SEPTA Proposed Capital Budget Plan "Catching Up"

CComMack wrote:....
1) Bombardier Multilevels (as currently operated by NJT and AMT) have the clearance to operate on any point in the system; early speculation should probably focus here. The MLV is a proven design at this point, despite its NJT Science Experiment origins; MARC just took an order that is technically an option on NJT's most recent contract. SEPTA might be looking to use the remaining 25 unexercised option orders to spin up new car production very quickly.

2) Runs currently operated by the push-pull fleet may be seeing more growth than SEPTA is willing to handle, either with the existing fleet overhauled, or with EMUs. Those express runs have the distinct advantage of being very fast door-to-door, and timed for peak demand timeslots. With platform lengths putting the kibosh on trains longer than 7 cars, the 20% seat capacity boost may be just what the doctor ordered.

2.5) Might SEPTA be expanding the role of the push-pull fleet as peak hour express/surge capacity? If the Reading-side electrical system is getting overhauled as advertised, we could see more push-pull capacity on the Doylestown and West Trenton lines.

3) Has SEPTA found a problem with the bombers that will limit their lifespan, even with overhaul? Maybe the benefit to refurbing the bombers is sufficiently limited that it's more cost-effective to buy new.

4) The NJT option order still represents far fewer seats that currently exist in the p/p fleet. Will SEPTA be leveraging that into a base order of its own? There's really no sense in having more than one type of p/p equipment out there.

5) Maybe the above points are all backwards; instead of a fast startup with NJT's option from Bombardier, maybe SEPTA is looking to slow-walk this contract until after the FRA changes the crash safety standard from buff strength to crash energy management, which is expected in 2015. If true, a multilevel (from Bombardier or another supplier) that was significantly lighter than the current FRA-compatible MLV would be a significant win for SEPTA, and certainly a compelling reason to abort the bomber overhaul program and sell the cars to a startup line on a shoestring budget, or for scrap.

these are all excellent points. while platform lengths are not fixed and can be extended it would make sense to first maximize the seats at existing platform lengths. indeed bilevels make sense for "large trains" such as the flyer and perhaps SEPTA has had enough success with the recent introduction of the second flyer that they want to expand the option dramatically. certainly these expresses make a huge difference for people further out along the line. I suspect SEPTA is also interested in renewing its fleet now that it has money.

Suburban Station wrote:indeed bilevels make sense for "large trains" such as the flyer and perhaps SEPTA has had enough success with the recent introduction of the second flyer that they want to expand the option dramatically. certainly these expresses make a huge difference for people further out along the line. I suspect SEPTA is also interested in renewing its fleet now that it has money.

The question is - how many of those trains are there? AFAIK, not many, and does it really make sense to buy an asset that's going to sit unused most of the time outside rush hours?

Also, very few systems like SEPTA's are push pull, and the only one I know of (Zurich), is retiring theirs - and they also run a loco per three cars.

That's not to say a bilevel MU wouldn't be a bad idea, though SEPTA should ideally pick a platform height first. If Tier III is what folks are saying it is - there's no reason Stadler or Siemens couldn't rework their excellent bilevels to be high platform and slightly more powerful (which is easy - the main transformer is the limiting issue and even going to 25hz from 16 2/3rd helps out immensely in that department).

Why not purchased more SV's? Rotem is still tooled up to make the car (for Denver.) That way they could get rid of the push pull fleet and just standardize on two types of mu's.

Won't their be an opportunity now to buy much cheaper, light weight, European EMUs? Why not wait until that is possible before placing any new orders?

FRN9 wrote:Won't their be an opportunity now to buy much cheaper, light weight, European EMUs? Why not wait until that is possible before placing any new orders?

Lightweight European EMU's rarely meet FRA crashworthiness standards, AND, 'Buy America' statutes prohibit the purchase of non-US manufactured (or at least assembled) rolling stock.

Clearfield wrote:

FRN9 wrote:Won't their be an opportunity now to buy much cheaper, light weight, European EMUs? Why not wait until that is possible before placing any new orders?

Lightweight European EMU's rarely meet FRA crashworthiness standards, AND, 'Buy America' statutes prohibit the purchase of non-US manufactured (or at least assembled) rolling stock.

FRA's crashworthiness definition is changing to include a lot of off-the-shelf EU designs. From Next City:

http://nextcity.org/theworks/entry/modern-european-train-designs-american-tracks-2015-fra wrote:“It’ll take a while to get the [new] regulations in place,” said Robert Lauby, associate administrator for railroad safety and chief safety officer at the FRA. The new rules have already been drafted and now await approval from various federal agencies, followed by a period of public review. Many in the industry don’t expect significant revisions to what the FRA’s safety committee has already drafted, and Lauby suggested that the new rules should clear the final hurdles sometime in 2015.

As for 'Buy America', that shouldn't be an issue, as Stadler, Siemens, Alstom, and Talgo all have US assembly plants already. That's most of the major players, other than AnsaldoBreda which can stay home after turning in lemons to both MBTA and Nederlands Spoorwegen.

I wouldn't want a hideous design. With doors in the middle. I think doors at both ends would be the way to go. I could see multi levels flying down the Trenton Line by 95..and on the Wilmington Line by the Delaware Bay so snazzy. I really hope that SEPTA goes through with it. When ridership increases then they will have the room to fill it.

sammy2009 wrote:I wouldn't want a hideous design. With doors in the middle. I think doors at both ends would be the way to go. I could see multi levels flying down the Trenton Line by 95..and on the Wilmington Line by the Delaware Bay so snazzy. I really hope that SEPTA goes through with it. When ridership increases then they will have the room to fill it.

I doubt part of the bid process includes looking snazzy while going by the scenery.

Maybe they could use bi-levels on the PRR side and keep the overhauled bombers on the Reading side.

SEPTA2461 wrote:Maybe they could use bi-levels on the PRR side and keep the overhauled bombers on the Reading side.

Reasoning?

scotty269 wrote:

SEPTA2461 wrote:Maybe they could use bi-levels on the PRR side and keep the overhauled bombers on the Reading side.

Reasoning?

Because Bi-Levels might weigh down the wooden ties.

Huh?

SEPTA2461 wrote:

scotty269 wrote:

SEPTA2461 wrote:Maybe they could use bi-levels on the PRR side and keep the overhauled bombers on the Reading side.

Reasoning?

Because Bi-Levels might weigh down the wooden ties.

HUH?

Go and look at what ties lie beneath some of the heaviest freight loads not only in SE PA but the whole of North America and much of the world, and tell me wood ties are a limiting factor against running much lighter bi-level passenger coaches.

Well what would result in a lighter multi-level ?. It sounds impossible but I don't know Since we are on the matter of ties does anyone know if all of NJTRANSITS tracks are all concrete ties ? I know the NEC is ...they have ML's all over the system. But if weight is a issue a horrible scenario would be too much weight would break the ties ?