SLV new max speed

BuddCar711 wrote:

loufah wrote:When the V's first started passenger service, I boarded one at 30th that was 10 minutes behind schedule, and we stopped for another few minutes on the way to N Philly, but we still got to Trenton on time! (Yes, this is a Big Deal when you have a 3 minute connection to the NJT train). Realistically, how long might it be until everything on that route is V's (or newer) and the schedules can be shortened?

It's like that on the R2 Wilmington. It will arrive @ Market East 5 minutes behind schedule (most likely due to being held up by the R1 being late itself), but will arrive @ Wilmington 5 minutes AHEAD of schedule. Those SL-Vs do really fly.

We have the same problem up here with the ALP45s, the schedules are designed for Geeps so the 45s being nearly as quick as the MUs with a 4 car train just simply destroy the schedule.

beanbag wrote:We have the same problem up here with the ALP45s, the schedules are designed for Geeps so the 45s being nearly as quick as the MUs with a 4 car train just simply destroy the schedule.

Which is another reason why Amtrak should reconsider their ban against Bombardier and order some 45s because it sounds like NJ Transit really got a winner.

BuddCar711 wrote:

beanbag wrote:We have the same problem up here with the ALP45s, the schedules are designed for Geeps so the 45s being nearly as quick as the MUs with a 4 car train just simply destroy the schedule.

Which is another reason why Amtrak should reconsider their ban against Bombardier and order some 45s because it sounds like NJ Transit really got a winner.

If a brand new 5000hp electric locomotive can't be faster than a 3000hp diesel pulling 4 car trains then you really have a problem. The ALP-45's ability to be reliable and perform away from wire with heavier trains has yet to be ascertained.

Jersey_Mike wrote:If a brand new 5000hp electric locomotive can't be faster than a 3000hp diesel pulling 4 car trains then you really have a problem. The ALP-45's ability to be reliable and perform away from wire with heavier trains has yet to be ascertained.

Horsepower ain't everything.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

Jersey_Mike wrote:If a brand new 5000hp electric locomotive can't be faster than a 3000hp diesel pulling 4 car trains then you really have a problem. The ALP-45's ability to be reliable and perform away from wire with heavier trains has yet to be ascertained.

Horsepower ain't everything.

Theyre just as quick in diesel mode, and ive seen one get an 8 car multilevel set going just as fast as a 46 in diesel mode. Your point? Theyre fast engines. I was referencing that example because the Vs are killing schedules designed for the Ivs in much the same way.

Matt.. Agreed buddy. Looking up stats real quick, the ALP45 has more starting tractive effort than a PL42... A locomotive of identical power.. Only a smidge more.. Less than 2000 pounds. Then in Diesel mode its continuous tractive effort is 65,000 pounds.. Almost two and a half TIMES the PL42s piddling 27,000 continuous effort. The 45s tractive effort continous even out does the much more powerful ALP46. If horsepower was everything.. The PL42 wouldnt get absolutely flattened by the ALP45. You notice it too when youre on a train powered by a 45, they're quicker than the PL42 by a noticeable amount and the PL is no slouch in its own right, but the 45s are definitely faster, they can keep an MUs schedule on the Gladstone Branch thats how quick they are.

@ 269,
Did it feel like you could accelerate more or was that all she had?

sixroute wrote:@ 269,
Did it feel like you could accelerate more or was that all she had?

I'm sure she could've done a tad better but I think about the 80mph the acceleration was a lot slower.

Jersey_Mike wrote:

BuddCar711 wrote:

beanbag wrote:We have the same problem up here with the ALP45s, the schedules are designed for Geeps so the 45s being nearly as quick as the MUs with a 4 car train just simply destroy the schedule.

Which is another reason why Amtrak should reconsider their ban against Bombardier and order some 45s because it sounds like NJ Transit really got a winner.

If a brand new 5000hp electric locomotive can't be faster than a 3000hp diesel pulling 4 car trains then you really have a problem. The ALP-45's ability to be reliable and perform away from wire with heavier trains has yet to be ascertained.

Not true. The 45's have run with 8+ MLV consists on the M&E and the Meadowlands Shuttle in diesel plenty of times now.

Well, do you think trenton line & thorndale line schedules will be changed to reflect this, or are the silverliner 4's too much of a liability to do that?

How would they change it? MAS is still the same, station dwell is longer as you have to wait for doors to open and close as opposed to SLIVs which can run with open doors and traps up, the benefit of an SLV being slightly quicker is it makes OTP look good

Limited-Clear wrote:How would they change it? MAS is still the same, station dwell is longer as you have to wait for doors to open and close as opposed to SLIVs which can run with open doors and traps up, the benefit of an SLV being slightly quicker is it makes OTP look good

How is dwell longer on a SL-V? Wirh a SL-V, all doors per side open (on raised platforms) or all doors with traps per side open (low level platforms) which speeds boarding and disembarking while on a SL-IV, only one door per car is opened which creates a choke point. This could be slightly alleviated if SEPTA installed center doors on the SL-IVs.

Yea, it's getting to the point where end doors only is getting.... inefficient, especially with more high level rebuilds coming online within service lifetime of these guys.

Can't tell you how frustrating it is to have to wait while people exit down steps to board. Welcome to 1845.

Dwell times are longer because at low level platforms because you have to wait for all the door to be opened, everyone get off and on then you wait again while the doors close, it may only be a matter of seconds but over a full length trip that mounts into minutes, your argument on the amount of doors is invalid, at a low level platform the Vs only have 2 doors for use anyway, saying the end doors is a choke point is also invalid, when you only have a single stream door the actual door is the choke point.

I agree with the center doors idea because that will remove 4 seats per car on already overcrowded trains, and while we are at it let remove the front ones off the Vs too, may as well treat the whole fleet the same

Well guess what? Now they close the traps and doors on the SL-IVs after leaving every stop (and that includes low level platforms as well). That adds to even more dwell time. And my point still stands. I've seen it myself. When the R2 Wilmington arrives, and if it's a SL-IV, disembarking an boarding takes a good 2 ninutes because they only have one door per car opened (and the conductors aren't going to open up the doors at either the front, if first car, or rear, if last car anytime soon), while if it's a SL-V, ALL the doors pop open, thus a minute is shaved off the dwell, and on the low-level platforms, the conductors leave the traps up. Further, if a SL-IV stops at a low-level platform, and the traps down and doors closed, the conductor may be busy with collecting fares, thus a passenger is waiting to get on or off. I have not seen that situation with the SL-V.

Limited-Clear wrote:Dwell times are longer because at low level platforms because you have to wait for all the door to be opened, everyone get off and on then you wait again while the doors close, it may only be a matter of seconds but over a full length trip that mounts into minutes, your argument on the amount of doors is invalid, at a low level platform the Vs only have 2 doors for use anyway, saying the end doors is a choke point is also invalid, when you only have a single stream door the actual door is the choke point.

I agree with the center doors idea because that will remove 4 seats per car on already overcrowded trains, and while we are at it let remove the front ones off the Vs too, may as well treat the whole fleet the same

More room for standees. Arrow 3's proved this to be a non-issue and a benefit. Center doors are brilliant for systems like SEPTA and NJT, i really think before the 4's are replaced (hopefully not with more silverliner 5 type crap) they should put center doors in. The seats only fit 2 people anyways, and the bulkheads create a lot of leg room for no reason.

I feel the silverliner 4's will be in service another 10-15 years, so the light overhaul to add the doors may also be a chance to do any lifespan increasing work while they are shopped just in case there are issues or delays with the next gen order.