R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:36 pmThat would suggest the M-8 as a off-the shelf choice. Kawasaki is known for reliability and durabilityThe M-8 is a great railcar, but it is a bespoke solution for GCT access from lines electrified with overhead catenary, and that's it. No 25hz, no low-level boarding, it's a bespoke solution for one particular line and it's branches, and has no place outside of that particular service (or the Hudson Line if electrification were extended using overhead AC power).
and would have made full circle here, originally breaking into the North American market with the
1981 City and Interurban cars.
A generic EMU design for the NEC should be devised that would be shared with NJT/CDOT NYP, MBTA, and SEPTA that offers 25hz and low level boarding without all the extra weight and complexity brought on by having third rail equipment.
Head-end View wrote: ↑Tue Aug 31, 2021 6:48 pmI may have missed something here. Why are multi-level EMU's bad for SEPTA's infrastructure?MLs that can access high level platforms and clear the North River Tunnels are a highly compromised design that should be a last resort if all other capacity is already used up. Bilevels out west make a lot more sense, as you get in on a low level platform at the lower level height, and there is enough height on both levels for them not to be cramped. I can't really think of a good use case on the NEC for MLs other than NJT, since they are capacity constrained through the North River Tunnels, and also for CDOT if they ever get their act together with through-running the NYP service so as to be able to through-run peak slots with NJT.