During December's MTA Board meeting, board members
voted to approve the contract—the full value of which wasn't disclosed and could work its way up to $2 billion if all options are exercised—without a word of discussion at all. That's despite the details of the contract being rather eyebrow raising...while open and competitive procurements are usually non-negotiable in the public bidding sphere as that is the best way to keep costs down, this procurement
was practically driven by a single vendor, making it anything but open and competitive. Siemens was the only vendor to submit a proposal after the MTA hit the reset button on the procurement halfway through—and they didn't even bid the specified design, instead only proposing an alternate design which gave them all of the bargaining power.
Looking at the pricetags, it seems the MTA
is being taken to the cleaners...the initial batch of locomotives are priced at $11.6 million each, which is well above and beyond the costs of the regular diesel Chargers, the costs premiums of prior dual mode orders, and certainly any international cost comparisons.
But was the the selection of Siemens for this major contract a foregone conclusion? It depends on how you ask the question...
Status quo with push-pull trains
If you frame your thinking to only consider a continuation of the status quo with push pull trains with dual mode locomotives, it's difficult to to come to a different conclusion.
Siemens is definitely in the best position to deliver a successful dual mode locomotive...like the P32AC-DM that Metro-North, ConnDOT, and Amtrak operate now was a successor to the already established straight diesel Genesis locomotives used in intercity service on Amtrak, the new Siemens DM will also be a variant to the already established SC-44 and ALC-42 locomotive designs in production or use on Amtrak. Pushing this in Siemens' favor even more is the fact that they have already
deployed a dual mode locomotive on its Vectron product line in Europe, which should make adapting their existing design much easier than coming up with something new from scratch. Since Amtrak will end up maintaining some of these locomotives for the
Empire Service, they would also likely have an interest in keeping commonality with the rest of their fleet.
Ever since Siemens won the original contract for the first Charger locomotives, it has been rather quiet in the passenger locomotive sphere... Commuter operators like ACE, MARC, and COASTER have all opted to also purchase Charger locomotives, and Metro-North was reportedly already considering diesel Chargers for West of Hudson service. Ever since the EPA's Tier IV emissions regulations entered into force in 2015, the market pool has become even shallower. The are three other Tier IV-complaint passenger locomotives on the market today:
- EMD's F125 "Spirit" locomotives which have been in production for Metrolink since 2015. EMD could potentially adapt this into a dual mode design if the LIRR decides to break from the pack—and they have a worrying history of doing so, especially when they can favor EMD—but that would require a nontrivial development program and the same issue of producing a limited-quantity dual mode design would be liable to cause problems. It roughly fits Amtrak and LIRR's clearance envelopes and is comparable in size and weight to the current DM locomotives. It's also specified for 125 mi/hr operation. But only 40 of these locomotives have been produced so far, and Metrolink in Los Angeles has been the only buyer.
- MPI's MP54AC "MPXpress" locomotives are also being used on a number of railroads out west, including Metra, Caltrain, UTA FrontRunner, MARC, MBTA, Metrolink, NMRX Rail Runner Express, Northstar, VRE, Sounder, SunRail, and GO Transit and West Coast Express in Canada. Probably the strongest competitor to the Charger, there are currently more than 200 of these in use and more are on order, however only the 26 MP54AC locomotives for GO Transit in Toronto are Tier IV complaint. This locomotive is a bit larger due to the more generous clearance envelopes outside the northeast, which would make adding dual mode equipment and consolidating everything down more of a challenge.
- Bombardier's ALP-45DP locomotive is the only other dual mode locomotive recently that is in production for North America. These are currently being used on NJTransit and Exo in Montreal. 80 of these are currently in service or on order and they have been rather successful and reliable so far. But they are powered by overhead wire and not third rail...and while it would probably be easier to design a third rail dual mode off an AC powered dual mode than a straight diesel, Bombardier has had a history of trouble with rolling stock procurements recently...especially so with the MTA.
Both EMD and MPI have struggled to sell their Tier IV designs as pretty much all of the Amtrak services and may commuter operators are jumping on the Siemens Charger ship. There is virtually no market for overhead wire dual modes...the northeast corridor and Denver's new RTD regional rail are the only electrified liens in the US. Denver is doing regional rail expansions right with electrification from the start, and other operators in the NEC seem to have no interest in dual modes. MARC seems to be going in the total opposite direction and going towards all diesel services. Neither EMD, MPI, nor Bombardier have found a new customer since the first Siemens contract was let.
MPI and Bombardier submitted proposals as part of the first round of bidding, but declined to bid the second time around. EMD did not submit a proposal.
Expanding electrification
One definite alternative to spending lots of money on dual mode locomotives is to
expand electrification, which significantly cuts down on the need for dual mode service in the first place. If a line is electrified, then all trains can go to/from any of the terminals, and they do not need a specialized locomotive. I have
written a lot about electrification in the past, and I think there is a strong case for extending electrification on Long Island, and I believe electrification would be one of the best value projects for truly modernizing the LIRR.
In the past I have drawn the dividing line between expanded electrification and diesel services at just east of Ronkonkoma and Patchogue, and I would still consider that to be the best move today (that would mean electrifying the balance of the Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay, and Central Branches, and extending electrification on the Montauk Branch to Patchogue). This would deliver electric service to the vast majority of the LIRR's commuter market and leave only the North and South Forks left as a diesel service. This would not be all that bad, as these communities have a weaker commuting connection to Manhattan, and could see a lot stronger ridership with frequent DMU shuttle service to Ronkonkoma and Patchogue, with timed connections to points west.
Expanding electrification has many benefits beyond just eliminating the need to purchase expensive dual mode locomotives. Electric trains are faster and more reliable, and it can make service improvements to the poorly served diesel branches much easier to make.
And when you look at how much the LIRR is gearing up to spend on dual mode locomotives, expanding electrification may not be as expensive of a venture as originally thought. If the LIRR gets to buy into the Siemens DM program at the same cost as Metro-North, their 66 locomotives would cost $766 million, which could potentially buy a lot of third rail.
And while the dual modes would be great, you can only cram about a dozen or so people into the front cab (less with physical distancing measures), which means that the LIRR will also need to buy a bunch of passenger coaches to be pulled by these locomotives. For the time being, the LIRR's existing C-3 fleet still has a bit of life left in it, and can probably go another 10 or so years...but the cars are starting to show their age and are limited in number...so an expansion followed shortly by a full replacement will be required in the coming years. And the LIRR is gearing up to spend a lot of money on that, too...
Budgeted at $3.5 million per car, the 17 unpowered coaches included in the 2020-2024 Capital Program are, unsurprisingly, far and away more expensive than what we have seen in the past.
Adding both the potential cost of the locomotives and the replacement and comparative expansion of the coach fleet would put the total cost of replacing the diesel fleet at roughly $1.62 billion...which is a jaw-dropping sum. Note, the figures below are adjusted for a conversion to a single-level fleet to align with the cost estimate for the M-9C coaches included in the 2020-2024 Capital Program.
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Dual mode locomotive (Siemens DM) | 66 locomotives | $11.6m each | $766 million |
| Push-pull coaches (1-for-1 replacement) | 170 cars | $3.5m each | $595 million |
| Push-pull coaches (comparative expansion) | 74 cars | $3.5m each | $259 million |
| Grand total - status quo push-pull | | | $1,620 million |
$1.6 billion could by a lot of third rail, but an accurate per-mile estimate for expanding electrification on the LIRR and Metro-North has always been difficult to come by. Very few mainline rail operators around the world use third rail to power their trains (the vast majority use overhead wire), and those that do aren't expanding it. In years past, the LIRR
quoted a figure of $18 million per mile for expanding electrification, though the veracity of that as an accurate estimate is questionable. $18 million per mile has generally been the response when local officials ask the railroad to extend electrification, something the railroad has never really been too interested in doing since the Ronkonkoma Branch Electrification project wrapped up in the late 1980's (and you would always quote a figure way higher than the actual cost if you were using the lack of funding as an excuse not to do something).
When the MTA unveiled their 2020-2024 Capital Program, it priced
Central Branch electrification at an
eye-watering $28 million per mile pricepoint. It has since come to light that this project included the cost for replacing the 1950's ABS signal system in place on this segment (since it's not like scope bleed has gotten the MTA in trouble before). Replacing a similar system in place
from Babylon to Sayville is costing $5.64 million per route mile.. If we subtract that out, that would put the price of the electrification portion at $22.4 million, the escalation of which from $18 million is not beyond imagination the way MTA spends money.
At $22.4 million per route mile, it would cost $1.36 billion to electrify the remaining 60.7 route miles to Port Jefferson, Patchogue, and Oyster Bay. But it's also necessary to factor in rolling stock costs. If the MTA were to take advantage of the new FRA passenger equipment safety standards and purchase off-the-shelf EMU's from Europe, the going rate is $2.0 million per car, once adjusted for train length and currency effects. That would make the math sum up to:
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Electrify to Port Jefferson | 22.8 miles | $22.4m per mi | $511 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PJN (1-for-1) | 102 cars | $2.0m each | $204 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PJN (expansion) | 44 cars | $2.0m each | $88 million |
| Electrify to Patchogue | 16.6 miles | $22.4m per mi | $372 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PGE (1-for-1) | 36 cars | $2.0m each | $72 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PGE (expansion) | 16 cars | $2.0m each | $32 million |
| Electrify to Oyster Bay | 13.1 miles | $22.4m per mi | $293 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for OBY (1-for-1) | 32 cars | $2.0m each | $72 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for OBY (expansion) | 14 cars | $2.0m each | $32 million |
| Electrify Central Branch | 8.2 miles | $22.4m per mi | $184 million |
| DMU's for East End services (1-for-1) | 26 cars | $2.0m each | $52 million |
| DMU's for East End services (expansion) | 8 cars | $2.0m each | $16 million |
| Grand total - regional territory electrification | | | $1,928 million |
A total of $1.93 billion is a $308 million difference over keeping with the status quo and using dual mode push-pull trains. That's not nothing, but when you look at huge benefits of electrification and furthering fleet commonality and the opportunities for cutting travel times and expanding service that just can't happen with push-pull trains, the marginal cost is really not a lot. In the grand scheme of what the MTA wastes money on, it's a steal...
And that's assuming there's no movement on the sky-high $22.4 million per mile cost of extending third rail electrification. If the MTA was able to bring that cost down to even the previously ridiculous $18 million per mile figure, the price difference would be just $41 million more to electrify everything. Any further economization on that—and one would hope that could be the case at this scale—and that would actually make expanding electrification cheaper than buying new dual modes.
The MTA's third rail electrification budgets are well above and beyond what we see elsewhere in the world... Alon Levy
compared electrification costs on Pedestrian Observations, and they found electrification costs of $2.0 million or less for overhead wire installations, but recommended using SNCF's average cost of $2.4 million per mile as a benchmark unit cost, meaning that the LIRR is currently budgeting nearly 10 times as much per mile for third rail. That's not to say that they are exactly comparable—third rail may truly cost more to expand—but if the costs are truly that disparate, it should not be beyond consideration to just abandon the idea of expanding third rail and replace reelectrify the entire system with catenary instead. In fact, if the MTA hired the French to execute the project,
it would actually cost less to replace all of the existing third rail with overhead wire than it would to finish electrifying the regional territory with third rail ($480 million to gut out the third rail and start over vs. $1.36 billion to complete third rail electrification at MTA costs). In fact, the MTA could actually electrify all the way to Greenport and Montauk for less money.
But replacing the third rail with overhead wire would also require retrofitting, or more likely, outright replacing the current EMU fleet, which would cost quite a lot. That is where the math derails:
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Convert existing third rail to overhead wire | 139.5 miles | $2.4m per mile | $335 million |
| Replace existing M-7 fleet | 836 cars | $2.0m each | $1,672 million |
| Replace existing M-9 fleet | 202 cars | $2.0m each | $404 million |
| Replace existing M-9A fleet | 214 cars | $2.0m each | $428 million |
| Credit for M-9A budget not spent | | | ($708 million) |
| Electrify to Port Jefferson | 22.8 miles | $2.4m per mi | $55 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PJN (1-for-1) | 102 cars | $2.0m each | $204 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PJN (expansion) | 44 cars | $2.0m each | $88 million |
| Electrify to Patchogue | 16.6 miles | $2.4m per mi | $40 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PGE (1-for-1) | 36 cars | $2.0m each | $72 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for PGE (expansion) | 16 cars | $2.0m each | $32 million |
| Electrify to Oyster Bay | 13.1 miles | $2.4m per mi | $31 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for OBY (1-for-1) | 32 cars | $2.0m each | $72 million |
| Off-the-shelf EMU's for OBY (expansion) | 14 cars | $2.0m each | $32 million |
| Electrify Central Branch | 8.2 miles | $2.4m per mi | $20 million |
| DMU's for East End services (1-for-1) | 26 cars | $2.0m each | $52 million |
| DMU's for East End services (expansion) | 8 cars | $2.0m each | $16 million |
| Grand total - conversion to AC electrification | | | $2,844 million |
At a grand total of $2.84 billion, that is definitely a larger pricetag than just trudging along with what we have and electrifying the rest of the regional territory with third rail—though I would not discard the idea completely. The conversion to overhead wire would have a lot of benefits beyond just saving on the upfront capital costs, and promoting better uniformity and the normalization of traction power systems across the region has an inherent value to itself. But that is a longer conversation, for another day.
DMU's, BMU's, HMU's, BEMU's
Assuming the MTA is determined to stay in the last century and not make any effort to expand electrification on the LIRR and Metro-North, there are some alternatives to the traditional push-pull trains that would allow the railroads and us riders to reap at least some of the benefits of electric service. Push-pull trains are so sluggish and slow because all of the tractive effort for the train has to be concentrated in the few axles under the locomotive, and the engines or motors in the locomotive can only be so powerful—costs don't scale well with horsepower and space constraints quickly become a problem. Push-pull trains also open up the door for the use of bi-level cars,
which are a poor choice for commuter services as they are bad for passenger movement and often weigh a lot more than single-level or MU trains (which makes the acceleration problem with push-pull trains even worse).
Multiple units (MU's) allow for the tractive effort to be spread out along the entire length of the train (usually to all axles, not just the four or eight at the locomotives), allowing it to accelerate faster and use power more efficiently. Electric MU's (EMU's) are the most common types of multiple unit, and are currently used by both the LIRR and Metro-North. Even though their performance is rather lackluster, the LIRR's M-7 and M-9 cars can easily outpace the current DE/DM push-pull trains. This is why electrifying any converting to modern EMU's (which perform even better than LIRR's pre-modern M-7/M-8/M-9 fleets) would be so game-changing.
Diesel Multiple Units
But EMU's aren't the only variety of multiple unit you can find on the market. Railroads across the world use diesel MU's (DMU's) on regional lies that aren't electrified (push-pull operations on regional lines outside North America is pretty uncommon). With these types of trains, the concept is similar to EMU's, just instead of third rail shoes or pantograph to pick up electricity externally, diesel engines mounted on each train car or in each trainset produce electricity that power traction motors (there are also DMU's that are mechanically or hydraulically propelled, but those are less common).
 |
A M-1 gas turbo MU test train in Roslyn
(Photo: Steve Lynch Archive/TrainsAreFun.com) |
The LIRR seems to have a longstanding aversion to DMU's, for some reason. They have toyed with the idea a few times (experimenting
with gas turbine cars in the 1960's, another
variation based on the M-1 design in the 1970's, and Bombardier proposed a conceptual design for
a DMU version of the M-7 for the LIRR and Oregon DOT, though that was never more than a thought exercise. Given that DMU's have never been in high demand in the highly traditional US passenger rail market and FRA's previous crashworthiness standards required equipment for use in North America to effectively be custom-built, there was never a market for DMU's in the United States. That has been changing in the last several years, though. In the early 2010's, Nippon Sharyo developed a FRA-complaint DMU for UP Express in Toronto and SMART in California's Bay Area. Always using the lack of equipment as a reason
to not expand East End rail service, the LIRR proposed and
even allocated $78 million to the purchase of alternative diesel equipment (likely DMU's) for the East End as part of its 2010-2014 Capital Program. But the LIRR—perpetually behind the curve (or perhaps intentionally behind the curve, in this case...)—did not involve itself in the Nippon Sharyo DMU program and so the final design of those cars
did not meet the LIRR's third rail clearances, giving them an excuse
to abandon pursuing DMU's for East End service, and subsequently
divert the funding to buy work locomotives instead (money which still hasn't been spent, by the way!).
 |
A modern DMU in operation on a US mainline railroad
(no, you aren't seeing things!) (Photo: Danazar) |
But the landscape has changed significantly since that 2016 decision... In early 2019,
the FRA's new passenger equipment safety standards entered into force, providing a new alternate compliance pathway to certification, opening up the door for US transit agencies to buy off-the-shelf equipment designs from Europe—where there is a very strong and active market for DMU's—for the first time. Some forward-thinking US rail operators have already started to take advantage of this...
TEXRail in Fort Worth launched with
brand-new Stadler FLIRT DMU's, based off the same design in use around Europe. Two new commuter rail services under construction out west are also expected to use FLIRT DMU's (
Arrow in San Bernardino County and
DART's Silver Line). Elsewhere in California, Caltrain
is undergoing a modernization program to electrify its 77 route miles and replace its diesel push-pull trains
with Stadler KISS EMU's (also based off an already established European design). I'll note that both TEXRail and Caltrain started their fleet upgrade efforts prior to 2018 under separate FRA waiver programs, but the new 2019 regulations formally codify those waivers, allowing any US railroad to do the same thing without the need for a waiver or separation from other trains. The new regulations open the door wide open for the LIRR, Metro-North, et. al. to dump push-pull trains and instead buy modern DMU's off-the-shelf.
Off-the-shelf DMU designs are also significantly cheaper than what the LIRR is setting up to spend on replacing its current diesel fleet. At a typical unit price of about $2.0m to $2.5m per car (once adjusted for train length and currency effects), it would cost only about $425 million to replace the current diesel fleet seating capacity on a seat-for-seat basis, and a total of $610 million to expand the fleet to the same extent mentioned above:
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Off-the-shelf DMU's (1-for-1) | 170 cars | $2.5m each | $425 million |
| Off-the-shelf DMU's (comparative expansion) | 74 cars | $2.5m each | $185 million |
| Grand total - off-the-shelf DMU's | | | $610 million |
That's a huge cost savings—by going with DMU's, the LIRR could more than $1 billion on rolling stock costs over dual modes and push pull cars. That could pay for electrifying two or three out of the four diesel branches, or be used to purchase 400 more DMU cars to expand the seating capacity by more than 280%, which would be game changing for diesel territory.
But plain DMU's only solve part of the problem—they would work great in diesel territory and for most uses, but can't directly replace dual mode trains for service to underground Manhattan stations. To get around that, the railroads can play it one a couple of different ways:
- Truncate all diesel service to forced transfers to electric trains at Mineola, Huntington, Ronkonkoma, and Babylon: if you read your transportation textbooks, this is the this is the ideal approach to take, as it allows you to dedicate 100% of your mainline and western terminal capacity to full-length electric trains, and you are not losing slots on the Main Line or through Jamaica to slower-moving, less reliable, shorter, and lower-capacity diesel trains that just gum up the works. In the current state, I do not think this would be a viable solution for the Port Jefferson, Oyster Bay, and most of the Montauk Branches—the demand for through service to western terminals is significant and forced transfers would unnecessarily add travel time and inconvenience to already pretty slow and inconvenient trips. I can see this being viable for the two East End branch segments only (e.g. hourly shuttle services operate Ronkonkoma-Greenport and Patchogue-Montauk, with forced transfers to electric trains) but that would require electrifying the rest of the regional rail territory first.
- Run DMU's through to Jamaica and Long Island City but abandon dual mode service to New York: this would keep operations similar to what they are today, but drop the limited dual mode trains that operate on weekdays, instead operating all service to/from Jamaica and HPA/LIC. I go back and forth on this—dual modes are a valuable service for the diesel branches, and are often the busiest trains on their respective branches, despite them operating outside of the peak-of-the-peak periods. But there are also just a handful of them (five in the morning, four in the evening) that might not be terribly missed if moving to DMU's would allow for more and faster trains from the other terminals. Trains every 20 minutes on the Port Jefferson Branch may prove more useful than two rush hour DM trips (both of which depart before 5:00p). For Metro-North and NYS DOT, this would be a much trickier proposition—they do not have a third, open-air terminal conveniently situated on the river with easy subway and ferry connections like the LIRR and NJT do.
- Buy DMU's for the majority of diesel branch services, and keep a handful of DM's/push-pull trains for the limited dual mode service: only 9 weekday trains actually need to have dual mode functionality to run to/from NY-Penn Station...the rest of the time, the LIRR runs the trains in diesel mode 100% of the time (even when running in electric territory). Realistically, the LIRR would only really need 6 or 8 DM sets to maintain the current level of dual mode service—and run the rest of diesel service using DMU's. This would probably be the happiest medium, and could also be the most workable option since the MTA is already committing to purchasing 27 locomotives—transfer a handful of the MNR locomotives to the LIRR for DM services, and backfill those with DMU's. Even in the long term, under a scenario where the LIRR wakes up and electrifies the rest of the regional territory, keeping a few DM's on hand would be helpful for summer services to Montauk.
- Buy DMU's and just run them through the tunnels anyways: we've always been told that the trains that run through the tunnels need to be dual mode...but what if we say "says who?" and reconsidered the entire premise of requiring dual modes in the first place? A number of factors have changed since this was last evaluated...improvements to ventilation in the tunnels and stations means that exhaust can be filtered out much faster and more effectively than before. The Park Avenue Tunnel is continuously vented, and Metro-North runs its inbound dual mode trains in diesel mode all the way down to the cab car hits the platform around 47th Street. If trains can run in diesel mode in one direction, why not both? Further, there have been considerable advances in emissions control on diesel locomotives...equipment built to the stringent Tier IV standards emit significantly less harmful exhaust than today's locomotives—tier IV requires an 86% reduction in NOx and particulate matter emissions compared to the standards that were in effect when the current dual modes were built. Could improved ventilation facilities coupled with significantly cleaner locomotive exhaust enable us to tolerate running regular diesel trains through the tunnels, at least under the presently limited circumstances? Or maybe there are some further mitigations that can be built in or additional ventilation capacity that could be added for less than the cost premium of going dual mode? Given the significant extra cost cost of dual modes, it may be worth carefully considering.
But there's also a fifth option...
Bi-mode Multiple Units
What if you could take the speed, acceleration, and reliability benefits of DMU's but couple them with the ability to operate on electric power like dual modes? Well, there is a growing international market for bi-mode multiple units (BMU's) that can run on both diesel and electric power.
Dual mode equipment has generally been uncommon outside of the United States—most rail operators have either dramatically expanded electrification in recent decades, don't have enclosed underground tunnels/stations that preclude diesel operations, or follow point 4 above and just run normal diesel trains into the tunnels anyways.
But as Europeans in particular become more environmentally conscious, many operators are turning to BMU's so trains can be run on electric power as much as possible, with the diesel engines needed only for the shorter segments without power—they are not used as a lazy substitute for electrification of lines that would otherwise warrant it. One thing to beware of is that the core operating premise for BMU's tends to be reversed outside the US: most operators have widespread electrification and only need the diesel engine to cover the last few miles for a low-volume branchline or a gap in electrification that would be too costly to close. On the LIRR and Metro-North, it's the opposite: trains are run in diesel mode 98% of the time and only need the electric inverters for the last 2 miles or so into the tunnels. But there may still be a couple of prospects.
 |
| A Class 755 train in the UK (Photo: Superalbs) |
In the UK, where there is still a fair bit of frequent train services that aren't electrified (usually inter-city services), a number of new BMU's models have entered into service in recent years (
BR Class 800,
BR Class 802,
BR Class 769, and
BR Class 755). The first two were built by Hitachi, the third is a conversion of older EMU equipment, and the BR Class 755
was built by Stadler based on their FLIRT design (the same one mentioned above, being used by TEXRail). These cars
first entered service in July 2019. The simplified version of how these cars are designed is that they can operate as if they were EMU's, with one or two pantographs mounted on the tops of the passenger cars, but there is also
an additional middle part in the center of the train that houses the diesel engines for when catenary power is not available—these engines produce electricity that is passed to the traction motors to power the train. In the diagram below, the diesel power car is the shorter car with no windows, the third from the left:
 |
| The first, second, and fourth cars from the left are for passengers; the third is the diesel power car (WestRail642fan) |
 |
NJT's RiverLINE DMU's also have a center power car
|
This is similar to how the NJTransit RiverLINE DMU's are powered (with a center powercar) and this is the latest fashion in DMU and now BMU design, with even regular DMU designs choosing to concentrate the engines in one of these power cars for every ~4 passenger cars, instead of trying to squeeze individual motors into each car.
This has a number of great advantages: in addition to it being quieter and smoother for passengers in the seated compartments, this design is far more adaptable and convertible. If the LIRR were to purchase a bunch of these Class 755 FLIRT BMU's, and then 5 years from now they get struck by a bolt of lightning and wake up to the benefits of electrification, all they would really have to do is remove the center power car, and we would still have a fully functional EMU. The same could be possible if they buy regular DMU's with separate power cars...if they electrify, all they have to do is replace the center power car, swapping the diesel engines for something that runs on electricity. In both of those situations, the actual passenger compartment portions of the train are still perfectly usable and don't need to be changed—dramatically minimizing the cost of converting the rolling stock from diesel powered to electric powered.
I haven't been able to find a specific price figure for the FLIRT BMU's, other than that they were
part of a £600 million deal between Stadler and Greater Anglia for 378 new cars, of which 240 are regular EMU's and 138 are these BMU's. Assuming that the EMU portion of the contract was close to the "rule of thumb" cost of $2.0m per car (a bit higher in the UK, so $2.5m per car) and we back that out of the overall contract price, that would leave a unit price of
about $3.6 million per car for a BMU (after adjusting for train length and currency effects—
see the math here). At that cost, the math for replacing the LIRR's diesel fleet would work out like this:
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Off-the-shelf BMU's (1-for-1) | 170 cars | $3.6m each | $607 million |
| Off-the-shelf BMU's (comparative expansion) | 74 cars | $3.6m each | $264 million |
| Grand total - off-the-shelf BMU's | | | $871 million |
This would still represent a significant cost savings over the status quo—the LIRR could save $749 million by going with BMU's over dual modes and push pull cars. That could be reinvested into other projects or used to purchase 209 additional cars to expand seating capacity on the diesel fleet by more than 165% over what we have today.
Hydrogen multiple units
The chief advantage of HMU's is that they are better for the environment than diesel trains. While the EPA's Tier IV regulations have dramatically reduced the amount of particulate matter and NOx in diesel emissions, hydrogen fuel cells have effectively zero emissions (the only emission is water vapor). With HMU's, not only would people along the right-of-way around yards breathe cleaner air, but hydrogen power may be cheaper to produce over the entire life cycle of the trains: in 2019, I estimated that
it would cost $5.26 per mile to power a HMU train at current hydrogen prices, compared to
$9.74 per mile for diesel fuel with today's conventional push-pull diesel trains. At nearly $4.50 less per mile the cost savings would rack up quick over the course of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of miles these vehicles would travel over the course of their lives.
 |
Alstom's Coradia iLint trains are now in operation in Germany
(Photo: Alstom) |
Ultimately, I think these trains need a little more time in active use before I would suggest the LIRR consider HMU's for the full replacement of the existing fleet. The largest concern is the range...since the hydrogen cells on most of the units are in production now tend to be on the small size, the tanks would likely need to be refilled twice per day to be safe—which means that there have to be multiple filling facilities around the railroad and schedules written strategically to make sure trains can top-off before each rush hour. Alstom's Coradia iLint
has a published range of about 800 km (or 500 miles), though it seems to be averaging less than that in actual service (where you have to factor in idle time, real world conditions, etc.). That would allow for 3 or 4 round-trips between LIC and Port Jefferson or 8 to 10 round-trips between Jamaica and Oyster Bay per tank—which is probably just on the cusp of what the LIRR does (or how they should be) utilizing their equipment.
Hands down, the best way to handle the diesel fleet replacement is to electrify to Port Jefferson, Patchogue, and Oyster Bay and use EMU's—that would leave only the North and South Forks left in need of non-electric equipment. In that scenario, then I think diving into the HMU concept would be worth careful consideration. The East End services would be isolable, have fixed trip distances that would eliminate the guesswork related to the operating ranges, and would allow for a fixed number of hydrogen filling facilities (basically just two—one at Ronkonkoma and another at Speonk or Montauk).
But the one situation where it might be worthwhile to consider jumping more eagerly into the HMU concept is if HMU's would be allowed to operate through tunnels and into the New York terminals on their own power... We require dual mode equipment today because we can't have the diesel emissions in the enclosed tunnels or the station, but what if the only emission was water vapor? Those tunnels are already filled with water seepage from the rivers, a little more seems like it wouldn't hurt anyone.
If you're sensing a theme here, it should come as no great surprise that HMU's would also be significantly cheaper than replacing the current diesel fleet with dual modes and push-pull cars. The launch order for Alstom's Coradia iLint
cost €81 million for 16 two-car sets (that's about $2.7m per car once adjusted for train length and currency effects).
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| Off-the-shelf HMU's (1-for-1) | 170 cars | $2.7m each | $459 million |
| Off-the-shelf HMU's (comparative expansion) | 74 cars | $2.7m each | $200 million |
| Grand total - off-the-shelf HMU's | | | $659 million |
This would also represent close to a $1 billion savings ($961 million) over conventional dual mode push-pull trains, not even taking into account the cheaper life-cycle costs for operating the units. The as the other options applies—the extra $961 million could be invested back into other projects, or used to purchase more than 350 additional cars, bolstering seating capacity on the diesel branches by more than 250%.
Battery-electric multiple units
 |
| A Siemens Mireo Plus B in Germany (Photo: Plutowiki) |
The last, and one of the newest, types of multiple units are those powered with batteries (BEMU's). As the name suggests, these are EMU's that are powered by rechargeable batteries when away from third rail or catenary. Unheard of just a decade or so ago, BEMU's are becoming more common across the world as battery technology has advanced considerably over the last 20 years.
While the idea might sound tantalizing—especially since battery-powered trains have zero emissions from the cars themselves—this technology is likely not quite ready for prime time on a system as expansive as the LIRR. Most of the situations where BEMU's have been used are in true "last few miles" scenarios, where they are never more than a couple dozen miles away. The Siemens Miero Plus B train pictured above, for example, is principally an EMU that also happens to have batteries for when it needs to stray away from catenary.
 |
A prototype BEMU, also built by Siemens, based on their
Desiro MU line (Photo: Herbert Ortner) |
The range on BEMU's are currently pretty limited, with most options on the market today having a range between 300 km and 600 km (or about 200-350 miles) per charge. The recharging time can also be considerable—as anyone who has an electric car knows, keeping the batteries charged requires more time and effort than stopping at gas station every couple of days.
Most BEMU's are also currently only limited quantity pilots. The only large order I am aware of is
a €600 million order by German local transport association NAH.SH for 55 battery-powered FLIRT Akku BEMU's (note that the contract price includes maintenance for 30 years), but these trains only have a 150 km (93 mile) range. As the train is still in development, I can't find the specifications to convert this to a 85-foot carlength equivalent unit price, but the trains are 2 car sets that seat 124 passengers, which would make it about 45 meters long. If that's the case, it would make the unit cost about $8.4 million per car after adjusting for train length and currency effects—the priciest of the alternative MU's.
Again, like the HMU's, I wouldn't suggest a widescale adoption of these types of trains to fully replace the existing diesel fleet. While there continues to be great prospects in future battery technology—with rapid developments potentially making this technology more worthwhile within just a few years—it is too unproven at this point in time.
But there is one setting where these might be worthy of consideration on the LIRR: for those limited dual mode runs. If LIRR were to purchase off-the-shelf DMU's for the majority of the diesel fleet replacement, but still be unable to run them into the tunnels to NY-Penn Station, BEMU's could be a potential alternative for just the handful of trains that actually need to operate into the tunnels. To maintain the current DM service levels, that would require four 12-car sets and one 8-car set (assuming conversion to single level), which is 70 cars with spares, or 105 cars if you want to plan for a 50% increase in one-seat rides after East Side Access. Filling in the rest of the diesel fleet with DMU's would still offer a significant savings:
| Quantity | Unit price | Total price |
|---|
| BEMU's for one-seat ride trains (1-for-1) | 70 cars | $8.4m each | $588 million |
| DMU's for all other services (1-for-1) | 100 cars | $2.5m each | $250 million |
| BEMU's for one-seat ride trains (expansion) | 35 cars | $8.4m each | $294 million |
| DMU's for all other services (expansion) | 39 cars | $2.5m each | $98 million |
| Grand total - mix of BEMU's and DMU's | | | $1,230 million |
This is still a $390 million savings over the status quo with dual modes and push-pull trains, though at this price they could just as easily electrify to Port Jefferson and Patchogue, and tell Oyster Bay riders that they have to put up with transfers. At the current price premium it's not really worth considering BEMU's, especially once you consider that these would likely be as underutilized as the current DM sets—they would basically make one AM peak trip, spend most of the day in West Side Yard charging, and then make a single PM peak trip (or else you'll need 4 or more charging facilities). But I figured it important to mention it anyways, as the technology may progress enough in the next few years where it's a more viable option.
Conclusion: should be no fiat accompli
All in all, there are definitely way more options for addressing the future fleet needs of the diesel territory branches beyond just the status quo of push-pull trains with expensive dual mode locomotives. Whether it's expanding electrification or taking your pick of the acronyms (DMU's, BMU's, HMU's, BEMU's, etc.), there are many other options out there, and most of them could save the LIRR a ton of money while allowing them to deliver much better, frequent, faster, and more reliable service on the poorly served diesel branches.
While the Siemens design looks like it would be a competent successor to the current dual modes, technology, the regulatory landscape, and the international railcar market have all evolved and changed significantly since this concept was first brought about in the latter part of the prior century.
The question is no longer whether these alternatives exist or are service-proven—they all are—the question is whether the MTA and the railroads are capable of thinking outside the box and straying just a little bit from the status quo and the centuries-old tradition of locomotive-hauled trains. As I've said all along, these big fleet planning decisions are extreemly pivotal—once you buy a bunch of trains, you're stuck with them for 20 to 30 years. Once the contracts are signed and the options are exercised, it becomes a mistake that's extreemly difficult and costly to undo. We've seen from the botched DE and DM program how some poor decisions on the outset can continue to have profound impacts on diesel territory service decades later—it's imperative they get it right. Metro-North is already starting down the wrong path, will the LIRR make the same mistakes?
