Interesting consists

The other night, there was a 8-car consist parked at Chestnut Hill West -- the front four were Silverliner Vs, and the back four were Silverliner IVs, all coupled together. I took a couple pictures; I'll see if I can get them posted here.

dcipjr wrote:The other night, there was a 8-car consist parked at Chestnut Hill West -- the front four were Silverliner Vs, and the back four were Silverliner IVs, all coupled together. I took a couple pictures; I'll see if I can get them posted here.

I didn't think they could run in service like that?

Likely was some kind of test.

Would be funny to see frankentrains.

I've seen 2's and 3's with 4's before, but never 4 and 5.

25Hz wrote:Would be funny to see frankentrains.

I've seen 2's and 3's with 4's before, but never 4 and 5.

There are differences in the trainline that makes them incompatible for revenue moves.

per the RFP (in part):

1.16 TRAIN CONSIST OPERATIONAL COMPATIBILITY

A level of trainline control compatibility shall be provided between the Silverliner V and Silverliner IV cars sufficient to provide the Operator with full propulsion and braking control of the train, plus fully operable communications buzzer and crew intercom systems, regardless of which type car is in the lead. Trainline control and functions applicable to the case of mixed Silverliner V and Silverliner IV consists shall be subject to approval by the Engineer.

There was some inside talk about a possible Silverliner IV retrofit to make them run in service mixed with Vs until the Silverliner IVs go for their overhaul. Because of the difference in trainlining SEPTA is growing weary of not being able to link the IVs and Vs together thus alot of trains lately have been ending up with extra cars. I don't think the Trenton Line needs a 4 car train on Saturday afternoon, but I guess their stuck with it. I know the timeline is right now, Bomber overhaul, AEM-7 overhaul and then SL-IV overhauls. They will be made fully compatible to Silverliner Vs after that.

-Nick

At the 2011 Rodeo, I took a look into the cab of a V. There's a Silverliner IV button (on the overhead console, I believe). What's that for?

Quinn wrote:At the 2011 Rodeo, I took a look into the cab of a V. There's a Silverliner IV button (on the overhead console, I believe). What's that for?

That is to allow trainlining Silverliner IV and V cars in the current manner that allows propulsion and communication control from the lead car of either type of equipment. Door control and other trainline functions remain incompatible (especially since the V's have the separate High/Low setup).

That switch is currently not used at all, when MUing the IVs and Vs the crew has to do a few things but that switch isn't part of it, now if they ever do the software "upgrade" to the Vs to make them compatible for revenue service that switch will be used, they need to "dumb" down the Vs, the switch will tell the Vs they are running with IVs and it will dumb down the eletronics in the Vs.

Limited-Clear wrote:That switch is currently not used at all, when MUing the IVs and Vs the crew has to do a few things but that switch isn't part of it, now if they ever do the software "upgrade" to the Vs to make them compatible for revenue service that switch will be used, they need to "dumb" down the Vs, the switch will tell the Vs they are running with IVs and it will dumb down the eletronics in the Vs.

I am sure most of us are thinking this, but I'll voice it anyway. Why was full compatibility not designed into the V's from the start? I do understand door positioning on certain platforms would have been an issue, but that is a physical issue that is easy to rectify. The rest of it is all software and wiring, something that could be programmed.

Tonight, I observed a portion of the evening rush from Jenkintown. Thanks to texts to a friend aboard his regular ride home, train 6576, I found out that a main fuse or breaker blew on the 7-car set of Silverliner IV's for the train, knocking it out of commission. After a 15-20 minute delay, the only available substitute equipment came out to cover the train: five Silverliner V's. It goes without saying that passengers and crew were NOT happy with the resulting situation. I have video of that train going through Jenkintown with it being delayed by 3791 coming through, also with V's. Train 578 was just ahead of the delayed 6576, short two cars, with people crammed into a two-car train of Silverliner IV's.

Geez, that means if 9747 had V's tonight... then there will be an 8-car set of V's deadheading back from Trenton tonight... or, well, already has been... otherwise both trains would have to deadhead back separately....

Silverliner II wrote:I am sure most of us are thinking this, but I'll voice it anyway. Why was full compatibility not designed into the V's from the start? I do understand door positioning on certain platforms would have been an issue, but that is a physical issue that is easy to rectify. The rest of it is all software and wiring, something that could be programmed.

I think it's a lot more than just "software and wiring." Brake and propulsion controls may not react the same, the IVs can't tell the Vs what the dynamics are doing, and more. Furthermore, the wiring part looks to be pretty complicated on the Vs. When I saw them being assembled, I was amazed at the sheer quantity of wire in one of those cars. There was a wiring harness coming out of the cab that was about as big as my arm.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

Silverliner II wrote:I am sure most of us are thinking this, but I'll voice it anyway. Why was full compatibility not designed into the V's from the start? I do understand door positioning on certain platforms would have been an issue, but that is a physical issue that is easy to rectify. The rest of it is all software and wiring, something that could be programmed.

I think it's a lot more than just "software and wiring." Brake and propulsion controls may not react the same, the IVs can't tell the Vs what the dynamics are doing, and more. Furthermore, the wiring part looks to be pretty complicated on the Vs. When I saw them being assembled, I was amazed at the sheer quantity of wire in one of those cars. There was a wiring harness coming out of the cab that was about as big as my arm.

I would think it would only be slightly more complicated than on locomotives. After all, we operate some of the newest AC-traction locos with old SD40-2's all the time, and there definitely are differences in braking and propulsion systems. But it all still works the same through the jumper cable. Whatever we command from the throttle or brake handle on the head end, we can only tell what is happening on the lead unit from the gauges or computer screens, and the rest is all by feel...

IS the "simple" fix to redo the "electric" heads on the IV's to work with the V's?
Or a total "reman" is needed to get the IV's to work with the V's ?

The IV's will get new electric heads eventually. If you look right now they are totally different electrically ( the electrical pin contacts ) and the electric box covers are also different. The problem is there is no software on the IV's other than the HVAC controls and door controls. The technology on the V's can't communicate with the IV's. When IV's and V's are coupled, the only thing that trainlines at this time is the signals to apply and release the brakes. Whichever cars are in the lead will provide the traction power for the whole consist and the other type of cars will just act like trailer cars.

The reason new and old freight equipment can be MU'd or trainlined is that the 26 pin ( I think it's still 26 ) electrical cable is mandated by the AAR. ( just like the AAR control stands)

Even when the IV's get the new electrical heads they will still only communicate for braking and maybe communicating buzzer and the switch in the V's that Quinn was talking about will be used to complete the trainline circuit in the V's to allow propulsion by completing door closed circuits etc. that are needed to allow the V's to take traction power. Currently the crews have to "dog" or "loop" the electric head at the coupling on both sets of equipment to complete these circuits.

The term "dog/loop" might mean retracting of the electric heads to allow car movement with only the actual coupling and
brake pipe/main reservoir lines to pass thru.

This is not ment to "nitpick",believe the AAR standard is 27 point for MU cables(red covers),
This is also used for Amtrak's Door Comm,"P"-wire,etc(blue covers)