Silverliner V: Progress Reports

I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on TV. I think I understand that the trap doors by design would make the cars less stiff, since the floor is not continuous from end to end. And I think the design of traps in the middle of cars hasn't been done yet. Is there a possibility that the design, as proposed, cannot be built with today's technology? If this is the case, what options are there? I believe it was said that the old design of end vestibules are no longer FRA compliant?

Yes, the new crash standards preclude end doors with traps. If I understand it correctly their new design has crushable "energy absorber" structures in the four corners of the car at the ends, which require a solid connection to the rest of the frame, precluding a trap there. This is supposed to reduce the amount of crush in the end of the car and make the crush more controlled.

I don't know that traps in the middle, or third or quarter point, has ever been done before on a conventional railroad car in North America, but I'm sure I've seen doodlebugs, or lightweight railcars somewhere with platform level doors somewhere along the carbody. And center doors have long been standard on streetcars and buses.

As for heavy rail, isn't a Chicago gallery car, or Toronto or California split level hotdog car, essentially a straight frame with a traplike indentation or 2 in the middle? For that matter, isn't a VRE, MARC, NJTransit, LIRR or MBTA split level essentially a straight frame with a jayujick traplike thing in the middle?
What are the strength issues with them that are different from the silverliner 5's?

gardendance wrote:I don't know that traps in the middle, or third or quarter point, has ever been done before on a conventional railroad car in North America, but I'm sure I've seen doodlebugs, or lightweight railcars somewhere with platform level doors somewhere along the carbody. And center doors have long been standard on streetcars and buses.

As for heavy rail, isn't a Chicago gallery car, or Toronto or California split level hotdog car, essentially a straight frame with a traplike indentation or 2 in the middle? For that matter, isn't a VRE, MARC, NJTransit, LIRR or MBTA split level essentially a straight frame with a jayujick traplike thing in the middle?
What are the strength issues with them that are different from the silverliner 5's?

Garden, thank you because you do bring up very good points, but the LIRR double deckers only load at high level platforms(I remember when they ordered those cars the LIRR started closing stations that were low level that had low ridership because the LIRR felt that it wasnt cost jusitfied to high level).MARC and NJT double deckers(multi's for NJT) have low level doors at the extreme ends with doors and traps next to it. VRE and Metra Gallery are indeed built with a trap and door in the center of the car and they dont look like they suffer from structural problems, but I guess its easier to have a doorway and trap in the center of the car then the way the SLV with the quater point doors and traps with 2 traps per side instead of just 1 and maybe this could make a difference.The Toronto and Cali double decker cars actually dont have traps and sit low to the tracks. They only load at low level platforms.Of course Im only drawing conclusions on why the SLV could be having possible structural problems but the quater point doors with the trap doors seem like an obvious place to start looking why.Of course the main problem is that Rotem can not find enough qualified people to weld to American FRA standards.Im sure most people dont wantto hear this but light rail and railroad cars are 2 different beast and are built different and have different standards.Hope this helps alil

cpontani wrote:I'm no engineer, nor do I play one on TV. I think I understand that the trap doors by design would make the cars less stiff, since the floor is not continuous from end to end. And I think the design of traps in the middle of cars hasn't been done yet. Is there a possibility that the design, as proposed, cannot be built with today's technology? If this is the case, what options are there? I believe it was said that the old design of end vestibules are no longer FRA compliant?

There has been one instance of railcars with traps in the quarter-point doors being built, and less than 35 years ago.

The LIRR took delivery of a 4-car (two married pairs) set of M-1's modified to be dual-mode (electric on the third rail, and some kind of turbine engine for use on the diesel territory)...it was meant to allow through-service between the electric and non-electric territory. There were traps in the quarter-point doors to allow for boarding/disembarking in the diesel zone low platforms.

LIRR/USDOT gas-turbine MU's
http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/odds_e ... roslyn.jpg

Yes. They failed miserably due to the turbo propulsion systems they had. I don't think they had enough miles to take a good beating on the body design.

Chicago's new Metra Electric Division cars have a subway style double leaf door in the middle with a trap. This is a heavy-rail car, so apparently it's not a structural issue. I think their traps are strictly for occasional emergency evacuation as I believe that division is all high-platforms.

I have a funny feeling that SEPTA will be sued over the design of the cars in relation to disabled riders. I can't for the life of me understand why they designed the doors with such an obstruction and think that it wouldn't be a problem, especially considering the constraints for the disabled with the current cars who have wider chairs.

If a riders has a "wider" chair the split doors will prevent them from boarding. Under the circumstances they should have made the low-level platform doors a little narrower, seeing it's never going to be used to board a person that's wheelchair bound.

I really think SEPTA missed the mark on this car in a lot of little ways that will see another manufacture making other cars for the system. Not to mention that by the time they correct the problems these cars will, no doubt, have they could've gotten them from a much more proven builder.

PhillyKing wrote:I have a funny feeling that SEPTA will be sued over the design of the cars in relation to disabled riders. I can't for the life of me understand why they designed the doors with such an obstruction and think that it wouldn't be a problem, especially considering the constraints for the disabled with the current cars who have wider chairs.

If a riders has a "wider" chair the split doors will prevent them from boarding. Under the circumstances they should have made the low-level platform doors a little narrower, seeing it's never going to be used to board a person that's wheelchair bound.

I really think SEPTA missed the mark on this car in a lot of little ways that will see another manufacture making other cars for the system. Not to mention that by the time they correct the problems these cars will, no doubt, have they could've gotten them from a much more proven builder.

People will find a "reason" to sue for real or imagined slights no matter how the equipment is designed. The FRA is calling the shots on the overall design and Septa is working within these parameters. Unless someone is unusally large egress shouldn't be a problem. Perhaps a double door, hi-cube box car can accomodate the 'outsized' folks! MMMMMM......we have several flat cars, if put tie downs on the deck..............nah

From today's Inquirer...wonder if this is going to be the N5 debacle all over again.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/43409497.html

Maybe NJT has some more Comets for sale...

ex Budd man wrote: Unless someone is unusally large egress shouldn't be a problem.

I thought the concern was the wheelchair's width, which does not necessarily have anything to do with the person's width.

How many test cars? 1 doubled ended and a married pair?

KAWASAKI-FAN100 wrote:How many test cars? 1 doubled ended and a married pair?

Yes, one married pair and one single car (double-ended) will make up the test set.

Well there was an article in the paper today about the Silverliner delay due to technical delays. Loser Diggs wouldnt elaborate on what the delays were but he said 1 issue was indeed the engineers cab. Septa wants the half cab, engineers want the full cab. That is a blatant lie. The current administration at Septa is in support of the full width cab now that Nowakowski is out, and the full width cab has already been ok. I have the letter notifying the BLE from Septa of the full width cab approval and that was from late last year. As much as Septa changes, the more they stay the same and that of course is placing the blame on others instead of looking at themselves. I guess they figure lets blame the engineers on the delay.Of course I already stated what those problems are on the order for the past few months and its now coming out because of "technical problems".

Everyone: The MTA and USDOT had two 4-car M1 MU type turbo electrics from two builders: 4001-4004 from the Garrett Corporation and 4005-4008 from GE. That pic posted was the GE train-which had a interesting door operation with movable steps for low level platform operation. The Garrett train had a half-door trap similar to the new Metra Electric MU cars.
The biggest drawback from their mid 70s LIRR operation was that they were terrible on fuel consumption and the fuel tanks were not large enough for them to carry a decent fuel supply.

I read the Silverliner 5 problems and I am now wondering...here we go again! MACTRAXX