Modern train designs: what we're missing out on

In 2018, the Federal Railroad Administration published new passenger equipment safety standards, effectively breaking the chains that have been holding the US railcar market back for decades.  The FRA's previous crashworthiness standards required American trains to be loaded down with extensive reinforcement, making them much heavier, much more expensive, and much poorer quality than trains operated safely elsewhere in the world, and when coupled with burdensome procurement practices common in the US have resulted in a barren and oligopic market for US railcars, where the same small pool of companies drives up prices and frequently blows past deadlines.

The new standards effectively normalize design requirements with common practices in Europe, where millions ride more lightweight and efficient trains safely every day.  By establishing a new "alternative compliance" pathway for certification, carbuilders can adapt existing designs in use in Europe for American railroads with some limited modifications.  This unlocks the ability for US railroads to buy much more affordable, more efficient, and better railcars.  Several systems in the United States have already taken these steps under a waiver process that was in place while the new regulations were being finalized.  Both TEXRail in Texas and Caltrain in California use modern EMU designs (both from Stadler) on mainline rail tracks in the United States today, and hopefully formalizing the process will allow more railroads to take advantage of modern train designs.

But it seems the LIRR will not be one of those systems.  The MTA confirmed to The LIRR Today last month that LIRR has no plans to take advantage of the new alternative compliance standards for the M-9A fleet at this time, and there are no "off the shelf" railcar designs currently in use in other countries under consideration at this time.

Modern train designs can offer passengers higher quality cars that cost less
and perform better. But MTA isn't considering them for their next major order.

This is a huge disappointment, as by sticking with the old FRA regulations, the LIRR is effectively setting us up for a repeat of the M-9 fiasco, where we paid extraordinary amounts of money for a poor quality railcar that was delivered years late.  By ignoring the new alternative compliance regulations, the LIRR is doing its passengers a huge disservice, forcing us to miss out on many of the benefits that modern train designs bring.  Some examples of what we're missing out on are detailed below.

Weight

The existing FRA regulations ensure passengers are safe by effectively forcing them to ride around in stainless steel tanks—trains have had to incorporate extensive amounts of structural reinforcement so their carbodies can take an impact during a collision without dramatically compressing the passenger compartment.  This is a questionable crash prevention strategy in the first place, but has major consequences for railroads in the terms of vehicle weight.  All that structural reinforcement weighs a lot, and makes the trains extremely heavy.

The LIRR's M-7 cars weigh approximately 36% more than comparable modern EMU's in use in Europe, once adjusted for train length.  Push-pull trains, which are common on most other railroads in the Americas, weigh even more, in some cases more than double modern EMU's:

Heavy trains have several consequences.  First and foremost, they dramatically increase already high infrastructure maintenance costs, as the tracks, switches, bridges, etc. all take a much harder beating day in and day out with these heavy trains passing over them.  Studies of highway maintenance costs demonstrate that heavier truck traffic (and heavier passenger cars) disproportionally drive up wear and tear on roadways, and the resulting cost to maintain them.

In addition, that weight negatively impacts train performance, as detailed further below.  Because getting something to move is a function of force and energy, and both of those are highly dependent on the mass of the object you are trying to move (it takes a lot more effort to push your car than it takes to push a can of soda).  Heavier trains require more energy and effort to get and keep moving, which further drives up operating costs.

Performance

Aside from schedule padding, the slow acceleration rate of the LIRR's trains is one of the major factors limiting train speeds and extending travel times.  While efforts to increase train speeds often focus on upgrading track for higher running speeds, most trains do not spend a lot of time running at the maximum speed.  Instead, trains are frequently slowing down or trying to speed back up because of station stops, speed restrictions, or other trains in front of them.  Because of this, the rate of acceleration ends up being far more important in dense regional rail operations.

Because trains designed to the existing standards are so heavy, they require much more force and energy to get moving.  The MTA's pre-modern trains (e.g. the M-7's and M-9's) require so much energy to get moving that they actually strain the LIRR's power infrastructure, and as a result, the cars had to be "derated", or had their performance constrained.  As a result, the M-7 fleet accelerates at just about half of its design acceleration rate.

All of the MTA's pre-modern EMU's all perform considerably worse than modern EMU fleets in operation elsewhere in the world.  The M-7, M-8, and M-9 cars all accelerate at roughly 1.6 ft/s/s, which is less than half of the 4.0 ft/s/s acceleration rate common on modern cars.

This has major consequences for travel times—if LIRR's trains accelerated as fast as modern EMU's several minutes could be cut off train schedules. 

Passenger environment

But even if you don't care about the nuts and bolts, or getting to your destination as quickly and cheaply as possible, the quality of the passenger environment of the MTA's railcars pales in comparison to what is being seen elsewhere in the world.

This was one of the particularly jarring failures of the M-9 fleet design—despite costing 23% more per car than the M-7's (after adjusting for inflation), the LIRR basically copy and pasted the 20+ year old M-7 design, which was already quite out of date.  Compare the interior design of the M-9 cars to the examples below (which were all placed into service at about the same time as the M-9 cars), and I wouldn't fault you for thinking the M-9's were designed at some point in the last century.

I was in London a few weeks ago, and spent a bit of time riding around their trains.  Their newer rolling stock is far and away significantly better than what LIRR has delivered for riders with the M-9 cars.  The three examples I will focus on in the examples below are:

• Class 745 Stadler FLIRT EMU's, which are in service on Greater Anglia's commuter lines around London.  There is also a bi-mode multiple unit (BMU) Class 755 variant that has a diesel engine and can operate on longer distances services.  These trains were ordered in late 2016 and entered service on January 8, 2020 (less than a few months after the M-9 cars).
• Class 700 Siemens Desiro City EMU's, which are in service on Thameslink's lines through and around London.  These trains are dual voltage (third rail and overhead catenary, similar to the M-8's).  The contract was awarded in 2011 and these cars entered service in June 2016, so they are actually older than the M-9 cars yet are much higher quality.
• Class 345 Bombardier Aventra EMU's, which are in service on TfL Rail services and future Elizabeth Line services as part of London's Crossrail program.  The contract was awarded to Bombardier in February 2014 (about 6 months after the M-9 contract was awarded) and the cars entered service in June 2017.

All of these trains are operated on services of similar distance, duration, and density to LIRR and Metro-North branches outside New York City.

Seating

Seating on a Class 745 FLIRT train

Tray tables and armrests can fold down on Class 745 trains

Bench seating at the ends of the train encourages riders
to move down towards the center for seats.

Full sized power outlets are located between seats.

Seating on most of these trains is in a 2x2 formation, which allows for wider aisles, easier passenger movement, and generally more comfort for those who are seated.  LIRR riders seldom use the middle seat on trains using a 3x2 seating configuration (especially these days during the pandemic), which means extra riders end up standing in the vestibules, or squeezing together in the 2-seaters on the opposite side.

Especially considering changing commuting patterns, the middle seat should be eliminated in any future railcar designs.  Some standees are tolerable for short distances (e.g. west of Jamaica), and the benefits to the remaining passengers by improving circulation through the train and allowing for slightly wider seats so those who sit next to others are more comfortable.

The seats on these trains were generally pretty comfortable (though sometimes a bit cramped).  Most of the trains featured tray tables at each seat, or a mix of traditional one-way facing seats and facing seats with fixed tables you could work or eat from.  The class 745 trains also had a movable armrest in the middle to separate two adjacent seats.

Also interesting and clever was the Class 345 Aventra trains featuring longitudinal bench seating at the front and rear of the train (which are often the most crowded parts of the train).  Limited seating in these cars both maximizes the number of passengers that can fit at the ends of the trains as well as encourages those taking longer trips to move towards the center of the train for seats.

Seats on the Class 745 trains featured a full sized power outlet and a USB port, easily located between the two seats (so you don't have to reach over someone at the window seat to plug in your device).

Open gangways

All of the new trains feature open gangways that allow you to
walk the entire length of the train without encountering doors.

All of the new EMU's in service on rail lines around London featured fully open gangways.  The entire train was one fixed unit, and it was possible to walk from one end of the train to the other without needing to open any doors.  This significantly improves passenger flow, as you do not have to struggle with the very heavy doors common on LIRR and Metro-North train cars.  It is definitely a bit wild to see the train bending and weaving as it goes through curves and tunnels.

The Class 700 cars in service on Thameslink are roughly 796 feet long and are operated as one continuous unit—that's about equivalent to a 10-car LIRR train.  Longer, fixed MU train sizes cut down on costs and maximizes the space available for passengers—this train only required two train control cabs and one accessible bathroom, while a train of a similar length on the LIRR would have had 10 control cabs and 5 accessible toilets...

Doors

The double-leaf plug doors on these trains are much wider than
what's seen on LIRR and Metro-North cars, speeding passenger flow

Buttons allow passengers to individually operate doors at
stations, instead of every door opening and closing at once.

There's no need to "watch the gap" when boarding this Class 745
train, as there's virtually no gap!

All of the recent EMU fleets in service around London (and very common elsewhere in the world), with the exception of the class 700 trains, feature two-leaf plug doors.  These doors open faster, are wider, safer, and require less maintenance than the heavier single-leaf doors in use on the M-7, M-8, and M-9 cars.  Wider doors allow passengers to board and exit trains more quickly, reducing dwell times at stations.

All of the trains doors also featured door open buttons that allowed passengers to individually open the door they are standing in front of, instead of waiting for the conductor to get around to opening the entire train's worth of doors at once.  This reduces stress on the door motors (as the doors don't need to open if there's nobody getting on or off right there at a particular stop) and it definitely improves the passenger environment inside when waiting to depart at terminals—the doors automatically close again after a few seconds, so it keeps the heat and AC inside the train and the noise from the terminal outside.

Also, a very nice feature on the new cars included train gap fillers that automatically deployed from the side of the train when the door was opened.  This virtually eliminated the gap between the platform and the train and makes it easy for passengers in wheelchairs or with luggage to easily board and alight the train.  The LIRR continues to have chasmic gaps at many of its stations, and proper accessibility and level boarding continues to be a joke at both the LIRR and Metro-North.  These types of automatic gap fillers not only improve accessibility, but minimize the risk of claims from trips and falls.

Passenger information systems

Information displays on modern trains make information clear
and easy to read

Class 700 trains show passengers real-time crowding information,
encouraging them to move about the train to find more seats

No need to scramble between cars trying to find an open bathroom,
displays on new trains show you not only where there are toilets, but
whether they are in use or available.

Rail passengers are given real-time service status for connecting
lines, so they can adjust their trip if there are delays or closures

This display updated riders with the real-time ETA of the train
once it fell 1 minute behind schedule

Need to make a connection?  These train displays tell you
where you need to go before you even get to your transfer point

The passenger information systems on modern EMU's around the world, and especially in the UK, completely blow away the LIRR's meager efforts on the M-9 cars.  The M-9's feature a very basic dot matrix display that is only a very marginal improvement over the 20+ year old M-7 fleet.  This display offers extremely limited information—generally only cycling between the next station and the car position in the train (Car # of #).  This was one of the only basic improvements.  The Automated Station Identification system likewise brings few new improvements form the outdated M-7 technology.  The M-9 cars have only a few more automated stock announcements that are not intelligent, do not factor in any real-time information, or provide riders with much more information of any value.

In contrast, the passenger displays on new modern train units feature much larger LCD displays that offer passengers significantly more information.  This was pioneered on the class 700 trains and refined on the class 345 and 745/755 trains.

Modern trains showcase real-time crowding data, encouraging passengers to move along the train to less crowded areas where there might be more seats.  The LIRR has made great progress in harnessing and utilizing this data and displaying it in its TrainTime application, but not everyone wants to fuss with a mobile app (especially multiple times over the course of the trip), so the next step needs to be showing this information in a more accessible location, like onboard train displays.

In addition, these displays also factor in other real-time data and important information from the train, like where the toilets are located along the train and even if they are occupied or not, as well as the status of connecting London Underground lines.

The displays do a very nice job of prioritizing information—when trains are pulling into or dwelling at stations, only the most important information is displayed.  It cycles through the other slides with useful but not critical information once the train is underway, and then of course it is easy to shift to another car or plan your onward journey once you are on the train.  There was only very limited examples of these displays showing advertising or other public service messages—and that was only after the train had been underway for several minutes and not before arriving at stations.  These trains did not mix advertising and passenger information, a practice that the MTA has been messing with a bit too much. 

Other great information shown while the train was enroute is the further stops the train makes (including real-time updates of the ETA's when the train was running about a minute behind schedule, the maximum extent of delay I encountered while in London) and connecting trains that stopped at that station, including real-time track information, so passengers who needed to make onward connections to other trains could easily see what track their train would leave from.

I'll have more thoughts on this topic at some point in the coming weeks, but the passenger information systems on the M-9's were definitely a huge flub by the LIRR, and pale in comparison to what is seen on trains that are the same age or even older.

Alternative compliance offers an alternative to a repeat of the M-9 fiasco

Aside from the obvious disservice to passengers by simply copying-and-pasting the decades out of date M-7 design for the M-9 fleet, the MTA's decision to continue locking itself to the old regulations and perpetuating the status quo in the US railcar market is only setting itself up for a repeat of the headaches and delays encountered during the M-9 procurement.  With the market consolidating even further since 2013, the MTA will effectively have only two options for EMU's complaint with the old FRA standards—Kawasaki and Alstom-Bombardier, both of which have had extreme performance issues on prior MTA projects.

Just like the questions surrounding the replacement of the diesel fleet, decisions regarding rolling stock and train fleets have implications that last for decades—train cars are generally expected to last for 30 or 40 years, so it will be quite a while before we have the opportunity to undo these mistakes.

Alternative compliance is the key that unlocks the door to better competition, better quality, and hopefully better outcomes than what we've seen on recent railcar procurements in the United States, which have historically come in way behind schedule.  Other railroads like TEXRail and Caltrain have already started taking advantage of this.  But it seems the MTA and LIRR's ever-stubborn resistance to change will likely mean a repeat of the same M-9 mistake, and LIRR riders will miss out on better trains for several more decades.