SEPTA Expression of Interest Silverliner VI procurement

That sounds familiar to me too. IIRC there were questions about how the revision was handled. If my shaky memory is correct it was a bit squirrely, something to the effect that Kawasaki had the optimum bid based on a combination of cost and build quality, but Rotem came in with a lower final cost if the build standards were relaxed. Which they were ... and we saw what happened.

zebrasepta wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 6:44 pm Didn't something happen between SEPTA and Kawasaki for the Silverliner V bid which made the Bid go to Hyundai Rotem? So idk if Kawasaki would be interested in bidding for the VI's.

Yes; considerable political pressure was applied because Rotem agreed to assemble the cars in Philadelphia.

It was February 21, 1974 when the first two Silverliner IVs, Reading single units 9018 and 9019 made their debut for the press. These 14 Reading single units were first built in late 1973.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:06 pm Why they’re looking into “triplex” cars is a mystery. There’s a reason Metro-North and ConnDOT went back to A + B paired cars after their experience with the M-4 and M-6 cars.

Bombardier's design for NJT requires 3 cars, which is probably why it's included in this proposal.

Seems like SEPTA has removed the link to the EOI and the PDF.

For one, they need bathrooms on board. This isn't a third world country.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 7:06 pmIf the M-8 design could be altered to allow for low level boarding then they’ve got a proven model to build upon. The LIRR had that 4-car turbine train that was based off of the M-1 design and had low level boarding capability.

The M-8s are great railcars, but they are an extremely bespoke solution to needing to switch between overhead AC and third rail DC on the fly and (just barely) not be too heavy for the Park Ave Viaduct.

What the US needs is a series of standardized railcar designs. They roughly fall into the following categories (in no particular order):

1. Third rail EMUs for MNRR and LIRR.
2. Third rail and overhead EMUs for MNRR.
3. Overhead AC EMUs with low-level boarding and 25hz.
4. Single-level coaches.
5. ML coaches that clear North River Tunnels.
6. MBTA/MARC Bilevel coach (15'6").
7. Gallery coaches.
8. Low-level Bi-level coaches (15'11").

7. and 8. essentially already are standardized across North America. 8 could replace 7, although Chicago just loves their gallery coaches and probably won't give them up.
6. could be, and in fact current is on MARC, being replaced by 5, but that extra foot of space is quite a bit on a double-decker car. Much of that segment could be replaced by single-level EMUs with more electrification, or DMUs on lightly traveled lines, so it may be too niche to warrant it's own design over using 4 or 5.
5. Should only be used where the capacity is critical and train lengths are already maxed out. In most cases, single-level EMUs are the better bet for commuter service. LIRR should get rid of ML-style cars and electrify the whole WEst End with DMUs on the East End.

Single-level EMUs, in theory, should be able to be used by not just SEPTA and Denver RTD, but MARC, NJT, MNRR's Penn Access with NJT run-through, SLE, MBTA Providence Line, and many future electrified services that really don't need the capacity of double-decker cars.

Having a common design would make construction and maintenance in the long run much more economical versus all these bespoke designs. A design that has an optional 25hz transformer for SEPTA/MARC/NJT/MNRR, and can handle both low- and high-level platforms would have a lot of applications to be built in large numbers, collectively rivaling the numbers of third-rail EMUs on the massive LIRR and MNRR, as well as locomotive-hauled coach fleets.

nomis wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2024 9:03 pmI wholeheartedly believe that this RFI will lead its way from single level, to the Bombardier Multilevel EMU being developed for NJT.

The ML EMUs are not going to have a lot more capacity than single-level EMUs, as all that electrical equipment has to go.... somewhere. They are also another extremely bespoke design. NJT is pushing the absolute limits of what you can cram into 14'6" with curved corners because of the bottleneck of the North River Tunnels... although even that is a shorter-term constraint. The Gateway Tunnels are coming, but an improved Penn Station combined with fully connecting the line to Hoboken and improving ferry service there would combined most likely negate the need for the highly compromised and bespoke ML design entirely, and it could be replaced by single-level push-pull and EMU equipment.

What SEPTA needs are single-level EMUs with toilets... you know, like something that belongs in a first world country.

One more thought. It's hard to imagine agencies actually working together in the US, because that would involve, oh, I don't know, cooperation. But in theory, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR Penn Access, SLE, and future electrification of the Hartford Line and others should all be able to share a common pool of EMUs that roam around with run-through at NYP and Trenton. NJT runs about 3x the volume that PSA will, even if MNRR used entirely 25hz AC trains into NYP, so they could still run some peak-of-peak trains of MLs into Sunnyside and run-through with MNRR.

If the gap were ever closed at Westerly to get MBTA and SLE connecting, then they could roam around from Boston to Newark, DE or Thorndale.

Yeah railcars are not wild animals to be just roaming places. Good luck getting the residents of NJ to sign off on spending their tax dollars on some rail fantasy so that the cars they purchased can roam into Boston.

People want reliable commuter service that isn't cancelled all the time that gets them to work, generally in their own state or one state over, not magical lines drawn on a map drawn by someone on their computer.

There are standard car specifications that were developed under PRIIA section 305. Notably those specifications concern the vehicle envelope and component specifications (probably with the intention that certain components become "commodities" to ensure long term supply of those components). What there isn't a need for is preventing designers and engineers from continuing to improve their products by requiring they adhere to a single design (otherwise were this done in, say the age of heavyweight cars, the Budd streamliners, Gallery cars, Bombardier bilevel cars, etc..., would never have been built).

lensovet wrote: ↑Tue Oct 08, 2024 10:39 pmYeah railcars are not wild animals to be just roaming places. Good luck getting the residents of NJ to sign off on spending their tax dollars on some rail fantasy so that the cars they purchased can roam into Boston.

It would be more efficient to have them pooled. Also, it's not like it's some crazy fantasy to have railroad equipment wander around. The Class I's do it all the time. You'll see UP and CPKC units in Florida, and all sorts of other strange combinations of stuff. The Class I's just can't waste taxpayer money with a bunch of bespoke designs for everything, they have to spend their own money, so they buy standardized stuff that's mostly interchangeable.

Even if they didn't roam all the way to Boston, having them able to run from New London to SEPTA would provide better service at NYP and Trenton with run-through equipment. Also, football trains. For some crazy reason, Americans love football. Imagine if they could run the football trains using equipment that was already in New Haven, and not have the issues that they had deadheading equipment back in time for the Monday AM rush in New Jersey.

People want reliable commuter service that isn't cancelled all the time that gets them to work, generally in their own state or one state over, not magical lines drawn on a map drawn by someone on their computer.

Pooled equipment and run-through is one of many things that would improve said commuter service. Obviously, it wouldn't be designed for someone to ride from Boston to Thorndale and make 57 stops on the way, that's ridiculous, although there might be some demand for through-Penn service between lower Fairfield County and North Jersey for example.

RandallW wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:25 amThere are standard car specifications that were developed under PRIIA section 305. Notably those specifications concern the vehicle envelope and component specifications (probably with the intention that certain components become "commodities" to ensure long term supply of those components). What there isn't a need for is preventing designers and engineers from continuing to improve their products by requiring they adhere to a single design (otherwise were this done in, say the age of heavyweight cars, the Budd streamliners, Gallery cars, Bombardier bilevel cars, etc..., would never have been built).

It's not like there's a highly competitive market for EMUs or multi-level coaches. And yet, there are a stupid number of bespoke variations that drives up cost. Why on earth does LIRR have cars that don't fit through the North River Tunnels? To gain an extra 4" of space on the upper corners? It's insane. And there really isn't a standard off-the-shelf EMU design. If there were, it would make things much easier for a new operators somewhere else to start up service, as they could buy the, say, 40 cars they need for a line somewhere off the shelf without creating some bizarre bespoke railcar for their little tiny agency. Why are there seemingly 17 different single level coach designs? How much can you do with a single level coach envelope?

So admittedly, anything third rail is highly bespoke for New York City out of necessity, but even then, MNRR and LIRR order slightly different variations, so that the cars couldn't be swapped from one railroad to another by simply re-shoeing them (and now they have double-sided shoes anyway). But once you get out of the NYC third rail equipment, everything else on my list has at least 7 potential operators that at least could theoretically physically operate them in the US alone, not to mention Canada (although I'd argue that ML coaches really should only be operated by NJT and AMT/Exo).

I honestly don't get the obsession some people have with run-through. Do any of you people actually use Penn on a regular basis? Look at the passenger flows through the station? Ask any of the people traveling through it how many of them go from Newark to New Haven?

It's even more ridiculous because we already have run-through service. It's called Amtrak.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 5:59 pm For some crazy reason, Americans love football. Imagine if they could run the football trains using equipment that was already in New Haven, and not have the issues that they had deadheading equipment back in time for the Monday AM rush in New Jersey.

You do realize that the main obstacle to football trains isn't the lack of through running but the lack of tracks?

That and the fact that the number of riders increases exponentially as you get closer to the stadium. It's why NJT runs dedicated shuttles between Secaucus and the stadium. Because you can move a lot more people a lot more quickly if you can turn the train around for another run in 15 minutes instead of 45.

People want reliable commuter service that isn't cancelled all the time that gets them to work, generally in their own state or one state over, not magical lines drawn on a map drawn by someone on their computer.

Pooled equipment and run-through is one of many things that would improve said commuter service. Obviously, it wouldn't be designed for someone to ride from Boston to Thorndale and make 57 stops on the way, that's ridiculous, although there might be some demand for through-Penn service between lower Fairfield County and North Jersey for example.

No, what's going to make things reliable is being able to dedicate money to maintenance instead of another fleet boondoggle.

So admittedly, anything third rail is highly bespoke for New York City out of necessity, but even then, MNRR and LIRR order slightly different variations, so that the cars couldn't be swapped from one railroad to another by simply re-shoeing them (and now they have double-sided shoes anyway). But once you get out of the NYC third rail equipment, everything else on my list has at least 7 potential operators that at least could theoretically physically operate them in the US alone, not to mention Canada (although I'd argue that ML coaches really should only be operated by NJT and AMT/Exo).

"Theoretically" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Also not sure how we arrive at 7 if we exclude Amtrak, LIRR, and MNRR.

Standardizing on a single car also means standardizing on everything related to the operations of that car, which means that every single purchase becomes a committee purchase and every single operations change becomes a committee decision (involving every union at every agency), which is a practical guarantee that the procurement process will be protracted and the resultant product and ultimately be a set of compromises that satisfy no-one with likely higher O&M costs for each owner merely by having to maintain capabilities, equipment, or features on the cars that some other operator requires but that the owner does not or that equipment purchased to be pooled rapidly becomes unsharable due to different shops making different modifications to reduce daily running costs of the equipment.

CAHSR and Amtrak tried to make the Acela II order fit both Amtrak's and CAHSR's requirements but ultimately decided the compromise specification wouldn't meet either of their requirements without undue purchase and O&M costs, so they went for separate orders to reduce costs. Similarly, I understand that to make the MNR and LIRR EMUs mutually compatible LIRR would need to maintain an air braking system on every car that it does not use or want or that MNR would need to accept not being able to use engine-supplied air brakes on it's EMUs when towing them.

While the PCC car is an example of a common design that worked, note that having the common design did not mean that cars could just be moved between operators and "just work" as different operators may have had different clearance issues (and different car widths), different door patterns, different payment systems that required different equipment, as well as other differences that would have made the O&M costs of using a mixed fleet significantly more expensive than a single fleet that wasn't moving between operators.

Disclaimer: My employer is in a line of business where the company is often competing with its customers building its own widget that does the same thing as our gizmo, and despite the widget having a very low CAPEX (capitol expense), the design and O&M costs of the widget results in a significantly higher total cost over the lifetime of the device than the gizmo's very high CAPEX combined with very low O&M costs means that despite the more expensive up front purchase price, the gizmo is ultimately cheaper in the long run (otherwise we wouldn't be in the business).

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:15 pmAsk any of the people traveling through it how many of them go from Newark to New Haven?

Whoosh. You clearly don't understand the point of run-through. The number of through passengers other than maybe a few to Secaucus and EWR would be small. It's about more efficiently utilizing the station and trackage to ease congestion and offer better service.

lensovet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2024 10:25 pmYou do realize that the main obstacle to football trains isn't the lack of through running but the lack of tracks?

That has nothing to do with the lack of New Haven service. There are plenty of tracks for that. The actual problem is that they couldn't do the Sunday night games, as the trains couldn't bring people to NHV, and then deadhead to the western/southern edges of the system and be in position for the AM trains to NYC.

No, what's going to make things reliable is being able to dedicate money to maintenance instead of another fleet boondoggle.

Even without run-through having standardized equipment and ordering it in larger numbers would save money that could be spent on other things. Run-through is just a nice side benefit of having a common design that would serve 4 agencies that connect in a line.

"Theoretically" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Also not sure how we arrive at 7 if we exclude Amtrak, LIRR, and MNRR.

Gee, let's actually think a little about this one. Also, why would we exclude MNRR PSA, which currently runs under the wire the entire way, except that the M-8s need PRR third rail to get into NYP since they can't do 25hz?

1. Denver RTD
2. MARC Penn Line
3. SEPTA
4. NJT
5. MNRR PSA (currently fully electrified with AC, stations not yet complete, DC for M-8s not complete).
6. SLE (almost fully electrified, will be soon with completion of 6 track in NLC)
7. MBTA Providence Line (needs to finish 3rd track electrification and substation upgrades that were not completed due to lack of providing funcing in 2000 when Amtrak electrified the route)

That's just the stuff that's already electrified or partially electrified. There are far more potential places they could run with additional electrification.

RandallW wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 6:02 amStandardizing on a single car also means standardizing on everything related to the operations of that car, which means that every single purchase becomes a committee purchase and every single operations change becomes a committee decision (involving every union at every agency), which is a practical guarantee that the procurement process will be protracted and the resultant product and ultimately be a set of compromises that satisfy no-one with likely higher O&M costs for each owner merely by having to maintain capabilities, equipment, or features on the cars that some other operator requires but that the owner does not or that equipment purchased to be pooled rapidly becomes unsharable due to different shops making different modifications to reduce daily running costs of the equipment.

You're buying in to the derriere-reversed process for buying passenger trains in the US. Here, we have agencies design their own stuff, which is insane. In Europe, the manufacturers make a standard model based on the physical constraints and type of service, and then operators just choose the model they want, like buying a car, saving them literally millions of dollars per locomotive or trainset and they buy it as-designed. They don't try to re-invent the wheel for every agency.

Obviously there are physical constraints, but these are known and documented as to plate clearances and power systems. MTA would still be involved in third rail stuff since they are the only customer with MNRR and LIRR. The rest of the stuff should be standardized. In fact the Bombardier Bilevel coaches are essentially off-the-shelf and various agencies just... buy them with some minor customization and aesthetic changes.

CAHSR and Amtrak tried to make the Acela II order fit both Amtrak's and CAHSR's requirements but ultimately decided the compromise specification wouldn't meet either of their requirements without undue purchase and O&M costs, so they went for separate orders to reduce costs. Similarly, I understand that to make the MNR and LIRR EMUs mutually compatible LIRR would need to maintain an air braking system on every car that it does not use or want or that MNR would need to accept not being able to use engine-supplied air brakes on it's EMUs when towing them.

This is the insanity. LIRR wants to do things differently than literally every other railroad, making everything more difficult and expensive. Imagine if CSX, NS, UP, and BNSF each had their own MU connections and signaling system such that their locomotives wouldn't work on another railroad. It's insane.

You could actually argue that I have too many bespoke categories of "standardized" cars like gallery coaches (Hi Chicago). The first one I'd probably lose in favor of single-level coaches and EMUs would be the 15'6" double-deck MBTA/MARC coach. Those are already pretty bespoke.

While the PCC car is an example of a common design that worked, note that having the common design did not mean that cars could just be moved between operators and "just work" as different operators may have had different clearance issues (and different car widths), different door patterns, different payment systems that required different equipment, as well as other differences that would have made the O&M costs of using a mixed fleet significantly more expensive than a single fleet that wasn't moving between operators.

FRA Heavy Rail is more standardized. The general categories of cars that I listed would cover every FRA heavy rail transit agency (other than PATH, which isn't really FRA heavy rail and is really another subway designed to quasi-IRT standards). There is no legitimate reason for a single-level passenger coach to be different anywhere in North America. Same for single-level EMUs.

You seriously think European transit systems don't put out RFPs with specifications and see which bidders provide the best technical offering, and sometimes get specifications so highly specific that only one bidder could possibly qualify, or that custom equipment isn't required? It happens all the time.

Have you not noticed the wide variety in (for example) different designs among European operators and incompatible variants of a single design (like different boarding heights between different variants of the Bombardier Talent DMU) and the wide ranging incompatibility between those designs (note the inability to pool the DBAG class 642 and class 643 cars intended to be operated together)?

If you look at the wide variety of "common" GE locomotive designs used by the Class I railroads that can be theoretically run together, you'll notice that, due to local operating characteristics, a number of routes require much smaller pools, or a specific pool of locomotives that must be the leading locomotive, due to not every route being operationally identical. This is no different than the situation that a common single level EMU design for SEPTA, NJT, RTD, South Shore Line, and the MTA New Haven line still would result in equipment incompatibilities between those operators -- only MTA needs 3rd rail power, only the South Shore Line and MTA need DC pickups, MTA has unique weight limits, RTD and South Shore Line have no value in maintaining 25 Hz electrical equipment on their equipment, RTD and MTA don't need to maintain low-level boarding capabilities, only MTA needs front/rear emergency egress (all other operators can rely on always being able to safely exit from one or the other the side), there may be signaling system and PTC incompatibilities I don't know about, such that unless you burden every operator with significantly higher O&M burdens than they would have if you didn't allow incompatibles between equipment with that common design, as no operator wants to maintain electrical, mechanical, or safety equipment--with it's attendant O&M burdens and operational complexity--that is not necessary for that operator.

Maybe another example of a pool that adheres to minimal standards, with a wide variety of designs, is the Intermodal pool -- there are cars optimized for maximizing the number of ocean going ISO containers per length of track (the 5 unit 40' wells can carry up to 10 40' containers, or 10 20' + 5 40'/45' containers depending on the weight of the container), but can't carry a domestic 53' container, but cars capable of carrying 53' containers only get 6 53' containers in about the same length of trackage; there are cars that can carry 2 heavy containers that can't be carried by any of the multi-well cars, but take way more trackage per container than any multi-well car, as well as container cars that can carry containers on chassis or trailers. So yeah, there's standardization and equipment pooling by Class Is, but even in those equipment pools, equipment isn't necessarily fully interchangeable and equivalent.


You state

In Europe, the manufacturers make a standard model based on the physical constraints and type of service, and then operators just choose the model they want, like buying a car, saving them literally millions of dollars per locomotive or trainset and they buy it as-designed. They don't try to re-invent the wheel for every agency.

and

There is no legitimate reason for a single-level passenger coach to be different anywhere in North America.

Not only are those statements are completely contradictory, the second statement is a statement that North American operators shouldn't enjoy the competitive cost advantages that other countries enjoy in their rolling stock markets.