|
|
| LIRR's M-9 train appearance update (1440076) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1440076) | |
LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017     (MTA board meeting, this month) |
|
|
| (1440087) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 08:36:59 2017, in response to LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017. Rumor is both LIRR and MN cars will get same appearance just different logo's |
|
|
| (1440107) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jun 20 10:16:28 2017, in response to LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017. First photo = Cuomo stripes.Bill Newkirk |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1440120) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Tue Jun 20 11:24:13 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jun 20 10:16:28 2017. LOL! |
|
|
| (1440143) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jun 20 12:42:18 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 08:36:59 2017. Are NYCT cars also expected to get the same treatment? |
|
|
| (1440153) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Jun 20 14:08:15 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Tue Jun 20 12:42:18 2017. Have you see the R211 concepts? |
|
|
| (1440173) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jun 20 15:20:42 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by The Silence on Tue Jun 20 14:08:15 2017. R-211 
|
|
|
| (1440198) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Jun 20 16:16:54 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by The Silence on Tue Jun 20 14:08:15 2017. Yes, but that still doesn’t answer as to whether existing equipment will get colorized. |
|
|
| (1440200) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 16:20:19 2017, in response to LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017. Can someone explain why the MTA still wants to go with the single door leaf idea? |
|
|
| (1440207) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 17:35:18 2017, in response to LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017. The body contour is more like an M-8 (without that ugly headlight bulge) or a Montreal MU.I like the sliding end door. Overall, a better looking car. Too bad it won't MU with an M7. |
|
|
| (1440209) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 17:43:28 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 16:20:19 2017. cause its federal rule |
|
|
| (1440213) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 18:09:49 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 17:43:28 2017. Which federal rule? The ADA? Other trains (like NYC subway) aren't using single leaf doors - pretty much the opposite, in fact. |
|
|
| (1440214) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 18:12:05 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 18:09:49 2017. NYC is not under FRA rules, they are not a railroad. get familiar with CFR 49.238 |
|
|
| (1440216) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 18:13:50 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 18:09:49 2017. Maybe FRA. I don't remember when California got the Surfliner cars, but they have 2 pairs of double leaf doors. |
|
|
| (1440226) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 19:26:34 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Bill Newkirk on Tue Jun 20 15:20:42 2017. Nice combo and imitation of the R1 - R38 mylar destination sign and the R40 - R68 mylar route sign. Too bad that is not a real RFW - would have been a great view, like the Slant R40.Where's the head an tail lights ? |
|
|
| (1440229) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Strike_Mark on Tue Jun 20 20:05:31 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 18:12:05 2017. What about PATH's PA-5s? |
|
|
| (1440234) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 20:23:20 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 18:12:05 2017. I looked over the parts regarding doors as well as a couple of others. There were requirements regarding the size and number of the door openings, but not of the number of leaves per doorway. |
|
|
| (1440239) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 21:10:48 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 20:23:20 2017. but when you put two of required size doors you lose seats . |
|
|
| (1440240) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 21:10:48 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 20:23:20 2017. but when you put two of required size doors you lose seats . |
|
|
| (1440242) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 20 21:13:17 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 19:26:34 2017. Look closer. See where it says "New LED Headlights" to the right of the bonnet below the side cab window? |
|
|
| (1440245) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jun 20 21:56:32 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 21:10:48 2017. So when they're talking about doors, they don't mean the door opening in the side of the car, but each powered door leaf? .235 muddies that distinction a bit. |
|
|
| (1440248) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 20 22:04:45 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 18:12:05 2017. Denver's A Line stuff is most certainly FRA compliant, and has double leaf doors:
|
|
|
| (1440249) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 20 22:12:14 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 20 22:04:45 2017. Oh yeah, the SMRT DMUs are FRA compliant, and have double leaf doors too: And the coffin cars on SunRail: 
|
|
|
| (1440295) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Jun 21 12:25:28 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 17:35:18 2017. Yeah. Its a Japanese car for sure.Even looks like it body wise. |
|
|
| (1440359) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Jun 22 01:19:54 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 20 22:04:45 2017. I actually like the look of that version of the Silverliner V over SEPTA's. |
|
|
| (1440426) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jun 22 16:38:08 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Tue Jun 20 17:43:28 2017. I would imagine that the reason for the single leaf doors is mainly to save money on door engines. When the IRT ordered the 1939 World’s fair cars, being more frugal than the city, it opted for single leaf doors to save money even though their contemporaries, the IND R-1/9s had double leaf doors. |
|
|
| (1440516) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by jrf2 on Fri Jun 23 12:57:29 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Thu Jun 22 16:38:08 2017. Assuming the time to failure is the same for single and double leaf doors (single probably needing to be larger due added weight), a single failure with a double leaf door still allows some access/egress from the car (forgetting wheelchair and large packages), while a single leaf failure means all passangers must use the other door and fight standees in both directions. |
|
|
| (1440518) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 23 13:33:51 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by jrf2 on Fri Jun 23 12:57:29 2017. with double doors if one door fails, both doors must be locked out, at least on MN . |
|
|
| (1440521) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jun 23 13:57:10 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Dutchrailnut on Fri Jun 23 13:33:51 2017. That's FRA reg, isn't it? |
|
|
| (1440523) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jun 23 13:59:50 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Joe V on Tue Jun 20 17:35:18 2017. More like, these were ordered the correct size. Remember all the platform issues, and people falling, when they first hit the rails? |
|
|
| (1440524) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jun 23 14:03:49 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Tue Jun 20 16:16:54 2017. Would be nice to see the 46/62/68 get it. Especially, since the 62/68 never had it. |
|
|
| (1440531) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri Jun 23 14:46:21 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jun 23 14:03:49 2017. The problem with the pre NTTs is that they were actually designed with the possibility of having a blue stripe. The artist’s rendering for the M9s would work well on those cars and the NTTs, but would probably look a bit out of place on the older cars. A dual color stripe in the area below the window line would be more appropriate. |
|
|
| (1440546) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 23 19:46:58 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Tue Jun 20 16:16:54 2017. Let's make the M9s look like this, then. |
|
|
| (1440549) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 23 19:50:59 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 23 19:46:58 2017. I miss that paint scheme,. And they didn't slop it over the aluminum window sash. |
|
|
| (1440551) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jun 23 20:12:26 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Fri Jun 23 14:46:21 2017. A nice classy dual NYS color stripe would be 1/8th gold and 7/8ths blue. Scale it to fit whatever equipment. |
|
|
| (1440553) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jun 23 20:14:59 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Ian Lennon on Fri Jun 23 13:57:10 2017. IIRC it was related to ADA. If the remaining door leaf cannot fit a wheelchair, both must be locked. Seems a dumb reason to reduce customer throughput. |
|
|
| (1440558) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 23 21:58:38 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri Jun 23 20:14:59 2017. It is a dumb reason.The ADA needs to be either reformed or repealed. |
|
|
| (1440567) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by tramrunner on Fri Jun 23 23:32:20 2017, in response to LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by gold_12th on Tue Jun 20 07:30:47 2017. will it be more like M7 or M8 inside?The new coloring scheme is very pleasing. Hope R211s will also use it. |
|
|
| (1440568) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by northshore on Sat Jun 24 00:31:01 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by tramrunner on Fri Jun 23 23:32:20 2017. Two-tone blue seats |
|
|
| (1440587) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 24 10:55:39 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by nasadowsk on Tue Jun 20 22:12:14 2017. Oh, they (or maybe just you) still call them "coffin cars" for not surviving a crash at speeds that would destroy any car, even old heavyweights. Never mind in pull mode. (You becoming a fan of the Acela Express crashworthiness now?) |
|
|
| (1440588) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jun 24 11:00:23 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Joe V on Fri Jun 23 19:50:59 2017. Well, they knew what they were doing.Would have liked to see some of the original M1s in that paint scheme too. Even C3s, for a special Cannonball train. |
|
|
| (1440601) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Jun 24 15:30:06 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jun 23 21:58:38 2017. Reformed is better. I see no reason why both leaves need to be cut out when a wheelchair passenger can merely be directed to the door that is fully opened which he/she would have to do anyhow. |
|
|
| (1440604) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jun 24 16:03:50 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by randyo on Sat Jun 24 15:30:06 2017. One of the things I preach against in my line of work is "optimizing for the crisis." As an example, an army tank is certainly a safer means of transportation if one should be involved in an accident; the odds of survival in a tank are much greater than if one is driving an ordinary car. Yet we don't drive tanks to work every day on the off chance that we might be involved in an accident despite the advantage given; most of us prefer a car that looks nicer, or one that has decent fuel efficiency, or one that can go faster on the highway and save us travel time. If one is involved in an automobile accident and even dies, bereaved relatives don't bemoan the fact that the deceased wasn't driving an army tank the way he should have been, and they don't immediately purchase army tanks for themselves so that such a fate won't befall them.If a major reason (or especially the only reason) for using single-leaf doors is to facilitate the ingress and egress of people in wheelchairs in the event of a door failure, that to me sounds like a case of optimizing for the crisis and enduring disadvantages on every single door open and close. In good design, one generally optimizes for the normal condition rather than the exception. One might provide for the exception, to be sure, but to optimize for it is usually silly. |
|
|
| (1440614) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 24 19:04:56 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jun 24 16:03:50 2017. One of the things I preach against in my line of work is "optimizing for the crisis."Heh, I have that same thought at my own workplace. We spend untold amounts of time configuring complicated redundancies which are not needed if we can simply accept that should something unforeseen occur, a given application may be unavailable for up to 5 minutes. Some things (anything involving police or healthcare) legitimately need that 24x7x365. Very little else does. |
|
|
| (1440687) | |
Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update |
|
|
Posted by R211 on Sun Jun 25 23:24:42 2017, in response to Re: LIRR's M-9 train appearance update, posted by tramrunner on Fri Jun 23 23:32:20 2017. R211 will use what they please |
|
|
