Debut of M-8's delayed, M2/4/6 with high failure rates.

Trains Magazine Transit
1

STAMFORD – A prospective debut date of the New Haven Line’s long-awaited M-8 rail cars remains hazy as engineers continue work to correct computer glitches that have prevented the new trains from entering public service, the state’s public transportation chief said Wednesday night.

While an earlier software problem that caused the cars to disrupt railway signal systems has been fixed, state Department of Transportation Public Transportation Bureau Chief James Redeker told the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council Wednesday various other software issues have come up that have put off a series of mileage tests for the first eight pilot cars.

“Every night we are out testing but we have not begun the official 4,000-mile test that will get us into revenue service,” Redeker said. “Once we get all systems functional and working perfectly we’ll get the 4,000 mile tests going.”

None of the cars have begun a series of simulated passenger runs in which the new cars must complete at least 4,000 miles without any significant errors, Redeker said at the council’s regular January meeting.

“An issue comes up almost every night, but we’re installing software fixes and hoping to get the mileage tests started soon,” Redeker said.

After predicting in late December the cars would be in service in late January, Metro-North Railroad and DOT officials this week declined to say when the cars would be in service.

Metro-North Railroad President Howard Permut and DOT Commissioner Jeffrey Parker last month acknowledged software glitches would prevent a long-discussed debut by late 2010.

Rail Council Chairman Jim Cameron asked Redeker to inform the council and the public about any significant new software problems that could hold up the trains until spring or later.

“Please keep the council updated and let us know what’s going on,” Cameron said. “We’ll expect to see the cars in the future.”

Intensive efforts to keep tracks clear of snow during

2

I sent the following message via email today to someone pretty well known to most readers of this thread:

Of course I hope these computer problems will be put to bed quickly, and the improved reliability and performance and comfort will be enjoyed by Connecticut and eastern Westchester commuters. Many people doubt the existence of the spiritual world and some doubt the existence of the Creator. I don’t. I have one suggestion that you may be bold enough to pass on to your former employer.

It isn’t for nothing that IC-Suburban always had diaphragms on the ends of its MU cars. Icy winds off of Lake Michigan can be health threatening in winter. But so can winds off Long Island Sound.

So maybe MN’s and CDot’s consultants were 100% wrong in putting aesthetics over crew comfort in adding pantograph gates instead of rolled rubber diaphragms to the M8’s.

May it is worth a try to equip one 4-car train with rolled rubber diaphragms on the four A-ends and see how quickly the computer problems get solved on these four cars?

3

Technically there is no need to move from pair to pair, there is a bathroom in every other car.

only time people are suppose to travel between pairs is when train is stopped.

see stickers near doors.

4

Crew members do go from pair to pair. There comfort and safety should be considered along with that of the passengers.

5

Crew members know they will get dirty, cold and misserable without railroad consideration, it is still 80% better than being a freight conductor.

6

But there is no reason to make them cold and dirty unnecessarily, and they are supposed to present a clean appearance to pasengers and they are given that specific responsibility.

Putting subway type pantograph gates on the a-ends was just plain dumb, dumb, dumb. The consultants just wanted the cars to look like subway cars because that is the MTA’s image. Note that the a-ends of cabcars used in diesel pushpull service do have the diaphragms and don’t have the rediculous pantograph gates.

7

The Pantograph gates are a ADA requirement to keep blind people (read drunks) from falling in between cars at platforms.

As for Diaphrams, the cost is not justfiable for its purpose.

8

The ADA allows diaphragms to take the place of pantograph gates, and that is why there are no pantograph gates between the B-ends on this particular cars, nor on any end of any of the push-pull cars. The idea is to provide a physical protection only when a space between the cars allows light to be mistaken for a door opening. The diaphragms remove the light simulation problem. And please don’t tell me that the patograph gates are less expensive than the rolled rubber diaphragms, either in cost or maintenance, a casual examination would say the contrary! And this rule applies on all lines with high platforms. Including Amtrak.

9

Nevertheless, without diaphragms on the A-ends, the cars are now going into service, and the level of improvement in passenger comfort is considerable from all reports. Happy to learn this.

10

Mr Klepper, On all 3th generation push pulls on NJT and MNCR the cars have diaphrams and ADA gates., and so do the M-8 EMU’s

11

Except on the a-ends of the Metro North mu’s, which is the mistake I have been describing.

12

And again, I explain, movement from pair to pair is not allowed so diaphrams are not needed.

What you feel a train should have and what railroad deems neccesary are not synonymous it seems.

Why would railroad add hundreds of pounds of weight to a MU car at location where we do not want people to pass and so encourage them ???

13

But employees do pass between the cars regularly in performance of their duties and the present situation is a threat to their health.

14

Compared to freight railroad employees the Conductors and ticket collectors on Commuter railroads lead a very sheltered life, crossing from car to car does not threathen their health. or at least has not done so in previous 160 years of railroading.

15

One of the problems is that Dave’s point of view is from NJT and SEPTA where cab cars are insterted anywhere in a train when needed or by happenstance. I believe LIRR does this too. So, Dave is right if that is to be operating procedure. But if MNRR-CONDOT can work without having to couple cab cars into the center of a train, then you are right, Dutch.

16

On Metro North, all mu cars are cab cars with one blind end and one cab end. The blind ends are coupled together to make “married pair.” Simple roll rubber diaphragms are provided on the blind ends because only one of the two married pairs as a john. But what if a john is out of service?

Freight trainmen dress for the job and are not expected to look like their uniforms were just pressed and back from the cleaners. Those who object to my complaint have never had to go from a warm car to another warm car via the gap between with a gale wind , zero degrees, with an ice storm blowing off either the Connecticut or Long Island coasts. Tain’t fun!

17

The problem is , Mr Klepper concerns himself with issues that are not his concern.

If he feels otherwise he can contact : Association of Commuter Rail Employees ACRE

18

I thought all railroad matters were of concern on this forum. I trust the Kalmbach people to remove anything inappropriate, and I don’t think anyone else has a right to play censor. I subscribe the magazine. Thus, railroad matters are my concern.

At one point in my life I was a rairoad employee. But that is completely irrelevant.

19

There is more: If there is any other contributer to this specific thread or this specific forum that has knowledge of the history of commuter operations in the NY area that is noticeably ahead of what I can offer, I wish he or she could contributed. With regard to the particular question:

Under private management, no commuter RR serving NY City had diaphragms on mu electric cars, motors or trailers. None, not the NYNH&H, NYC, DL&W, NYW&B, LIRR. Indeed, the first NYNH&H mu’s were open platform gate cars, steel heavier and longer versions of the wood and composit Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Chicago elevated cars. And then there were the “Wyatt Erp” steel open platform cars used in steam DL&W service.

The icy wind that can blow in from Long Island Sound to the Connecticut Coast is more severe in my experience than what is experienced on other NYC commuter railroads. The only analogy is what I experienced when living in Chicago with wind blowing in from Lake Michigan. And the Illinois Central equpped all its mu cars, trailers and motor cars, with diaphragms at both ends, and pantograph gates at both ends since high platforms were a novelty among Chicago commuter railroads. And Metra Electric has continued both these amenities.

There may be a very good operational reason for the lack on the A-ends of all Metro North mu’s. Some reasons have been given, but they don’t address the issue and are easily answered. Maybe there is a good reason, and possibly this thread is the way to determine what it is.

Standards for safety and comfort for employees have advanced since WWII.

20

I believe “A” ends were so because there were motor-trailer pairs which had to be so coupled. DL&W did some motor to motor coupling for odd numbered consists.