# NJT Bi-Level set seen on the New Haven Line



## Murjax (Jun 20, 2009)

.
Usually when I see equipment moved outside its territory it's for maintenance purposes but I don't think there are any major maintenance yards on the NEC in New England. With that said, I figure this must be Amtrak running tests on the different voltages of the NEC and if that's the case Amtrak must be getting serious about purchasing ALP-46s to replace the AEM-7 DCs. Do I have my facts correct here?


----------



## AlanB (Jun 20, 2009)

This isn't about Amtrak. It's about NJT running trains to the New Jersey Meadowlands for ball games, once the new station opens. No doubt this is a test run of the equipment to ensure that it will handle the volatage changes from the NEC south/west of NYP and the north/east of NYP.


----------



## Murjax (Jun 20, 2009)

AlanB said:


> This isn't about Amtrak. It's about NJT running trains to the New Jersey Meadowlands for ball games, once the new station opens. No doubt this is a test run of the equipment to ensure that it will handle the volatage changes from the NEC south/west of NYP and the north/east of NYP.


That's interesting. I've heard about the meadowlands train before, although it thought they killed the proposal for some reason. Would this train be run by MNRR northeast of NYP or by NJT the whole way? (I guess this topic isn't Amtrak related like I thought so feel free to move it.)


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 20, 2009)

Murjax said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > This isn't about Amtrak. It's about NJT running trains to the New Jersey Meadowlands for ball games, once the new station opens. No doubt this is a test run of the equipment to ensure that it will handle the volatage changes from the NEC south/west of NYP and the north/east of NYP.
> ...



Its NJT equipment with MNCR crew, in August they will start running revenue trains to 1 pm weekend games.

only equipment that will be used is NJT ALP-46 and multilevels.

At NYP the trains is turned over to NJT crew.

A test train comprised of nine NJT multilevels (#7008 cab car) and ALP-46

(#4604) ran the entire leng of the New Haven line today from Penn Station all

the way to New Haven and back. Quite an impressive sight to see along with the

usual Amtrak and MN equipment.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 20, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Its NJT equipment with MNCR crew, in August they will start running revenue trains to 1 pm weekend games.only equipment that will be used is NJT ALP-46 and multilevels.
> 
> At NYP the trains is turned over to NJT crew.


Interesting. I had figured that they'd use Amtrak crews. When did Metro North qualify crews to operate over Hell Gate and through the East River tunnels?


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 20, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > Its NJT equipment with MNCR crew, in August they will start running revenue trains to 1 pm weekend games.only equipment that will be used is NJT ALP-46 and multilevels.
> ...


There has been a few crews qualifying on Hellgate and NYP. , there will be additional test trains every week till august to finalize training.

Amtrak can not run passenger trains on MNCR, other than those in National Timetable and their own incidental worktrains/engine moves etc.

All passenger work on MNCR belongs to the MNCR unions, as per contract.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 20, 2009)

To be honest I don't see how NJT Multi-level's would be making Meadowland runs in East Norwalk, CT. Maybe MNCR is looking into purchasing the Multi-Level's and looking into electric locos. As far as your idea of Amtrak looking into ALP-46 units. Amtrak has expressed interests in electrics similar to the ALP-46's.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 20, 2009)

Acela150 said:


> To be honest I don't see how NJT Multi-level's would be making Meadowland runs in East Norwalk, CT. Maybe MNCR is looking into purchasing the Multi-Level's and looking into electric locos. As far as your idea of Amtrak looking into ALP-46 units. Amtrak has expressed interests in electrics similar to the ALP-46's.


At least for now, they won't be able to make it to the Meadowlands. Passengers will have to transfer at Secaucus Junction to a shuttle train from there to the Meadowlands station. But that's still better and faster than driving from CT or taking a bus.

Once the new tunnels are built a few years down the road, along with some new tracks in the Junction area, it will be a one seat ride.

And Metro North has no use or need for those multi-level cars, since they won't fit in the Park Avenue tunnels. So this isn't a test for them to see if they like the cars.


----------



## Acela150 (Jun 20, 2009)

True I forgot about the tunnels


----------



## railiner (Jun 21, 2009)

Does anyone know the difference in clearance between NEC Amtrak tunnels and Park Avenue MN tunnels? It may be irrelevant, but I remember old United Aircraft Turbo Trains

could (and did), run with their power-dome cars into NYP or NYG.

I've often thought that it would be neat if MNCR and NJT could run a few through trains from say Long Branch to New Canaan. This would give a through ride on a route that doesn't impact Amtraks business. There probably isn't much through traffic to warrant the service on that route, but running a train through with only a crew change at NYP would save time and equipment turnaround and/or storage.

As for unions, if Amtrak can operate over MNCR territory, why couldn't MNCR reciprocate some?

I'm sure the Hell Gate Bridge route can stand a few more trains, and Amtrak could use some financial assistance in the cost of maintaining that huge infrastructure.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 21, 2009)

railiner said:


> Does anyone know the difference in clearance between NEC Amtrak tunnels and Park Avenue MN tunnels? It may be irrelevant, but I remember old United Aircraft Turbo Trainscould (and did), run with their power-dome cars into NYP or NYG.
> 
> I've often thought that it would be neat if MNCR and NJT could run a few through trains from say Long Branch to New Canaan. This would give a through ride on a route that doesn't impact Amtraks business. There probably isn't much through traffic to warrant the service on that route, but running a train through with only a crew change at NYP would save time and equipment turnaround and/or storage.
> 
> ...


Problem is NYP, there simply are no slots available, to run more trains through in rush hour,and if such slots were available they would be going to LIRR or NJT first.

A service like that would impact Amtrak cause it would take away passengers that normally ride between NYP and Stamford.

As for clearance, the Turbo's were restricted to center two tracks, MNCR policy is " it has to fit in all four tracks" or it does not fit.

This Giants game service is gone be very limited, Sunday games only and only the 1 pm games.

http://www.railfanwindow.com/blog/2009/03/...ervice-details/


----------



## railiner (Jun 21, 2009)

Perhaps when LIRR diverts a lot of trains to GCT when new connection is complete, it would free up some slots at NYP. As for NYP to Stamford, I always was under the impression that Amtrak had no desire to serve the 'short" hauls served by MNCR nor the ones served by NJT, SEPTA, MARC, MBTA, or Shore Line East on routes that duplicated its own.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 21, 2009)

railiner said:


> Perhaps when LIRR diverts a lot of trains to GCT when new connection is complete, it would free up some slots at NYP.


AFAIK the LIRR only plans to divert at most 1/4th of the current daily trains that run into NYP. The LIRR is looking to increase the total number of trains into Manhattan. There has been some talk, not sure just how much of that talk is from MTA management vs. hopeful railfans, about running some MNCR New Haven Line trains into NYP as well as some Hudson Line trains. However, both have their issues too.

The Hudson Line would have to be diesel hauled trains, as there is no third rail down the west side of Manhattan. And then all MNCR diesels are currently equipped with an under-running third rail pick-up shoe. NYP requires an over-running shoe. While MN could rework the shoes on some of their engines, those engines would then be unable to ever serve Grand Central.

Turning to the New Haven, I've seen some discussion that suggests that the new M8 cars will be unable to handle the voltage changes that occur when leaving MN territory at New Rochelle. I believe that the old M2 cars can handle that change, but they will soon be retired when the M8's arrive. Perhaps Dutch knows more about this power issue and can better explain and verify or disprove what I've said.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 21, 2009)

railiner said:


> Perhaps when LIRR diverts a lot of trains to GCT when new connection is complete, it would free up some slots at NYP. As for NYP to Stamford, I always was under the impression that Amtrak had no desire to serve the 'short" hauls served by MNCR nor the ones served by NJT, SEPTA, MARC, MBTA, or Shore Line East on routes that duplicated its own.



LIRR is not diverting trains to GCT, the ESA project is to add capacity to the current capacity, as LIRR only has about 63% of trains accesing Manhattan.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 21, 2009)

AlanB said:


> The Hudson Line would have to be diesel hauled trains, as there is no third rail down the west side of Manhattan. And then all MNCR diesels are currently equipped with an under-running third rail pick-up shoe. NYP requires an over-running shoe. While MN could rework the shoes on some of their engines, those engines would then be unable to ever serve Grand Central.
> Turning to the New Haven, I've seen some discussion that suggests that the new M8 cars will be unable to handle the voltage changes that occur when leaving MN territory at New Rochelle. I believe that the old M2 cars can handle that change, but they will soon be retired when the M8's arrive. Perhaps Dutch knows more about this power issue and can better explain and verify or disprove what I've said.



If MNCR were to run to NYP, Amtrak would require two engines on each train, currently MNCR does not have that capability, MNCR is working on a LIRR/MNCR third rail shoe/mech for M-8 cars.

Yes the M-8 can not run on 12Kv 25 Hz , it can only run on 25Kv or 12.5 Kv 60 Hz and third rail, for M-8's to be able to go into NYP the hellgate line between gate and harold would need to be equipped with third rail, or entire NYP complex switched to 12.5Kv 60 hz (probably cheaper) which would elliminate power shortages.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 21, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> If MNCR were to run to NYP, Amtrak would require two engines on each train, currently MNCR does not have that capability, MNCR is working on a LIRR/MNCR third rail shoe/mech for M-8 cars.


Why on earth would Amtrak require two engines?

They don't make that requirement of NJT or themselves for that matter.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 21, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > If MNCR were to run to NYP, Amtrak would require two engines on each train, currently MNCR does not have that capability, MNCR is working on a LIRR/MNCR third rail shoe/mech for M-8 cars.
> ...



Due to third rail gapping Amtrak requires two engines in push pull service,at opposing ends of train, just like LIRR does.

with empire trains the engine is always in lead so engineer can determine where the third rail is at all times and avoid gapping.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 21, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Dutchrailnut said:
> ...


Ok, thanks. That makes sense. I had heard that the LIRR used two engines because they couldn't produce enough power off the third rail to make the climb up from under the East River to Sunnyside, but this gap issue makes far more sense.

Certainly don't want to try repeating the experiment that the MTA tried with an R train at Queens Plaza several years back, where only the lead car was pulling power from the third rail. The motorman stopped on a switch because a G train was still in the station and of course that meant a gap and the train lost all power.

That set off a wonderful sequence of events where they eventually had to kill all power to all tracks in the heart of rush hour on one of the hottest days of the year and evacuate everyone from the tunnels.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 21, 2009)

On the other hand, maybe MN just needs to borrow some of the LIRR's "Beware of the Gap" signs. :lol: :lol:


----------



## railiner (Jun 21, 2009)

Could someone explain to me what power is used where in NYC area? Is there any chance the MNCR or LIRR would change type of third rail to match the other? I know it would be costly, but remember....back in 1886 in less than two days, 13,000 miles of 5 foot guage tracks in the South were converted to standard guage so it is conceivable.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jun 22, 2009)

railiner said:


> Could someone explain to me what power is used where in NYC area? Is there any chance the MNCR or LIRR would change type of third rail to match the other? I know it would be costly, but remember....back in 1886 in less than two days, 13,000 miles of 5 foot guage tracks in the South were converted to standard guage so it is conceivable.



I don't know where you got that story from, but answer is no, the third rail could not be changed without shutting down system for months.

new haven line uses 12.5 Kv 60 hz

from gate to washignhton is 12 kv 25 hz

from new haven to boston is 25 kv 60 hz

both

lirr and mncr use 700 volt DC third rail, liir over running, mncr under running.


----------



## railiner (Jun 22, 2009)

Dutchrailnut said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Could someone explain to me what power is used where in NYC area? Is there any chance the MNCR or LIRR would change type of third rail to match the other? I know it would be costly, but remember....back in 1886 in less than two days, 13,000 miles of 5 foot guage tracks in the South were converted to standard guage so it is conceivable.
> ...


Thankyou for that information.

As for where I got that story.....it's on page 144 of "The American Heritage History of Railroads in America, by Oliver Jensen, 1975, McGraw-Hill Company.


----------



## DET63 (Jul 17, 2009)

railiner said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


It's also online.


----------

