Silverliner V

Matthew Mitchell wrote: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.

My argument would be "quite the opposite." Accelaration back up to top speed is much more important when frequent congestion occurs, because they are stopping much more often.

Why can't SEPTA have some kind of cooperative effort in ordering equipment with NJT? I know NJT is ordering Bi-level coaches from Bombardier, why must SEPTA circle the globe and re-invent the wheel to do so?

If NJT already figured out that Bombardier was or could be the lowest bidder, why can't SEPTA order equipment from them as well or tack on a order for cars to NJT's order? That might actually save some money.

I see NJT is also ordering more ALP-46 loco's. SEPTA seems to be the only electric-operating commuter system that does not or will not have any of these. You would think they might want one or two for cases where one of the AEM-7's fails or needs work. Right now they have no backup if one does break, which would mean a 6 car shortfall and probablly a cancellation since they claim there is no spare equipment.

I take it SEPTA never considered bi-level coaches either?

I'm also amazed that NJT had no problem ordering cars with 2x2 bucket seats while SEPTA hemmed and hawed over their must have 3x2. Makes you really want to hate these guys.

I see NJT is also ordering more ALP-46 loco's. SEPTA seems to be the only electric-operating commuter system that does not or will not have any of these

NJT thus far is the only commuter RR that has ALP-46s. No other commuter railroad is getting them, at least in the USA. (Deutsche Bahn has their own versions.)

I know NJT is ordering Bi-level coaches from Bombardier, why must SEPTA circle the globe and re-invent the wheel to do so?

These bilevels are in essence "reinventing the wheel", since they're a custom design. No other bilevel currently in production can fit through the tunnels under the Hudson River. (From my perspective, I would have rathered that NJT order new EMUs themselves.)

Does SEPTA really want to get more push-pull trainsets? What with the Silverliner V proposals, I thought that they were sticking with EMUs.

jfrey40535 wrote:Why can't SEPTA have some kind of cooperative effort in ordering equipment with NJT? I know NJT is ordering Bi-level coaches from Bombardier, why must SEPTA circle the globe and re-invent the wheel to do so?

Well the constraints on SEPTA are different than the constraints on NJT, and as you recognize, SEPTA is rather fixated on MU cars right now.

If NJT already figured out that Bombardier was or could be the lowest bidder, why can't SEPTA order equipment from them as well or tack on a order for cars to NJT's order? That might actually save some money.

Not necessarily. SEPTA runs much shorter consists than NJT, especially off peak. The added operating expense of longer push-pull trains could outweigh the lower per-car capital cost.

I see NJT is also ordering more ALP-46 loco's. SEPTA seems to be the only electric-operating commuter system that does not or will not have any of these. You would think they might want one or two for cases where one of the AEM-7's fails or needs work. Right now they have no backup if one does break, which would mean a 6 car shortfall and probablly a cancellation since they claim there is no spare equipment.

I don't think they're that strained for equipment. Yeah, they're gonna have short consists occasionally when there's an unexpected failure with any type of train, but I'm not aware of any reports that the push-pulls are less reliable than the Silverliners, but if anything's true, I'd suspect it was the opposite. SEPTA does not break down the RRD MDBF data in the budget by type of train.

I take it SEPTA never considered bi-level coaches either?

Not that I've ever been aware of. Bi-levels are going to be cheapest on a per-seat basis, but the main reason NJT needs them is to maximize their capacity into Penn Station given the limited number of slots they have.

I'm also amazed that NJT had no problem ordering cars with 2x2 bucket seats while SEPTA hemmed and hawed over their must have 3x2. Makes you really want to hate these guys.

I don't think I could say it any better.

I have to second Matthew Mitchell's opinion that NJT is not that strained for equipment, at least as far as ALP-46's go - I was waiting for an NJT train at Newark Airport two days ago and in 45 minutes saw several Amtrak consists being hauled by NJT ALP-46's - possibly Clockers?

RDGAndrew wrote:I have to second Matthew Mitchell's opinion that NJT is not that strained for equipment, at least as far as ALP-46's go - I was waiting for an NJT train at Newark Airport two days ago and in 45 minutes saw several Amtrak consists being hauled by NJT ALP-46's - possibly Clockers?

I think you misread me. I said SEPTA was not that strained for equipment, though of course they can have short term problems that will lead to occasional short consists.

You are correct that the Amtrak set hauled by an ALP-46 is a Clocker. NJ Transit will be taking responsiblity for that service over the next few years, having come to agreement with Amtrak over slots and payments and various other things. I believe some of the new equipment they are acquiring will be used in that service.

Has SEPTA temporarily given up on ordering new cars? We havent heard a thing since the contract scandle broke.

I was also thinking, would it make more sense to just order more push-pull equipment? For the following reasons:
Equipment shortages most likely occur only during peak times
Silverliner IV's are going to be around a long time since they were just refurbished
Push-Pull equipment is perfect for peak service, and is NOT much slower to operate, I checked the timetables and there is only an extra 1 or 2 minutes added for those runs. People aren't going to complain about 2 minutes. What drives people away is a lack of seating, unreliable service and lack of access. We should be ordering cheap equipment, and put the rest of the money towards added parking though parking garages or shuttle buses to get people to stations.
Dedicate the Silverliner II & III's to non-peak service only. They're perfect for 2 car consists where a single conductor can get to the doors ea sily. Put some new seats in them and they're good as new.

Another added benefit is having push-pull coaches could someday be used on Reading, Newtown, Stony Creek service. All that would be missing are diesel loco's, and there's a surplus of F-40's floating around.

jfrey40535 wrote:Has SEPTA temporarily given up on ordering new cars? We havent heard a thing since the contract scandal broke.

They will be issuing a new RFP shortly, if they haven't done so already.

I was also thinking, would it make more sense to just order more push-pull equipment?

Well, you can certainly make a good case for it, especially if you consider that the Silverliner IV fleet can protect the entire off-peak service. If SEPTA had thought things through and developed a long-range fleet plan for the railroad, I'd be a lot less inclined to second guess the decision to buy MUs. On the other hand, when the Silverliner V bids came in a good deal less than we feared, that was reassuring.

Push-Pull equipment is perfect for peak service, and is NOT much slower to operate, I checked the timetables and there is only an extra 1 or 2 minutes added for those runs. People aren't going to complain about 2 minutes.

That's schedule time. Whether the push-pulls can meet the schedule as well as MUs can I don't know.

What drives people away is a lack of seating, unreliable service and lack of access. We should be ordering cheap equipment, and put the rest of the money towards added parking though parking garages or shuttle buses to get people to stations.

Point well taken. You're keeping your eye on the ball.

Dedicate the Silverliner II & III's to non-peak service only. They're perfect for 2 car consists where a single conductor can get to the doors easily. Put some new seats in them and they're good as new.

Well that's from the rider's perspective. Mechanicially, they may be less desirable to keep around, and they are 40 years old or near that. We can't count on getting another 10 or 15 years out of them, so SEPTA has to think far enough ahead to plan to replace them, which is what the new order is intended for. That said, the cars do seem in pretty good shape, and did have a major overhaul several years ago.

Another added benefit is having push-pull coaches could someday be used on Reading, Newtown, Stony Creek service. All that would be missing are diesel loco's, and there's a surplus of F-40's floating around.

Well you wouldn't want to redeploy the push-pulls in current peak-hour service to the new services--it wouldn't be terribly efficient (the AEM-7s would be left with nothing to pull). But it wouldn't be a big deal to buy new or used coaches along with the locomotives for these services (f'rinstance, VRE is selling its original single-level cars).

If you want to get used equipment, what happened to the coaches used on Vermont's defunct Champlaign Flyer? I'm sure they could get enough used equipment for half the price of new stuff. Then all would be needed are electic locos to pull them. Too bad they just missed out on getting a bunch of E-60's for next to nothing. They would have been perfect for SEPTA's low speed system.

I think its clear the new MU's would be needed for peak service. There are clearly no shortfalls during the offpeak times.

Unforuntately it doesent look like SEPTA would even consider it as an option. I'm sure the new RFQ will be very similar to the old one.

If I were ordering the new Silverliners, I would require center doors for faster loading, 2+2 seating, and acceleration of 4 mph/s up to 60 mph. The center doors should have some way of handling both low level and high level platforms. I would also require modern but reliable and tested technlogies for the systems.

More doors means shorter station dwell times. It takes two minutes or more for passengers to get on or off at busy stations. Double the doors and you halve the time. They still need traps for low-level stations, since there are too many low-level stations and it costs too much to build full-length high-level platforms. I would prefer the same mechanical traps used today, mostly because they're more reliable than motorized ones. The doors should be able to close with the traps up or down.

The 2+2 seating allows for a wider aisle, and may be required by ADA anyway. It eliminates the unpopular middle seat, makes it easier for those with luggage or strollers, and makes it easier for everyone to get around. If they need more seats, they can add another car to the train. Arm rests and cup holders would also be nice, but not necessary.

The 4 mph per second acceleration allows for faster schedules, because of how closely SEPTA's stations are spaced. The easiest way to do this is to reduce the weight of the cars, to get a better power-to-weight ratio. The higher the ratio, the better the acceleration. I calculate it would save at least 16 seconds per stop, which adds up on a 21-stop schedule (5.6 minutes saved, or more). I suggest using aluminum for the body and for other areas to save weight.

They would have to be MUs to get any respectable acceleration. Locomotive-hauled cars only make sense where station spacing is at least a mile, which is not what SEPTA's system looks like.

jfrey40535 wrote:If you want to get used equipment, what happened to the coaches used on Vermont's defunct Champlain Flyer?

They have been put up for sale, but they are very old, and should be considered just a stopgap measure for someone who wanted to restore service quickly while new equipment was on order.

Just our of curiosity, am I the only person who likes 2+3 seating? When only two people are sitting on a 3 seat bench (usually the case) it gives much more room to sit, and when the trains are really packed, it gives an extra seat to use. In my opinion those benefits outweigh the benefits of 2+2, except possibly for the ADA compliancy.

PARailWiz wrote:Just our of curiosity, am I the only person who likes 2+3 seating?

My guess is that you are probably in the minority. During rush hour, esp. in winter when everyone has coats, boots, umbrellas or whatever, most of those center seats are filled and it is really cramped. I've seen some informal surveys that concluded the 2+3 seating is the least favorite arrangement.

The cost/benefit argument is similar to my experiences in the mid-80s when I spent 6 months essentially commuting to LAX for my employer. One of the flights regularly used widebodies with an unusual 2+5+2 configuration. When the passenger load was light, the attendants would let us fold the armrests in the middle section and sack out. But I also remember spending about half of the trips sandwiched in the 2nd or middle seat of the 5-by, usually next to someone who weighed 250 lbs. and either snored or fidgeted the whole way. Overall, I would have preferred fewer but wider seats.

Here are a couple of my designs for the new cars. This is a small version of the "ramp" design:






Click on the link to see all the pictures:

http://felttip.com/septa/index.html

JeffK wrote:

PARailWiz wrote:Just our of curiosity, am I the only person who likes 2+3 seating?

My guess is that you are probably in the minority. During rush hour, esp. in winter when everyone has coats, boots, umbrellas or whatever, most of those center seats are filled and it is really cramped. I've seen some informal surveys that concluded the 2+3 seating is the least favorite arrangement.

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I hate winter on those trains, especially when they have problems at the yard and a five or six-car consist comes rolling up as three or four, and they expect the same number of people to squish in there. I'd rather see 2+2, but with 21" seats all around, not just in the middle. I believe that would still leave you with a wider aisle than the current arrangement, but would also allow more breathing space for people with bulky coats during the winter.