|
|
| NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track (1345771) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1345773) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 28 21:20:30 2015, in response to NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:17:02 2015. I am guessing those are the cars they're "retiring"? |
|
|
| (1345776) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:32:04 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 28 21:20:30 2015. retyring - did you mention new pantographs?Just in case this let me give you more detailed photo. |
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1345777) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:32:46 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 28 21:20:30 2015. more detailed photo |
|
|
| (1345779) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:33:21 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:32:46 2015. https://www.dropbox.com/s/reswxg7d475a6jo/DSC04973.JPG?dl=0 |
|
|
| (1345783) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:07:05 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 28 21:20:30 2015. I wouldn't put the word in quotes. Yes, NJT's getting rid of them and not rebuilding them. |
|
|
| (1345787) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:11:31 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 21:32:04 2015. The new pantographs were a temporary measure. The word retire means to get rid of. |
|
|
| (1345788) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:16:13 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:11:31 2015. Very petty, what can I say. Hope at least one museum "copy" will be retained. |
|
|
| (1345791) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:18:54 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:11:31 2015. Still can't understand what's a reason of putting brand new pantographs on a train, which gonna be scrapped scrapped? Maybe it's done for some experimental purposes.By the way, how is Arrow VI project doing? |
|
|
| (1345793) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:24:03 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:07:05 2015. So what is going to replace retired Arrow III trains?Are there enough Comets to replace all Arrows ? I think at least one Arrow III must be kept for history. |
|
|
| (1345796) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 23:04:44 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:18:54 2015. It was a stopgap move because of the delay in delivering new MLVs. |
|
|
| (1345802) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Mar 29 00:56:36 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:24:03 2015. They're largely being replaced by Multlievel cars and ALP46As. |
|
|
| (1345826) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 07:04:55 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:18:54 2015. The "Arrow VI" (as you put it) is going nowhere as the NJT Board keeps putting of the decision to get MLV power cars. Such a car would have no high-level inner doors, no seats in the lower level, and run sandwiched between 2 regular MLV cars as triplets.Until then, 160 Arrow-III remain in service. |
|
|
| (1345827) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 07:07:10 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by WillD on Sun Mar 29 00:56:36 2015. 70 of 230 were replaced by the last 100 MLV cars 2 years ago.The 160 remain. |
|
|
| (1345849) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sun Mar 29 10:45:13 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 07:04:55 2015. So what's a reason for it to be multilevel if there is no seats on lower level? Will lower level house only electric equipment, and some space for bikes? |
|
|
| (1345852) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Sun Mar 29 11:07:50 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 28 22:11:31 2015. By the way, are the old pantographs mostly scrapped, or kept as artifacts?As of me, if you live merely in apartment - they might be huge, but if you own a house, you can even put it outside as antenna (if needed) |
|
|
| (1345859) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 11:46:27 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by tramrunner on Sun Mar 29 10:45:13 2015. Lower level for electrical equipment.They need something to shove those behemoth MLV's along the track better. It was actually Amtrak's insistence. They understand a conversion from Arrow to loco-hauled MLV means a a further performance degradation. As the same time, NJT is philosophically opposed to buy anything that is single level. |
|
|
| (1345862) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 29 13:14:09 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 11:46:27 2015. Except if you need to use the lower level entirely for electrical equipment, why not just stick it in the undercarriage of a single-level? |
|
|
| (1345863) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Sun Mar 29 13:25:39 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 11:46:27 2015. Why not take a page from the Dutch or Japanese and go with EMU multilevel rail cars? Both NJ transit and Amtrak would benefit from improved capacity and acceleration. |
|
|
| (1345869) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 13:45:09 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Outside the Box on Sun Mar 29 13:25:39 2015. They want compatibility with the existing MLV fleet. |
|
|
| (1345877) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 15:57:15 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 13:45:09 2015. So what document(s) did elimination of seating on the lower level in MLV power cars come from? |
|
|
| (1345878) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 15:57:56 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track, posted by Tramrunner on Sat Mar 28 22:24:03 2015. What commuter railroads are concerned with "history"? |
|
|
| (1345879) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 16:01:39 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 15:57:15 2015. I don't have the URL for the documents, but where did you expect the electrical gear to go ? |
|
|
| (1345884) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:08:57 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 11:46:27 2015. As the same time, NJT is philosophically opposed to buy anything that is single level.I thought the reason for that was for the additional capacity/seating. Wouldn't keeping the lower level only for electrical equipment defeat that whole purpose? |
|
|
| (1345885) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 17:12:08 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:08:57 2015. Yes, but then they have a matched set. |
|
|
| (1345887) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:28:07 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 17:12:08 2015. What do you mean? |
|
|
| (1345888) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 17:30:48 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:28:07 2015. If they bought a Arrow or Comet looking power car, assuming they could pack that much horsepower underneath, with MLV cars bracketing, what would such a triplet look like ? Probably far more homely than the DL&W's motor-trailer sets. |
|
|
| (1345889) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 29 17:33:11 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Outside the Box on Sun Mar 29 13:25:39 2015. There aren't so many of them in Japan. Better learn from the French.
|
|
|
| (1345890) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:41:17 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 17:30:48 2015. When the original multilevels were first being delivered, there were rumors circulating that they wanted to eventually run them in mixed consists with the single level Comet cars. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed. Even so, when they currently mix the first order of multilevels with the second order (high 7600's-7700's), there are still problems trainlining the doors open and closed... |
|
|
| (1345891) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 18:18:28 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:41:17 2015. They were to originally to use Comet-5 cabs with the MLV's, which were to be all trailers.The last 100 MLV's have even bigger door troubles, like they used a cheaper subcontractor. The AMT ones also have troublesome doors in the winter. |
|
|
| (1345901) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 29 19:39:02 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 29 17:33:11 2015. Or the Aussies:
|
|
|
| (1345912) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 20:32:29 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 18:18:28 2015. Not surprising.... |
|
|
| (1345913) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by chuchubob on Sun Mar 29 20:33:43 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Outside the Box on Sun Mar 29 13:25:39 2015. Why not take a page from the Dutch or Japanese and go with EMU multilevel rail cars?or South Shore or Metra Electric    
|
|
|
| (1345921) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:24:09 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 29 17:33:11 2015. And how are you going to retool something like that for a platform that's about 48" above rail? Never mind their 9' 3" width for a loading gauge meant for 10' 6" wide cars.At least they show that the MLV power car with two levels is possible. |
|
|
| (1345922) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:25:59 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 29 19:39:02 2015. Don't you hate the ADA? They'd be jumping all over a design like that for accommodation limitations. |
|
|
| (1345923) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:28:16 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:41:17 2015. How come only with NJT, stuff like that has to be like reinventing the wheel?? |
|
|
| (1345924) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:29:11 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 17:30:48 2015. The Lackawanna's motor-trailer sets lasted until 1984, did they not? |
|
|
| (1345925) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:29:41 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sun Mar 29 17:08:57 2015. Of course. |
|
|
| (1345926) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:32:28 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 16:01:39 2015. Take a look at the bilevel EMU pics elsewhere in the thread. And those are generally four inches shorter than NJT's MLVs. If, as you say elsewhere in the thread, NJT has a "philosoph(ical) oppos(ition)" to single levels these days, it is a philosophy of utter incompetence—certainly in light of the fact that they won't reverse the damage done by a former ED who lied on her résumé. |
|
|
| (1345932) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sun Mar 29 22:17:39 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 29 21:25:59 2015. Not at all. Appears to have similar accessibility to various other ADA compliant designs. |
|
|
| (1345944) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 30 01:22:29 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 29 19:39:02 2015. While the MI09 in Wado's post is capable of running on 1.5kvDC or 25kvAC, that NSW Trainlink H set only runs on 1.5kvDC. That greatly simplifies the electric traction system, for one thing there's no need for a transformer, and makes it easier to leave more of the carbody to passengers. The NSW H sets are essentially the same as Chicago's Highliners, just a whole lot nicer.In the case of the Alstom MI09 there's a significant amount of available passenger space given over to the power electronics. The cab cars are unpowered, while the three middle cars house the traction systems and motors, and IIRC at each end the space between the end door and car end is dedicated to traction electronics. |
|
|
| (1345945) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 30 01:41:08 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Nilet on Sun Mar 29 13:14:09 2015. Because a single level EMU gets around 600hp per car, tops. Moving two trailers, especially the bulk of their monstrous MLVs, as well as the power car, is going to require between 2000 and 3000hp. The power car would be effectively a single level EMU, but with the floor displaced vertically to provide more space for the power traction systems, potentially allowing higher horsepower.It'd essentially be similar to the DD-AR sets in the Netherlands, but with the power car in the middle:  "NID te Den Haag Centraal" door NovioSites - Eigen werk. Licentie CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons. |
|
|
| (1345946) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 30 01:54:23 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Joe V on Sun Mar 29 11:46:27 2015. Unfortunately if they remove the 60 seats from the lower level of a 142 passenger non-restroom coach and pair it with two cab cars that's just 336 passengers per triplet. That compares unfavorably with the Arrow III's 120 passengers per car. Presumably if they're gonna run them on the NEC in 9 or 12 car trains they won't have all cab cars, so that could get them up into the same number of passengers per car as the Arrow IIIs if non-bathroom cars were interspersed. With two cab cars seating 127, four power cars seating 82, three bathroom cars with 132 seats, and three 142 seat non-bathroom cars you can just get to 1404 passengers, which equates to 117 passengers per car for the 12 car train.But then for the NEC locals the improvement in performance may make the loss of capacity a viable trade. |
|
|
| (1345947) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 30 03:02:29 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by R30A on Sun Mar 29 22:17:39 2015. Where are you going to put the disabled passenger? Are you going to leave him/her in the vestibule, really? |
|
|
| (1345948) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Mar 30 04:13:54 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 30 03:02:29 2015. Well, they could ride on the coupler, mate. Australia provides its citizens FAR better care than your folks here. Unlike here, if you had a disability, then you'd have to settle for the on board saloon on each and every car. Plenty of space, free beers, eh.
|
|
|
| (1345950) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Mar 30 04:49:13 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by SelkirkTMO on Mon Mar 30 04:13:54 2015. IOW yes, they'll stay in the vestibule and they'll more than likely be quite happy there. Australia has their own version of the ADA and these cars are totally compliant with it.It just happens that the poster prior to your pwning is totally detached from reality. |
|
|
| (1346025) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon Mar 30 16:09:47 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by chuchubob on Sun Mar 29 20:33:43 2015. I also wonder, why not do like METRA Electric, or NICTD?Why not make motorized versions of Comet VI cars? By the way, how soon will we sell this "like no others" solution at NJ Transit. |
|
|
| (1346030) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Mon Mar 30 16:14:23 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 30 03:02:29 2015. I think, there might be some popup ramp next to stairs to passenger space. |
|
|
| (1346039) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 30 16:47:04 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by tramrunner on Mon Mar 30 16:09:47 2015. Metra Electric cars are about 1˝ feet too tall for NJT clearances.There is no such thing as a Comet VI car. |
|
|
| (1346042) | |
Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Mon Mar 30 17:33:22 2015, in response to Re: NJT Arrow III on non-electrified track in Hoboken Terminal, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Mar 30 16:47:04 2015. they also only run on DC power. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
