# Various strange interoperability questions...



## chuljin (Jul 1, 2008)

OK, so a recent post by jackal reminded me of a few interrelated questions I've been itching to ask for a while.

Note that each question relates to the previous one, and the first relates to jackal's post, but overall they wander a little. 


Whooz mentioned that he wasn't sure whether Metrolink's newly-leased cars would be touching the rails when delivered (i.e. would they be pulled or put on a flatcar), and jackal posited that they're rated to be delivered in the former way. What about light-rail cars? I've seen pictures, videos, &c. of light-rail cars arriving on flatcars, then placed by crane or whatever. Even though (I would guess) they can't carry passengers on mainlines, can they be so delivered, empty? Or would they just shake themselves apart? Every day I pass by the Gold Line yards north of LAX, and I noticed this single-track connection (just to the left of, and partially shadowed by, the Gold Line bridge over the LA 'River') (also shown here) between the Gold Line and the Metrolink mainline tracks...is this perhaps how they were delivered? Does this track serve any other purpose (I also notice it has the rust of disuse)?

Speaking of non-revenue connections: The regional connector (an excellent idea, IMHO) aside, is there any *non-revenue* but powered connection between the Gold Line and Blue/Green Lines? There's at least none shown on the track map linked to above. Are they even electrically compatible (I guess they'd have to be, otherwise the regional connector would be a moot point)? Couplers, etc.?

Speaking specifically of the kinds of passenger cars rated to run on 'the big tracks': How much variation is there among all (in the US, anyways) passenger cars in the type of couplers, HEP cables, and intercar diaphram size and height (distance from the ground)? I recently read a trip report here on AU that mentioned that BBCs were attached (for delivery) to some Amtrak train (but presumably unoccupied). I know Superliner/Surfliner/California upper level, and single-level, are at least two heights, but I'm not sure about BBCs...it looks almost like a 1.5th floor, but that could be an optical illusion (the 1st floor is quite low), and they'd probably object if I went out onto the tracks with a tape measure. My question (though it would obviously never happen) is could you have a bizarre train consisting of a Superliner, a Transition, a Comet, a BBC, a Viewliner, a Pullman, 10031, etc. and: 1) be able to walk safely from car to car throughout the train; 2) have lights and air in all the cars? Just a wierd curiosity I've had for a while.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 1, 2008)

chuljin said:


> OK, so a recent post by jackal reminded me of a few interrelated questions I've been itching to ask for a while.Note that each question relates to the previous one, and the first relates to jackal's post, but overall they wander a little.


I'll try to tackle some of this and hopefully others will also chime in.



chuljin said:


> [*]Whooz mentioned that he wasn't sure whether Metrolink's newly-leased cars would be touching the rails when delivered (i.e. would they be pulled or put on a flatcar), and jackal posited that they're rated to be delivered in the former way. What about light-rail cars? I've seen pictures, videos, &c. of light-rail cars arriving on flatcars, then placed by crane or whatever. Even though (I would guess) they can't carry passengers on mainlines, can they be so delivered, empty? Or would they just shake themselves apart? Every day I pass by the Gold Line yards north of LAX, and I noticed this single-track connection (just to the left of, and partially shadowed by, the Gold Line bridge over the LA 'River') (also shown here) between the Gold Line and the Metrolink mainline tracks...is this perhaps how they were delivered? Does this track serve any other purpose (I also notice it has the rust of disuse)?


Most light rail cars and subway/heavy rail cars don't have standard couplers and therefore must be delivered on a flatbed car. Not to mention that it's far easier for a car manufacturer to just load them onto a flatbed railcar. Commuter rail is a horse of a different color since they typically do have standard couplers, not to mention standard brake lines. And then of course in the case being discussed, these cars are already on the rails and are not coming from a factory.

It's also possible that there is an FRA regulation that prohibits putting a light rail car in the midst of a freight train, even if one did use standard couplers and brake lines.

I'm certainly not in possesion of info that would confirm your theory about the track connection, but the odds are very good that it is indeed there for that very purpose, delivering light rail cars via flatbed railcars.



chuljin said:


> [*]Speaking specifically of the kinds of passenger cars rated to run on 'the big tracks': How much variation is there among all (in the US, anyways) passenger cars in the type of couplers, HEP cables, and intercar diaphram size and height (distance from the ground)? I recently read a trip report here on AU that mentioned that BBCs were attached (for delivery) to some Amtrak train (but presumably unoccupied). I know Superliner/Surfliner/California upper level, and single-level, are at least two heights, but I'm not sure about BBCs...it looks almost like a 1.5th floor, but that could be an optical illusion (the 1st floor is quite low), and they'd probably object if I went out onto the tracks with a tape measure. My question (though it would obviously never happen) is could you have a bizarre train consisting of a Superliner, a Transition, a Comet, a BBC, a Viewliner, a Pullman, 10031, etc. and: 1) be able to walk safely from car to car throughout the train; 2) have lights and air in all the cars? Just a wierd curiosity I've had for a while.


I don't believe that there is much, if any variation, in couplers. HEP also I believe is generally very standardized, as almost all diesel locomotives provide power in the same way. So the real issue might be variations in height of the diaphram, and perhaps the size. But I would tend to think that such a consist as you describe, while odd looking, should be possible if you could find someone with the clout to actually get such a consist put together.


----------



## chuljin (Jul 1, 2008)

AlanB said:


> chuljin said:
> 
> 
> > [*]Speaking specifically of the kinds of passenger cars rated to run on 'the big tracks': How much variation is there among all (in the US, anyways) passenger cars in the type of couplers, HEP cables, and intercar diaphram size and height (distance from the ground)? I recently read a trip report here on AU that mentioned that BBCs were attached (for delivery) to some Amtrak train (but presumably unoccupied). I know Superliner/Surfliner/California upper level, and single-level, are at least two heights, but I'm not sure about BBCs...it looks almost like a 1.5th floor, but that could be an optical illusion (the 1st floor is quite low), and they'd probably object if I went out onto the tracks with a tape measure. My question (though it would obviously never happen) is could you have a bizarre train consisting of a Superliner, a Transition, a Comet, a BBC, a Viewliner, a Pullman, 10031, etc. and: 1) be able to walk safely from car to car throughout the train; 2) have lights and air in all the cars? Just a wierd curiosity I've had for a while.
> ...


I didn't mean, of course, that precise consist; it was just the most absurd example I could think of. More saliently, something like BBCs and comets, as mentioned over there. 

Still, this satisfies my curiosity. Thanks!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 1, 2008)

chuljin said:


> Whooz mentioned that he wasn't sure whether Metrolink's newly-leased cars would be touching the rails when delivered (i.e. would they be pulled or put on a flatcar), and jackal posited that they're rated to be delivered in the former way. What about light-rail cars? I've seen pictures, videos, &c. of light-rail cars arriving on flatcars, then placed by crane or whatever. Even though (I would guess) they can't carry passengers on mainlines, can they be so delivered, empty? Or would they just shake themselves apart? Every day I pass by the Gold Line yards north of LAX, and I noticed this single-track connection (just to the left of, and partially shadowed by, the Gold Line bridge over the LA 'River') (also shown here) between the Gold Line and the Metrolink mainline tracks...is this perhaps how they were delivered? Does this track serve any other purpose (I also notice it has the rust of disuse)?


The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority article in wikipedia claims ``There are no direct track connections between lines, except between the Red Line and Ashmont-Mattapan High Speed Line, but all except the Blue Line have unused connections to the national rail network, which have been used for deliveries.'', citing this Usenet thread However, the most recent orders of subway cars seem to have been delivered by highway.

I'm not sure a flatcar would reduce the vibration a subway car would experience.



chuljin said:


> Speaking specifically of the kinds of passenger cars rated to run on 'the big tracks': How much variation is there among all (in the US, anyways) passenger cars in the type of couplers, HEP cables, and intercar diaphram size and height (distance from the ground)? I recently read a trip report here on AU that mentioned that BBCs were attached (for delivery) to some Amtrak train (but presumably unoccupied). I know Superliner/Surfliner/California upper level, and single-level, are at least two heights, but I'm not sure about BBCs...it looks almost like a 1.5th floor, but that could be an optical illusion (the 1st floor is quite low), and they'd probably object if I went out onto the tracks with a tape measure. My question (though it would obviously never happen) is could you have a bizarre train consisting of a Superliner, a Transition, a Comet, a BBC, a Viewliner, a Pullman, 10031, etc. and: 1) be able to walk safely from car to car throughout the train; 2) have lights and air in all the cars? Just a wierd curiosity I've had for a while.


Somewhere I have seen a claim that HEP can be run at different voltages, with differing numbers of connectors between cars, and in Western Canada is done with A and B power feeds to each car. However, I think 480V with four connectors at the end of each car the way Amtrak does it is very common among major commuter railroads, as well. (Three phase 480V power is also a very, very common thing to find in commercial office buildings, which probably makes yard power easier, and if you can find an office air conditioning system rugged enough that it will work in a train car, chances are it was designed for three phase 480V power.)


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 1, 2008)

I think that to run a passenger train with people on it on an Amtrak owned line, you either need a waiver or HEP compatibility with Amtrak engines. Possibly also compatibility with Amtrak couplers, such that Amtrak could pull and move a disabled train off its track and provide hotel power in the event of a failure.

I'm pretty sure that the MetroNorth/LIRR EMU trains have different couplers than standard trains. Same with PATH, which I think runs on an active freight line for some of its route.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 1, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'm pretty sure that the MetroNorth/LIRR EMU trains have different couplers than standard trains. Same with PATH, which I think runs on an active freight line for some of its route.


I'm not sure about the power connections between the MN/LIRR EMU's, but I believe that they do use standard couplers. The LIRR stations two diesel motors in Sunnyside every weekday during the rush hours just in case one of their trains lays down in the East River tunnels. I don't believe that those diesel motors have special couplers and I can't see the crews wanting to deal with some kind of adapter in a dark, hot tunnel while under pressure to not only rescue the train and its pax, but also to clear the bottleneck.

As for PATH, that's considered heavy rail, not commuter rail which automatically takes it out of consideration. And PATH does not run on an active freight line. I believe that there are still connections to an active freight line at Journal Square and quite possibly even to the NEC, athough I'm not positive about the later. But AFAIK there is no active freight service on the PATH tracks.


----------



## jackal (Jul 2, 2008)

I don't know for sure, but I think the diaphragms for BBLs are at a different height than the Superliner/Surfliner/California cars. I _think_ they are actually compatible with single-level equipment--if you look at the level of the 1.5 floor, it's actually pretty close to the level of a single-level car (the first floor is actually below truck level, but the 1.5 floor is pretty much right on top of the trucks, like single-level equipment is).

HEP connections are fairly standardized across the country, I believe, but some cars do have non-compatible HEP systems. The pull-contractor cars that the Alaska Railroad carries (the ones owned by Princess, Royal Carribbean, and Holland America cruise lines) have a non-compatible HEP system, so they run with diesel generators. I'm nto sure what makes them different--I think it had something to do with the power phases or looping or something.

As far as transporting light rail cars or subway cars: even if they had standard ARR couplers (which most do not, although I believe I've seen some with them), they would not be allowed on mainline trackage because of speed restrictions and the fact that they do not meet FRA construction requirements. However, it is entirely possible that they could run in a normal freight (or passenger) consist with special waivers and speed restrictions. There is a very fuzzy memory buried somewhere in my head that seems to recall seeing some light-rail cars tagged on the back of a train once for delivery. But take my fuzzy memory with a large shaker of salt.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 2, 2008)

jackal said:


> I don't know for sure, but I think the diaphragms for BBLs are at a different height than the Superliner/Surfliner/California cars. I _think_ they are actually compatible with single-level equipment--if you look at the level of the 1.5 floor, it's actually pretty close to the level of a single-level car (the first floor is actually below truck level, but the 1.5 floor is pretty much right on top of the trucks, like single-level equipment is).


That's why he put the Trans/Dorm into his list, to solve that problem as well as of course linking to the other single level equipment.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Jul 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I'll try to tackle some of this and hopefully others will also chime in.


I'll 5-chime in (Trainhorns.net) kind of off topic about what I think is the light rail/heavy rail misnomer.

I think many people somehow believe that light rail means lightweight equipment, and heavy rail means heavy equipment. However, don't these labels have more to do with capacity/frequency than actual car construction? That is, since subway cars generally don't have to deal with the potential hazards of grade crossings, aren't they actually of lighter construction than light rail equipment? And doesn't heavy rail actually refer to carrying more passengers per hour than light rail?

Don't know where a system like the LIRR would come in, but would guess it's more heavy than light, though it also deals with grade crossings.

Forgive my relative ignorance; always looking to learn.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 2, 2008)

WhoozOn1st999 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I'll try to tackle some of this and hopefully others will also chime in.
> ...


Light rail refers to passenger capacity, not the actual weight of the cars themselves. The physical weight of a light rail car can come very close to that of a heavy rail car and probably in some cases exceeds it. Light rail cars also tend to use overhead catenary for power, although there are a few diesel based systems out there now. While heavy rail tends to use third rail power, although Cleveland has a heavy rail car that does use overhead catenary just to be another exception to the rule.

The LIRR is considered commuter rail, not heavy or light rail. The biggest difference there is that commuter rail cars typically operate on tracks that are also used by freight trains. Therefore they are subject to and must meet all FRA requirements for collision strength. While there are some cases where light rail cars operate on freight tracks, NJT's River line for example, the two cannot operate at the same time. There are specific time windows where only light rail operates, mainly from like 6:00 AM to Midnight or so and the freight window is Midnight to 6:00 AM.


----------



## jackal (Jul 2, 2008)

AlanB said:


> WhoozOn1st999 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


The San Diego Trolley is another example of mixed-usage--the light-rail Trolley system runs during the day, and the San Diego and Imperial Valley freights are only allowed to run at night after the Trolley is tucked into bed.

Despite light-rail cars often being heavier than heavy-rail cars, they tend to have lower speed limits--I think most of the ones I'm familiar with never run faster than 50 or 55, whereas heavy-rail subways can hit 70 (rumor's that the L.A. Metro Red Line does 70 under the Santa Susana mountains between Hollywood and Highland and Universal City). That's why I suggested speed restrictions for the train carrying them--doing 70mph on the Transcon probably wouldn't be too good for the poor little streetcars (might cause the copper wires in the traction motors to fly off, sorta like how someone described in the thread talking about overspeed...).


----------



## Ryan (Jul 2, 2008)

Washington Metro subway cars are actually delivered over the road from Alstom in New York - always seemed odd to me, I remember seeing one as a kid going down I-270. Bizzare.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jul 3, 2008)

Only way rail cars can be moved via US railroad system is if they comply with certain minimum standards, some of these standards can be adapted with compromise couplers .

But to move them as rail cars they need a certain coupler height, air brakes compatible with general freight, a minimum body strength of 800 000 lbs crush load.

and comply with size issues.

As for LIRR and MNCR car both have electric couplers, not standard AAR couplers, the MNCR have compatible air brakes when set up for tow, the LIRR do not and were moved on flatcars.

the M1's for example the LIRR cars went on flatcars to Mexico, the MNCR cars on their own wheels to Ohio for scrapping


----------



## chuljin (Jul 3, 2008)

AlanB said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know for sure, but I think the diaphragms for BBLs are at a different height than the Superliner/Surfliner/California cars. I _think_ they are actually compatible with single-level equipment--if you look at the level of the 1.5 floor, it's actually pretty close to the level of a single-level car (the first floor is actually below truck level, but the 1.5 floor is pretty much right on top of the trucks, like single-level equipment is).
> ...


And of course it was simply the most absurd consist I could pull out of 'down back there' to illustrate my question. More relevant, considering the original post which prompted the question, would be BBCs and Comets.

I unscientifically 'measured' (not directly, but comparing to a landmark [specifically, the top of the solid part of the wall at GDL between the sidewalk and platform at GDL]  ) the height of the bottom of a BBC diaphragm; the next time I see 798 or 799 (sadly, given my wierd schedule this week, probably not until Monday), I'll do the same 'measurement' and compare.


----------



## jackal (Jul 4, 2008)

chuljin said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...



Please do post...I'm quite curious now!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jul 5, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Light rail cars also tend to use overhead catenary for power, although there are a few diesel based systems out there now. While heavy rail tends to use third rail power, although Cleveland has a heavy rail car that does use overhead catenary just to be another exception to the rule.


The MBTA Blue Line uses both catenary and third rail; I believe it's catenary west of Airport and third rail east of Airport, though there's a little flexibility in exactly where the transition can occur.

The MBTA budget includes heaters for third rail, but not for catenary.


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 5, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> The MBTA budget includes heaters for third rail, but not for catenary.


Aloha

What do you mean by this. Heater for the car or a heater for the third rail to keep it clear? Since there is a silding shoe and usually a cover I would not think this neccessary. This would be the same reason not to have some frorm of heater for catenary, the sliding pan. The only Ice buildup to worry about on catenary might be enough to bring it down.

Mahalo

Eric


----------



## jackal (Jul 6, 2008)

GG-1 said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > The MBTA budget includes heaters for third rail, but not for catenary.
> ...


We should feel bad--we're getting a lesson in ice from a _Hawaiian_!


----------



## GG-1 (Jul 6, 2008)

jackal said:


> We should feel bad--we're getting a lesson in ice from a _Hawaiian_!


Outside of work (touring Ice shows) all my ice is in drinks, too many variety's to count   But the first 20 years of my life were in PRR territory where I rode behind the G's and fell in love with them. Not the same as a woman but beautiful and exciting.

Aloha


----------



## chuljin (Jul 9, 2008)

jackal said:


> chuljin said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I finally remembered to 'measure' (read: eyeball) it...they appear the same. If anything, the single-level is 1-2" above the BBC, but nothing like the half-storey I originally guessed.

So there we go.


----------



## sechs (Jul 10, 2008)

AlanB said:


> The LIRR is considered commuter rail, not heavy or light rail.


In my book, commuter rail *is* heavy rail.


----------



## jackal (Jul 10, 2008)

chuljin said:


> jackal said:
> 
> 
> > chuljin said:
> ...


So, based on your eyeing, it would be feasible to hook a Bombardier Bi-Level to a single-level car? Interesting to know...


----------



## chuljin (Jul 10, 2008)

jackal said:


> chuljin said:
> 
> 
> > jackal said:
> ...


It *seems* possible...it'll be interesting to see if Metrolink ever combines their BBCs and their new-old ex-NJT Comets in a single train. I'll have plenty of opportunities to find out.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 10, 2008)

Is that where all the ancient Comet Is went?


----------



## AlanB (Jul 10, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Is that where all the ancient Comet Is went?


Not yet at least AFAIK. Metrolink is in talks to get some, but I don't believe that the deal is done yet. On the other hand Utah's Front Runner did buy 20 cars IIRC last month.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2008)

AlanB said:


> As for PATH, that's considered heavy rail, not commuter rail which automatically takes it out of consideration. And PATH does not run on an active freight line. I believe that there are still connections to an active freight line at Journal Square and quite possibly even to the NEC, athough I'm not positive about the later. But AFAIK there is no active freight service on the PATH tracks.


There is no active freight service on any of the tracks used by PATH mainly because there is no way left for a freight tog et on PATH tracks. There are no remaining connections between PATH and NEC. The last switch connecting the two near the Harrison PATH facilty has been replaced by a diamond crossing leading to a dead end track.


----------



## jis (Jul 11, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Is that where all the ancient Comet Is went?
> ...


In addition a bunch of them are going to SEPTA too, on lease from NJT.


----------

