SEPTA overcrowding on Regional Rail

Kawasaki C3, used by the lirr

Bombardier Comet 3, formerly used by new jersey transit
Neither of them is what SEPTA wants. The Comet III is outdated, and the C3 is only useful for the lirr, not even metro north due to the few remaining low level stations

the c3s wouldn't even fit the tunnels

LIRR doesn't even like the C3's. They're getting wholesale-replaced by MLV's in a combo order with Metro North's Shoreliner-to-MLV replacement; LIRR will not attempt a rebuild. Too finicky and maintenance-intensive, and the rebuild costs didn't wash. And of course they're useless on low platforms so not a single other railroad--least of all SEPTA--can make use of them. Kawasaki's MBTA and MARC bi-levels were by far the more successful lineage, and if they make another market entry into Penn-clearance bi's it's going to be based off of a shrunken version of those instead of the C3's. Attempting to rebuild those with trap doors for low platforms is going to be more expensive than buying new; they're an evolutionary dead end.


The last Comets produced were the Comet V's in 2002. Bombardier, which either produced itself or bought the manufacturers of every previous generation of Comets, got out of the new single-levels business after the Comet IV's in '96 because their profit margins are so much better on bi-levels. The Alstom-built Comet V's were not very good cars; lots of door problems and software glitches. NJT is getting rid of those at the end of its aggressive single-level purge procurements with all the others because they're too much of a pain despite their fresher age.

Despite the numbers of used single-level coaches hitting the used market, there won't be many at all where the rebuild costs are going to be at all worth it vs. buying new. The Comet III's are toast, the II's and derivatives are showing serious age, the last of the rebuildable I's have already been snapped up by carriers in low-platform territory, and the last "good" generation of them (IV's and derivatives) is nearing the 20-mark of a lot of daily pounding. There are no manufacturers producing new lookalikes, and fewer qualified manufacturers dabbling in single-level rebuild programs or making cost-effective bids on rebuild programs when their margins are much better getting in on the first mass wave of bi-level rebuilds. The free market has spoken here. There's very good reason why NJT, MNRR, and the MBTA--the 3 carriers with over five-sixths of the continental roster of single-level commuter coaches--are all going 100% bi-level by the year 2025. The only other (non-SEPTA) commuter rail users of single-level coaches are MARC (34 MARC IIB's, circa-1991/rebuilt 2009), CDOT/Shore Line East (33 Mafersas, circa-1992), UTA FrontRunner (25 recently remanufactued Comet I's), and AMT (24 Comet II's, circa-1989). MARC and AMT are likewise in aggressive purge mode in favor of MLV's, so they will probably be 100% bi-level too by decade's end. They're not economical fleets to support through any new procurement or rebuild cycles, and they're going to be outright rare in daily service in 10 short years. And rare for fresh parts availability. Extinction, when it happens, is going to come with breathtaking speed on commuter rail until single-level coaches are strictly the realm of intercity carriers.

Yeah, C3s wouldn't be a good idea after hearing from all of you. I guess Multilevel cars would be the way to go in terms of reducing overcrowding.

Everyone: The LIRR type C3 would not be a good fit for SEPTA for the modification to add high/low platform
doors alone and I am in agreement that the MLV would be more useful for SEPTA RRD...The big question for
SEPTA attempting to test LIRR C3s would be: Do they fit under the catenary between Suburban and 30th
Street Stations?

That picture above of C3 cab car 5013 was taken at Montauk (the Montauk Manor is above 5013) and I will
add that the prime reason MNCR does not use them is clearance issues into GCT specifically the Park Avenue
Tunnel and according to what I have read MLV's can access GCT with some small modifications...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote:Everyone: The LIRR type C3 would not be a good fit for SEPTA for the modification to add high/low platform
doors alone and I am in agreement that the MLV would be more useful for SEPTA RRD...The big question for
SEPTA attempting to test LIRR C3s would be: Do they fit under the catenary between Suburban and 30th
Street Stations?

That picture above of C3 cab car 5013 was taken at Montauk (the Montauk Manor is above 5013) and I will
add that the prime reason MNCR does not use them is clearance issues into GCT specifically the Park Avenue
Tunnel and according to what I have read MLV's can access GCT with some small modifications...

MACTRAXX

MLV's can fit into Grand Central. They were designed from Day 1 to fit Penn, GCT, SEPTA, and Montreal's Mt. Royal Tunnel...and the first NJT pilot units from Bombardier were brought into GCT for one-off clearance tests. They're universal-clearance for every constrained space that doesn't fit a standard-dimension bi-level like the Kawasakis (except for LIRR East Side Access, which can't take anything 1 inch taller than an M7 EMU...not even a dual-mode locomotive). That's why everyone's flocking to them...universal make, little to no customization needed from buyer-to-buyer. Doesn't matter if LIRR never uses the trap doors on their order, as the design and parts commonality for such large fleet scale across several MLV-using railroads makes them cost-effective to maintain and ultimately rebuild multiple times over. They pretty much are the new Comets in that regard.

The only obstructions at GCT that have to be taken care of before Metro North can start running them are relocation of a few dwarf signal heads that would get in the way of MLV's on certain platform tracks. Other than that they clear the 3rd rail, ceiling, walls, and all platform and loop tracks just fine.

So there's zero reason septa should order anything else. We shall see what they do.

Low bid. Should someone else think they could make a bi-level that fits for the lowest cost; so goes the order.

SCB2525 wrote:Low bid. Should someone else think they could make a bi-level that fits for the lowest cost; so goes the order.

SEPTA already knows that the Bomb cars SHOULD fit. The bid specs would be written around a car that fits. A manufacturer that doesn't make a car that fits, would need to design one which would fit making it more expensive than a car that already fits.

SCB2525 wrote:Low bid. Should someone else think they could make a bi-level that fits for the lowest cost; so goes the order.

this might seem silly but wouldn't you simply be bidding out the same exact design? why would you reinvent the wheel?

Suburban Station wrote:

SCB2525 wrote:Low bid. Should someone else think they could make a bi-level that fits for the lowest cost; so goes the order.

this might seem silly but wouldn't you simply be bidding out the same exact design? why would you reinvent the wheel?

That's basically what Rotem did for all its coach orders. Their MBTA order that got bollixed up as bad as the Silverliners were copies of the Kawasaki bi-levels. Their Metrolink and TriRail orders were copies of the low-boarding Bombardier BiLevel. It depends on how heavily Bombardier controls the newish MLV design. But given the comparisons it doesn't seem like second-source manufacture to different baseline design is any bigger a hurdle than it was for second-source manufacturers to produce Comet clones. Bombardier's probably not going to be the only one making MLV's as we currently know them. There'll be multiple vendors bidding to the same spec. Just choose your low bids carefully because Bombardier's done the MLV form factor successfully several times over and the Rotem bottom-dwellers of the world...not so much.

The reason why the C3 would look attractive before considering the trap issue, is that it has a higher capacity than the MLV by about 7 seats/car, depending on model variant, and has actual, honest-to-goodness luggage racks, as opposed to the briefcase-sized nooks on the upper deck of an MLV. Whether SEPTA is going to accept that kind of engineering compromise for a constraint 90 miles north of its own system is going to come down to low bids. Bombardier might have a head start because they have an active assembly line churning out MLVs, but Bombardier has been known to squander advantages on occasion. We'll see.

CComMack wrote:The reason why the C3 would look attractive before considering the trap issue, is that it has a higher capacity than the MLV by about 7 seats/car, depending on model variant, and has actual, honest-to-goodness luggage racks, as opposed to the briefcase-sized nooks on the upper deck of an MLV. Whether SEPTA is going to accept that kind of engineering compromise for a constraint 90 miles north of its own system is going to come down to low bids. Bombardier might have a head start because they have an active assembly line churning out MLVs, but Bombardier has been known to squander advantages on occasion. We'll see.

It's moot. C3's are the same exact dimension as MLV's. 14 ft. 5 inch height, 9 ft. 10 inch width, 85 ft. length. They are both built within the Penn clearance restriction. Full-height bi-levels like the MBTA/MARC Kawasakis and the low-platform Bombardier BiLevels are 15'11" tall. And those cannot fit on SEPTA. There is no in-between height model that splits the difference, and nobody's manufacturing to the C3 carbody because the model was a dud. So...it's pretty much MLV's, MLV copies, or start from scratch. And starting from scratch is not an option SEPTA can afford to take. My guess is they have to play with whatever wiggle room the MLV frame allows for a bigger luggage rack configuration, and just learn to live with it if it's sub-optimal.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:LIRR doesn't even like the C3's. They're getting wholesale-replaced by MLV's in a combo order with Metro North's Shoreliner-to-MLV replacement; LIRR will not attempt a rebuild. Too finicky and maintenance-intensive, and the rebuild costs didn't wash. And of course they're useless on low platforms so not a single other railroad--least of all SEPTA--can make use of them. Kawasaki's MBTA and MARC bi-levels were by far the more successful lineage, and if they make another market entry into Penn-clearance bi's it's going to be based off of a shrunken version of those instead of the C3's. Attempting to rebuild those with trap doors for low platforms is going to be more expensive than buying new; they're an evolutionary dead end.


The last Comets produced were the Comet V's in 2002. Bombardier, which either produced itself or bought the manufacturers of every previous generation of Comets, got out of the new single-levels business after the Comet IV's in '96 because their profit margins are so much better on bi-levels. The Alstom-built Comet V's were not very good cars; lots of door problems and software glitches. NJT is getting rid of those at the end of its aggressive single-level purge procurements with all the others because they're too much of a pain despite their fresher age.

Despite the numbers of used single-level coaches hitting the used market, there won't be many at all where the rebuild costs are going to be at all worth it vs. buying new. The Comet III's are toast, the II's and derivatives are showing serious age, the last of the rebuildable I's have already been snapped up by carriers in low-platform territory, and the last "good" generation of them (IV's and derivatives) is nearing the 20-mark of a lot of daily pounding. There are no manufacturers producing new lookalikes, and fewer qualified manufacturers dabbling in single-level rebuild programs or making cost-effective bids on rebuild programs when their margins are much better getting in on the first mass wave of bi-level rebuilds. The free market has spoken here. There's very good reason why NJT, MNRR, and the MBTA--the 3 carriers with over five-sixths of the continental roster of single-level commuter coaches--are all going 100% bi-level by the year 2025. The only other (non-SEPTA) commuter rail users of single-level coaches are MARC (34 MARC IIB's, circa-1991/rebuilt 2009), CDOT/Shore Line East (33 Mafersas, circa-1992), UTA FrontRunner (25 recently remanufactued Comet I's), and AMT (24 Comet II's, circa-1989). MARC and AMT are likewise in aggressive purge mode in favor of MLV's, so they will probably be 100% bi-level too by decade's end. They're not economical fleets to support through any new procurement or rebuild cycles, and they're going to be outright rare in daily service in 10 short years. And rare for fresh parts availability. Extinction, when it happens, is going to come with breathtaking speed on commuter rail until single-level coaches are strictly the realm of intercity carriers.

Is the LIRR getting rid of the C3s?

Frank wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:LIRR doesn't even like the C3's. They're getting wholesale-replaced by MLV's in a combo order with Metro North's Shoreliner-to-MLV replacement; LIRR will not attempt a rebuild. Too finicky and maintenance-intensive, and the rebuild costs didn't wash. And of course they're useless on low platforms so not a single other railroad--least of all SEPTA--can make use of them. Kawasaki's MBTA and MARC bi-levels were by far the more successful lineage, and if they make another market entry into Penn-clearance bi's it's going to be based off of a shrunken version of those instead of the C3's. Attempting to rebuild those with trap doors for low platforms is going to be more expensive than buying new; they're an evolutionary dead end.


The last Comets produced were the Comet V's in 2002. Bombardier, which either produced itself or bought the manufacturers of every previous generation of Comets, got out of the new single-levels business after the Comet IV's in '96 because their profit margins are so much better on bi-levels. The Alstom-built Comet V's were not very good cars; lots of door problems and software glitches. NJT is getting rid of those at the end of its aggressive single-level purge procurements with all the others because they're too much of a pain despite their fresher age.

Despite the numbers of used single-level coaches hitting the used market, there won't be many at all where the rebuild costs are going to be at all worth it vs. buying new. The Comet III's are toast, the II's and derivatives are showing serious age, the last of the rebuildable I's have already been snapped up by carriers in low-platform territory, and the last "good" generation of them (IV's and derivatives) is nearing the 20-mark of a lot of daily pounding. There are no manufacturers producing new lookalikes, and fewer qualified manufacturers dabbling in single-level rebuild programs or making cost-effective bids on rebuild programs when their margins are much better getting in on the first mass wave of bi-level rebuilds. The free market has spoken here. There's very good reason why NJT, MNRR, and the MBTA--the 3 carriers with over five-sixths of the continental roster of single-level commuter coaches--are all going 100% bi-level by the year 2025. The only other (non-SEPTA) commuter rail users of single-level coaches are MARC (34 MARC IIB's, circa-1991/rebuilt 2009), CDOT/Shore Line East (33 Mafersas, circa-1992), UTA FrontRunner (25 recently remanufactued Comet I's), and AMT (24 Comet II's, circa-1989). MARC and AMT are likewise in aggressive purge mode in favor of MLV's, so they will probably be 100% bi-level too by decade's end. They're not economical fleets to support through any new procurement or rebuild cycles, and they're going to be outright rare in daily service in 10 short years. And rare for fresh parts availability. Extinction, when it happens, is going to come with breathtaking speed on commuter rail until single-level coaches are strictly the realm of intercity carriers.

Is the LIRR getting rid of the C3s?

Per the MTA's recently released fleet plan all LIRR and MNRR coaches--C3's and all 4 active generations of Shoreliners--will be replaced by a common combo order of MLV's from 2020-2025. The C3's will be 25 years old at that point. Economically it didn't wash to attempt a midlife rehab because they were a one-time-only make unlike anything else that's out there, there's only 134 of them in existence which is orders of magnitude the smallest and most unmaintainable fleet of any of the major bi-level lineages in existence (e.g. MLV's, Kawasakis, low-boarding BLV's, Metra gallery cars, Amtrak Superliners), and they've been lousy performers on LIRR since Day 1.


To answer the inevitable theoretical question: yes, they will be available on the secondhand market in 2022 or whatever.

To answer the practicality of said theoretical question: NO...they are not even a little bit of an option for SEPTA. Because the cost of trying to extend the lifespan of those turkeys--and slicing into the carbody to rig them with low-boarding trap doors--is going to be lots more total than buying a bigger fleet of brand new MLV's (and attempting to get those brand new MLV's configured with more luggage space). And because SEPTA needs new coaches way earlier than 2022. Don't waste time inventing scenarios in one's head where those have a future on SEPTA. They don't. Nobody's going to buy them except the scrappers.