Future of Septa Regional Rail Fleet

CNJGeep wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:31 am Please let that one be next. Every westbound trip with Vs there's a door hang up, same as Claymont. When the dynamics fail on the GEs (which is virtually every trip in this heat) and the engineer misses the step up, getting the passengers on on the #1 track side is a disaster. All they need to do is take the west end of the platform and move it three cars east off the curve.

Rosemont too, while we're at it.

We should move all stations that are at curves and move it to a straight when possible.
Also level platforms would be important high or low that way a train doesn't need to stop at steps

In the case of Rosemont, you should just close the station if that is the plan. Moving it off the curve probably puts it too close to Bryn Mawr or Villanova. I am not suggesting closing it (Rosemont was my first station).

I think the catchment of Rosemont, cannot easily be absorbed into the university area around Villanova. Luckily, it would only have to move hundreds of feet for a HLP. That still wouldn't affect any new interlocking plans of VILLA or NOVA, if that is still in the winds.

Would having high-level platforms eliminate conductor shortages? Right now it seems like that is the biggest problem as a rider. It is taking twice as long to board at low-level platforms where you are boarding a 5 car push pull train through one set of doors.

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:13 am Would having high-level platforms eliminate conductor shortages? Right now it seems like that is the biggest problem as a rider. It is taking twice as long to board at low-level platforms where you are boarding a 5 car push pull train through one set of doors.

The conductor shortages stem from the SLIVs not having independent door controls. The doors can't legally close unless the trap is down, and you can't pick and choose which doors to open like you can on the SLVs. FRA waiver ended a few years back, so now every SLIV train has hampered by this.

Low-level ADA compliant trains would not suffer from this issue. High levels make sense at the highest ridership stations on the line, but their expense is not justified for lower-ridership stations. Something like $1.9B of SEPTA's $4B maintenance backlog is ADA compliance (all high levels).

Platforms should be standardized on high-level if possible. Is there anywhere where it's not practical to build high-level platforms due to freight traffic?

CNJGeep wrote: ↑Tue Jun 28, 2022 8:36 am

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:49 pm

rcthompson04 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 27, 2022 12:48 pm I like the 30 minute all day service with 15 minute on select lines all day and 15 minutes during peak periods.

RCT - Right now SEPTA ridership as it stands does NOT support an increase more than hourly service
off peak - along with the numbers of current T&E crew members - in particular Engineers - needed to provide
RRD service...Initially getting half hourly service back to the Paoli and Lansdale routes would be a start...

S5-What SEPTA would need at this point is a Silverliner Five-type car with both high and low level platform
capabilities - and at least 125 of these cars - preferably more - to make an attempt to totally replace the S4
cars - which are nearing 50 years in service (1974-1975-1976 build dates) thanks to their being overhauled
back around the year 2000 with new interiors as example...It may take years - and millions of dollars - for
high-level platforms to be constructed at EVERY RRD station...

1) SEPTA ran a pre-pandemic schedule with 168 engineers. The roster is hovering just under 200 now.
2) The overhaul on the Silverliner IV cars was effectively new seats and that's about it. Unlike the Arrow III cars, NO type of mechanical overhaul or improvement was made. All the mechanical components, the electrical equipment, everything inside those cars is effectively the same stuff it rolled out of the factory with. The only new mechanical features on those cars is the PTC. If you sit in the nook in the middle there are two cabinets in front of you filled with 1970s relay equipment.

CNJ - Thanks for the reply...
1-Good to know that SEPTA has enough engineers with there being about 200 - I was not aware that 168
was the number of engineers needed to provide the RRD schedules prior to when "The Problem" began
back in March 2020...Are there any plans to hire more engineers for future RRD service increases?

2-I was NOT aware that the work on the Silverliner Four cars was basically no more than "cosmetic" type...
The interiors and the outside red blending into blue color scheme decals was the only significant changes...
The Silverliner Four fleet lasting as long as it has is kudos to GE as the carbuilder and SEPTA's shop forces
that have maintained them at the various shop facilities since 1983 - 40 years at the end of 2022...

Yes-I am aware that the center vestibule walls contained relays and other electrical equipment in the 4's.
The noticeable interior change in that center "door" area was the replacement of the four facing seats in
that area - which had the back portion on the wall vertically along with the narrow legroom between the
two sets of seats - with a single two seat on each side...I would sometimes seek out that space carrying
luggage or other items on board when necessary...

ET - As far as I know there are only three track segments that have some regular freight traffic on RRD:
South of Lansdale towards the Wayne Junction area on the former RDG trunk line (Bethlehem Branch)
Through Norristown - DeKalb Street - and Main Street (coming off of the Stony Creek Branch)...
Warminster Branch (to sometimes connect with the New Hope and Ivyland Railroad)
CSX has been "separated" from SEPTA RRD on the Fox Chase and West Trenton Lines...

Everyone - Wynnewood (westbound), Rosemont and Claymont are all stations that would require
platforms to be shifted to as straight an area as possible - is six cars going to be the maximum for
new high-level platform construction? I am aware of the upcoming DelDot move of Claymont
Station to a new facility near the PA-DE state line solving that one curve problem...

S5 - I was NOT aware that there were TWO "Ryans" involved in this topic of conversation...
The Japanese MU car design that I like the best is the car type on the bottom of the photos...
The brown color - not so much...A stainless steel version of this car type would be interesting...
Two sets of doors on each side at the quarter points should be sufficient for RRD use...

May the SEPTA RRD future car fleet discussion continue...MACTRAXX

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 5:24 pm Platforms should be standardized on high-level if possible. Is there anywhere where it's not practical to build high-level platforms due to freight traffic?

In addition to the stations mentioned above, NS freight trains normally use the outside tracks (1 and 4) on the Corridor south of Philadelphia, passing through all stations from Darby to Claymont. I think Amtrak would have to concur before they could use 2 and 3. (The freights normally move at night, but Amtrak may not want them on the higher-speed tracks even then on a regular basis.)

The Hankyu 1000 Series would be fit Septa cause I literally had a dream where septa bought these units but with slight differences from the Japan version but keep in mind there are two versions Hankyu 1000 series (62 ft 4 inch) is slightly longer than the 1300 series (62 ft 0 inch) but here are interiors of 1000 and 1300 series MU cars. But it is possible to make them have 2 doors on each side like their older units Hankyu 2800 and 6000 series MU cars. Now for the driver's cabin I think septa should have that door for it so the engineers can have their own room inside the car and view from the windows out when passengers are leaving or entering the train. Now I was kinda worried about the pantograph since the wires on septa and NEC are high but it's gonna be possible they'll figure it out since catenary wires are short in Japan versus the US.

The car bodies for both 1000 and 1300 series are Aluminium alloy, and double-skin so I'm guessing the Silverliner scheme can be put on there

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:49 pm The Silverliner Four fleet lasting as long as it has is kudos to GE as the carbuilder and SEPTA's
shop forces that have maintained them at the various shop facilities since 1983 .

By now, also the oldest Canadian built passenger equipment still running in the states - recall the shells by
Canadian Vickers/AVCO (under Budd license), with GE doing assembly in Erie. BBD had yet to break into
the U.S. market (the second series IC Highliners in 1978).

MACTRAXX wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:49 pm Everyone - Wynnewood (westbound), Rosemont and Claymont are all stations that would require
platforms to be shifted to as straight an area as possible - is six cars going to be the maximum for
new high-level platform construction? I am aware of the upcoming DelDot move of Claymont
Station to a new facility near the PA-DE state line solving that one curve problem...

Well the construction for the new Claymont station has already begun.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:21 amIn addition to the stations mentioned above, NS freight trains normally use the outside tracks (1 and 4) on the Corridor south of Philadelphia, passing through all stations from Darby to Claymont. I think Amtrak would have to concur before they could use 2 and 3. (The freights normally move at night, but Amtrak may not want them on the higher-speed tracks even then on a regular basis.)

I'm thinking that the only real issues are a few stations on the Norristown and West Trenton Lines that have heavy freight. Freight can technically clear high-level platforms, and that's Amtrak territory with a little bit of freight, so I'd think that they'd be OK with high-level platforms there. I can see why they would want them off of the higher-speed tracks, as they'd put more wear and tear on them.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 6:42 pm

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 01, 2022 1:21 amIn addition to the stations mentioned above, NS freight trains normally use the outside tracks (1 and 4) on the Corridor south of Philadelphia, passing through all stations from Darby to Claymont. I think Amtrak would have to concur before they could use 2 and 3. (The freights normally move at night, but Amtrak may not want them on the higher-speed tracks even then on a regular basis.)

I'm thinking that the only real issues are a few stations on the Norristown and West Trenton Lines that have heavy freight. Freight can technically clear high-level platforms, and that's Amtrak territory with a little bit of freight, so I'd think that they'd be OK with high-level platforms there. I can see why they would want them off of the higher-speed tracks, as they'd put more wear and tear on them.

Only Plate C can clear high levels; no high and wides.

Norristown platform is being separated from the freight moves in the coming years. West Trenton already has.
The only SEPTA stations that see freight otherwise are stations along PNER trackage rights.

mcgrath618 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 6:54 pmOnly Plate C can clear high levels; no high and wides.

Norristown platform is being separated from the freight moves in the coming years. West Trenton already has.
The only SEPTA stations that see freight otherwise are stations along PNER trackage rights.

Interesting. Up here, we have platform edges that can be flipped down, but it's a manual process at each station, so it's cumbersome enough that AFAIK, it's never been used in the 20 years that we've had high-level platforms and electrification.