Debate: Should Reading Terminal/Viaduct have been kept?

jfrey40535 wrote:I don't know what the ridership stats were on some of these lines, but I'm sure if they weren't bursting with people that was probablly the secondary factor.

Lansdale-Bethlehem about 800 passengers/day (total both ways)
Norristown-Reading-Pottsville about 1,500
Fox Chase-Newtown about 300.

All three lines fell just before service was suspended; Newtown fell a lot when SEPTA took it over and operated it as the Fox Chase Rapid Transit.

jfrey40535 wrote:I think the terminal would have been a great facility had SEPTA kept its diesel routes in service, since most of them were on the Reading side of the system. I think there would have been enough routes to justify it with Bethlehem, Jersey City, and Newtown (am I forgetting one?)

Yes. You forgot Reading...

Bensalem SEPTA rider wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:I daresay that elimination of diesel service had everything to do with the CCCT. A project of that scope isn't conceived and then executed within the space of three years, certainly not in these days. The degradation of the diesel service was indeed planned, and then executed to make it look like "oh, nobody wanted to use it". Sequence of events would have had little to do with it; they wanted all-electric service and they didn't want to electrify the diesel lines.

Fox Chase as a terminal? Viability would have been nonexistent. Would a Fox Chase-Reading train fly today? or Fox Chase-Bethlehem?

They still could have operated branch lines that connect to the diesels. Newtown could have run some trains to Fox Chase and the Quakertown could have connected to the R5 at Lansdale. Then at least they're still in operation. And with increased ridership, they might have been able to electrify the lines as well.

The death of the diesel services began long before the commuter tunnel was completed. It boiled down to a few simple things:

1. Cutbacks in federal mass transit funding by the Carter administration (and subsequently the state administration) in the late 1970's. Sound familiar?

2. Higher maintenance expenses on the RDC fleet. From what I was told by a fellow engineer, at the end, Conrail did nothing much beyond fueling them.

3. Ridership on the diesel services had plummeted like a stone through the late 70's, as well.

SEPTA simply found it easier to eliminate the diesel services for those reasons when the budget ax hit in 1981, especially with few riders, and RDC's falling apart on the diesel lines.

As for the Fox Chase-Newtown fiasco, SEPTA should have realized there would be trouble with the unions when they tried to operate that shuttle with TWU employees and CTD work rules. Even for the brief period in 1982 and 1983 when it did run, it had little ridership, and more often than not had to be bustituted when the RDC wouldn't start or broke down.

Getting back on track, the tunnel had nothing to do with SEPTA's decision to eliminate the diesel services. They still could have operated as shuttles outside the electric zone (as most trips did) even today. Even if SEPTA wanted to electrify, the cost would have been prohibitive, and likely, there would be some major NIMBI-ism out there (look at Bryn Athyn's negative stance on Newtown line restoration in any form).

Even with the boom of residential and commercial development all in those areas formerly served by the diesel lines, I wonder just how much ridership would have increased, considering that the RDC's were in poor shape...and that a percentage of commuting patterns in Lower Bucks tends to be suburb-to-suburb, or up to New York....

Matthew Mitchell wrote: Lansdale-Bethlehem about 800 passengers/day (total both ways)
Norristown-Reading-Pottsville about 1,500
Fox Chase-Newtown about 300.

All three lines fell just before service was suspended; Newtown fell a lot when SEPTA took it over and operated it as the Fox Chase Rapid Transit.

Not surprisingly, the ridership on Fox Chase-Newtown fell even more when it became a bus on a "permanent temporary" basis. I had opportunity to ride it quite a few times through the 1990's, and seen ridership figures, mostly in the double digits for a whole day, typically.

A year before the shuttle was reorganized into Routes 301 and 302, I took what would be my last ride to Newtown and back on the bus. I rode an early afternoon trip, and I was one of 3 people on the bus leaving Fox Chase. The other two passengers were both off the bus before Holy Redeemerr Hospital. I was the sole rider for the rest of the trip.

Returning south was slightly better....we picked up about a dozen people in the Southampton area, but that was all.

Why does SEPTA have a chronic problem with its equipment falling apart? I remember riding the RDC to Fox Chase with my dad sometime in '82, and when he sat down the back of the seat fell off and the "conductor" said, whoops!, or the heat being stuck on in the summer so we had to ride with the front door wide open (kind of neat actually). But it was the same story with the PCC's, Chestnut Hill Trolley etc.....Its more like if SEPTA doesen't want to run it, they just let it decay.

I couldn't imaging the operating costs of keeping both Reading Terminal and Market East open simultaneously.

Did anything ever go forward with renaming Market East anyway? There was some sqabble about it in the press a few months back. One journalist said it should be renamed "Market East at Reading Terminal" or something along those lines.

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does SEPTA have a chronic problem with its equipment falling apart? I remember riding the RDC to Fox Chase with my dad sometime in '82, and when he sat down the back of the seat fell off and the "conductor" said, whoops!, or the heat being stuck on in the summer so we had to ride with the front door wide open (kind of neat actually).

Actually, I believe that Conrail was still operating the RRD in 82.

Clearfield wrote:Actually, I believe that Conrail was still operating the RRD in 82.

They were, but Fox Chase-Newtown was being operated by SEPTA, using TWU labor.

jfrey40535 wrote:Did anything ever go forward with renaming Market East anyway? There was some sqabble about it in the press a few months back. One journalist said it should be renamed "Market East at Reading Terminal" or something along those lines.

A new name might be nice, but it should probably not have the word "terminal" in its name, since the whole point of the CCCT was to route traffic through there. More than just semantics, though, it might be confusing to visitors or first-time users.

Like the R1, R2 system?

Clearfield wrote:

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does SEPTA have a chronic problem with its equipment falling apart? I remember riding the RDC to Fox Chase with my dad sometime in '82, and when he sat down the back of the seat fell off and the "conductor" said, whoops!, or the heat being stuck on in the summer so we had to ride with the front door wide open (kind of neat actually).

Actually, I believe that Conrail was still operating the RRD in 82.

That's right. One of the things SEPTA has done right is keep very old equipment up and running. Keep in mind that our newest MU's (Silverliner IV) are the same age and design of the MU's NJT retired some years ago (Arrow II), which were falling apart. The Silverliner II's are 11 years older.

They kept the Blueliners running until 1991, built in 1931, the MP54's until 1981, built in 1915!!, the Bullets until 1990, built in 1931. And the PCC's from the 40's to 1992. Not too shabby.

SCB2525 wrote:
They kept the Blueliners running until 1991, built in 1931, the MP54's until 1981, built in 1915!!, the Bullets until 1990, built in 1931. And the PCC's from the 40's to 1992. Not too shabby.

That may be as much a product of how well that equipment was built, as it is of any unique skill on the part of SEPTA. Durability is one advantage of electric equipment over diesel equipment, though it can be a mixed blessing. By the time the MP-54's, for instance, were retired, few people, other than railfans, really wanted to ride on them in spite of the fact that they were somewhat of a marvel in the area of durability and longevity.

But in typical SEPTA fashion, the blueliners were overhauled only a few years before they were retired. Some new FRA reg forced their retirement in '91 and SEPTA didn't want to put more money into them.

Although off topic, its too bad some of this equipment wasn't saved for the purpose of having fantrips and whatnot. Its done in NY, and quite successfully from what I hear with their old subway cars. Its something they could actually make money on too by charging $25/head or something like that.

SCB2525 wrote:One of the things SEPTA has done right is keep very old equipment up and running.

In many cases the old equipment was kept going in a misguided attempt to save money. They tried to squeeze a few extra years out of equipment that was long beyond its standard service life. The Bullets should have been retired in 1980 or so, same for the MFSE "Almond Joys". I hung onto my old Toyota for 15 years by keeping it in good repair, but at some point I had to recognize that it was a ready to be turned into soup cans, and had to cough up for a new car.

Walt wrote:That may be as much a product of how well that equipment was built

Absolutely. Brill and Budd always built first-rate cars.

While I loved the Bullets, the numerous accidents and reduced service were a major contributor to weakening the P&W in a way that has never been fully corrected. It's also possible that the 1990 MFSE crash never would have happened if the M-4s had been in place.

It was also embarrassing to go on fantrips in other parts of the country and be asked how I liked riding on a car built in <pick a year in the 1930s or 40s>, and have to respond "Heck, I ride equipment older than this to work every day".

Back on topic - what Market East lacks in charm it more than makes up for in effeciency. I often ride the R1 to the airport from Jenkintown when I fly, and I doubt the line would have had much success if it just shuttled between Suburban Station and Terminal E. Most of the appeal for the Reading side folks is that it gets you through and past the city in a hurry. A rail line to the airport that was only accessible from the Pennsy side wouldn't have much practical use, except for Center City. The tunnel was and is a great opportunity to tap one of the few groups of riders that go through Center City in significant numbers. Also, better equipment utilization for SEPTA, less downtime, etc. Plus, the amount of work that would have been needed to rehab the Terminal for the next century would have been cost-prohibitive. Looking at the way the Convention Center has made the train shed and headhouse the centerpiece, can anyone really complain? I really don't feel too bad about the lack of trains in the shed when I'm there, because the place is beautiful and busy, and the trains are just two floors down. Best of both worlds.

I really don't feel too bad about the lack of trains in the shed when I'm there

How about the lack of trains bound for Reading, Newtown, Bethlehem et al two floors down? Reading Terminal used to host trains going to New York, itself...now for trains bound for there, you have to ride three stops westwards, get off, and go two floors down to another operator...