The future of the SEPTA fleet

Kawasaki should make everything next. New trolley's , commuter cars, subway cars. I love the subway trains they have for the PATH A.K.A PA-5'S

Patrick Boylan wrote:Why so much desire for no railfan window locomotive hauled trains?
All other things being equal, wouldn't something that has to go fast also need to be stronger, and possibly weigh more, than something slower? Yeah, I can see that you could just ask these high speed locomotives to go slower, but meanwhile they're dragging with them whatever it is that they need to go fast.

And we haven't even gotten into the wear and tear that frequent starts and stops might do to them which they might not experience on the longer runs for which they're intended.

Locomotive hauled: short term easy to get, and can buy from and sell to just about any property.
MU's: short term harder to get, not as many other outfits that can help with getting economies of scale, which historically nobody's tried, small current exception Denver's tinnyliner 5 clones, but better suited to fast acceleration and braking.

And we can always dream there's an unobstructed front window we can look out.

From what i've heard, as soon as they get the money, all silverliner 5's will be getting full width cabs, so.. moot point there.

Plus a new fleet of electrics is exactly what SEPTA needs, not more patches on obsolete stuff when they can sell for scrap (including copper) and have 2 extra to ensure push pull trains arent canceled, plus you could in theory get one of the 2 "spares" to run with overhauled coaches from wherever (comet 3?).

Also, coaches are generally quieter, easier to build and maintain & inspect, and could, in the future, have bathrooms, unlike the silverliners.

Just some thoughts.

jtaeffner wrote:and we all know budds are built to last.

...except SEPTA. I feel they could have rebuilt the MFL M3 ("Almond Joy") cars and Silverliner II's and updated them to today's standards.

25Hz wrote:From what i've heard, as soon as they get the money, all silverliner 5's will be getting full width cabs, so.. moot point there.

You're hearing things from the wrong sources.

SubwayTim wrote:

jtaeffner wrote:and we all know budds are built to last.

...except SEPTA. I feel they could have rebuilt the MFL M3 ("Almond Joy") cars and Silverliner II's and updated them to today's standards.

PATCO is doing just that on their 1968 model cars. But remember the M3s had no AC and it would have been costly for installation.

SubwayTim wrote:

jtaeffner wrote:and we all know budds are built to last.

...except SEPTA. I feel they could have rebuilt the MFL M3 ("Almond Joy") cars and Silverliner II's and updated them to today's standards.

Metal fatigue. After bouncing around for 3 or 4 decades major components are getting to old to use everyday.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

SubwayTim wrote:

jtaeffner wrote:and we all know budds are built to last.

...except SEPTA. I feel they could have rebuilt the MFL M3 ("Almond Joy") cars and Silverliner II's and updated them to today's standards.

PATCO is doing just that on their 1968 model cars. But remember the M3s had no AC and it would have been costly for installation.

R36: SEPTA did modify one MFSE M3 - single car 614 - with an experimental air conditioning system during the mid-late 70s period and it turned
out not to be repeated - this car was easy to spot with its roofline changed substantially to accommodate the AC unit...

Those 1960 vintage Budd cars held up well - SEPTA got from between 35-40 years of use out of them and even though the Budd bodies may have
been able to be re-used it was easier to purchase new M4 equipment with modern amenities...

MACTRAXX

jtaeffner wrote:the b4 cars have plenty of life left in them, i wouldn't be surprised if they outlast the m4s. kawasaki makes a good product, and we all know budds are built to last.

JT: I will second that - The B4 Kawasaki cars are now approaching or at 30 years of age being built in 1982-83 and with a substantial rebuilding or overhaul they
could have many more years of service...

I believe that SEPTA will never let the Broad Street Line fleet deteriorate to the point that it did in the late 1970s/early 1980s era remembering that what was
remaining of the original 1928 B1 fleet (150 originally) was around 55 years old; The small B2 1936 Bridge fleet (20?) was 47 years old and the 1938 B3 fleet of
50 cars 45 years old when the 125 B4 cars were placed into service...They had to cannibalize retired cars to keep the remaining cars running and it actually
got to the point that the BSL service as a whole was threatened in the early 80s before the B4 cars were placed in service...The old fleet was literally run
into the ground and to me it was a classic example of SEPTA's "Bad Old Days"...

MACTRAXX

25Hz wrote: Plus a new fleet of electrics is exactly what SEPTA needs,

Given SEPTA parks their push pull fleet most of the time?

Also, coaches are generally quieter, easier to build and maintain & inspect, and could, in the future, have bathrooms, unlike the silverliners.

There's plenty of MUs out there with bathrooms. Quieter? Maybe, but honestly I've ridden on MUs overseas that are quieter than coaches here, so it's not a sure thing. Easier to build/maintain/inspect? Maybe. But what are the numbers _really_ like? IIRC, Metro-North studied going to push pulls on the New Haven line, and the costs savings over the life of the fleet was almost a wash, in the end.

Nasadowsk wrote:

25Hz wrote: Plus a new fleet of electrics is exactly what SEPTA needs,

Given SEPTA parks their push pull fleet most of the time?

Also, coaches are generally quieter, easier to build and maintain & inspect, and could, in the future, have bathrooms, unlike the silverliners.

There's plenty of MUs out there with bathrooms. Quieter? Maybe, but honestly I've ridden on MUs overseas that are quieter than coaches here, so it's not a sure thing. Easier to build/maintain/inspect? Maybe. But what are the numbers _really_ like? IIRC, Metro-North studied going to push pulls on the New Haven line, and the costs savings over the life of the fleet was almost a wash, in the end.

If they were more reliable, i'm sure they'd be used more often.

Yea, "out there". Silverliners don't, and that's what we are stuck with.

Nasadowsk wrote:

25Hz wrote: Plus a new fleet of electrics is exactly what SEPTA needs,

Given SEPTA parks their push pull fleet most of the time?

Also, coaches are generally quieter, easier to build and maintain & inspect, and could, in the future, have bathrooms, unlike the silverliners.

There's plenty of MUs out there with bathrooms. Quieter? Maybe, but honestly I've ridden on MUs overseas that are quieter than coaches here, so it's not a sure thing. Easier to build/maintain/inspect? Maybe. But what are the numbers _really_ like? IIRC, Metro-North studied going to push pulls on the New Haven line, and the costs savings over the life of the fleet was almost a wash, in the end.

The New Haven Line is a totally different story, as they have to run on third rail to get into GCT, and locomotives can't handle that well (they gap out and draw too much current). The only place an an MU makes any sense whatsoever is for third rail operations into and out of NYC. Everywhere else, loco-hauled makes more sense. EMUs are not much more powerful, at least not until you're running 10-14 car trains. EMUs (SL V or M-8) are about 140,000 pounds, passenger coaches are 120,000. A locomotive is 200,000- 220,000lbs, with 7500-8600hp during acceleration. So at 8 cars, even with the 1000hp M-8's, you're at 14hp/ton, an ACS-64 with 8 single-level coaches, you're 14hp/ton. Shorter, and the thing's a rocket. Longer with double deckers, just put on two locos, and you have some fleet redundancy, as you can still run with one if you have to. The ALP-46a can run with 14 double decker cars, it would just be a bit slow.

And the bathrooms thing is absolutely ridiculous and disgraceful. Are we a third world country? Anything heavy rail should have functioning bathrooms. That has little to do with EMU vs. PP, as both have bathrooms everywhere else except SEPTA. The FRA should mandate all heavy rail passenger trains to have bathrooms.

Pennsy, I'm not sure where you get your information, but you posit a lot of your opinion as if it were fact backed up by empirical evidence from a study done by professionals. Your above post is riddled with opinion that is actually directly contradicted by the evidence, thus making is a lot of bull hockey.

You're welcome to post in this forum, you're welcome to speculate on things you're interested in, but you're not going to last long if you consistently tell everybody they're wrong about some of the most basic concepts.

EMU's are only good for NYC service? Locomotive's can't handle third rail because they gap out a lot? C'mon man, I don't even know where to start with this stuff. And acceleration is not all horsepower/ton figures, it has a lot to do with adhesion, which is why EMU's are good for local service.

Tadman wrote:Pennsy, I'm not sure where you get your information, but you posit a lot of your opinion as if it were fact backed up by empirical evidence from a study done by professionals. Your above post is riddled with opinion that is actually directly contradicted by the evidence, thus making is a lot of bull hockey.

You're welcome to post in this forum, you're welcome to speculate on things you're interested in, but you're not going to last long if you consistently tell everybody they're wrong about some of the most basic concepts.

EMU's are only good for NYC service? Locomotive's can't handle third rail because they gap out a lot? C'mon man, I don't even know where to start with this stuff. And acceleration is not all horsepower/ton figures, it has a lot to do with adhesion, which is why EMU's are good for local service.

True, if you're getting poor adhesion, you won't be able to transfer the full power to the rail.

Locomotives do gap out in NYC. MN turns on the diesel when they gap out, Amtrak makes LIRR run with one on each end to reduce the chances of gapping out. Also, the current draw is very high, i.e. the shopping cart fire on LIRR. LIRR also has to run 6-car trains to avoid gapping out. So that's a real problem.

Of course that still leaves the debates of EMU vs. loco-hauled when you're running on overhead wire. If I was running a railroad with overhead wire, I'd sure go loco-hauled. They're just as fast, more comfortable, more standardized, more flexible, and have more capacity than EMUs. Look at NJT... they're going to all loco-hauled PP. I believe SEPTA made the wrong choice by continuing with EMUs... buying NJT clone equipment like Montreal did would have been a much better bet.

Pensey GG1 wrote: True, if you're getting poor adhesion, you won't be able to transfer the full power to the rail.

A locomotive like the ALP-46, etc, can't put its full power to the rail until it hits 40 or 50mph. It just can't.

Also, the current draw is very high, i.e. the shopping cart fire on LIRR.

The current draw is a function of the electrification system. The lower the voltage, the higher the current draw and the more voltage drop. This is electric theory that was established before railroads existed.

Of course that still leaves the debates of EMU vs. loco-hauled when you're running on overhead wire. If I was running a railroad with overhead wire, I'd sure go loco-hauled.

Nobody in the world, minus NJ Transit, agrees with you. There are very few S bahn or commuter operations anywhere that are locomotive hauled. Zurich S bahn is rapidly going MU (their locomotive hauled trains are generally a locomotive per 3 or 4 cars), and Metronom is really more of a regional rather than commuter system.

Locomotive hauled trains are virtually unheard of in Japan, these days.

They're just as fast

They're slower. NJT has had to add tons of time to their schedules because the push pulls simply can't keep up.

Wake me up when you find a locomotive hauled consist that can match current world best practice in EMUs, i.e. the Stadler FLIRT. Time to beat: 0 - 160 km/h in 90 seconds.

more comfortable

Compare an NJT multilevel to an RABDe 514, some day, then get back to us...

more standardized

Odd. Siemens, Stadler, etc all seem to have no trouble selling the same model of EMU all over the place. Sure, they'll change out the propulsion system's front end for your favorite voltage, but the carbody and rest is the same (of course, you get to customize the interior...)

more flexible

?

and have more capacity than EMUs.

No, they don't.

Look at NJT... they're going to all loco-hauled PP.

And NJT is one of the slowest systems in the area.

The stillborn Arrow IV spec called for a sub one hour NY to Trenton schedule. It's currently over 1 hour 30 minutes with NJT's push pulls.

(For the morbidly curious, RFP NO. 08-052, Technical Provisions, TP02-35, Final Rev 3, October 2007, Section 5. If anyone wants to see the proposed schedules, let me know..)

I believe SEPTA made the wrong choice by continuing with EMUs... buying NJT clone equipment like Montreal did would have been a much better bet.

How? A slower system, which means less ridership, and ultimately higher costs?

Nasadowsk wrote:A locomotive like the ALP-46, etc, can't put its full power to the rail until it hits 40 or 50mph. It just can't.

You're still getting excellent acceleration out of them.

Nasadowsk wrote:The current draw is a function of the electrification system. The lower the voltage, the higher the current draw and the more voltage drop. This is electric theory that was established before railroads existed.

Point missed. The point is that because third rail runs at a lower voltage, the amperage is far higher, and thus it's impractical to pick up a whole train worth of power off of a single locomotive's third rail shoe footprint. But that's really an aside. That just says that you need MUs in NYC, it doesn't say anything about the merit of EMUs or loco-hauled in places like Philly where you can run either equally well on the electrification system.

Nasadowsk wrote:Nobody in the world, minus NJ Transit, agrees with you. There are very few S bahn or commuter operations anywhere that are locomotive hauled. Zurich S bahn is rapidly going MU (their locomotive hauled trains are generally a locomotive per 3 or 4 cars), and Metronom is really more of a regional rather than commuter system.

I'm talking US here. MARC runs loco-hauled electric, NJT runs loco-hauled electric, MNRR and LIRR don't really count since they have no choice but to run EMU's, and the north end commuter stuff still isn't electrified. So there's a very small sample. NJT can handle 10-14 ML's with a single ALP. It's pretty impressive.

Locomotive hauled trains are virtually unheard of in Japan, these days.

Nasadowsk wrote:They're slower. NJT has had to add tons of time to their schedules because the push pulls simply can't keep up.

They should be just as fast. They are faster top-speed wise, but if you look at acceleration, which matters more to everyone except MARC Penn Line, then run with two locos for the longer, heavier trains. Like Marc Penn Line does.

Nasadowsk wrote:Wake me up when you find a locomotive hauled consist that can match current world best practice in EMUs, i.e. the Stadler FLIRT. Time to beat: 0 - 160 km/h in 90 seconds.

I'm talking US. SL V or M-8 is all we've got to compare to.

Nasadowsk wrote:Compare an NJT multilevel to an RABDe 514, some day, then get back to us...

Single level necessitates the 3x2 seating that is hated by everyone. The NJT MLs run 2x2.

Nasadowsk wrote:Odd. Siemens, Stadler, etc all seem to have no trouble selling the same model of EMU all over the place. Sure, they'll change out the propulsion system's front end for your favorite voltage, but the carbody and rest is the same (of course, you get to customize the interior...)

?

What I'm saying is that they can run with a diesel or an electric or a dual-mode depending on what the route demands. EMUs are limited to one type of propulsion. NJT's MLs are just as at home behind a PL42 as they are behind an ALP-46a.

Nasadowsk wrote:No, they don't.

NJT MLs can seat 127-142, depending on configuration. An SL V can seat 108-110. M-8's average 105.5 between the A's and the B's.

Nasadowsk wrote:And NJT is one of the slowest systems in the area.

Because of the tunnels and Penn. Definitely not because of their class-leading equipment.

Nasadowsk wrote:The stillborn Arrow IV spec called for a sub one hour NY to Trenton schedule. It's currently over 1 hour 30 minutes with NJT's push pulls.

EMUs aren't going to magically help you with Penn and the tunnels. The Push-pulls get 30% more people into Penn with the same number of train movements.

Nasadowsk wrote:How? A slower system, which means less ridership, and ultimately higher costs?

PP isn't any slower than EMU's. All of these systems have a LOT that could be done, given appropriate levels of funding to speed them up to the maximum possible within their ROWs. However, EMUs aren't going to help them. If you really want a rocket, skip the EMUs and put a loco at each end, like Acela, just using conventional equipment. That would beat anything else on heavy rail. Over 17,000HP would pull you right back in your seat, as well as double the adhesion to the rail with well north of 200 tons on the locomotives! Even New Haven Line EMUs are "only" 1,000 HP per car, and they give you a pretty good pull when accelerating.