Railroad Forums 

  • SEPTA to get multi-level railroad coaches

  • Discussion relating to Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia Metro Area). Official web site can be found here: www.septa.com. Also including discussion related to the PATCO Speedline rapid transit operated by Delaware River Port Authority. Official web site can be found here: http://www.ridepatco.org/.
Discussion relating to Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (Philadelphia Metro Area). Official web site can be found here: www.septa.com. Also including discussion related to the PATCO Speedline rapid transit operated by Delaware River Port Authority. Official web site can be found here: http://www.ridepatco.org/.

Moderator: AlexC

 #1255202  by nomis
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:
25Hz wrote:As far as i know, the MLV are the shortest dual floor railcar, and are only an inch taller than a genesis, which is itself pretty short for a "full size" diesel.

It's also one of few, or the only, that can use low and high platforms.
What is "the MLV" and what do you mean by "dual floor railcar"?.
1. MultiLevel Vehicle by Bombardier
2. Multi Level / Bi Level / Gallery configuration

Ps ... MARC's Kawasaki's & MBTA's Kawasaki's / Brokem's both do level boarding at 48" above top of rail and low level steps @ approx 8"
 #1255211  by Clearfield
 
R3 Passenger wrote:
CComMack wrote:We have no reason to use the North River Tunnels as our clearance envelope if we don't have to.
True, but if you sit down and actually think about it, both the North River Tunnels and Suburban Station were PRR-built structures. It wouldn't make sense for the PRR to build them with different height clearances. Being that the PRR loved calling itself the "Standard Railroad of the World," one would think that they would use consistent clearances across the system.

The North River Tunnels were built between 1902 and 1904, and fully completed by 1910. Suburban Station was completed in 1930. Why would the PRR want to build the Suburban clearances less than the North River Tunnel clearances? City Core to City Core service would definitely have been a marketing point for the PRR.
I spoke with a very senior SEPTA official last Wednesday who told me that one major vendor's cars have the correct measurements to fit HOWEVER clearance tests would need to be done as a proof of concept.
 #1255236  by sammy2009
 
Clearfield wrote:
R3 Passenger wrote:
CComMack wrote:We have no reason to use the North River Tunnels as our clearance envelope if we don't have to.
True, but if you sit down and actually think about it, both the North River Tunnels and Suburban Station were PRR-built structures. It wouldn't make sense for the PRR to build them with different height clearances. Being that the PRR loved calling itself the "Standard Railroad of the World," one would think that they would use consistent clearances across the system.

The North River Tunnels were built between 1902 and 1904, and fully completed by 1910. Suburban Station was completed in 1930. Why would the PRR want to build the Suburban clearances less than the North River Tunnel clearances? City Core to City Core service would definitely have been a marketing point for the PRR.
I spoke with a very senior SEPTA official last Wednesday who told me that one major vendor's cars have the correct measurements to fit HOWEVER clearance tests would need to be done as a proof of concept.
NorthPennLimited wrote:Rumor is, the top-floor guys at 1234 have a field trip planned this month to look at NJT bi-levels and an ACS 64 at Morrisville or Wilmington.

Once they see toilets and 2x2 seating, they will run away.

Instead, they will probably go to the bargain basement sale and buy some more comets and slightly used AEM-7's
Its good SEPTA is going up to NJTransit property to check out the multi-level's. When i spoke with someone in the board meeting last week the man said they was looking at 2x2 ,and 3x2 seating. And that NJTransit's multi's fit what they want. Now when it comes to the bathroom thing. Im not sure if SEPTA would even get those on board ....knowing them they'd add more seats instead.

I Wonder who the vendor is ? Rotem ? since they was the last vendor to build for SEPTA. But their bi-levels are UGLY. I hope not.
 #1255292  by CComMack
 
R3 Passenger wrote:
CComMack wrote:We have no reason to use the North River Tunnels as our clearance envelope if we don't have to.
True, but if you sit down and actually think about it, both the North River Tunnels and Suburban Station were PRR-built structures. It wouldn't make sense for the PRR to build them with different height clearances. Being that the PRR loved calling itself the "Standard Railroad of the World," one would think that they would use consistent clearances across the system.

The North River Tunnels were built between 1902 and 1904, and fully completed by 1910. Suburban Station was completed in 1930. Why would the PRR want to build the Suburban clearances less than the North River Tunnel clearances? City Core to City Core service would definitely have been a marketing point for the PRR.
You misunderstand. I meant that, if the North River Tunnels are smaller than the Suburban Station approach, and I'm fairly sure they are in at least one respect, there's no reason to spend extra money making sure SEPTA's new bilevels are North River-compatible. We have plenty of other equipment we could send to Penn Station if some unforeseeable necessity arose. Even LIRR did not bother making its C3 bilevel fleet North River-compatible, and they run right into Penn Station!
 #1255353  by nomis
 
There will probably be a significant price savings in getting North River compatable cars in the near term, vs. a completely new Septa design to fit their clearance profile. The Bomb MLV's are currently tooled up for NJT and MARC.
 #1255413  by 25Hz
 
Patrick Boylan wrote:
25Hz wrote:As far as i know, the MLV are the shortest dual floor railcar, and are only an inch taller than a genesis, which is itself pretty short for a "full size" diesel.

It's also one of few, or the only, that can use low and high platforms.
What is "the MLV" and what do you mean by "dual floor railcar"?
There are many pieces of passenger rail equipment that can use low and high platforms. In fact the only ones I know of that regularly run between Boston and Washington that can't use both high and low level platforms are the Acela Expresses. Everything else Amtrak and all the commuter agencies use have at least one high level door per car with traps for low level platforms.

If I've said anything provocative, please let me know, I'm sorry.
MLV, multilevel vehicle. Used by NJT and AMT. Dual floor, they have two seperate, distinct levels, and doors located on a mezzanine 3rd level, high platform height. It's the only dual floor railcar that has low and high level capabilities.... That I know of.........

Dunno why I have to repeat myself, but there it is.
Last edited by 25Hz on Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1255420  by Patrick Boylan
 
25Hz wrote:
Patrick Boylan wrote:
25Hz wrote:As far as i know, the MLV are the shortest dual floor railcar, and are only an inch taller than a genesis, which is itself pretty short for a "full size" diesel.

It's also one of few, or the only, that can use low and high platforms.
What is "the MLV" and what do you mean by "dual floor railcar"?
There are many pieces of passenger rail equipment that can use low and high platforms. In fact the only ones I know of that regularly run between Boston and Washington that can't use both high and low level platforms are the Acela Expresses. Everything else Amtrak and all the commuter agencies use have at least one high level door per car with traps for low level platforms.

If I've said anything provocative, please let me know, I'm sorry.
MLV, multilevel vehicle. Used by NJT and AMT. Dual floor, they have two seperate, distinct levels, and doors located on a mezzanine 3rd level, high platform height. It's the only dual floor railcar that has low and high level capabilities.... That I know of.........

Dunno why I have to repeat myself, but there it is.

And, the reason the east river tunnels are taller, is because it has different geology
I'm not sure why you have to repeat yourself either. It's a bit confusing when you, as I would, call the mezzanine a level, yet not count it as a level when you say "dual floor". The mezzanine sure seems to have just as substantial a floor as either of the other 2 out of the 3 levels.
Since you don't know of them, please check out the multi level cars that MARC uses Washington-Baltimore, Long Island Railroad, and Boston's MBTA. All of those as far as I know, have low and high level capabilities.

If I've said anything provocative, please let me know, I'm sorry and if you let me know I'll try not to do it again.
 #1255429  by 25Hz
 
Clearly the railcar has a dual floor section......................................

Image

Note the low platform capability of the end doors!!!!

What does every other dual floor railcar lack in the US? Doors for both high and low platforms!!!!

LIRR/MNRR only use high level cars. Superlines and the like, can only use low platforms, as the doors are on the bottom floor!!!

In any case, they can fit into the north river tunnels which are the tightest clearances of any mainline rail right of way that i'm aware of. If they can fit there, they can pretty much fit anywhere........
Last edited by 25Hz on Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 #1255431  by R3 Passenger
 
nomis wrote:There will probably be a significant price savings in getting North River compatable cars in the near term, vs. a completely new Septa design to fit their clearance profile. The Bomb MLV's are currently tooled up for NJT and MARC.
And long term, too! Think of it from Bombardier's viewpoint. If you have multiple customers using the same equipment, you would support them with spare parts for a longer period than you would if the equipment is custom made for a single customer.

It would be good for all parties involved if SEPTA went this route. And that in itself is a good enough reason for SEPTA to actually NOT purchase multilevels. Damn paradoxes...
 #1255432  by Patrick Boylan
 
25Hz wrote:Clearly the railcar has a dual floor section......................................
yes, clearly the railcar has a dual floor section, but you didn't call it a dual floor SECTION railcar, you called it a dual floor railcar. It also has 2 single floor sections, yet you didn't call it a single floor railcar, which has just the same meaningfullness, or lack thereof, to describe what kind of car it is.
 #1255442  by 25Hz
 
What rail profile does SEPTA use? I've seen 115 lb rail a few places. Just curious, because i believe where the MLV run now have heavier profiles, especially the NEC...
 #1256525  by 25Hz
 
SCB2525 wrote:I believe the standard is 132 or 136 but 115 is fine for most anything until it can be replaced by heavier rail through normal replacement.
The reason i ask, is because the MLV's have a very heavy axle loading compared to a comet 2. I would hope that this is figured into the equation, as SEPTA seems (visually) to have a less robust physical plant than NJT or other transit systems i've seen... There are a ot of aged wood ties needing replacing, curve geometries that might need tweaking, etc.

If the MLV's can fit into hoboken terminal and north river tunnels and multiple other places outside of NJT footprint, i'm pretty sure the CCCT wouldn't be an issue.

If you see here, the MLV roof line is shorter than the fixed rooftop structures on this locomotive:

http://www.subwaynut.com/njt/rahway/rahway33.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And since ALP-46 is same fixed height as ALP-44 and AEM-7, i think we can safely say these will fit. :)
 #1256554  by nomis
 
But height is not everything when it comes to clearance testing ...

All that we can safely say is that whatever new cars that may be eventually ordered, will be systematically clearance tested (liken unto the SL V clearance testing). :-)
 #1256691  by zebrasepta
 
CComMack wrote:
R3 Passenger wrote:
CComMack wrote:We have no reason to use the North River Tunnels as our clearance envelope if we don't have to.
True, but if you sit down and actually think about it, both the North River Tunnels and Suburban Station were PRR-built structures. It wouldn't make sense for the PRR to build them with different height clearances. Being that the PRR loved calling itself the "Standard Railroad of the World," one would think that they would use consistent clearances across the system.

The North River Tunnels were built between 1902 and 1904, and fully completed by 1910. Suburban Station was completed in 1930. Why would the PRR want to build the Suburban clearances less than the North River Tunnel clearances? City Core to City Core service would definitely have been a marketing point for the PRR.
You misunderstand. I meant that, if the North River Tunnels are smaller than the Suburban Station approach, and I'm fairly sure they are in at least one respect, there's no reason to spend extra money making sure SEPTA's new bilevels are North River-compatible. We have plenty of other equipment we could send to Penn Station if some unforeseeable necessity arose. Even LIRR did not bother making its C3 bilevel fleet North River-compatible, and they run right into Penn Station!
the only possible chance is during Thanksgiving... which is VERY slim or some catastrophe in the New York area
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 15