# Septa Multi-Level



## Andrew (Feb 12, 2014)

Perhaps Septa can purchase the double-decker cars that are currently being used on NJ Transit?

http://pottstown.patch.com/groups/around-town/p/septa-considers-doubledecker-trains


----------



## MikefromCrete (Feb 12, 2014)

Doesn't NJ Transit need their relatively new double-deckers?


----------



## MattW (Feb 12, 2014)

I think he means purchase the same type of vehicle, namely do what MARC is doing and buying their own multilevels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 12, 2014)

Trust me, septa doesn't want that cramped garbage.


----------



## SubwayNut (Feb 12, 2014)

(Vertually) all of SEPTA's fleet are EMUs are we thinking a European-style double-decker EMUs I don't think for SEPTA multi-levels make sense so many of their routes are so short.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 12, 2014)

Septa even stated that they are looking into double decker cars hauled by new locomotives.

Perhaps Sprinter (like Amtrak did) or APL46?


----------



## afigg (Feb 13, 2014)

SubwayNut said:


> (Vertually) all of SEPTA's fleet are EMUs are we thinking a European-style double-decker EMUs I don't think for SEPTA multi-levels make sense so many of their routes are so short.


SEPTA has a small fleet of 7 AEM-7s, 1 ALP-44 electric locomotives and 45 Bombardier Comet II cars that are used for rush hour express service. SEPTA also has a few Comet I cars, but according to wikipedia, the old Comets were put into storage.
With the additional capital funding now coming in, SEPTA is planning to replace the AEM-7s and as the story above stated, SEPTA is also looking at purchasing bi-level coach cars for more capacity. Discussed this in the SEPTA Doomsday Plan thread where the title is out of date as the Doomsday Plan has been put to rest.

Edit: sentence fix


----------



## Anderson (Feb 13, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Green Maned Lion, on 12 Feb 2014 - 8:42 PM, said:Trust me, septa doesn't want that cramped garbage.


As opposed to the toilet-less trains they have now?


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2014)

Anderson said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion, on 12 Feb 2014 - 8:42 PM, said:
> ...


SEPTA actually does want them per their own explicit declaration to that effect.
Now it is another matter whether they should want them. On that, I think the answer is "no". This is a railroad that has very few trains that are more than 4 cars long, and the ones that are are seldom completely full. It is hard to understand what their logic is for wanting, other than "keeping up with the Joneses".

The only MLVs that will work for them physically (if that) are the Bombardier MLVs used by NJT and MARC. I suspect the remaining 15 or 20 options from the last 100 MLV order from NJT appears enticing to them to start with and then add on the balance at a new negotiated price. I have heard a rumor that they plan to borrow a few NJT MLVs to do a bit of clearance testing through the Center City Tunnel before doing anything about it. Of course they will need to take those restrooms out, or will have to create a new "restroom maintenance division" I suppose.

Incidentally, if NJT did not have it written in the Union contracts that trains shall have facilities for the crew, I wonder if NJT would still have facilities.


----------



## Andrew (Feb 13, 2014)

When would testing begin?

How long would the testing phase take for the Bi-levels?


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2014)

It's a rumor. Don't take it all that seriously. If it happens you will eventually know. But don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 13, 2014)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


They would be helpful on SEPTA lines with short station platforms. I don't think that many SEPTA lines can handle more than five or six car trains. Even the usable portions of the upper level platforms at 30th Street are not very long.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 17, 2014)

Toilet facilities on trains for crew are not union requirements but are CFR49 requirements , unless frequent available facilities are available enroute.


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2014)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Toilet facilities on trains for crew are not union requirements but are CFR49 requirements , unless frequent available facilities are available enroute.


Ah! Thanks for the heads up. Just for my edification I checked around a bit and indeed found 49 CFR 229.137!

From 49 CFR 229 regarding toilets, in 229.137 _Sanitation, General Requirements_:



> b) _Exceptions. _(1) Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to:
> 
> (i) Locomotives engaged in commuter service or other short-haul passenger service and commuter work trains on which employees have ready access to railroad-provided sanitation facilities outside of the locomotive or elsewhere on the train, that meet otherwise applicable sanitation standards, at frequent intervals during the course of their work shift;


 SEPTA uses this to not provide toilets on board. NJT could too could theoretically do so, but my NJT contacts tell me that there is a clause in the union contract that prevents NJT from so. That was my point. Admittedly, I have no access to the NJT contract, so if my contacts are blowing smoke then I could be wrong on that score.


----------

