SEPTA Expression of Interest Silverliner VI procurement

So...any actual news on the Silverliner VI procurement?

Rode a 5 pack of light bulbs into Center City this morning and they are looking a bit dim.

RandallW wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 6:28 amYou seriously think European transit systems don't put out RFPs with specifications and see which bidders provide the best technical offering, and sometimes get specifications so highly specific that only one bidder could possibly qualify, or that custom equipment isn't required? It happens all the time.

Cool. You can find an example of a somewhat modified but mostly standard design in Europe. Yet in North America, at least amongst the legacy operators in the Northeast, that's almost the ONLY way that they buy equipment, with a few exceptions here and there, usually involving one agency buying the weird, bespoke creation of another, like the Denver RTD buying Stupidliners, or MARC buying NJT's MLs.

Have you not noticed the wide variety in (for example) different designs among European operators and incompatible variants of a single design (like different boarding heights between different variants of the Bombardier Talent DMU) and the wide ranging incompatibility between those designs (note the inability to pool the DBAG class 642 and class 643 cars intended to be operated together)?

They still have a handful of standardized designs. Like we were need here to cover the 5-7 different physical and electrical envelopes that US commuter railroads operate in.

If you look at the wide variety of "common" GE locomotive designs used by the Class I railroads that can be theoretically run together, you'll notice that, due to local operating characteristics, a number of routes require much smaller pools, or a specific pool of locomotives that must be the leading locomotive, due to not every route being operationally identical.

You're comparing apples and oranges here. The freight railroads do have some small pools of locomotives with bespoke electronics installed on them for various cab signal/PTC implementations like ITCS and ACSES II. However, that is a tiny minority of the US freight rail fleet, and like you even said, you can tie a leader on with the required signaling equipment that controls other units that lack such equipment. Even then, the actual locomotives are identical but for the electronics installed in them.

This is no different than the situation that a common single level EMU design for SEPTA, NJT, RTD, South Shore Line, and the MTA New Haven line still would result in equipment incompatibilities between those operators -- only MTA needs 3rd rail power,

If you actually read my post, you'd see that 3rd rail EMUs are in their own two categories. They have to be due to the physical and electrical operating envelope.

only the South Shore Line and MTA need DC pickups, MTA has unique weight limits, RTD and South Shore Line have no value in maintaining 25 Hz electrical equipment on their equipment, RTD and MTA don't need to maintain low-level boarding capabilities, only MTA needs front/rear emergency egress (all other operators can rely on always being able to safely exit from one or the other the side), there may be signaling system and PTC incompatibilities I don't know about, such that unless you burden every operator with significantly higher O&M burdens than they would have if you didn't allow incompatibles between equipment with that common design, as no operator wants to maintain electrical, mechanical, or safety equipment--with it's attendant O&M burdens and operational complexity--that is not necessary for that operator.

You're just hurling spaghetti at the wall because you for whatever irrational reason just don't like the idea of common equipment. You could probably build a South Shore variant with mostly common equipment that's configured for DC, although they use 1500VDC, so it would be a bespoke power system, and there's really no way around that.

Let's debunk the rest of the spaghetti.
Low-level boarding- who cares. Trains with traps work fine on high-level platforms.
MTA- front/rear egress- Make all 3rd rail cars including LIRR have it.
Signaling system and PTC- Build them with both I-ETMS and ACSES II. Problem solved.

And that's actually all of it. You're missing the forest for the trees, in that common designs would save money and make procurement easier, which would far outweigh whatever minimal cost there is in having low-level boarding capabilities in RTD cars or whatever unneeded features come along for the ride.

Maybe another example of a pool that adheres to minimal standards, with a wide variety of designs, is the Intermodal pool -- there are cars optimized for maximizing the number of ocean going ISO containers per length of track (the 5 unit 40' wells can carry up to 10 40' containers, or 10 20' + 5 40'/45' containers depending on the weight of the container), but can't carry a domestic 53' container, but cars capable of carrying 53' containers only get 6 53' containers in about the same length of trackage; there are cars that can carry 2 heavy containers that can't be carried by any of the multi-well cars, but take way more trackage per container than any multi-well car, as well as container cars that can carry containers on chassis or trailers. So yeah, there's standardization and equipment pooling by Class Is, but even in those equipment pools, equipment isn't necessarily fully interchangeable and equivalent.

Cool. The intermodal market years ago standardized on 40' international and 53' domestic and has mostly eliminated everything in-between. So basically they have two sets of well cars, plus COFC cars that can also be used for TOFC.

Not only are those statements are completely contradictory, the second statement is a statement that North American operators shouldn't enjoy the competitive cost advantages that other countries enjoy in their rolling stock markets.

That's just non-logic. Of course if every operator wants their own bizarro, bespoke nightmare of an equipment design it's going to drive costs through the roof.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Fri Oct 11, 2024 9:29 pm

This is no different than the situation that a common single level EMU design for SEPTA, NJT, RTD, South Shore Line, and the MTA New Haven line still would result in equipment incompatibilities between those operators -- only MTA needs 3rd rail power,

If you actually read my post, you'd see that 3rd rail EMUs are in their own two categories. They have to be due to the physical and electrical operating envelope.

I lumped in the M8 fleet both because others had suggested using it as the basis for SEPTA's next order in this discussion, and because the M8 is the most common overhead catenary powered EMU design in North America (there are more than double the number of M8s built than the next most common design). That decision of mine should not in any way be taken as a suggestion I didn't read your post.

The Bombardier bi-level design (#8 in your list of standards) was a bespoke design for one operator (GO Transit) and just happened to be adopted as a de facto standard when GO Transit began selling used varieties to other operators, but now Hyundai Rotem also catalogs cars fitting that design envelope. Hyundai Rotem didn't catalog a similar design because some federal authority decided there must be standard designs, but because an operator (Metrolink) wanted a change in the Bombardier design (I think a better protected driver's position among other changes desired after some hi profile crashes), and both Bombardier and Hyundai Rotem offered designs that fit that criteria while being compatible with the existing fleet and Hyundai Rotem just happened to offer a better deal than Bombardier.

That example shows that had prescribed standards for commuter passenger car designs previously existed that didn't consider how that car would be designed would have prevented that design from ever being built and cataloged. The same is true for every European "standard" design you mention -- every one of those catalog designs is freely created by its manufacturer as that manufacturer chooses, and none of those designs are prescribed standards, and the existence of those cataloged designs does not prevent European operators from specifying entirely new designs.

The only difference between the US and European markets is the size of those markets (in terms of total numbers of vehicles produced annually, number of vendors actively producing vehicles, and number of customers purchasing vehicles). There isn't a difference in how designs in those two markets are adhering to standards.

De-facto standards, as long as multiple vendors offer products that meet them, are okay as they can foster competition which lowers prices but prescriptive standards absent a real safety or interoperability concern are not as those standards inhibit innovation and create non-competitive environments.

(In my industry, which is heavily regulated by a single US Government agency, there are a number of proposed standards, which are based on a vendor demonstrating a new capability or significantly better way of performing an existing task, and will only become standards once multiple vendors demonstrate that same capability because using one of these proposed standards as a contractual requirement by a government purchasing activity would be considered anti-competitive.)

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 6:24 amI lumped in the M8 fleet both because others had suggested using it as the basis for SEPTA's next order in this discussion, and because the M8 is the most common overhead catenary powered EMU design in North America (there are more than double the number of M8s built than the next most common design). That decision of mine should not in any way be taken as a suggestion I didn't read your post.

You are arguing against my concept of standardized designs by using an argument which doesn't apply to the types of standardized equipment that I proposed because I don't have equipment outside of the NYC metro area carrying third rail equipment that the don't need. I am also aware that LIRR can't use M-8 style cars even if they could somehow handle 25hz because of the clearances into GCM. Basically GCT and GCM create two highly bespoke fleets of EMUs, which quite frankly is fine, as each fleet is larger than several other entire agencies combined.

The Bombardier bi-level design (#8 in your list of standards) was a bespoke design for one operator (GO Transit) and just happened to be adopted as a de facto standard when GO Transit began selling used varieties to other operators, but now Hyundai Rotem also catalogs cars fitting that design envelope. Hyundai Rotem didn't catalog a similar design because some federal authority decided there must be standard designs, but because an operator (Metrolink) wanted a change in the Bombardier design (I think a better protected driver's position among other changes desired after some hi profile crashes), and both Bombardier and Hyundai Rotem offered designs that fit that criteria while being compatible with the existing fleet and Hyundai Rotem just happened to offer a better deal than Bombardier.

I was referring to the "classic" Bombardier cars, not the ones with the sloped cabs, but those were adopted largely due to high-profile crashes. You're thus not arguing against a standardized design, but rather for a slightly different method of adopting standardized designs.

That example shows that had prescribed standards for commuter passenger car designs previously existed that didn't consider how that car would be designed would have prevented that design from ever being built and cataloged. The same is true for every European "standard" design you mention -- every one of those catalog designs is freely created by its manufacturer as that manufacturer chooses, and none of those designs are prescribed standards, and the existence of those cataloged designs does not prevent European operators from specifying entirely new designs.

Then how do you get agencies to order standard stuff from standard manufacturers instead of buying all this weird, bespoke stuff? You could specify a certain combination of capabilities to match a certain clearance envelope and then let manufacturers go from there, so that at least there would be more cross-sale capabilities, but you may still get agencies doing weird stuff a la LIRR.

The only difference between the US and European markets is the size of those markets (in terms of total numbers of vehicles produced annually, number of vendors actively producing vehicles, and number of customers purchasing vehicles). There isn't a difference in how designs in those two markets are adhering to standards.

There is a huge difference. The European railroads don't do a lot of the weird, bespoke stuff that US agencies seem to insist on doing. You could put all the interested agencies for each vehicle type in a room and make them agree on a design, but as was noted earlier in the thread, this could bog things down to the point of total dysfunction. I don't know how a process would decide a "lead" railroad to design each type of car, with specific technical requirements from other railroads baked into the process (i.e. taller double decker cars would be 125MPH capable for MARC).

Logically, you would have something like the following, considering that there are a few railroads like LIRR and SEPTA that can't be trusted with equipment designs:
1. MNRR - Third rail EMUs for MNRR and LIRR.
2. MNRR - Third rail and overhead EMUs for MNRR.
3. NJT - Overhead AC EMUs with low-level boarding and 25hz.
4. NJT - Single-level coaches.
5. NJT - ML coaches that clear North River Tunnels.
6. MBTA - MBTA/MARC Bilevel coach (15'6").
7. Metra - Gallery coaches.
8. Metrolink - Low-level Bi-level coaches (15'11").

De-facto standards, as long as multiple vendors offer products that meet them, are okay as they can foster competition which lowers prices but prescriptive standards absent a real safety or interoperability concern are not as those standards inhibit innovation and create non-competitive environments.

Yet the current system of bespoke RFPs haven't achieved this. Some of the most egregious examples are LIRR's C3 cars that don't clear the North River Tunnels, the Stupidliners that don't have toilets, and LIRR using slightly different M-7s than MNRR. There are other examples of different orders of two perfectly decent products, just in a relatively inefficient way, like double-decker coaches for MBTA and MARC.

Another thing to consider is that there needs to be a LOT more electrification along with different types of equipment. Except for a few very specific applications, lines should either be electrified, or if they are lower volume than would warrant electrification, run by DMU/HMU cars. So there would need to be a standardized DMU and HMU design, maybe something that could also be configured as a BEMU for the applications where that would work.

In practical terms, this means that there would be limited demand for double-decker tallish coaches, as MARC and MBTA could replace most of those with single level EMUs except for maybe the Old Colony Lines due to their layout and train capacity constraints. On NJT, where peak of peak rush trains need the capacity of the MLs, those should have one locomotive per 6 cars to maintain the proper HP/ton ratio, but the rest of their operations should be EMU, with maybe some DMU or HMU operations at the end of branch lines. Electrifying out to Oyster Bay, Port Jeff, and Patchogue means that only the East End is left, and that could be handled by DMU/HMU sets with a few loco-hauled diesel trains for the Cannonballs to operate out of LIC. That should be a metro NY shared fleet for special train and emergency use using NJT ML cars, since they can go anywhere and do anything. Based out of North Jersey, they could quickly deadhead up the NEC if they are needed in LI or CT. MN and CDOT likely shouldn't need coaches at all, everything could be EMUs or DMU/HMU sets for the oddball low-density lines like Wassaic and Waterbury.

(In my industry, which is heavily regulated by a single US Government agency, there are a number of proposed standards, which are based on a vendor demonstrating a new capability or significantly better way of performing an existing task, and will only become standards once multiple vendors demonstrate that same capability because using one of these proposed standards as a contractual requirement by a government purchasing activity would be considered anti-competitive.)

Manufacturing a relatively standardized railroad car shouldn't be that hard, and if it's economically viable, there well could be multiple vendors for each type of car.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 7:22 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2024 6:24 amThe Bombardier bi-level design (#8 in your list of standards) was a bespoke design for one operator (GO Transit) and just happened to be adopted as a de facto standard when GO Transit began selling used varieties to other operators, but now Hyundai Rotem also catalogs cars fitting that design envelope. Hyundai Rotem didn't catalog a similar design because some federal authority decided there must be standard designs, but because an operator (Metrolink) wanted a change in the Bombardier design (I think a better protected driver's position among other changes desired after some hi profile crashes), and both Bombardier and Hyundai Rotem offered designs that fit that criteria while being compatible with the existing fleet and Hyundai Rotem just happened to offer a better deal than Bombardier.

I was referring to the "classic" Bombardier cars, not the ones with the sloped cabs, but those were adopted largely due to high-profile crashes. You're thus not arguing against a standardized design, but rather for a slightly different method of adopting standardized designs.

So was I. The "classic" Bombardier car was a bespoke design developed for GO transit by Hawker Sidlley Canada. To quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

GO Transit's rolling stock uses push-pull equipment. Its passenger car fleet is composed entirely of Bombardier BiLevel Coaches built in Thunder Bay, Ontario. These double-decker coaches, which have an elongated-octagon shape, were designed in the mid-1970s for GO Transit by Hawker Siddeley Canada as a more efficient replacement for GO's original single-deck coaches, built by the same company.

You keep claiming that the Bombardier bi-level design is a standard design, but it isn't -- it's a design that GO Transit commissioned and other operators choose to adopt despite having the choice of also adopting other existing or proposed designs. (Notably GO Transit leased CNW and CP Gallery cars before rejecting that design as unfit for GO Transit's needs.)

My point is threefold:

• designs and vehicle envelopes in common use today are not in use because standards were in place to ensure those designs were adopted but because car builders and railroads attempted to solve perceived problems in then existing designs
• if you had created prescriptive standards for commuter coaches in 1970, you wouldn't have the most common commuter coach design in use in North America today, because you would have prevented GO Transit from considering it, so demonstrably prescriptive standards would have prevented an innovative and ultimately dominant design from being adopted
• just because you think MTA and SEPTA are poorly run (at best) organizations and will purchase more expensive or more specialized equipment than you would like to see absent prescriptive controls on what they purchase forced upon them by some external agency, likely from a government agency that has no stake in the success of either railroad, doesn't mean other organizations should have your desires for centralized planning and design bureaus forced down their throats in the name of making some other organization conform to your desires

Let SEPTA order the equipment SEPTA wants how SEPTA wants and stop demanding that they order equipment that is designed from the start to meet potential requirements of other operators. They may wind up selecting a design that proves to be easily adaptable to every other operators needs, or they may not. Under your prescription neither they, nor any other operator, would be given the chance to develop what turns out to be a significant design.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 7:02 amSo was I. The "classic" Bombardier car was a bespoke design developed for GO transit by Hawker Sidlley Canada. To quote Wikipedia (emphasis mine):

GO Transit's rolling stock uses push-pull equipment. Its passenger car fleet is composed entirely of Bombardier BiLevel Coaches built in Thunder Bay, Ontario. These double-decker coaches, which have an elongated-octagon shape, were designed in the mid-1970s for GO Transit by Hawker Siddeley Canada as a more efficient replacement for GO's original single-deck coaches, built by the same company.

You keep claiming that the Bombardier bi-level design is a standard design, but it isn't -- it's a design that GO Transit commissioned and other operators choose to adopt despite having the choice of also adopting other existing or proposed designs. (Notably GO Transit leased CNW and CP Gallery cars before rejecting that design as unfit for GO Transit's needs.)

But it has since become a standard design that's used on agencies all over North America outside of the Northeast Corridor due to needing lower clearances and high-level boarding. The reality here is that smaller agencies and commuter lines can't waste tens of millions of taxpayer dollars on weird, bespoke, one-off designs like LIRR and other large Northeastern agencies can. Since a lot of those smaller services aren't really essential to the cities functioning in the way that LIRR or NJT are, they could just get shut down entirely, and thus have to keep their costs under some control.

[*] designs and vehicle envelopes in common use today are not in use because standards were in place to ensure those designs were adopted but because car builders and railroads attempted to solve perceived problems in then existing designs

Ok, but that doesn't tell us anything about how agencies should be procuring equipment today.

[*] if you had created prescriptive standards for commuter coaches in 1970, you wouldn't have the most common commuter coach design in use in North America today, because you would have prevented GO Transit from considering it, so demonstrably prescriptive standards would have prevented an innovative and ultimately dominant design from being adopted

There's nothing innovative going on with LIRR's weird, bespoke, less reliable, and more expensive rolling stock compared to anything else out there. In the Northeast, you are boxed in so tightly by the combination of clearances and power systems that there's only one physical thing you can do with it. The NJT ML's are pushing the extreme of what you can cram into the North River Tunnels. MNRR just can't physically do double-level EMUs, there's not enough room for all the electrical equipment even if you could magically keep it under the Park Ave Viaduct weight limit.

[*] just because you think MTA and SEPTA are poorly run (at best) organizations and will purchase more expensive or more specialized equipment than you would like to see absent prescriptive controls on what they purchase forced upon them by some external agency, likely from a government agency that has no stake in the success of either railroad, doesn't mean other organizations should have your desires for centralized planning and design bureaus forced down their throats in the name of making some other organization conform to your desires
[/list]

Essentially what you are saying is that while LIRR is incompetent and corrupt, and SEPTA is run by a bunch of people who actively hate their customers, whomever would set common standards for equipment might be more incompetent and/or corrupt than the railroads themselves. You might be right in that regards, although if you have a standard design, you'd still save money just by having one crappy design instead of a bunch of crappy designs.

The challenge is picking the right agencies to lead certain designs. NJT has a much better history with designing and ordering equipment than LIRR, but who ultimately has the ability to determine who designs what class of equipment?

What would probably work a lot better is the most generic classes of equipment, and then letting manufacturers come up with the best designs that they can, and compete for whose design becomes the standard design.

Let SEPTA order the equipment SEPTA wants how SEPTA wants and stop demanding that they order equipment that is designed from the start to meet potential requirements of other operators. They may wind up selecting a design that proves to be easily adaptable to every other operators needs, or they may not. Under your prescription neither they, nor any other operator, would be given the chance to develop what turns out to be a significant design.

That's the whole problem. Every agency wants their weird, bespoke equipment. There is absolutely no legitimate technical reason that AC EMUs shouldn't work for MARC Penn line, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR ESA, SLE, MBTA Providence Line (with additional electrification work), and Denver RTD. They all have essentially the same requirements, except that some don't need the larger 25hz transformer, or don't need all of the PTC systems (not sure what Denver RTD uses, or which Northeastern railroads need I-ETMS).

It's even nuttier when you get to things like single-level coaches. There should be a standard design nationwide, as single level coaches pretty much are single level coaches. Make them to LIRR/MN/North River clearances, it doesn't really impede their use anywhere else.

DMUs and HMUs should be standardized as well, there basically would be a low-clearance Plate C model that includes LIRR 3rd rail and Jamaica canopy clearances, and a high-clearance version with the same clearance and boarding profile as the Bi-level coaches.

The Siemens Chargers are actually a success story of standardization of the designs. There are some differences between the SC-44 and the ALC-42, but they are a nearly common platform.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 2:18 pm That's the whole problem. Every agency wants their weird, bespoke equipment. There is absolutely no legitimate technical reason that AC EMUs shouldn't work for MARC Penn line, SEPTA, NJT, MNRR ESA, SLE, MBTA Providence Line (with additional electrification work), and Denver RTD. They all have essentially the same requirements, except that some don't need the larger 25hz transformer, or don't need all of the PTC systems (not sure what Denver RTD uses, or which Northeastern railroads need I-ETMS).

It worked in the late 1960s and 70s: the Silverliner/Arrow series was off the shelf with the Silverliner III/Arrow I and Silverliner IV/Arrow II & III sharing a common design and many basic features.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2024 3:14 pmIt worked in the late 1960s and 70s: the Silverliner/Arrow series was off the shelf with the Silverliner III/Arrow I and Silverliner IV/Arrow II & III sharing a common design and many basic features.

Exactly. And they should be able to go beyond that with just a few options to work with the various power and PTC systems.

The Arrow Is were Westinghouse propelled, and a nightmare, like the Metroliners.

GE submitted a proposal for basically the Silverliner system, with combined power/brake, multi-voltage, and dynamic brakes as options.

St Louis was the low bidder, and NJ Dept of Highways went with Westinghouse. The Arrow IIs were Silverliner IVs without dynamics, the Arrow IIIs were the same, but with SCRs replacing the Ignitions.

St. Louis/Westinghouse bid on the Silverliner IV contract in 1971, but lost to GE/Vickers/Avco.

I believe the overhauled Arrow IIIs do now have dynamic mode. So the Arrow I also lacked dynamic mode?

I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure the Arrow I didn't have dynamic. They were also SCR, so NJT went SCR (A I), Ignitron (A II), then SCR (A III), and rebuilt the Arrow IIIs into inverter, GTO probably. Maybe not, ABB did some weird stuff back then, though not as weird as the French.

Nasadowsk wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 6:37 pmThe Arrow Is were Westinghouse propelled, and a nightmare, like the Metroliners.

What made them nightmares? Was it the motors or controller package?

I think it was the Westinghouse controls. PC had a lot of issues with the Metroliners that were propelled by Westinghouse.

Arrow I was Westinghouse SCR "Tracpak" motors and gear units, 700 HP/car (four 175 HP motors).

Going into alternate history, had St. Louis/Westinghouse ended up winning the Silverliner IV bid, they would likely have gotten the Arrow II and Arrow III as well and the assembly line in St. Louis could have been active all the way to early 1978, five years longer.