THE EVOLUTION OF M-6

Late in the 80s Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Metro-North) recognized that projection of increased ridership emphasized the need for additional seats on its New Haven Division. This realization followed on the heels of a similar projection several years earlier which culminated in the procurement of 54 M-4 commuter rail cars from Tokyo Car Corporation. Consequently, after a period of intense negotiations, Metro-North entered into a contract with Morrison Knudsen Corporation (Amerail) to furnish 39 M-6 commuter rail cars to be completed in its Hornell, New York facility. Subsequently, Metro-North exercised an option for 9 additional cars increasing the number of M-6s to 48. In appearance, the new cars closely resemble their predecessors, the twenty-three year old M-2 cars and the eight year old M-4 cars which they will supplement. With their bright stainless steel exterior and contrasting red feature stripe there is virtually no visible difference among the three. The M-6 is actually an extension of the M-4 and consequently comparisons made in this paper are appropriate between M-2 and M-4/M-6. An earlier paper describes in detail the substantive improvements designed and built into the M-4 over the M-2. Many of the M-4 features repeated in the M-6 will be described here as they were in the M-4 paper. However, experience in operating and maintaining the M-4 and the process of technical evolution resulted in further, albeit more subtle, changes in the M-6. Starting with the chemical composition of the structural stainless steel and continuing with incorporation of state-of-the-art electronic technology, the M-4/M-6 cars are significantly different from M-2 cars. This paper describes these differences in detail explaining the reasons for some of the more significant changes and detailing the technical features of the new components and systems. Constrained by the dictate to make the M-6 physical clone of its predecessors, the designers concentrated on those areas that affect reliability and maintainability. By focusing on system and component improvement and incorporating advance design thinking into monitoring systems they were able to realize their goals. The M-4 has proven to be a reliable vehicle. The M-6, based on early returns, is better.

• Corporate Authors:

  American Public Transportation Association

  1201 New York Avenue, NW
  Washington, DC    20005
• Authors:
  • Wilkins, J J
  • Ronalter, J M
  • Yutko, R T
• Conference:
  • Proceedings of the 1996 Rapid Transit Conference of the American Public Transit Association
  • Location: Atlanta, Georgia
  • Date: 1996-6-2 to 1996-6-6
• Publication Date: 1996

Language

• English

Media Info

• Features: Figures;
• Pagination: p. 96-105

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Chemical composition; Commuter cars; Electronic equipment; Light rail vehicles; Maintainability; Monitoring; Railroad commuter service; Railroad transportation; Ridership; Stainless steel
• Identifier Terms: New York State Metropolitan Transportation Authority; State of the Art Car (Rapid transit car)
• Old TRIS Terms: Electronic systems; Metropolitan transportation authority
• Subject Areas: Public Transportation; Railroads; Vehicles and Equipment;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 00749095
• Record Type: Publication
• Report/Paper Numbers: Volume 2
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: May 14 1998 12:00AM