Silverliner V

Thanks ken for correcting my link, I guess that's what get for making a post from work with my boss around.

I'm not looking to only increase the accesibility of the SEPTA regional rail system to W/Cs, although that'd be an unavoidable consequence of such a car. The idea was to get the benefits that Metrolink and other new TA's have gotten from their low-platform Bombardier Bilevels, namely the fast, level boarding without the expense of making a high platform. However unfortunately the east coast has decided to half-heartedly pursue a high plats as the standard. We cannot make 30th St, Suburban Station, ME, Temple or any of the other high plat stations low platform, so why not design a car that can handle both pennsy 'standards' with equal ability? This way you benefit all passengers, not just W/C passengers, but they also are no longer restricted to only boarding at ADA compatible high platform stations. It makes sense to make the Regional Rail completely ADA compatible to hopefully relieve some of the stress that the CCT experiences. Getting a few folks off those cutaways would likely pay dividends in the long run, given the high cost of running those operations.

The only real solution if SEPTA continues persuing high level EMUs is to go all high platform, add MCI Cruiser-type W/C lifts to the cars, or, as I propose, to change the car's layout. When LIRR went all-high platforms not long ago, they destroyed stations in NYC since it was ruled uneconomical to rebuild them, they disrupted service on all their diesel lines to make way for their Bilevels, and some stations still barely meet ADA standards, often the W/C person will have to roll well out of their way to get down. MCI-type W/C lifts are a good option, but they'd be prone to breaking, and I understand the NJT BOs hate their bus lifts, and I wouldn't trust SEPTA to maintain such a potentially critical piece of equipment. Thus we end up at the simplest solution, change the cars to fit the infrastructure. This is simply done by adding doors that'd be near-level at low platform stations (think D40LF or K-car bottom step height), and at level with the high platforms. There would be automated ramps or possibly bridge plates for W/C and ambulatory cripples to board.

Mr Chieftan I do believe I addressed all your concerns in my original post on the subject. Did I not write, "Wheelchair passengers could be accomodated and use a small elevator in the middle car of the married triplet? Or for that matter, And I went with a married triplet since it seems like SEPTA almost always running 3 car sets, we're not hurting for track space, and no doubt seats would be lost in creating a dual-level car.? I admit it's a less than perfect solution, but considering the vast capitol that would need to be expended to make the whole system ADA compliant with high plats, or the potential danger of a passenger being stuck outside a car on a W/C lift, I'd say the shear simplicity of this layout outweighs the loss of seating it'd require. And I'd prefer a W/C lift be inside the EMU rather than outside, at least then the train might be able to move on if it should break with a passenger on it, not to mention that the passenger wouldn't be subject to the elements while waiting for a repair.

As for the South Shore EMU, pardon my saying so, but SEPTA'd have to be out of it's friggin gord to go with such a car. To begin, it's 1500vdc, you're gonna need a Transformer, beefed up pantographs, wires and everything to get it to run on SEPTA's 11.5kvAC system. Second you'd end up with a zero sum game having spent millions of dollars and accomplished nothing. Those Nippon Sharyo cars are the exact same as the SIVs we currently have, I like to think that the SVs will be some sort of step forward in EMU design. What I have proposed is a leap beyond traps, they're technologically obsolete, SEPTA CAN be rid of them, quite easily it turns out. The low doors on my concept car are supposed to be AT or near the same level as the bottom step of that EMU's trap. This will be simpler than the 'automated traps' SEPTA's trying to get the SVs, cheaper than high-platforming the whole system, more effective and operationally simpler than an external W/C lift. Quite simply I fail to see how outside a contractor screwup as seemingly all North American market railcar builders are prone to, it could be a failure.

Regarding wheelchair lifts: It is worthy of note that Metra gallery cars have them. It really ought to be a no-brainer insofar as installing them on single-level EMUs, especially in place of the trapdoors and regular steps, to provide access at both high and low platforms.

The current solution where it is financially unfeasible to construct all high platforms, is to build mini-highs, such as appear quite extensively on NJ Transit, MBTA, et al. Eliminates the need for wheelchair lifts effectively, but ought to be regarded as a stopgap measure pending the construction of full-length high platforms. Note that the Long Island RR now has all high platforms at all currently open stations.

MARC and VRE Kawasaki bilevels have automated trapdoors. Haven't heard of any negative incidents.

<i>When LIRR went all-high platforms not long ago, they destroyed stations in NYC since it was ruled uneconomical to rebuild them
</i>

Oh <b>please</b>. They closed the upper Montauk stations because they had 3 trains a day and no riders. Ditto for mill neck on the OB line (1 passenger a day). These were unused stations anyway.

<i>they disrupted service on all their diesel lines to make way for their Bilevels</i>

Huh? I used the LIRR a lot back then. The platforms went up, and that was that. Service still ran.

<i>As for the South Shore EMU, pardon my saying so, but SEPTA'd have to be out of it's friggin gord to go with such a car.</i>

It's not the ideal solution, but it's an existing design that could be used. Maybe.

<i> To begin, it's 1500vdc, you're gonna need a Transformer, beefed up pantographs, wires and everything to get it to run on SEPTA's 11.5kvAC system.</i>

Beefed down pans. Current at the pan on the SS line is much much higher than Septa. You'd be changing to a high speed / high voltage pan, adding a transformer, and an AC propulsion system. The transformer's more of a worry than the pan. It weighs 5 or 10 tons. Thus, carbody / frame design needs to be reviewd to see if it can handle that.

<i>Quite simply I fail to see how outside a contractor screwup as seemingly all North American market railcar builders are prone to, it could be a failure.</i>

They screw up because they can. Since UIC compliant equipment's not legal in the US, designs are by nature custom, low volume, and high cost, plus lower reliability. If Septa could order UIC equipment, they could have picked from any number of existing low floor EMUs out there.

The real trouble is that Septa has the mixed high/low setup the LIRR had prior to the 70's. The LIRR had the NY state bucks to raise every platform in electric territory that was low. If Septa didn't have mixed platforms, and had access to UIC equipment, this would be an open and shut case - just buy an existing low floor EMU.

As far as going to high level? Most of the LIRR stations that were high level prior to the M-1s became so when the stations were generally overhauled/replaced. I wonder if the costs of high levels, particularly if you make a standard/modular design, are really much higher than replacing an existing low level platform?

Irish Chieftain wrote:

With increasing commuter traffic on the NEC, speeds would have slowed down anyway

WADR, that's rather defeatist, isn't it? That assumes that no efforts will be made to increase capacity. It also assumes that no efforts towards attracting passengers to other existing terminals, nor creating new terminals, will occur in response to the increase in commuter traffic.

The passengers want to go to Penn Station. There is no other existing terminal to attract them to. People had been using the other existing terminals (e.g. Hoboken) because NJT didn't offer service to Penn from their stations until recently. And as for creating new terminals, NJT desparately wants one: that's what the Access to the Region's Core study was all about.

Amtrak's capital is limited, and NJT's capital is limited. They are trying to increase capacity as much as they can within the limits of available dollars. That means starting with the tightest constraint (slots through the North River Tunnels--increased with resignalling) and working their way out from there.

Once they get to the point where they can get enough seats into Penn (or a future terminal), then they can do some projects to bump up average speeds. But right now, the way to expedite peoples' trips is to get them into Penn, either via Midtown Direct or via Secaucus. Both those projects are saving commuters a lot more time than any incremental NEC upgrade could, which is why ridership has grown so much.

Not to mention that there is still an effect on average speeds between using EMUs versus push-pull trains no matter the situation.

I never said there wasn't an effect--I said the effect isn't as large as it would have been a decade ago when there were fewer trains on the line.

And as for creating new terminals, NJT desparately wants one: that's what the Access to the Region's Core study was all about

Well, to be more accurate, the "other ARC" concerned studies to get trains from the NJ side into the existing NYC terminals rather than into a new one. A now-defunct proposal involved getting trains from NJ into the lower level of GCT.

I'd like to reiterate that what W/C compatablility was only one issue considered in the my concept of the car. Sure you could do mini-highs or bus style on-board W/C lifts, but that doesn't speed the boarding of perfectly healthy (or as is more common, not healthy but not disabled) passngers who will still have to board via the narrow, steep stairs the traps cover. A car with doors on both platforms is both operationally and mechanically simpler. Everyone benefits from a dual-level car and nobody has to climb up the steps onto a train.

I knew my Montauk Branch gambit was a thin reed... Oh well, the fact remains that LIRR did close stations rather than upgrade them. Imagine if Wayne Junction, 49th, Angora, or any other SEPTA station were to be closed because they decided it wasn't economical to make create high platforms there.

I realize that my analysis of the Nippon Sharyo was flawwed, but I retain that adapting their design to SEPTA would be a white elephant of massive proportions. Imagine spending some 750,000,000,000 dollars for 200 cars, only to find that they're identical to the cars you boughr for the Pennsy and Reading in 1975. I think even the most apathetic car commuter who never pays attention to SEPTA's goings-on would hang you from the top of the fugly ediface moronically called 1234 Market for such a blunder.

High platforms will always be more expensive when compared to low platforms. A high platform requires mini-pilings, prestressed concrete beams, approach stairs, ramps. Even if they are fabricated off site on an assembly line you're still talking about two to five 500 dollar/hour truck crews to haul them, a 2000 dollar an hour crane to lift them into position with 1000 dollars charged every time it has to reposition. It's much cheaper just to pour a concrete slab with a curb on the side away from the platform, lay a tactile strip and you now have a functional platform. Concrete redi-mix trucks are cheaper on a dollar per mile and dollar per hour basis than wide load trucks. And I'm almost certain that one concrete truck could carry the equivilant volume of to coat a low platform in 3 inches of portland concrete as the largest section of high platform one wide load truck could carry. Right at the moment I'm working on the SEPTA Ft Washington Station's parking lot, I think my firm will be working on the associated high-platform and pedestrian tunnel at the site, but that may come after September, when I am due to leave. I'll have to ask around for specific numbers.

As I see it, the simple fact is that the high platform and it's associated high floor cars are technologically obsolete. The Europeans are showing us this with their AC/DC source low floor LRVs which manage to place their transformers on the roof with electronic switching to bump the 50 or 60hz AC power up to something like 400hz. The only remaining obstacle to realizing that the high platform is dead is the simple expediant that the Pennsy left us with a dual standard and a bandaid solution to that dual standard in the trap. Clearly LIRR's solution was to make all their platforms high, even though it would have been easy to get Kawasaki to make a high/low platform level boarding Bilevel for them, just remove a row or two of seats from each car and stick a low-platform door there. I feel that with the advance of technology, electronic switching equipment feeding lightweight transformers has rendered the trap obsolete.

not to mention that the LIRR has never used all-electric locomotives on their lines anyhow.

Yes they have. The PRR DD-1's lived out their days on the the LIRR hauling trains from Jamacia to Penn after replacing diesels from far off points.

Anyway, the big reason for the lack of a door on the cab side of a Comet IV or V cab car is due to the age old problem of having passengers want to exit through the cab. The cab cars do have doors on the non-cab side tho.

Does anyone have stats on the number of W/C passengers on the regional rail lines in SEPTA's system on a daily basis? What routes have the most? Are people complaining that they don't have access or have to go to a ADA compliant station to ride?

What I think that would work best for SEPTA would be something that the Chicago South Shore already uses.

http://www.n-sharyo.co.jp/business/tets ... hicago.htm

Look! It has traps! SEPTA will never be able to get rid of those. But, also, it has a high level door. Perfect for use at the very high traffic Center City stations. This car can be used at any station that SEPTA currently, or in the future may use.

Why isn't SEPTA looking at this rather than tying to 'design' some new junk ball?

See Will, this is how I imagined the Silverliner V would look like...not some bi-level thing with 4 sets of doors... these look much better intermixed with Silverliner IVs than your creation does.[/quote]

blueduck577 wrote:See Will, this is how I imagined the Silverliner V would look like...not some bi-level thing with 4 sets of doors... these look much better intermixed with Silverliner IVs than your creation does.

So progress in the design of SEPTA's cars means nothing to you? Is the idea that SEPTA's cars should be refined and fitted to their system is completely lost on you? We're just lucky the old officals at SEPTA and the Pennsy didn't have that kind of flawwed thinking. We'd be stuck with AC Traction MP54s since those 'looked better' in trains with the older cars.

I think the taxpayers would be understandibly upset with SEPTA if they spent three quarters of a billion dollars (a rather conservative figure) to create a Silverliner 5 that was a carbon copy of the Silverliner 4, offering no improvements over the older cars other than fewer seats and slightly faster boarding at the vast minority of stations. People should expect their TA to serve them better, and car replacements are a perfect time to do so. We now have a time where SEPTA can correct past wrongs and do away with the need to climb steps to board a train, it can possibly slash dwell times and have a 100% ADA compatible without the need for an expensive high platforming project.

I think it's important to end the CCT rides that take disabled people down to center city from suburbs with rail. Those rides cost us an obscene amount of money per-passenger mile, and it's incredibly pointless to put them on a little van when we have a commuter rail system that could handle them with a little work. I'm willing to bet that if SEPTA bought my concept there would be trips generated by the disabled passengers taking advantage of their new-found freedom of travel. Just because they don't ride it now doesn't mean that if accessibility is improved they will continue to snub it. It could be that the system as it stands today is so inaccessible that W/C passengers do not consider it a viable transport option. As such they do not include it in their plans and instead just call up CCT and get chauffered around town for 5 dollars a mile.

It doesn't matter if no W/C passengers use the system, the Federal Government requires that all TA's that recieve their money be made completely compatible for wheelchair and otherwise disabled passengers. Until now the only option for an east coast TA with any high platforms must make all their platforms high in order to comply with the ADA. Low platforms will accept both high-floor with traps, and low floor cars with ease, although so far only low floor cars have been made ADA compatible (of course counting Chicago's new ADA compliant Cab Cars as low floor), a high platform station means that low floor cars are immediately out of the question, but any high floor cars will be in compliance. With my proposed car, you can have all the benefits of level boarding at both high and low platforms and never have to spend a dime on making new platforms. Admittedly some stations will require new platforms, the gravel lots will not hold up forever, but when done and done right a low platform station should last litterally forever in continual service.

So progress in the design of SEPTA's cars means nothing to you? Is the idea that SEPTA's cars should be refined and fitted to their system is completely lost on you?

Hold yer horses there...the more important point is that equipment be standardized and, where possible, off-the-shelf. Retaining single-levels in traditional form is quite "refined" without going overboard; and the possibility remains for the "system" to be converted at a later date. The ADA question has been resolved with the mini-highs, at least to the satisfaction of the definition of "accessibility" as contained within the ADA.

There is a growing movement in congress to change the ADA to something more rational and less burdomsome so maybe if SEPTA bides it's time this whole 'ADA' compliance issue will go away.

Anyway, for all your hi-level only advocates I think that lo-level entry is a must for all commuter rail systems. Chief amoung these are the problems that arise when you need to take the "local" track out of service. On the LIRR and MNRR they need to break out the track bridges which not only take time to install, but also prevent work equipment from moving down the affected track curtailing the work periods to very small windows. On NJT (or SEPTA) if a platform track is out of service passengers can use the lo-level duck boards which get in the way of nobody. Case in point, notice how quickly Amtrak was able to install contrete ties on 1 track on the R7 and R2 lines.

Furthermore, on SEPTA the lo-level entry helps with fare collection which are often problems on commuter rail lines. Because passengers at lo-level stations have to enter past crew members the crew members can better keep track of who is getting on and needs to have their ticket collected. Often during off peak times the crews collect fares on the platform.

Now regarding lo-floor cars I really dislike the lo-floor concept because one of the attractions of commuter rail is the high up ride. Don't believe me look at how many people bought SUV's because they got to sit high up. The more you make trains like a bus the less people will want to ride them.

I think that SEPTA should continue with a high level with door trap design and then add hi-level platforms at stations where volume warrents it.

Shouldn't it be SEPTAs goal to go to an ALL high platform system? I mean, I think that is where everything is going these days.

... although, I think that most of SEPTA's vintage stations (my Queen Lane included) would not be able to handle a high leve platform with the overhang and all. Though, I could be wrong.

Who was describing a hi/lo platform solution? How would something like that look and work? Can you give us more background on this strategy?

Jersey Mike: Someone said a while back in one of these forums that the reason the new Comet Cabs don't have a "passenger" door is actually for greater structural integrity in a collision. Better protection for the engineer. Might even be required by current FRA standards, IIRC.

The more you make trains like a bus the less people will want to ride them

You make it sound like MCI cruiser buses are low-riding. They ride just as high as Silverliners.