Can SEPTA AEM-7's pull Silverliners?

can the Septa AEM 7's operate with the silverliner equipment?

No. Its no different than the incompatibility of NJT ALP's and Arrows.*

*Of course, and AEM-7 could tow Silverliners using a comprimise coupler, but that's not exactly normal circumstances.

I think the Aem 7's and Alp's should be compatible with the arrow an silverliner equipment.

Why would you need to do that? The MU's can run in all of the same places an AEM-7 can, without the motor. The motor will add no flexibility to it.

Now, if you want ro talk about adding a diesel to a string of MU's, now we are on to an idea. Run the MU's out of Center City, when you get to Landdale, add a Diesel on, lower the pantographs, and run to Quakertown. That's an idea for NJT.

I know NJT once did run MU's hauled by diesels during revenue service, during a one week period during the re-electrification of the M&E. They had enough Diesel engines but they were short on coaches, so they used MU's as coaches.

Getting back to the point of tacking an AEM-7 onto a string of MU's, there is absolutly no operational advantages to that.

path18951 wrote:Why would you need to do that? The MU's can run in all of the same places an AEM-7 can, without the motor. The motor will add no flexibility to it.

Getting back to the point of tacking an AEM-7 onto a string of MU's, there is absolutly no operational advantages to that.

Certainly the chief advantage that could be had through this arrangement would be the ability of the train in question to negotiate a voltage or frequency change which the MUs were not able to handle. Such an arrangement could be readily used on the Midtown Direct service to compensate for the lack of an automatic tap changing transformer on the Arrow IIIs. If three or four of NJT's push pull locomotives were retrofitted with Arrow compatible automatic couplers (are they WABCO N-1s?) then the ALP could drag the Arrows out of NYP under the 11.5kv cat, through the 25kv phase gap at the Kearny connector, where the Arrows could raise their pans and then at the first station equipped with a tail track or crossover the ALP could be uncoupled and set out to wait for the next inbound Midtown Direct MU train. Of course the operational advantages of this arrangement over the current use of push-pull trains for Midtown Direct service are minimal, mostly revolving around the advantages of the MU's superior acceleration in dealing with the M&E's closer station spacing, tighter turns and generally lower speeds than the NEC. It is doubtful that this type of operation would be implemented, as the increased number of crews and the possibility of a schedule conflict at peak hours resulting in delays to the riders would vastly outweigh the potential benefits. The only way I could see this being implented would have been if NJT were for some reason unable to get a push-pull order into the system before Midtown Direct opened and decided to utilize the old Arrow IIs in the same manner the DL&W EMUs made their last few trips on their stomping grounds, with ALP44s dragging them through their entire trip. In this arrangement it is unlikely the EMUs would be powered at any point in their trip, they'd just be sitting in for Comet or Shoreliner push pull cars. I must admit I have no idea if the Arrow and Silverliner cars can even accomodate 480vac trainline HEP, it certainly seems like they're pretty independent units and whether an ALP unit could supply them with heat and lighting power seems debatable.

Under any circumstances NJT, SEPTA or MN would be better off equipping their EMUs with automatic tap changing transformers rather than trying any ridiculous pairing of push-pulls and MUs to provide service under catenary power sources which the MUs may not be compatible with. In the same way, SEPTA would be better off running peak hour diesel expresses to Reading from 30th St Station via the Ivy Ridge Connector and to Quakertown from 30th St via both the Ivy Ridge Connector and the Stony Creek Branch rather than trying to jury rig an EMU/Diesel locomotive pairing that will simply result in wasted potential from the EMUs. Dual modes have never been any good, and I'm certain that if we want a reliable ride from the further-out suburbs which will require diesel service we had better either find a way to run diesels into the city or cough up the cash to extend the electrification.

Wdobner wrote: Dual modes have never been any good, and I'm certain that if we want a reliable ride from the further-out suburbs which will require diesel service we had better either find a way to run diesels into the city or cough up the cash to extend the electrification.

Actually DM have been good, and when used with proper planning a RR could get great use out of DMs.

Look at the LIRR, not all of their lines are electrified, they use DE, DM, and EMU and besides the problem with mismanagement and so forth, they are getting great use out of there DMs and DEs, moe so out of the DMs as they can go into NYP while the DEs ca not.

Yeah and the DMs amongst other failures had a slight tendancy to light on fire when run on electric for extended periods. LIRR specified a diesel locomotive which would possibly be able to keep pace with their EMU fleet, or at least keep schedules. Part of this speficification was that the DMs would be able to run on the 3rd rail with the diesel playing a supplemental role until such time as the 3rd rail ended, at which time there wouldn't be any EMUs to worry about holding up. Due to the fires the electric mode is now turned off practically at the tunnel portal, and the locomotive is run in diesel mode for most of its trip. Add to this the fact which GE aknowledged in killing the so-called Genesis III AC cat/Diesel dual mode that it would have been time-limited in electric mode even moreso than the DM30ACs and P32DM-ACs (read, a bigger fire-hazard than the DMs). Given these precedents it seems no surprise that NJT and SEPTA have steered clear of dual modes despite their apparant need. No matter the type they just seem to be an extremely poor idea. At this point LIRR has spent more money on the DM program than it would have spent simply extending the 3rd rail to Port Jeff, Riverhead and Speonk. Rather than trying to jury rig two systems which likely do not belong together, why not develop an interim diesel service and extend electrification as ridership warrants? Dual modes offer no increased economy in operation, they're just diesels which are capable of not asphixiating the riders for a short time. When electrification is extended it becomes possible to offer a relatively sparse ridership base a very convenient service with sub hour headways off peak.

Given that SEPTA has the Stony Creek Branch, and the possibility of rather easily using the Cynwyd Branch via an Ivy Ridge connector to reach 30th St Station, we have very little need for dual modes as diesel trains can reach both Reading and Quakertown from one of the three major train stations in downtown Philly. We could inaugurate diesel service to Reading from 30th St Station Lower Level with the R6 extended to Port Kennedy within a year if we started tommorow. The logical course of action would then be to extend the electrification further along as the ridership grew. At the very least the R6 should reach to Pottstown within 10 years at a modest growth rate. Reading service would be done with peak hour diesel express trains into 30th St LL and off-peak transfers to the R6 at whatever station happens to have the northern terminal of the R6 at that time.

What I believe wdobner is refering to is the frequent mechanical problems associated with duel mode equitment.

Sean@Temple

Yes, sorry that was not clear in my original posting. Thanks for clarifying for me.

Wit the DMs that the LIRR has yes there has been problems in the begining, but when was there not problems when something is first put into service, I remember when we first go the Kawasaski (sp?) trolleys, in 81, they had lots of problems, they still did not have the auto-return for the pole.

Everybody has problems with their equipemtns, now the problems that the LIRR has with the DMs are far and inbetween as the break-in periods ends.

Also the MTA/LIRR was quick to order the DE/DMs to replace the aging bilevels, Geeps and MPs that has been running since the LIRR was own by Pennsy. So they never really had a chance to test it and so forth, the same thing happened with the M1s when they first came into service as well as the E-60CPs which was suppose to replace the GG1.

With the right testing, service and smart ordering SEPTA can have reliable DMs/DEs. and the fires that have been started really was not DMs bu other equipment like MOWs that touched the third rail.

the LIRR DMs run exclusively elec in electrified areas and desiel in none electrified areas, although some engineers do use both sometimes due to their prefence, but majority of the time its runned the correct way.

Dual-mode is a lot more challenging now than it used to be, even compared to as recent as the LIRR order.

As we were told by GE (see DVARP newsletter cover story several years ago), the technology is more or less off the shelf. It's packaging it that's the problem. And presently, you have more stuff to fit into that package (new EPA Tier II emissions regs) and less room in the package to work with (new FRA crashworthiness regs).

You can make a dual-mode with adequate power and good duty cycles and reliability--you just won't have an easy time fitting it into an existing carbody.

Last I heard, the MDBF on those amazing P-32s is about 18,000 miles, or, worse than even the LIRR's EMU fleet. And I've heard the DM-30s aren't much better.

Catenary fed DMs are probbably not going to happen until FRA regulations are yanked for more realistic ones, but at that point, DMUs will likely be clean enough to make a run through the CC tunnel moot, at least for a 2 - 4 car train (right now they're at bus emission levels. And years from now, they'll be at bus levels. And diesel busses are getting cleaner and cleaner).

Realistically, regular passenger diesels in the US are far too heavy as it is. Given what a transformer and support gear would weigh (if it could even be wedged in there - even underfloor transformers take up space above the floor), you'd have a locomotive that even if it was undersized for electric, would be a total dog in either mode. Not something that attracts ridership.

The sad reality of DM operation is it's <b>never</b> been successful. The FL-9s didn't work, the P-32s really don't work very well, and the DM-30s are beyond useless (IMHO, the LIRR's retaining them more to save face than anything else - years after a decades of promises, DM operation is STILL limited to a a few runs a day). Diesels aren't electrics with generating stations on them, electrics aren't diesels with pantographs. They're different beasts. Fault currents are different, handling them is different, what can/cannot go wrong is different. Amperages that are trouble in a diesel are normal in an electric, voltgage swings in a diesel that are normal are trouble in an electric. Shorts that are exciting in a diesel are nice explosions in electrics, etc.

Since the new FRA regulations came in (to say nothing of the EPA ones, which are lax anyway), I don't think GE's sold one DM, and beyond the lip service out there, I don't think any agency in the US is actually looking at them.

Look at the LIRR? I don't have to - I grew up hearing the BS about a dual mode utopia. We were told time and time again that it'd be 'just like an electric' and that it 'really will work'. Even after the disasterous FL-9s on the PJ line, the LIRR still kept insisting this was the only way we'd get direct service to Penn. Well? It's 2005 - I still can't get a direct train to Penn unless I plan my life around the once-a-day-on-weekdays-only train on the Oyster Bay line, it gets canceled quite a lot anyway, and why bother, the line's still as slow and unreliable as it was 15 years ago. And now, the Oyster Bay line after being saved by the supposed dirt cheap to run trains (they're diesel!!! No billions for third rail!! All the performance of electric without paying for it!!!!)? It's gonna get torn up (not that anyone in the region cares) because it's....too expensive to run.

Seriously - RUN from the idea of dual mode. It just doesn't live up to the hype at all. It's pretty much the commuter rail version of the patheic helicopter-engine-in-a-locomotive stuff the US DOT's been latched onto for years - a failed idea that just won't go away.

We don't seem to have a problem with dual-mode over here on Metro-North... aside from some early bugs with the first arrival of the Genesis engines that replaced the FL9's... and the FL9's worked fine- it was deferred maintainence that really kept them from functioning on electric in later years...

-otto-

better to get an FRA compliant (yeah sure....) version of a trainset that is available in both EMU and DMU configurations, and can be mixed and matched. that way the half of the train that is EMU tows the DMU half to the end of the wire/3rd rail and then the DMU half tows the rest of the way. These exist and have existed for some time in Europe. and most of those EMU trains can change voltages on the fly, I understand Europe is a hodgepodge of electrical systems, but they seem to run trains straight through. of course our transit agencies would never consider modifying european designs that exist and seem to work, they have to reinvent the wheel each and every time.....

flexliner wrote:better to get an FRA compliant (yeah sure....) version of a trainset that is available in both EMU and DMU configurations, and can be mixed and matched. that way the half of the train that is EMU tows the DMU half to the end of the wire/3rd rail and then the DMU half tows the rest of the way. These exist and have existed for some time in Europe.

Don't know if your reference was intentional or not, but the particular trainset with those capabilities is called the IC3 Flexliner. It's built by Adtranz and does not meet FRA standards.