SEPTA Cancels CRRC multi level order (Was:SEPTA to get multi-level railroad coaches)

[25Hz]

The one large difference, is that the river tubes are round, and the CCCT has a squared profile. You gotta have a vehicle that has roof corners that turn downwards at certain widths and angles as to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle roof will make contact with the upper sides of the tube. On the other hand, the CCCT has a lot more room up top.

[25Hz]

Some examples ive dug up online:

http://www.phantasrail.com/USA09/MB_Phantasrail15x.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g35/N ... erry_H.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://us.bombardier.com/us/library/ima ... vel-HR.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XMujQLT77HY/U ... dcrest.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

None of these are mine, just to be clear.

[Clearfield]

The one large difference, is that the river tubes are round, and the CCCT has a squared profile. You gotta have a vehicle that has roof corners that turn downwards at certain widths and angles as to reduce the likelihood that the vehicle roof will make contact with the upper sides of the tube. On the other hand, the CCCT has a lot more room up top.

And SEPTA (and no doubt outside consultants) know exactly how to perform the proper measurements and make whatever changes are needed to ensure safe consistent clearance.

[SCB2525]

Presumably SEPTA will borrow one from NJT to check around the system after paper calculations are cleared.

[SEPTA2461]

Presumably SEPTA will borrow one from NJT to check around the system after paper calculations are cleared.

Has SEPTA considered its alternatives if clearance is an issue?

[25Hz]

Presumably SEPTA will borrow one from NJT to check around the system after paper calculations are cleared.

Has SEPTA considered its alternatives if clearance is an issue?

There are shorter cars, but i do not think they would work, as i said before, most are either only high level height doors or only low level height doors. The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

[SEPTA2461]

Presumably SEPTA will borrow one from NJT to check around the system after paper calculations are cleared.

Has SEPTA considered its alternatives if clearance is an issue?

There are shorter cars, but i do not think they would work, as i said before, most are either only high level height doors or only low level height doors. The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

Do they still manufacture uni-levels? And if they do, do you think they'd meet the demands for passenger capacity that SEPTA's looking to expand upon?

[R36 Combine Coach]

Do they still manufacture uni-levels? And if they do, do you think they'd meet the demands for passenger capacity that SEPTA's looking to expand upon?

Uni-levels as in single level coaches? Alstom probably can build based on the stainless Comet V design and BBD could (in theory) build more of the Comet/Shoreliner aluminum coaches (with steel subframe), though none have been delivered since 2002.

[25Hz]

The main benefit of MLV is that there is a large fleet of them, and you could get more for SEPTA without additional hassle. Trying to buy new single level coaches in such a small number for one transit agency seems impractical knowing the financial implications and the time frame for design, testing, and delivery.

My main thing with any new non-MU purchase is i'd like to see both transit spec ACS-64 (main draw would have to be lowered as to not blow up the reading side), and dual modes. Right now there is a big push for expansion, but the problem is there are no wires any of these places, so to even get a feel of rider numbers without the many-years-away time scale of putting wires up (or back up), a purchase of say 10 dual modes would allow for a proper schedule to be developed that balances their use with the express push-pulls and silverliners, and perhaps even frees up some silveliners to restoring, or increasing trains per day on any given route, especially on the PRR & RDG main lines (west trenton, landsdale, trenton, torndale).

How realistic this is, who knows. Lets see how this transportation bill looks like after it becomes law. There may be money for it, there may not be, and even if there is, SEPTA may do something entirely different all together.

[Clearfield]

The main benefit of MLV is that there is a large fleet of them, and you could get more for SEPTA without additional hassle. Trying to buy new single level coaches in such a small number for one transit agency seems impractical knowing the financial implications and the time frame for design, testing, and delivery.

My main thing with any new non-MU purchase is i'd like to see both transit spec ACS-64 (main draw would have to be lowered as to not blow up the reading side), and dual modes. Right now there is a big push for expansion, but the problem is there are no wires any of these places, so to even get a feel of rider numbers without the many-years-away time scale of putting wires up (or back up), a purchase of say 10 dual modes would allow for a proper schedule to be developed that balances their use with the express push-pulls and silverliners, and perhaps even frees up some silveliners to restoring, or increasing trains per day on any given route, especially on the PRR & RDG main lines (west trenton, landsdale, trenton, torndale).

How realistic this is, who knows. Lets see how this transportation bill looks like after it becomes law. There may be money for it, there may not be, and even if there is, SEPTA may do something entirely different all together.

Right now, SEPTA is looking for solutions to the increasing ridership on the RRD as well as the deteriorating infrastructure. It's cheaper to buy bi-levels than it is to extend station platforms. And faster too.

The restoration of service out to Pennridge will be electric following the replacement of the Lansdale substation and not require a dual-mode loco. It would have gone farther out but Bucks County Commissioners aren't interested in the project or kicking in a subsidy penny for it.

[chrisf]

The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

The cars that have only a single door at each end typically have trap doors that allow access to low-level platforms when open. All of MBTA's cars, both single and bilevel, are used at both high and low level platforms. This isn't a new or complex engineering feat.

[CComMack]

Single-levels were rejected both for the hard constraints on platform length (especially at the booming ridership stations of Temple and University City), and for the constraints on SEPTA's storage yards, which aren't getting any bigger. The Silverliner Vs necessitated the reopening and rather intensive use of Chestnut Hill East yard; there really aren't more fallow storage tracks anywhere. (Has anyone heard anything more about SEPTA buying/leasing Barracks Yard in Trenton lately?)

[25Hz]

The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

The cars that have only a single door at each end typically have trap doors that allow access to low-level platforms when open. All of MBTA's cars, both single and bilevel, are used at both high and low level platforms. This isn't a new or complex engineering feat.

Ya, but how tall are they?

Edit: Also, MLV door layout allows for better boarding/alighting at high level stations.

[nomis]

The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

The cars that have only a single door at each end typically have trap doors that allow access to low-level platforms when open. All of MBTA's cars, both single and bilevel, are used at both high and low level platforms. This isn't a new or complex engineering feat.

Ya, but how tall are they?

Edit: Also, MLV door layout allows for better boarding/alighting at high level stations.

An MBTA K car is 15'6", and a Rotem is similar. They are too tall & will not fit by 9 inches ...
Septa's only option (as a tack-on order of a proven design) is the MLV. Unless you really want them to go to the drawing board for a one-off that will be much more expensive.

[sammy2009]

The MLV is the only one i know of that has high level doors with stairs for low level.

The cars that have only a single door at each end typically have trap doors that allow access to low-level platforms when open. All of MBTA's cars, both single and bilevel, are used at both high and low level platforms. This isn't a new or complex engineering feat.

Ya, but how tall are they?

Edit: Also, MLV door layout allows for better boarding/alighting at high level stations.

An MBTA K car is 15'6", and a Rotem is similar. They are too tall & will not fit by 9 inches ...
Septa's only option (as a tack-on order of a proven design) is the MLV. Unless you really want them to go to the drawing board for a one-off that will be much more expensive.

So this means ROTEM / Kawasaki is out of the equation ? And the reality option is NJT's maker ?......I'm o n the NEC o n NJTRANSIT and these things feel light. I'm sitting on the bottom level which I rarely do. And another thing this morning after we left 30th st and went in the tunnel under the Zoo Interlocking the tunnel appeared to be tight as hell lol.