Silverliner V

Guess BBD got their check in early this time? It should be fun - does BDD get it, or does SEPTA give it to KRC out of fear KRC will throw another tantrum and threaten to sue?

Sucks that Septa took out the absolute weight limits for the cars - the first RFB stated speciffically they wouldn't accept a car any heavier than the current SLIVs. That's gone now.

Anyone wanna wager on how much over these cars will be? Of course, the old FRA excuse will be used to 'explain' poor engineering... ("Hey, don't blame us, blame the feds!")

Eisenbahner wrote:What are the chances that the final product may look something like M-7s with pantographs?

http://www.septa.org/business/over25000 ... _05_r0.pdf

Look at page 499.

Larger windows are a side benefit of the new FRA emergency exit regulations.

But let's think about it....windows have now come full circle. Remember how huge the windows were on Budd Heritage coaches? How about RDC's? Even the Silverliner I, II, and III's have nice large windows.

And then the gun-slot window era set in, partly for passenger protection from object-throwing vandals, and partly from what in my opinion was a desire to emulate airplane window size. The Metroliner MU's, Amfleet I, the various Bombardier coaches (and their original Pullman-Standard cousins), the Chicago bilevels are some that come to mind.

Then, window size improved slightly, with Amfleet II, the Viewliners, MARC and South Shore Sumitomo cars, the former-VRE Mafersa coaches....and now the NJT Comet V's and bilevels, the newest Chicago bilevels, the M-7's on the LIRR and Metro-North....

...and soon on the Silverliner V's......

Norristown speed line cars?

If you look at drawings 19-1 and 19-2, it looks as if the Silverliner V's will have railfan seats, similar to what the El has now...can anyone confirm or deny that? If I read the drawing correctly, that'll be pretty cool.

PARailWiz wrote:If you look at drawings 19-1 and 19-2, it looks as if the Silverliner V's will have railfan seats, similar to what the El has now...can anyone confirm or deny that? If I read the drawing correctly, that'll be pretty cool.

There was a debate within SEPTA whether to spec the half cab as shown in the drawings (which would keep the conductors out of the cabs and provide a railfan seat) or the full cab. Both provide cab security, as the end doors are not used for passenger egress.

PARailWiz wrote:If you look at drawings 19-1 and 19-2, it looks as if the Silverliner V's will have railfan seats, similar to what the El has now...can anyone confirm or deny that? If I read the drawing correctly, that'll be pretty cool.

Let me dash your hopes now. The Silverliner V's will have full cabs; SEPTA has no choice. Recent FRA regs prohibit glass facing directly into a passenger compartment on the leading end of a train, so it would end up being something similar to the M-7's.

I'm surprised SEPTA never updated the drawings.

Silverliner II wrote:Let me dash your hopes now. The Silverliner V's will have full cabs; SEPTA has no choice. Recent FRA regs prohibit glass facing directly into a passenger compartment on the leading end of a train, so it would end up being something similar to the M-7's.

I'm surprised SEPTA never updated the drawings.

From the spec:

3.0 CAB AND CARBODY INTERIOR ITEMS
3.1 CAB ARRANGEMENT
3.1.1 GENERAL
An Operator's cab compartment conforming to FRA requirements and sized for a single person shall be provided on the right side of the car at the "F" end of the "A" and "B" cars of a married pair, and at both ends of a single car, as shown in the floor plan drawings in Section 19. Provisions shall be supplied for the future conversion of the Operator’s cab to a full width cab to encompass the entire front of the car at the "F" end of the "A" and "B" cars of a married pair,

Clearfield wrote:

Silverliner II wrote:Let me dash your hopes now. The Silverliner V's will have full cabs; SEPTA has no choice. Recent FRA regs prohibit glass facing directly into a passenger compartment on the leading end of a train, so it would end up being something similar to the M-7's.

I'm surprised SEPTA never updated the drawings.

From the spec:

3.0 CAB AND CARBODY INTERIOR ITEMS
3.1 CAB ARRANGEMENT
3.1.1 GENERAL
An Operator's cab compartment conforming to FRA requirements and sized for a single person shall be provided on the right side of the car at the "F" end of the "A" and "B" cars of a married pair, and at both ends of a single car, as shown in the floor plan drawings in Section 19. Provisions shall be supplied for the future conversion of the Operator’s cab to a full width cab to encompass the entire front of the car at the "F" end of the "A" and "B" cars of a married pair,

And right now, FRA would mandate a full cab unless they get rid of the "railfan window" and the front door window. That's most of the reason why the Metro-North and LIRR M-7's are full cabs.

As I said above, I'm surprised SEPTA didn't update the specs....I doubt the FRA would grant a waiver for a railcar not yet built. That carbody design has been in the plans for long time now (long meaning prior to the year 2000).

<i>And right now, FRA would mandate a full cab unless they get rid of the "railfan window" and the front door window.</i>

Where the heck in the CFR is it? And if it's not in the CFR, the FRA can want it all they want - there's NO legal requirement for it. I've looked through it, admittingly skimmed a bit, but I see no regulation requiring full length cabs of MUs or cab cars, or anything regarding forward facing glass.

I'm not trying to be a smartass here - I seriously can't find it in the CFR and I'm wondering if anyone else can.



Yes, Septa's made some remarkably boneheaded moves over the years. Ok, a LOT of boneheaded moves. That said, I STILL don't see what's wrong with what they spec'd for the SL V cab. And I suspect the FRA, who likely knows about this order and might even thought enough to review it, doesn't either.

I too can see nothing in the FRA's regs which appears to forbid the placement of passengers such as SEPTA's plans appear to propose. In addition to being a boon for railfans in this area, SEPTA's plans appear to make up for the 2+2 seating which DVARP has requested in 1/3rd of the car. In a double ended car it'd appear that at the F end (that is the one with the equipment cabinet) the first two rows of seating, comprising 5 seats, would have to be removed for a wide cab. At the other end only one row of seating, 2 seats, would need to be removed. There's 8 rows of 2+2 seating, so by placing seats at the end we only sacrifice one seat versus a full 3+2 seating arrangement with a wide cab, the rather unpopular M7 seating arrangement.

Wdobner wrote:I too can see nothing in the FRA's regs which appears to forbid the placement of passengers such as SEPTA's plans appear to propose. In addition to being a boon for railfans in this area, SEPTA's plans appear to make up for the 2+2 seating which DVARP has requested in 1/3rd of the car. In a double ended car it'd appear that at the F end (that is the one with the equipment cabinet) the first two rows of seating, comprising 5 seats, would have to be removed for a wide cab. At the other end only one row of seating, 2 seats, would need to be removed. There's 8 rows of 2+2 seating, so by placing seats at the end we only sacrifice one seat versus a full 3+2 seating arrangement with a wide cab, the rather unpopular M7 seating arrangement.

I got my info from an engineer up on Metro-North as to that being the explanation on going full-cab on the M7 fleet, so I was under the impression that a quarter cab similar to their outgoing M1's and current M2/4/6 was on the original design.

It wasn't the passenger placement that was forbidden, it was the placement of glass on the passenger side of the cab that would have potential to implode into the passenger compartment in the event of a collision, as I was told per the new FRA crash regs. In other words, if they did go with the quarter cab, I'd almost expect to see no railfan window.

That being said, I'm off to do a little independent research....

Well (chuckle!), if it turns out that there is no such rule, it wouldn't be the first time that such false rumors got started. I've been told a few times thru the years that certain traffic laws existed, and lo and behold when I researched it, there was no such law.

But it doesn't much matter whether the rule exists or not. On LIRR, they supposedly considered getting a waiver to have the phone-booth cab and maintain more seating space on the M-7, but their own transportation dept. supposedly insisted on the full-width cab that they had wanted for years anyway.

So rule or not, this is what the railroads are building and we railfans are permanently screwed. Welcome to the 21st Century.

I liked the bit about allowing clearance for the 3rd rail in penn station, as if SEPTA will ever operate to there again. Here's a wild and crazy idea. If you can't put a window there, put a big digital signboard with the trains destination and major stops listed. Or, if a full cab is what you're going for, since the doors aren't at the ends like on earlier trains, put a bathroom in instead. Revolutionary I know. If you're gonna sacrifice the seats, put it to good use.

While they're at it, they should order some special cars for the Airport line, with wider aisles and open sections for people traveling with luggage. Or order a few bike cars, with hooks instead of seats in the middle section of the car. Start thinking outside the box, about things that will improve the usability of the rail system.

tinmad dog wrote:While they're at it, they should order some special cars for the Airport line, with wider aisles and open sections for people traveling with luggage. Or order a few bike cars, with hooks instead of seats in the middle section of the car. Start thinking outside the box, about things that will improve the usability of the rail system.

There already are 8 Silverliner III's (232-239) set up for Airport service with 2x2 seating and luggage racks at the A-end of the car where the restroom used to be before the overhaul. These were the cars originally in the "Yellowbird" stripe scheme.

When the Airport trains only went as far as Temple U, SEPTA did a reasonably good job at keeping these cars captive to the Airport Line. As later schedule changes merged runs and routes to get the most trips with the least amount of equipment possible, the through-routing of the Airport trains to various Reading-side points (currently Glenside/Warminster weekdays, and Warminster/West Trenton weekends) made it impossible to keep dedicated equipment on the line. And unless they go back to the old way, that is still the case today.