Silverliner V

Has anybody received any updates on the new Silverliner V? Last I remember is that SEPTA was putting out to bid again after Kawasaki blocked the awarding of contract to the low-bidding Korean manufacturer.

worldtraveler wrote:Has anybody received any updates on the new Silverliner V? Last I remember is that SEPTA was putting out to bid again after Kawasaki blocked the awarding of contract to the low-bidding Korean manufacturer.

Kawasaki didn't block the awarding: the SEPTA Board decided not to award the contract, after legal action was filed by Kawasaki.

How about something like this? No more traps!

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~wld25/Silv ... r5plan.GIF

I don't have the means to modify the drawing on me right now, that's something I cobbled together from Mr. Wilson-Shea's Bombardier Bilevel Coach.
A friend gave me the idea, and the idea is to eliminate traps while preventing SEPTA from pursuing a costly high platforming program which could end up eliminating some low-platform stops. This way you have near-level boarding at both high and low platform stations. Wheelchair passengers could be accomodated and use a small elevator in the middle car of the married triplet. 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'd also envision a single car version of the triplet, so that smaller services could be run, some with an internal W/C lift, some without for use as a 4th car with an already ADA compliant triplet set.

Any Comments?

Why are we bothering with custom made cars and high level platforms for the one or 2 wheelchair riders on the system? I noticed some stations have special ramps at the ends of the platform to accomodate wheelchairs. Isn't that enough?

Mr. Wdobner-

Your link appears to be dead for the 'modified' Bilevel.

Try this:
Correct Link

Useless unless you have some way of getting wheelchair passengers from the lower level to the higher level. Not to mention that every door added means revenue seats removed.

I agree. That train would be a 'white whale' for SEPTA.

Given SEPTA's unique (and I use the term loosly) situation, that they have mostly low level stations with a few high levels lurking about the system, there will be no way for them to purchase all high level equipment.

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?

The South Shore cars are older than they look -- they're a 1980's design. They will not meet the FRA's new crash-worthiness standard, which precludes end vestibules on cabs (Witness the design of the NJT Comet V's w/o a full vestibule at the cab).

Since these new reg.'s have been introduced, only the NY MTA has bought MU's -- and for them its not an issue.

New FRA crashworthiness regs do not preclude the older-style end-of-car vestibules; it is merely the case that upgrading the cars to maintain the vestibules including steps and trapdoors is the more expensive way to go.

Note that NJT are penny-pinchers in regards to their fleet, this being the primary reason for their current preference for push-pull trains versus EMUs—and the primary reason thereof are inspections, wherein married-pair MUs are regarded as a locomotive and supposedly they save a pile of money on inspections, but at the cost of having to lengthen their train schedules due to the inferior acceleration of push-pull trains. Penny-wise and pound-foolish, as the saying goes...

The MTA got new EMUs for the LIRR and Metro-North mainly because of the extensive third-rail electrification on their lines. To design electric motors for push-pull fleets that run off third-rail would severely complicate things mechanically (and the overhead third-rail in GCT would have to be reactivated, but this would be useless in push mode since the engineer has to be able to see the overhead third-rail in order to raise/lower the third-rail pantograph at the correct time)...not to mention that the LIRR has never used all-electric locomotives on their lines anyhow. (Locos for the LIRR would also have to run off catenary wire, so that they could bridge the third-rail gaps in Penn Station.)

Speaking of high doors, how hard would it be to add the center high doors to the Silverliner IVs? Would the quicker downtown load/unload times offset the loss of four seats per car?

reldnahkram wrote:Speaking of high doors, how hard would it be to add the center high doors to the Silverliner IVs? Would the quicker downtown load/unload times offset the loss of four seats per car?

As you probably know, the cars were designed with those plugs in the center section to permit center doors to be added at a later time. While it might not be hard to retrofit the doors, it wouldn't be economical, given the relatively short amount of service life those cars have (they're approaching 30 years old).

Some of the SL IV's cars actually have center door in place but in the open position to install the plug, they are in the door pockets. I was on a SL IV and the panel in the door pocket next to my seat popped open and there was a door behind it. I don't know if there were any mechanicals for it but at that point I just wanted to keep the panel shut and from hitting me in the head.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Note that NJT are penny-pinchers in regards to their fleet, this being the primary reason for their current preference for push-pull trains versus EMUs—and the primary reason thereof are inspections, wherein married-pair MUs are regarded as a locomotive and supposedly they save a pile of money on inspections, but at the cost of having to lengthen their train schedules due to the inferior acceleration of push-pull trains. Penny-wise and pound-foolish, as the saying goes...

Well there's also the consideration that the main constraint on NJT ridership is their limited number of train slots into Penn Station, so they need to get as many seats on each train as they can. They also need to get as many seats for their dollar as they can: push-pulls fit the bill in both regards, but as mentioned, there is a performance hit you have to take. With increasing commuter traffic on the NEC, speeds would have slowed down anyway, so the loss isn't as bad as you'd think.

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