Silverliner V

The problem with the M7 is that it's already above SEPTA's agressive weight specs in the 750vdc transformerless LIRR and MN model

SEPTA does not run the FRA, nor set specs for them. I suspect that SEPTA doesn't even have reasonable justification for such weight specs—certainly, their system, where heavyweight E-units and GG-1s operated, could tolerate a higher-weight EMU.

I'd just as soon see Kawasaki come in with a completely new-build design perfectly suited to SEPTA's unique operating enviroment

SEPTA's operating environment is anything but unique, being descended from the PRR (who also owned the LIRR) and the RDG.

<i> I suspect that SEPTA doesn't even have reasonable justification for such weight specs</i>

Yes, they do. Keeping the weight as low as possible drops the operating costs as low as possible. It reduces track maintenance, power consumption, allows higher acceleration for shorter trip times (which attracts more riders), reduces wear and tear on bridges and elevated structures, and allows high performance even if one car has a partial/total failure.

Septa is right to demand equipment be within a reasonable weight, and has every right to do so.

Let's face it - we'd be complaining that Septa "doesn't have a clue" if they ended up with a 150,000+ lb Silverliner V. Their performance specs are agreesive - meetable, but agressive - with a 125,000 lb limit, though I suspect they'll knock them down a bit in service, probbably to save money, or because they kill substations. It happened on the LIRR, where the M-7s are barely faster than the M-1s, because they got derated from 1080HP to somewhere around 700. the end result - they use more power, they're not going to improve the schedule. Same as the DE/DMs (which are also killing the track out on the east end).

<i>certainly, their system, where heavyweight E-units and GG-1s operated, could tolerate a higher-weight EMU.
</i>

Who gives a crap what it ran 50 years ago? That was then, this is now. GG-1s and E-units simply don't meet today's standards for performance, weight, reliability, maintenance, or anything else, which is why they're in museums, not rail yards. Yes, they were good when new - technology has long since made them obsolete. Just like few would find an automobile from the 40's or 50's acceptable today, rail operators don't find designs from then acceptable today, either. Today, the 4 axle, 100 ton locomotive meets the GG-1's specs, with better reliability, better tracking, and lower costs. A1A and C truck passenger diesels died off because they weren't needed, and were maintenance headaches, plus not great on track. Nobody wants to maintain 6 axles on a locomotive when 4 will do the job equally, and ditto for maintaining 2 engines Vs 1.

<i>SEPTA's operating environment is anything but unique, being descended from the PRR (who also owned the LIRR) and the RDG.</i>

The LIRR is MUCH different:

* It doesn't run 2 car trains.
* It doesn't 'run through' a center city.
* It doesn't have anywhere near as tight a station spacing.
* It uses multiple types of equipment.
* It's all level boarding.
* It has extensive grade separation.
* It's agressively cab signaled.
* It runs high frequency service on single track lines.
* It is has a number of bottlenecks that Septa doesn't have.

And in any case, it developed independantly of the Philly commuter lines. by the time the PRR bought the LIRR out, most of the modern route structure was in place, with only a few minor changes that occurred prior to WWII. Post WWII, the PRR basically cut the LIRR loose to die, which it was slowly doing until the state came in in the late 60's and bought it out.

Keeping the weight as low as possible drops the operating costs as low as possible. It reduces track maintenance, power consumption, allows higher acceleration for shorter trip times (which attracts more riders), reduces wear and tear on bridges and elevated structures, and allows high performance even if one car has a partial/total failure

Irrelevant. The structures of NJT and LIRR can take whatever modern FRA-spec commuter rail equipment has to dish out. So can SEPTA infrastructure—the PRR and RDG built it to take heavy freight and heavy steam/diesel locomotives, so even modern EMUs of an extra 10-15 tons unladen weight would be a breeze.

Let's face it - we'd be complaining that Septa "doesn't have a clue" if they ended up with a 150,000+ lb Silverliner V

Would we? And who is "we"? At least something like the M7 can be considered "off the shelf" at this point, versus a custom job like the N5 cars. This spec business is merely stalling on their part, just like the whole SVM fiasco.

or because they kill substations. It happened on the LIRR, where the M-7s are barely faster than the M-1s, because they got derated from 1080HP to somewhere around 700

These same substations also power the AEs, HHP-8s and AEM-7s day in and day out, as they did the GG-1s, E60s and other high HP electric motors. A 6480-hp typical SEPTA consist won't beat up those substations, nor would any higher HP than that.

Who gives a crap what it ran 50 years ago?

That's uncalled for. That's the kind of stuff that got Subtalk shut down. I didn't come at you with that tone, so please don't hit me with it.

As to what ran on those roads far less than 50 years ago, it is utterly relevant because power of that weight is coming back. And EMUs of the M-7's weight are nothing by comparison.

GG-1s and E-units simply don't meet today's standards for performance, weight, reliability, maintenance, or anything else, which is why they're in museums

You are completely missing the point. The infrastructure was built to take them. They did not wear out the infrastructure to the point that SEPTA had to completely rebuild; rather the opposite. I am not calling for GG1s or E8s to continue to run today. (BTW, the only standards of today that either loco cited do not meet are for safety, emissions, environmental, and that's it.)

The LIRR is MUCH different:

* It doesn't run 2 car trains.
* It doesn't 'run through' a center city.
* It doesn't have anywhere near as tight a station spacing.
* It uses multiple types of equipment.
* It's all level boarding.
* It has extensive grade separation.
* It's agressively cab signaled.
* It runs high frequency service on single track lines.
* It is has a number of bottlenecks that Septa doesn't have

Missed the point again, the point being that both sets of infrastructure hosted similar types of trains in the past—as now. What runs on the LIRR nowadays won't suddenly destroy anything in Philly or not be able to run on SEPTA's system infrastructure-wise.

I agree with Nasadowsk that weight is probably one of the highest priorities. If you want faster average train speeds, you need better acceleration, among other things like station dwell times. For better acceleration, you need a higher power-to-weight ratio. It's a lot easier to remove weight than to increase power.

As for track loading, the sideways load on the track in curves is proportional to the weight of the cars. Heavier cars mean more force on the rails, which means the rails need to be replaced more often.

Irish Chieftan wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:The LIRR is MUCH different:

* It doesn't run 2 car trains.
* It doesn't 'run through' a center city.
* It doesn't have anywhere near as tight a station spacing.
* It uses multiple types of equipment.
* It's all level boarding.
* It has extensive grade separation.
* It's agressively cab signaled.
* It runs high frequency service on single track lines.
* It is has a number of bottlenecks that Septa doesn't have

Missed the point again, the point being that both sets of infrastructure hosted similar types of trains in the past?as now. What runs on the LIRR nowadays won't suddenly destroy anything in Philly or not be able to run on SEPTA's system infrastructure-wise.

Just out of curiosity, do you intend to have people riding SEPTA trains using LIRR equipment jump from their trains to the platform? I'm assuming by "not be able to run on SEPTA's system infrastructure-wise you contend this possible without any changes. Even assuming power sources are no problem, there are no lines on the SEPTA system other than the airport line that are 100 percent high platform, and then I believe Eastwick is just a mini-high.

SEPTA's operations ARE different from NJT or LIRR's. SEPTA has no real counterpart for the Ronkonkoma or NJT NEC lines. The R5 Thorndale may come close, but it pales in comparison to the train lengths and crowding those two routes garner in the rush hours. The West Hempstead and Montclair line (pre Midtown Direct) both run better service over a longest distance than SEPTA's Cynwyd and Fox Chase lines.

Irish Chieftain wrote: The structures of NJT and LIRR can take whatever modern FRA-spec commuter rail equipment has to dish out. So can SEPTA infrastructure—the PRR and RDG built it to take heavy freight and heavy steam/diesel locomotives, so even modern EMUs of an extra 10-15 tons unladen weight would be a breeze.

But the PRR and the RDG also had vastly more track department employees than modern railroads do. Labor was cheap then--it's costly now, so additional spending to make the cars lighter can pay off in reduced need to send crews out to maintain track.

WD wrote:Just out of curiosity, do you intend to have people riding SEPTA trains using LIRR equipment jump from their trains to the platform? I'm assuming by "not be able to run on SEPTA's system infrastructure-wise you contend this possible without any changes. Even assuming power sources are no problem, there are no lines on the SEPTA system other than the airport line that are 100 percent high platform, and then I believe Eastwick is just a mini-high

Just out of curiosity, do you argue by talking about something completely different from what the person you are replying to is talking about? I said nothing about platforms—platforms are a completely separate issue, and besides, trains don't rest their weight on them.

And with that photo of the Grumman Turbo M1s, I have shown a visual of what is possible with the M7 design, namely a variant of the M7 that can have steps, trapdoors and long doors. Satisfied?

SEPTA's operations ARE different from NJT or LIRR's. SEPTA has no real counterpart for the Ronkonkoma or NJT NEC lines. The R5 Thorndale may come close, but it pales in comparison to the train lengths and crowding those two routes garner in the rush hours. The West Hempstead and Montclair line (pre Midtown Direct) both run better service over a longest distance than SEPTA's Cynwyd and Fox Chase lines

Again, no. There is zero difference when it comes to what the infrastructure can take. The cars that SEPTA uses are no different from what NJT uses. And what SEPTA does operations-wise has nothing to do with whether or not they choose a Silverliner V based on the M7.

Lucius wrote:For better acceleration, you need a higher power-to-weight ratio. It's a lot easier to remove weight than to increase power

These are EMUs we are talking about. With an AC overhead system, far greater HP is possible—even Phil will acknowledge that. And just how is SEPTA's acceleration nowadays in and out of stations, now that this point has been almost beaten to death...?

Matt wrote:But the PRR and the RDG also had vastly more track department employees than modern railroads do. Labor was cheap then--it's costly now, so additional spending to make the cars lighter can pay off in reduced need to send crews out to maintain track

So SEPTA does not have modern MOW machines? The problem thereof has been solved on other commuter roads.

I still maintain that this is all filibustering by SEPTA management in order to avoid capital spending and keep money in their pockets instead.

<i>Irrelevant. The structures of NJT and LIRR can take whatever modern FRA-spec commuter rail equipment has to dish out.</i>

Who cares? They're probbably designed to take 2 - 3 times as much weight safely, but that doesn't mean they should.

<i> So can SEPTA infrastructure—the PRR and RDG built it to take heavy freight and heavy steam/diesel locomotives, so even modern EMUs of an extra 10-15 tons unladen weight would be a breeze.</i>

Yes, but heavyweight equipment increases track maintenance costs. It's a known, demonstrated fact.

<i>At least something like the M7 can be considered "off the shelf" at this point, versus a custom job like the N5 cars.<i>

Where else in the US is equipment like the N5's run?

<i> This spec business is merely stalling on their part, just like the whole SVM fiasco. </i>

No, it's not. There is NO such thing as an off the shelf design in the US, since virtually everything is custom designed. The market's way too small and way too fragmented to support a custom design.

<i>
These same substations also power the AEs, HHP-8s and AEM-7s day in and day out, as they did the GG-1s, E60s and other high HP electric motors.</i>

With high currents at the pan == greater pan wear, greater wire wear, more arcing.

<i> A 6480-hp typical SEPTA consist won't beat up those substations, nor would any higher HP than that.</i>

With 125,000 lb cars, you'd probbably need that much HP for a 6 car train to meet Septa's requirements. 6480 hp is neary 800 amps on an 11kv system. IIRC, PRR substations are about 1,000 amps, and in any case, your current draw would be higher than 800 due to voltage drop due resistance in the catenary. It's NOT trivial at all. And BTW, GG-1s were restricted to 18th notch and below when MU'd with two, and I forget where with 3 (which was restricted in places anyway).

<i>As to what ran on those roads far less than 50 years ago, it is utterly relevant because power of that weight is coming back</i>

At slower speeds, and with much higher track wear. As Mr Mitchell pointed out, labor was cheap back then. It's not today. Changing rail regularly is a BIG issue.

And, high weight equipment on the LIRR has already killed the track. The LIRR had to do a number of emergency tie replacements after the DE/DMs came into service, as they were killing the track in curves and and causing derailments. They've also been damaging bridges, to the point that the LIRR sued EMD over it. The effects of equipment weight are NOT trivial.

<i> And EMUs of the M-7's weight are nothing by comparison. </i>

Actually, the M-7s are among the heaviest EMUs the LIRR has run in the MTA era, and the C-3 cars are I believe the heaviest they've ever ordered. What's more annoying, the M-7s have had their acceleration cut to barely more than the sluggish M-1s, because they simply draw way too much power. 12 cars drawing 1000+ amps apiece does not appear to violate the substation's capacity (over 12,000 amps), but the problem is that you're drawing that current through the third rail, which is effectively a resistor, thus you have a voltage drop, due to the high current. Plus there's a VD in the return circuit through the running rails. That third rails have resistance is why third rail electrification died off. The resistance of catenary is actually higher, however because the voltage is so high, the current draw is lower, thus the voltage drop is too.

Since the LIRR's looking at a new design to replace the M-3 cars, as opposed to an additional M-7 order, I suspect they aren't happy with the design either...

In any case, the FRA does not specify that a train car be high weight, only that it meet certain buff/crush standards. If these can be met with a lightweight design, that's all the better, actually much better, because the energy present in a crash is lower anyway.

What's wrong with Septa demanding that equipment makers actually produce a modern design, anyway?

Who cares? They're probbably designed to take 2 - 3 times as much weight safely, but that doesn't mean they should

Who cares indeed? Then the posturing by SEPTA is moot, if the structure can take the weight and not be troubled by it. (I am continuing to take this as a safe bet just based on PRR and RDG building standards of course.)

heavyweight equipment increases track maintenance costs. It's a known, demonstrated fact

EMUs will not do to the track what freight equipment does to it. The NEC with 140 lb/yd rail sees all sorts of rail vehicles, including heavy freight—and M7-descended EMUs will not hurt the track like that.

There is NO such thing as an off the shelf design in the US, since virtually everything is custom designed. The market's way too small and way too fragmented to support a custom design

But the M7 is already an established design, in high production. If it can be demonstrated that the S-V based on the M7 would not be any cheaper than a SEPTA-spec MU, then the point is made. Nonetheless, an M7-based S-V can be produced much sooner than SEPTA's idealized one, and the longer they filibuster, the longer it's going to take to get new EMUs.

high weight equipment on the LIRR has already killed the track. The LIRR had to do a number of emergency tie replacements after the DE/DMs came into service, as they were killing the track in curves and and causing derailments

On the east end of the LIRR. I have seen that track, and it is grossly undermaintained. M7s over the same track would not produce the same effect I suspect.

What's wrong with Septa demanding that equipment makers actually produce a modern design, anyway?

SEPTA are not producing the $$$$$$$$$$$ is what is wrong. Nor can they, of course—unless the procurement department actually has the cash and it's just filibustering on their part, which I suspect.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

And Metro-North Genesis (II) units are in electric mode in GCT, both in push and pull modes, and no problem with gaps there

If the train gets stopped with the locomotive in a gap, the prime mover kicks on. So one cannot say "no problem". And of course top speed is limited in e-mode, which is why the prime-mover is on in outlying electrified territory.

Now how often does a Metro-North Bomber/Genesis set actually get caught in a third rail gap at GCT? I'm sure if they thought it would be a major happening, they'd run their push-pull sets with a locomotive at each end.

You're talking about the Grumman gas-turbine dual-modes. They were not diesel, since "Diesel" per se refers to an internal-combustion piston engine that ignites fuel with cylinder pressure/heat friction vs. using a spark plug, not the grade of fuel used. The Grumman M1s didn't last very long at all.

Here's a pic of the beasts. No long doors, just manual traps.

I knew they weren't diesel, but also that they weren't straight turbine either...I just couldn't remember the exact term.

Joe

Wdobner wrote:Since others have addressed the Turbos, I guess I'll stick to the last portion of Mr. SII's post...

Silverliner II wrote: SEPTA would not have that problem, as a similar design, based on the M-7, would be all-electric. So why not go with something like that?

Joe

The problem with the M7 is that it's already above SEPTA's agressive weight specs in the 750vdc transformerless LIRR and MN model. Remember:

Matthew Mitchell wrote:The maximum allowable weight of a car, empty of passengers and crew but ready to run, shall not exceed 125,000 pounds for a single car, and 122,000 pounds for either car of a married pair. SEPTA will not accept any car whose weight exceeds 131,250 pounds for a single car, and 128,100 pounds for either car of a married pair.

Drat that excess weight problem.....I wonder how much of a cost tradeoff it would be to go with a DC propulsion system just to reduce the weight to something comparable to a Silverliner IV......

Joe

There'd be no weight advantage with a DC propulsion system, since you'd still have a transformer and all for the AC power system.

The M-7's probbably not as optimized a design as it should have been, probbably because the LIRR set 125,000 lbs as the maximum weight. Since there's no bonus for light weight for the builder, they're not going to waste engineering resources on making it lighter unless they have to.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the builder of Septa's equipment can actually meet the weight requirements. AFAIK, there's really not much different from the AAR's recomended prac tices and the FRA's actual regulations, i.e., Tier I is really just a formalization of what the industry was doing all along anyway.

BTW, the pre FRA and post FRA Comet cars are identical in weight, in fact, the newer ones are very slightly lighter I think. The ALP-44 and ALP-46 are the same weight, Kawasaki has 125mph certified double deckers that are significantly lighter than the LIRR's C3 cars. Also, the LIRR's M-1/3 cars did in fact meet all ICC and AAR regulations when built, and the body design was used right into the 90's (MN's M-6 cars). I've yet to see actual, specific reasons as to why it wouldn't be legal today (without minor modification).

Irish Chieftain wrote: Just out of curiosity, do you argue by talking about something completely different from what the person you are replying to is talking about? I said nothing about platforms?platforms are a completely separate issue, and besides, trains don't rest their weight on them.

I've always understood the infrastructure of a railroad to be all the fixed components that both allow the trains to move and move passenger to and from the trains. This would include, but not be limited to, track, bridges, platforms, signals, power supplies, and to a certain extent things like TVMs and even P&R Lots. Your response, interpreted as such, would mean that the M7s as they exist on the LIRR and MN are almost completely incompatible with the SEPTA system, both in platform height and power supply. Yes, the system could likely support their bulk, but why? All a heavier car does is consume more power, take longer to start and stop, and create more wear and tear on the tracks. SEPTA should be commended for trying to reign in the runaway car weight that is currently pervading US market railcar builders.

And with that photo of the Grumman Turbo M1s, I have shown a visual of what is possible with the M7 design, namely a variant of the M7 that can have steps, trapdoors and long doors. Satisfied?

No. Because with that car you'll still end up with 90% of the passengers seeing absolutely no improvement in the accessibility of the system to them. You still have to climb stairs to the platform, and W/Cs can only board using either a mini-high, wheelchair lift, or a high platform. The two former are really only last resorts reserved for wheelchair bound passengers while the latter requires a good amount of work to implement. I'd estimate that only 10% of SEPTA's 320 some stations actually have high platforms. Another 20% maybe has mini high platforms. That leaves the vast majority of stations requiring that passenger board via stairs, a solution that many likely find less than appealing given the options. We don't have the money to make the entire system high platform, we likely don't even have the money to give every station a mini-high, and wheelchair lifts are only used by one other system, and then with aparantly mixed results.

If we're gonna be bent on making all of SEPTA ADA Compatible, why not do so in a manner that is the most efficient. And while we're doing that, why not make the whole system easier to access for the entire ridership, not some currently non-existant wheelchair passengers, thereby potentially gaining ridership. It's obvious that we'll never get a high platforming program done, minihighs are out because you can't board most of the passengers across a 1 foot gap left to make the route freight compatible. Really that only leaves lowering the floor of the car at the door with a ramp-style car.

<i>All a heavier car does is consume more power, take longer to start and stop, and create more wear and tear on the tracks</i>

Yes. Which means slower speeds and increased costs. Septa's already too slow, and it's expensive to boot. Making it worse isn't going to help things. The biggest problem with commuter rail in the US is it costs way too much for the results it generally gives.

<i> SEPTA should be commended for trying to reign in the runaway car weight that is currently pervading US market railcar builders.
</i>

Ironically, in another generation or so, you may see the situation where the passenger automobile is not only more efficient that commuter rail, but cleaner, too. Automobiles have gotten drastically cleaner than they were even 10 years ago, and they've only recently stopped becomming more efficient (and this is a temporary situation - a trend away from, SUVs will start pushing the average economy up, as even today's 200+HP sedans get 30mpg or better on the highway). Rail equipment in the US hasn't gained in efficiency, will likely go down in the future (as a result of FRA 'safety' regulations), and are murderously dirty anyway (though Septa, being all electric is harder to quantify than the typical rail diesel, which is more than 2X dirtier on a per HP bassis than a highway diesel, despite having more optimal operating conditions.) All this will do is make it even harder to justify rail in this country, though right now, there's already no economic or environmental justification for most of Amtrak.

By making trains lighter, they use far less power, they perform much better, and they cost a lot less to own and operate. By making trains more economical and more attractive to riders, you make the case for rail much stronger. The average Joe doesn't care if a train's all lightweight and low floor - look at the RiverLine's acceptance - they DO care if it's slow and expensive.

Nasadowsk wrote:Automobiles have gotten drastically cleaner than they were even 10 years ago, and they've only recently stopped becomming more efficient (and this is a temporary situation [snip]) Rail equipment in the US hasn't gained in efficiency, will likely go down in the future (as a result of FRA 'safety' regulations), and are murderously dirty anyway (though Septa, being all electric is harder to quantify than the typical rail diesel, which is more than 2X dirtier on a per HP basis than a highway diesel, despite having more optimal operating conditions.

Uh, are you considering the new Tier II emissions regs? And from what I've seen in the industry literature, locomotive energy efficiency is increased too. Now it may be the case that the gains on the passenger side are less than on the freight side, because passenger trains are shorter and make more performance demands, but passenger is overall just a small fraction of railroading.