Railroad Forums
Moderator: AlexC
Push/Pull Master wrote:Nah, the structure wouldn't work. If you see the frame below the door, you'll note that it would create a weak point if you notched it for a trap, plus there is other stuff under there you need that space for. Would slow boarding/alighting as quarter point doors always do.25Hz wrote:C3 is high level only. Would not work.They could always add trapdoors. That's what I meant by update. Sorry.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:C3's cannot fit in through to NJ. The east river tunnels are a bit larger and were built with LIRR and NH equipment in mind.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.
25Hz wrote:They're the same exact dimensions as the NJT MLV's that go into Penn. I listed the official dimensions of both in my post.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:C3's cannot fit in through to NJ. The east river tunnels are a bit larger and were built with LIRR and NH equipment in mind.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:I can confirm with you that the C3's are 14ft, 5 inches25Hz wrote:They're the same exact dimensions as the NJT MLV's that go into Penn. I listed the official dimensions of both in my post.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:C3's cannot fit in through to NJ. The east river tunnels are a bit larger and were built with LIRR and NH equipment in mind.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.
It's moot because of the other incompatibilities they have, the reliability problems, and the fact that they're a dead-end lineage. But dimensionally...yes, they are fully standard for every way in/out/around the smallest commuter rail clearances in the Northeast.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Um, they are not designed for the same loading gauge. The C3's (LIRR loading gauge) roof would hit the tunnel on the sides. Roof height being the same doesn't matter if the curve of the tunnel is smaller (which it is). The north river tunnels (AMTRAK loading gauge) are the smallest space a main line train passes through anywhere i know of in north america, and any equipment meant to use them needs to have a roof contour that keeps them away from the tunnel ceiling. To move a C3 to the mainland you'd have to take it through the hell gate line or put it on one of the freight barges. This has been discussed extensively multiple times on multiple forums. Just because they have the same width and height..... have you ever ridden on both?...they are nothing alike inside or outside. The LIRR interior ceiling on the upper level is wider than the multilevel, and the lights are laid out differently.... Why? Because the roof is wider. Lets just make things clear, there are no LIRR cars or locomotives coming to SEPTA ever ever ever, so lets just move along. NJT has loading gauge compatible equipment, because RDG and PRR existed in PA and NJ and had to move through both, because their respective main lines follow each other roughly parallel from central NJ to philadelphia. They are also electrically (traction) compatible for the same reason. The only barrier to any of this are the inter-car connections and maybe cab car & door controls being different. Since new new cars make more sense than near-EOL second hand cars, i'm feeling we won't see any push pulls till we get new locomotives, ones compatible with both the older & any newer cars.25Hz wrote:They're the same exact dimensions as the NJT MLV's that go into Penn. I listed the official dimensions of both in my post.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:C3's cannot fit in through to NJ. The east river tunnels are a bit larger and were built with LIRR and NH equipment in mind.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.
It's moot because of the other incompatibilities they have, the reliability problems, and the fact that they're a dead-end lineage. But dimensionally...yes, they are fully standard for every way in/out/around the smallest commuter rail clearances in the Northeast.
25Hz wrote:You are correct that there are clearance issues in the North River tunnels upon further search. It is not the roof, however, it is the grade. The fall at the lowest elevation of the tunnel is steeper than the East River Tunnel grades, and that's where the tapered corners of the MLV's are needed to clear.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Um, they are not designed for the same loading gauge. The C3's (LIRR loading gauge) roof would hit the tunnel on the sides. Roof height being the same doesn't matter if the curve of the tunnel is smaller (which it is). The north river tunnels (AMTRAK loading gauge) are the smallest space a main line train passes through anywhere i know of in north america, and any equipment meant to use them needs to have a roof contour that keeps them away from the tunnel ceiling. To move a C3 to the mainland you'd have to take it through the hell gate line or put it on one of the freight barges. This has been discussed extensively multiple times on multiple forums. Just because they have the same width and height..... have you ever ridden on both?...they are nothing alike inside or outside. The LIRR interior ceiling on the upper level is wider than the multilevel, and the lights are laid out differently.... Why? Because the roof is wider. Lets just make things clear, there are no LIRR cars or locomotives coming to SEPTA ever ever ever, so lets just move along. NJT has loading gauge compatible equipment, because RDG and PRR existed in PA and NJ and had to move through both, because their respective main lines follow each other roughly parallel from central NJ to philadelphia. They are also electrically (traction) compatible for the same reason. The only barrier to any of this are the inter-car connections and maybe cab car & door controls being different. Since new new cars make more sense than near-EOL second hand cars, i'm feeling we won't see any push pulls till we get new locomotives, ones compatible with both the older & any newer cars.25Hz wrote:They're the same exact dimensions as the NJT MLV's that go into Penn. I listed the official dimensions of both in my post.F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:C3's cannot fit in through to NJ. The east river tunnels are a bit larger and were built with LIRR and NH equipment in mind.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.
It's moot because of the other incompatibilities they have, the reliability problems, and the fact that they're a dead-end lineage. But dimensionally...yes, they are fully standard for every way in/out/around the smallest commuter rail clearances in the Northeast.
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:I apologize if my tone was harsh. I'm just a tad fatigued at the constant implication that I'm some blathering clueless idiot. Nothing personal against you.25Hz wrote:F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
You are correct that there are clearance issues in the North River tunnels upon further search. It is not the roof, however, it is the grade. The fall at the lowest elevation of the tunnel is steeper than the East River Tunnel grades, and that's where the tapered corners of the MLV's are needed to clear.
But cut the condescending 'tude, please. You didn't even verify the accuracy of your own retort from things "discussed extensively multiple times on multiple forums".
