The future of the SEPTA fleet

I'm happy about this. When i read the order or interest for the number of locomotives it made sense that SEPTA has plans to order either more push-pull coaches and /or more bi-levels. Ridership is increasing and SEPTA wants to meet the requirement. I'm very happy about this.

I wonder what kind of design will NJT come up with.

sammy2009 wrote:I'm happy about this. When i read the order or interest for the number of locomotives it made sense that SEPTA has plans to order either more push-pull coaches and /or more bi-levels. Ridership is increasing and SEPTA wants to meet the requirement. I'm very happy about this.

I wonder what kind of design will NJT come up with.

maybe if it's successful then maybe SEPTA can order the same bi-levels if it fits the center city tunnels...

zebrasepta wrote:

sammy2009 wrote:I'm happy about this. When i read the order or interest for the number of locomotives it made sense that SEPTA has plans to order either more push-pull coaches and /or more bi-levels. Ridership is increasing and SEPTA wants to meet the requirement. I'm very happy about this.

I wonder what kind of design will NJT come up with.

maybe if it's successful then maybe SEPTA can order the same bi-levels if it fits the center city tunnels...

They will. MLV's are specifically designed as generic universal-clearance vehicles for Penn Station (MLV's in-use there on NJT), Grand Central (to be used by Metro North, was clearance-tested during car design on some platform tracks...to be clearance-tested on all platform tracks once a couple obstructing signal heads are moved), Montreal's Mt. Royal Tunnel (MLV's in-use there on AMT), and SEPTA Center City. Bombardier specced usage in those 4 particular low-clearance tunnels/stations and their tightest quirks as a design requirement. The only going-concern passenger line in the country where they cannot fit is LIRR East Side Access to the new lower level of GCT. A low-clearance tunnel segment built way back in the 1970's for the project can only fit single-level EMU's built to M1/M3/M7/M9 dimensions and no push-pulls whatsoever (no domestic passenger locomotive current or near-future can fit, so coaches of any size are moot). Both the first- and second-generation MLV's in service use the exact same dimensions, and NJT's pending third-generation coaches and Arrow-successor bi-level EMU's will be built to the same carbody dimensions (<-- Yes, you will want to monitor design developments for the MLV EMU's, because that's a potentially viable Silverliner IV replacement option that unlike the V's will be tested and perfected on NJT's dime).

Clearfield wrote:According to Philly.com on 12/19/14, the SEPTA Board approved $4.3 million to refurbish 22 Regional Rail coaches, as part of a financial settlement with Hyundai-Rotem that was years late in delivering SEPTA's 120 new SLV's

This, along with SEPTA's public statements on procurement of new Push Pull locomotives shows a commitment by SEPTA to Push Pull service.
At the same time, NJT is trying to get a [multi]-level MU designed.

The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

Thoughts?

I like the thought of multilevel coaches on SEPTA for the following reasons:

1. Not all cars platform at all stations already. Multi-level cars add more capacity without needing to sink more money into extending station platforms
2. More cars for more capacity runs into storage limitations. Yard space is not infinite. Purchasing land adjacent to the ROW for a new mid-day or weekend storage yard is expensive. The multi-levels will increase capacity without the need for additional yard space.
3. Adding additional PP multilevels and locos will allow MUs to be taken off of the longer express runs and reallocated to local trains. I can picture these PPs being used on expresses on the Thorndale, Wilmington, Trenton, West Trenton, and Doylestown lines.

I will not dispute that SEPTA needs more capacity right now, and that it needs to replace the current PP locomotives. However, I am reserved about expanding the PP fleet. As it is, the current fleet only does two runs per day. Why purchase more cars and locos to sit around in the yards during the day?

As for the NJ Transit Multilevel EMUs (MLEMU) order, SEPTA needs to wake up and see the synergy possible from a combined order with NJT. NJT's MU fleet is shrinking, but also has capacity issues (albeit track and tunnel capacity). Many cost savings could be had with the design and fixed costs split between the two agencies. Of course, there is the difference in bathrooms, but the clearances should be similar as well as the power systems. It would do well for the manufacturer as well. If left separate, the NJT MLEMUs would be fully delivered and successfully running while SEPTA is still waiting for the prototype delivery from a subpar manufacturer and we are here on RR.net taking bets on which Silverliner IV will fail next.

And that is my opinion. Thanks for asking!

R3 Passenger wrote:

Clearfield wrote:The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

Thoughts?

I like the thought of multilevel coaches on SEPTA for the following reasons:

1. Not all cars platform at all stations already. Multi-level cars add more capacity without needing to sink more money into extending station platforms
2. More cars for more capacity runs into storage limitations. Yard space is not infinite. Purchasing land adjacent to the ROW for a new mid-day or weekend storage yard is expensive. The multi-levels will increase capacity without the need for additional yard space.
3. Adding additional PP multilevels and locos will allow MUs to be taken off of the longer express runs and reallocated to local trains. I can picture these PPs being used on expresses on the Thorndale, Wilmington, Trenton, West Trenton, and Doylestown lines.

I will not dispute that SEPTA needs more capacity right now, and that it needs to replace the current PP locomotives. However, I am reserved about expanding the PP fleet. As it is, the current fleet only does two runs per day. Why purchase more cars and locos to sit around in the yards during the day?

As for the NJ Transit Multilevel EMUs (MLEMU) order, SEPTA needs to wake up and see the synergy possible from a combined order with NJT. NJT's MU fleet is shrinking, but also has capacity issues (albeit track and tunnel capacity). Many cost savings could be had with the design and fixed costs split between the two agencies. Of course, there is the difference in bathrooms, but the clearances should be similar as well as the power systems. It would do well for the manufacturer as well. If left separate, the NJT MLEMUs would be fully delivered and successfully running while SEPTA is still waiting for the prototype delivery from a subpar manufacturer and we are here on RR.net taking bets on which Silverliner IV will fail next.

And that is my opinion. Thanks for asking!

The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

Clearfield wrote:The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

My only observations of ACS locomotives are at track speed through Croydon Station. I don't know enough about the specifications or have enough observations to present an argument about this. However, I am of the opinion that the even distribution of traction over the entire train via multiple smaller motors would be better for acceleration than one large traction motor revving up to get unmotored cars up to track speed, especially heavily loaded Multilevel coaches.

R3 Passenger wrote:

Clearfield wrote:The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

My only observations of ACS locomotives are at track speed through Croydon Station. I don't know enough about the specifications or have enough observations to present an argument about this. However, I am of the opinion that the even distribution of traction over the entire train via multiple smaller motors would be better for acceleration than one large traction motor revving up to get unmotored cars up to track speed, especially heavily loaded Multilevel coaches.

Well, if you're going purely by HP / car, an SLV has about 1500 horsepower on each car, while an ACS-64 puts out 6700 hp continuously, and has an option to put out 8600 hp for a controlled amount of time for acceleration purposes.

R3 Passenger wrote:

Clearfield wrote:According to Philly.com on 12/19/14, the SEPTA Board approved $4.3 million to refurbish 22 Regional Rail coaches, as part of a financial settlement with Hyundai-Rotem that was years late in delivering SEPTA's 120 new SLV's

This, along with SEPTA's public statements on procurement of new Push Pull locomotives shows a commitment by SEPTA to Push Pull service.
At the same time, NJT is trying to get a [multi]-level MU designed.

The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.

Thoughts?

I like the thought of multilevel coaches on SEPTA for the following reasons:

1. Not all cars platform at all stations already. Multi-level cars add more capacity without needing to sink more money into extending station platforms
2. More cars for more capacity runs into storage limitations. Yard space is not infinite. Purchasing land adjacent to the ROW for a new mid-day or weekend storage yard is expensive. The multi-levels will increase capacity without the need for additional yard space.
3. Adding additional PP multilevels and locos will allow MUs to be taken off of the longer express runs and reallocated to local trains. I can picture these PPs being used on expresses on the Thorndale, Wilmington, Trenton, West Trenton, and Doylestown lines.

I will not dispute that SEPTA needs more capacity right now, and that it needs to replace the current PP locomotives. However, I am reserved about expanding the PP fleet. As it is, the current fleet only does two runs per day. Why purchase more cars and locos to sit around in the yards during the day?

As for the NJ Transit Multilevel EMUs (MLEMU) order, SEPTA needs to wake up and see the synergy possible from a combined order with NJT. NJT's MU fleet is shrinking, but also has capacity issues (albeit track and tunnel capacity). Many cost savings could be had with the design and fixed costs split between the two agencies. Of course, there is the difference in bathrooms, but the clearances should be similar as well as the power systems. It would do well for the manufacturer as well. If left separate, the NJT MLEMUs would be fully delivered and successfully running while SEPTA is still waiting for the prototype delivery from a subpar manufacturer and we are here on RR.net taking bets on which Silverliner IV will fail next.

And that is my opinion. Thanks for asking!

I think SEPTA still wants to add them and mix them with local and express service. The express trips aren't the only crowded runs. I think they want a variety of MLV, and PP Coaches just to meet the requirements because im sure not every line will get Bi-Levels. This may also increase frequency on some lines with more available cars...but then again that is another issue with SEPTA Hiring more conductors and engineers.

SEPTA better team up with NJTRANSIT....when i was at the budget meeting earlier this year the manager in charge of the purchase of rail cars said they expect another 5-7 years out of the silverliner 4's ...it makes sense for them to get the process rolling shortly which seems to meet a time frame with the latest bid announcements. So we shall see. And besides SEPTA/NJTRANSIT are pretty much close in aspects with the rail car specifications and tunnel heights etc. And besides if they can split cost how ever that works with going on a order with another agency , if that saves money SEPTA better get on it. Maybe they can exchange cars at times lol j/k.

Admin note:

Duplicate post deleted.

Clearfield wrote: The ACS locomotives may make local service using push pull equipment more practical given SEPTA's close station spacing.
Thoughts?[/size]

I don't know...let's see what the rest of the world is doing...oh look...MU's all the way even for long distance service. NJT it not a role model.

BTW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount, an assembly facility built in Philadelphia and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

That's the SEPTA I know and love and why I'm disappointed with the tender for new electric locomotives with an eye towards an established vendor that will charge full price and not trigger any contract penalties. A better solution would to stage some slip and fall on a New Year's NJT train and accept the ALP-44Ms in settlement. Seriously, they aren't doing NJT any good, SEPTA could get them for a steal (or just steal them!).

Maybe you can attend the Capital Budget meeting (open to the public)

http://www.septa.org/notice/capital.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and present your case to SEPTA's decision makers, the public, the board of directors, and public officials on why SEPTA should buy used locomotives to haul their lucrative express trains.

SEPTA has two budgets, operating and capital (not to be confused with capitol). Each budget has different purposes with different rules. New vehicles purchased come from the capital and the cost of using them is from the operating. SEPTA's biggest problem has been its operating budget. Yes, the capital has suffered as they could not even provide their share, but it's the operating budget, the one most affected by regular dedicated funding streams, something SEPTA has never enjoyed. Even with the new funding bill having everyone jumping for joy, it is just another infusion not a dedicated long term funding cure SEPTA needs. Isome issues with the operating budget has/had resulted in:

One employee is paid for the price of two because it's cheaper then paying two enployees with benefits. Crew Fatigue and service cancelations are still frequent because of this.

Deferred maintenance on the infrastructure resulting in a capital backlog

Deficiencies in the operating budget is what delevoped the doomsday plan.

Has halted any rail expansion. It's not all about the cost to expand, but the cost to maintain that keeps SEPTA balking. The Feds, state, or a drunk lottery winner could give SEPTA $500 million to expand a rail line. Unless the package includes a way to pay for operating that service every year, it won't happen.

So, why in the heck would SEPTA grab NJT's ALP fleet? Even if they got them for free, the work those things need to run, and stay running, would stress out the operating budget making those things hangar queens. That's not even considering those thing are tied up in red tape.

Jersey_Mike wrote:BTW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount, an assembly facility built in Philadelphia and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

Royalties?

Jersey_Mike wrote:TW I just noticed that Denver's RTD paid $300 million for 66 Silverliner V cars while SEPTA paid $274 for 120. Yeah it was 10 years ago, but there's been very little inflation since then. I have to give SEPTA a lot of credit for betting on a firm hungry to break into the US market. This got them a 40% discount,

No they didn't, SEPTA got them at pretty much fair market value. The price of an EMU in the states averages around $2.5 million. If Denver paid $4.5 million per car, that is just plain nuts. The new MTA M9's will cost about $2.7 million (The M8's were about the same as the SV costs) and that includes a huge development/engineering costs. Even the costs of scale, 120 vs 66 does not make up for such a huge markup per car. I really do not know what Denver paid for the cars, but I would assume that if the $300 million is a correct number, then it might have included a lot more then just the cars - maybe $165 million for the cars and $135 million for support /packages etc - again, still a very high number for 66 vehicle program; even built from scratch. Either way, even though it is essentially the same car, I wouldn't say SEPTA negotiated the deal of the century because one agency overpaid way over market value.

Jersey_Mike wrote:and FREE refurbishment of 22 push-pull coaches.

Nothings free. Considering the liquid damages that cost SEPTA and its riders from the delivery delays, Rotem got off easy. If you consider the whole SV program as why you love SEPTA (especially in relation to other agencies equipment acquisition programs, except maybe Denver now), you really explained a lot about yourself.

I believe Rotem will also have a on-site trailer to contract mechanical services and consulting for the first 5 years of Denver RTD's MU operations since this is a ground-floor operation and their mechanics need time to work alongside qualified people who understand the complex mechanical and computer systems on the SL-V's. They have to teach how to troubleshoot mechanical & computer issues, conduct daily, 90 day, and 3 year FRA inspections. It's a lot to learn, and it's not something you can pickup as you go.

Parts supply is another cost consideration in the package price like Sarge said.

Wheels, pantographs, coupler heads, windows, HVAC units......all have to be kept in a supply warehouse somewhere.