So this may have relevance to the T's quest to get some EMU's. . .
NJ Transit just placed an order with Bombardier for 58 self-powered cars based on the stock
Bombardier MultiLevel Coach carbody, which is the current best-selling bi-level coach in North America for high-platform territory and very similar to the T's K-cars (but with 2 x 2 instead of 3 x 2 seating).
It's a somewhat unorthodox EMU arrangement in that the consists are 'hybrid' and lash up power cars to plain vanilla MLV coaches re-wired for either/or MU trainlining or push-pull trainlining. This is different from how most EMU's work, where either all cars in the set are self-powered or the unpowered cars sprinkled in are special-order 'dummy' EMU's (example: Metro North's M8 trailers) that have no propulsion but can only trainline with their own-kind EMU's because of electronic limitations. The advantage is that it lets NJT, which already owns 425+ MLV push-pull coaches, massively consolidate its fleet management on one car make despite having a near-50/50 electric-vs.-diesel system where that would've been previously impossible. Seating capacity in the power cars is near-equivalent to all other cars.
-------------------------
The power cars are mid-set coaches without an operator's cab, and thus have to be sandwiched between stock cab cars. Minimum consist requirements are that the power cars be chunked together in 3's so each power car is bookended by unpowered cars.
3-car minimum:
- <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
6-car:
- <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
9-car (MBTA maximum):
- <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
12-car (NJT maximum):
- <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
-------------------------
The propulsion on the power cars is overpowered vs. a normal EMU to compensate for the extra deadweight they have to push, allow for continued operation if one power car in a multi- power car set fails, and be good for 110 MPH vs. the 80 MPH Arrow III's they replace. They can also be run at full speed in traditional push-pull configuration with a loco hauling if a rescue is needed for a wire problem or something (with most other EMU makes you'd be in the dark and running at restricted speed if being pulled by a helper loco).
Supposedly you can "traditionalize" the sets more by swapping in more power cars for unpowered trailers to make them more like a conventional EMU consist where majority of cars are powered. But according to Bombardier that shouldn't be necessary as the contract stipulates they must have equal-or-better acceleration rates as the zippy Arrows in their minimum configurations. That'll be the big thing to watch as they go through development, because the MLV carbody is a very
heavy frame. If they score on meeting/beating an Arrow with a hybrid set that can also do 110 on the NEC, it'll be revolutionary.
-------------------------
What's the relevance to the T??? NJT's contract is buffed out with 'slush' options for 636 more cars of their own plus 250 others earmarked for SEPTA, any of which can be sliced/diced into whatever ratio of power cars vs. traditional coaches vs. cab cars is necessary. SEPTA, after the Silverliner V debacle, is opting for this as replacements for the ancient Silverliner IV's rather than go all the way back to the drawing board designing a Silverliner VI from scratch. They don't have full funding earmarked yet so the options are stuffed at the back of an extremely long contract (and obviously "optional"), but by piggybacking on NJT's design decisions they get out of having to do a full-blown procurement process and save some money while having NJT do all the debugging for them.
Where the 'slush' factor comes in is that the MLV coach is a fairly generic item that can be purchased pretty much at-will. A lot of NJT's options are simply for replacing their shot Comet II & IV single-levels in diesel territory. But if they wanted to they could simply sign another contract for straight coaches and launder out some of these options to spread the love on the power cars. Sort of like how they traded MARC 54 of their options on the last MLV coach order. The receiving agency could stack their share of NJT options to power cars then just do their own order of straight MLV coaches. And the extreme length of this contract ensures that these options will be available to potentially barter for another 5 years.
Both the T and MARC (for switching its own Penn Line MLV fleet from loco-haul to self-propelled) are ideal candidates for this. And it fits the T's timeline for first possible Providence Line electrification, since the RER study would have to complete and they'd have to budget for Sharon substation expansion + wire-up storage areas to functionally be able to run.
Advantages:
- Potentially massive vehicle scale with multi-agency procurements driving down prices, extending maintainability decades out.
- This is the boldest attempt at a fully standardized FRA-compliant EMU. Bolder still when considering Bombardier likely to offer same propulsion product in BiLevel Coach packaging for 8-inch platform territory (e.g. GO Transit electrification, since they have a fleet of 650+ BLV coaches). Anything else the T looks at, including derived Euro imports, is going to require fresh teething and some greater degree of modding.
- NJT works out all the bugs. If these end up lemons, don't have to buy.
- Easier to deal in laundered options than fresh-procure if design is compatible. NJT has flex to deal, and if T expresses initial interest the options can be held for a very long time.
- T still needs to make another 200+ coach purchase to retire the decaying Bomardier single-levels. FCMB has see-sawed back and forth about considering single-levels or more bi-levels. As of last update, it's swung back to bi-levels (probably because the market for commuter flats is comatose and no one's offering a fair price). Kawasaki's rail division is losing money and Rotem is a dumpster fire, so unclear who would build more K-car clones as CRRC's bi-level design is very different. Making a big order of 2 x 2 seating MLV coaches would settle this dilemma, split some of the dwell time difference between flats and the 3 x 2 seat K-cars, and open the door wide for buying the power cars.
- Speed: Significant Providence Line schedule gains with an EMU that can top 100 MPH, as station spacing may allow for generous segments of 90+ and momentary triple-digit speeds.
- Scalability: If southside gets an MLV-heavier fleet and the K-cars start to live north, electrifying additional southside lines gets much easier only requiring small supplemental purchases of power cars.
- Since Bombardier is likely going to be serving this up in both MLV and BLV packaging, good chances of a single-level variant with same propulsion coming available some years later that we could use for the Urban Rail/intra-128 lines. It's just not a tincan that's readily available today because BBD hasn't produced domestic flats in 20+ years, its last single-level U.S. design was aluminum which has fallen out of favor to stainless steel, and it would have to adapt one of its Euro models for the U.S. in order to plug that gap.
Disadvantages:
- Don't know if the hybrid setup is going to accelerate its weight as well as a traditional EMU, despite the promises. (Counterpoint: But we don't have to buy if that's the case!)
- Bi-level. TransitMatters is going to be nonplussed that these aren't flats (and the transpo blogosphere will be in a rage...but that's just another day ending in -y for them. ). Need to consider what the marketplace will bear. Flats are hard to come by without risking design mods and a prolonged procurement. If this is the most readily available and risk-padded buy because of the NJT 'guinea pig' and option laundering, can we make do with it? Does 2 x 2 seating mollify some of the concerns? I don't think flats vs. bi's is necessarily the hill to die on, because if one has a significantly easier procurement path than the other we get >90% what we want having something self-propelled sooner. But this needs a closer look.
- Fairmount Line. 3-car bi's are an awkward fit...but as above, is that the best we can do now? Do the prospects look better a few years down the road for single-levels in this propulsion package, after we've electrified a few more lines and can shift fleets around to better-differentiate what's assigned to Regional Rail schedules vs. Urban Rail schedules? Can we tolerate bi's on Urban Rail as a bridge era to better things when they still from Day 1 will beat the snot out of any diesel or DMU? Again...needs a closer look.
- K-cars. Pretty sure MLV's and K-cars don't play particularly nice in practice even though they're supposed to; MARC tends to keep their identical K-car fleet separated from its MLV's. So we'd probably have to adopt MLV's for a substantial portion of the replacement coach fleet and stuff a lot of K's and Rotem's up north. It would definitely be asking too much to try to have any K-cars take up residence in a self-propelled set.
-------------------------
- NJT marketing video here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWG4GhScBL0