. Now the trailer car has no propulsion equipment, so knock off 6000lbs for electronics and motors, and you're left with a 20,000lb transformer. However, as I said above these EMUs are designed to work on 60hz power, not the 25hz stuff that the NEC runs on. I'll admit that MN's territory is 12.5kv@60hz, but presumably they'd like the ability to run through to NYP someday, and I believe 11.5kv@25hz operation is specified on the M8. As frequency decreases transformers get heavier, unfortunately I don't know the exact relationship, but it doesn't seem much of a stretch to see a drop from 60hz to 25hz leading to an increase from 20,000 to 30,000lbs. Have I proved my case to you? The numbers I am providing are grounded in reality. And you're right, it's my opinion that the M7s are flawwed, but that opinion is based on this study of contemporary EMUs. What quantifiable figures are your opinions on the M7 based on? |
|
|
| (219649) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:24:06 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:16:39 2006. Have I proved my case to you?Yes, you have. Well reducing the number of seats on the M7s may reduce a little weight on them (probably 3000-4000 pounds). But they could only save so much weight on a railcar without sacrificeing a vital component. |
|
|
| (219652) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by r7 torresdale express on Wed Feb 22 17:31:51 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:24:06 2006. Well reducing the number of seats on the M7s may reduce a little weight on them (probably 3000-4000 pounds). But they could only save so much weight on a railcar without sacrificeing a vital component. |
|
|
| (219653) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:32:56 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by r7 torresdale express on Wed Feb 22 17:31:51 2006. The 1st choice. |
|
|
| (219655) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:34:57 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:52:31 2006. Come now, don't let Brian suck you into the rolling scissors of internets arguments.I'll readily acknowledge that the FRA has had a hand in making passenger railcars heavier. It's an unfortunate side effect of a few crashes scaring Congress into yelling 'do something' at the FRA so that they cover their asses before we have an accident like Eschede. Certainly I'd imagine the freights are thrilled to see passenger trains get heavier, since they can play a bit faster and looser with them if they feel they're insulated from lawsuits by the FRA's 'superior' crashworthiness requirements. Whether these crashworthiness requirements are really better is quite up for debate. The FRA only appears to specify buff load in pounds, which currently appears to be 800,000lbs. Presumably this load is to be sustained without deformation, but in a head on accident forces are quite likely to be MUCH higher than that and no mention is given to how the deformation will eat up energy. We currently design railcars like they designed automobiles in the 1950s, to withstand moderate speed accidents without any structural deformation. However when the speeds increase to the point where deformation will occur no matter what there is no guidance. What we need is a measure of the total amount of energy in Joules that will be absorbed by a given structural area designed to fail before the body does. Just like the first automobiles to use crumple zones it seems counterintuitive to wreck a trainset. However, if you allow the trainset to deform in the areas you want it to and safeguard the passengers and crew then you now have a safer trainset than if you'd accepted no deformation to begin with. Unfortunately the FRA has turned a blind eye toward cars that use this sort of energy absorbsion. |
|
|
| (219658) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:49:27 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:34:57 2006. That's true. But the FRA regulations are not the only reason why cars are getting heavier, putting in additional components and equipment also is also a cause as well. I do agree that the LIRR should use a different type of 3rd Rail but that's a bit off-topic. |
|
|
| (219660) | |
The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:52:59 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:55:24 2006. Because sometimes he doesn't understand why railcars are getting heavier. The addition of components and FRA requirements are usually the cause.It's funny, if we return to the EMU comparison offered by the Caltrain Electrification study again: http://www.sonic.net/~mly/Caltrain-Electrification/2000-08-Rolling-Stock-Draft/a6.pdf Both the M7 and MR90 are listed with 800,000lb buff load ratings. As far as I know that's the primary way the FRA determines the crashworthiness of a given design. I don't know if the M7 incorporates any improvements in it's crashworthiness over the MR90 which aren't listed on those forms, but it seems odd that two designs so radically differing in weight would have the same buff strength. That document was (if you couldn't tell from the logos all over it) put together by Bombardier, so I'd wholly expect them to tout whatever crashworthiness improvements the M7 has over the MR90. Very strangely, other than the M7 having a slightly greater acceleration and top speed they're extremely similar. The acceleration and speed can be chalked up mostly to the M7 having all cars powered while the MR90s are roughly 50/50 powered and trailer cars. There's virtually nothing to either explain the 20,000lb weight difference between the designs, they both have the same stainless steel body, the same features (the M7 has disc braking, but those things can't weigh more than 5000lbs total). I am completely at a loss to explain the M7's high weight, especially if the MR90 with a carbody some 20,000lbs lighter has the exact same buff load rating and is an acceptable design. If that's true then the FRA didn't make the M7s heavy, that onus would fall on the MTA or Bombardier. |
|
|
| (219662) | |
Re: The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars) |
|
|
Posted by aem7ac on Wed Feb 22 17:59:25 2006, in response to The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars), posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:52:59 2006. Both the M7 and MR90 are listed with 800,000lb buff load ratings. As far as I know that's the primary way the FRA determines the crashworthiness of a given design.Buff load rating comes from sheer horizontal strength, nothing else. Horizontal strength doesn't have to be heavy. A single steel beam with people sitting on top would have enough buff strength, but isn't very survivable in a crash. I don't know what the other criteria are, but it is far more than just buff strength. AEM7AC |
|
|
| (219663) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 18:10:07 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:24:06 2006. I'm increasingly getting the feeling that the carbody on the M7 is massively overbuilt. If the far lighter MR90 has the same buff loading then the FRA had nothing to do with the M7 being overweight.If the weight is all in the carbody then that problem isn't going to be, and likely cannot be, fixed. You'd have to strip every component out of the cars to get them down to a weight about the same as contemporary cars. The M7 is simply a flawwed design in terms of weight management, a product of the MTA's failure to specify a given weight and Bombardier's penchant for overweight vehicles. If the MTA had written weight requirements into the M7 specification they'd have a cause for legal action against Bombardier over the weight, but as it is they did not cover their asses on this. This doesn't mean the M7s don't work, they carry tens of thousands of commuters every day and likely will do so for decades to come. For the next three to four decades LIRR and MN riders and taxpayers in the MTA service area will pay the price for those oversights in high electric bills and increased operating costs. Perhaps the sealed AC motors and their cheaper maitenance will offset the higher power costs, but certainly the M7s could have been a great tool to reduce the cost of running MN and LIRR. Instead with their high weight they'll be lucky to break even compared to the old M1s and M3s. |
|
|
| (219664) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 18:11:22 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by r7 torresdale express on Wed Feb 22 17:31:51 2006. nice |
|
|
| (219666) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 18:15:53 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Feb 22 18:11:22 2006. Why is it nice? |
|
|
| (219670) | |
Re: The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 18:30:49 2006, in response to Re: The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars), posted by aem7ac on Wed Feb 22 17:59:25 2006. You're right, there's more too it.49 CFR Part 238 governs passenger rail equipment requirements including crashworthiness: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_04/49cfr238_04.html Part 238 Section 203 governs buff strength, or static end strength. Part 238 Section 211 governs collision posts. Part 238 Section 213 specifies corner post strength. Part 238 Section 215 gives rollover strength. And Part 238 Section 217 controls what side strength requirements will be. I'd be willing to bet the difference between the MR90 and M7 is made up somewhere in those requirements. The MR90 was built in 1992 before some of those requirements were in effect, and while the static end strength is the same as the more recent M7, it is likely deficient in other areas. I don't know enough about the MR90 to determine that though. The alternate explanation is that that report, commissioned in 2000 for a Caltrain electrification study, is simply in error. BBD may have simply stuck an 800kip buff load over whatever the actual buff loading is, just to ensure it appeared to be compliant. It seems quite unlikely that the MR90s would be designed for requirements 8 years in the future, making this a distinct possibility. However, there still is the matter of the Comet V. Those cars were built at the exact same time as the M7s and come in at only a bit over 100,000lbs. There's no way the power system under an M7 weighs 28,000lbs, and it's highly likely that it doesn't weigh more than 6000 to 10000lbs. This means that when compared to the Comet V the M7 is at least 18,000lbs overweight. |
|
|
| (219672) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Feb 22 18:42:07 2006, in response to Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 22 08:42:04 2006. Blah . . . time for the EP-6; have 'em change ends instead of running push-pull . . . |
|
|
| (219700) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Wed Feb 22 19:42:02 2006, in response to Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Dutchrailnut on Wed Feb 22 08:42:04 2006. Jerks...they promiced the M-2's would be in service until 2012. Stupid lack of funding cuts. |
|
|
| (219747) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 22 22:06:34 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 12:04:43 2006. I don't care how much of a fat ass a person has. The only reason why "...yet they're going to end up suffering when the middle seat is taken." is because people get obscenely beligerant when asked to slightly modify their sitting posture in order to accomodate fellow passengers. Nothing I like better in that situation than to "politely" announce my intention to, yes, take that open seat in the middle of three seats.We're all on the public train, not in our easy chairs at home. One ticket intitles you to one seat. Not one and a half seats. You bag/package/"stuff" don't get the right to a seat. Hold your bag in your lap. Put in up in the rack. Put it between your legs. And don't give that crap that "people are bigger today than they were a generation ago." (What people? If you think that the whole population of riders consists of large framed extroverts, you're misinformed.) Unless every rider is as big as Andre The Giant the seats offer sufficient room for relaxing your butt. Accept the fact that, during rush hours, you will be a lil' scrunched whilst onboard. So no, there has been no design flaws in the seating layout on the new trains. Unless you consider an assumption of personal and public dignity and courtesy to others is a design flaw. |
|
|
| (219750) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 22 22:17:00 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 13:14:40 2006. You don't like the fact that I would desire to sit in that middle seat you're overhanging? Or the fact that to get to it you might have to stand up for maybe 5 seconds while I sit down? Boy, talk about SCAs. You really need to widen your horizons. Your notion of "...average adult males..." seems to be based on a very stringent world view. It would be much wiser to say "...some adult males..." |
|
|
| (219759) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 22:29:25 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by ntrainride on Wed Feb 22 22:06:34 2006. We're all on the public train, not in our easy chairs at home. One ticket intitles you to one seat. Not one and a half seats. You bag/package/"stuff" don't get the right to a seat. Hold your bag in your lap. Put in up in the rack. Put it between your legs. And don't give that crap that "people are bigger today than they were a generation ago." (What people? If you think that the whole population of riders consists of large framed extroverts, you're misinformed.) Unless every rider is as big as Andre The Giant the seats offer sufficient room for relaxing your butt. Accept the fact that, during rush hours, you will be a lil' scrunched whilst onboard.You need to accept the fact that the 3-across seats on the M-7 are physically too small for three average-sized men. As I mentioned earlier, the seat designers probably took average adult sizes into account without realizing the women, who usually are smaller than men, don't ride the LIRR in appreciable numbers during rush hour. It's not a matter of one's entitlement, but simple measurements. Installing 2x2 seating in the M-7's would have been a win-win proposition for everyone. My LIRR/NYCT blog |
|
|
| (219772) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Feb 22 22:42:03 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 11:26:50 2006. That makes a big difference. Most men, and for that matter some women, are much heavier than you. I'd hazard a guess that the average male commuter is not too much under 200 pounds.My female friends who weigh less than me were almost chosen as models, and one of them wears size 0 clothing. |
|
|
| (219783) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 22:49:22 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 16:02:12 2006. Unfortunately, all of my classes are now full. But I'm sure I could find another satisfactory section with open seats. |
|
|
| (219787) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 22:51:06 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:35:22 2006. He has a lot more credibility than you do. He posts relevant facts. You post gut instinct. |
|
|
| (219789) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Wed Feb 22 22:51:23 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 16:02:12 2006. it all depends on 30 what to 128what |
|
|
| (219792) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 22:54:09 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 22:51:06 2006. What do you know? |
|
|
| (219793) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 22:54:54 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by ALSTOM R160A on Wed Feb 22 16:50:00 2006. Congratulations! Could you be my TA? |
|
|
| (219795) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 22:56:16 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 16:51:26 2006. Come on, Will. Haven't you learned from Ron yet? If you're wrong, you're supposed to insult everybody else. |
|
|
| (219799) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Wed Feb 22 22:57:04 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 22 11:23:55 2006. Last time I rode the New Haven line they were still running the "Washboards" |
|
|
| (219806) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 23:01:40 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 22:54:09 2006. See what I mean? |
|
|
| (219811) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 23:09:34 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 23:01:40 2006. No. |
|
|
| (219817) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 22 23:14:17 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by David of Broadway on Wed Feb 22 11:45:18 2006. And, as I've said before, somebody who sits in the middle seat would obviously prefer to sit in tight confines than to standEven if I had to stand for two hours, I would not take the middle seat on an LIRR train. The window seat is alright (and preferred), and I'd take an aisle, but just can't do the middle. It's strange, I have no problem sitting on the bench seats of a subway car with lengthwise seating. But when it comes to that center seat on the LIRR, I just can't do it. But then again, I don't like being in the window seat of the 75 foot cars either when it's a crowded train, I'd also rather stand. I guess perhaps deepdown in my brain, on the lengthwise seating there's no feeling that I can't get out. I can't otherwise explain it. I'm a perpetual stander in the subway anyway, I always was. I guess because I can see out in one of the doorways. |
|
|
| (219820) | |
Re: Attention Peter Rosa |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 22 23:19:03 2006, in response to Re: Attention Peter Rosa, posted by Peter Rosa on Wed Feb 22 22:29:25 2006. And with the success and comfort of the BiLevels in the diesel zones, I don't understand that they didn't. While the engine purchase was a fiasco, the diesel coach order was a complete success. |
|
|
| (219824) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 22 23:25:18 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 22 11:23:55 2006. The last time I rode the New Haven line was when I first turned 21, and thought it was so cool that I could actually order drinks (legally) on the train. My friends and I spent the whole trip in the bar car. |
|
|
| (219826) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Feb 22 23:28:57 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 16:21:33 2006. Heavier trains also mean more wear and tear on the tracks, no? |
|
|
| (219856) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Thu Feb 23 00:32:03 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Wed Feb 22 17:49:27 2006. Additional componants??What additional componants should add 30 thousand pounds to the weight of a railcar??? |
|
|
| (219879) | |
Re: The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars) |
|
|
Posted by SUBWAYSURF on Thu Feb 23 04:21:15 2006, in response to The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars), posted by WillD on Wed Feb 22 17:52:59 2006. >>>>Both the M7 and MR90 are listed with 800,000lb buff load ratings.<<<<Does that mean they can hold 800,000 lbs. of railbuffs. Oh the horror! 8-) |
|
|
| (219898) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by #3 West End Jeff on Thu Feb 23 07:41:58 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by RonInBayside on Wed Feb 22 11:47:53 2006. Hopefully they'll also have some new cafe cars which have been standard fare on the New Haven Line for many years.#3 West End Jeff |
|
|
| (219900) | |
Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu Feb 23 08:05:44 2006, in response to Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars, posted by #3 West End Jeff on Thu Feb 23 07:41:58 2006. There is option for 24 bar cars in second order. the bar area will be smaller however as car will have 60 seats,and an M-7 style toilet. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
