R6 Cynwyd: SEPTA's "Dinky"

I did a quick driveby at Bala today. I noticed the rails are all welded and trail off towards Barmouth. How far did SEPTA go with installing welded rail along the line?

For those of you who walked the tracks, any evidence that any rail vehicles traversed the tracks recently? I'm just wondering if SEPTA is making an attempt at keeping the ROW intact. Of course typical SEPTA goes ahead and makes the entire line welded rail on its most lightly used line. Not only does it have the fewest amount of runs, but they're all single car.

Playing devil's advocate here now....

Even when Cynwyd service WAS a 7-day a week, all-day operation, the ridership sucked.

Speaking as a commuter and NOT as a railfan, even if Transpass were accepted to Bala, I would be one to simply enjoy my one-seat ride on the 44 to my City Avenue points, not ride the R6, and then have to transfer to the 65. Historically (and through past SEPTA surveys we did every summer in the early 90's), commuters HATE multiple transfers. While a two-vehicle ride can be tolerated, a three-vehicle ride is trickier to keep ridership beyond captive riders who can't afford a car. And believe me, when I was working at King of Prussia in the mid 1990's, depending on the time of day (and desire NOT to be stuck on a Schuylkill Expressway traffic jam at any time of day), I would have a 3-vehicle, 4-vehicle, or even a 5-vehicle ride from my home to the mall!! When I got my mother's old car, I started driving to the mall instead.

I may not have said it earlier, but most Route 44 ridership is either heading to points on City Avenue not within easy walking distance of Bala Station, or they are transferring to the 52 at 54th street to access the outer end of the line. And there is a decent amount of ridership along Old Lancaster and Montgomery Avenues through Merion and Narberth to Ardmore, so we can't dispose of the 44 totally.

As for restoring the route to Ivy Ridge, all I will say is that the remaining four arches on the bridge over the river need MAJOR restoration work, as well as the track deck.

Another factor affecting Cynwyd is Amtrak. Only the Cynwyd trains use the huge bridge at 52nd Street, and according to Amtrak, it is in severely deteriorated condition and needs to be rehabbed...and there is no money to do so. At one time, they even expressed a desire to tear it down. But the overall condition of the structure is part of the reason for the 15-mph speed restriction currently on it.

An easy solution would be to install a ground-level connection from #4 track over still-existing bridges to the Cynwyd line at Jeff interlocking, thus bypassing the bridge.
But that would cost SEPTA bucks it doesn't have.

AND it makes sense!

So basically the only hope for the line staying open is SVM and if that happens without the PRR-side alignment then in our current state the line's days are numbered. Its too bad there isnt much more that could be done.

As far as the 44 goes, and this applies to other routes of similar nature, why not axe the CC portion of the route so they don't get lost in the I-676/76 mess everyday? Maybe if some routes left directly from Bala or Cynwyd station, it would take some of the pain out of the transfer if people got off the train and right on to a waiting bus.

jfrey40535 wrote:As far as the 44 goes, and this applies to other routes of similar nature, why not axe the CC portion of the route so they don't get lost in the I-676/76 mess everyday? Maybe if some routes left directly from Bala or Cynwyd station, it would take some of the pain out of the transfer if people got off the train and right on to a waiting bus.

The trouble with SEPTA is that the concept of cutting routes back for use as "feeders" to rail lines is mostly non-existent, and riders here would howl bloody murder.

Yet, it worked well in Atlanta when, as their heavy rail system was built, they cut many bus routes to act as feeders to the rail system in order to ease downtown congestion.

It should have been tried here too.

jfrey40535 wrote:So basically the only hope for the line staying open is SVM and if that happens without the PRR-side alignment then in our current state the line's days are numbered.

Not necessarily. I suppose Cynwyd could be part of the City Branch light rail line the city government wants as its share of SEPTA spending if SVM is built. It might not be the line staying open in its present form, but it would be staying open.

As for restoring the route to Ivy Ridge, all I will say is that the remaining four arches on the bridge over the river need MAJOR restoration work, as well as the track deck.

I think they did that already. I'm not an engineer so I can't speak to the arches, but when I walked over the bridge about 2 years ago the roadbed, mayways, etc. appeared to be brand new. If only they could solve the tiny problem of missing rails, ties, and caternary...

Wdobner wrote:Perhaps the worst thing that could be done would be to make it a trolley line. You'd face a long ride into the city down the 10 unless some other ROW were found.

I disagree: the trip downtown by trolley might be longer in duration, but it will probably be the only way to save the line from SEPTA's inevitable budget cuts. A short extension of trolley tracks from 52nd and Lansdowne could tie the Cynwyd line into the Route 10 Subway-Surface line. From there, the limited-stop trolley, along with a re-extension of the line across the bridge to Manayunk West would make for a quick connection between University City, West Philly and Manayunk. Although the line is single-tracked between 52nd Street and Cynwyd, according to SEPTALRV9072, it becomes double-tracked past Barmouth, making trolley routing easier. A quick look at the schedule, and the Route 10 schedule makes me think you could run trolleys as often as every 12-15 minutes when needed.
Much has been made about how the Cynwyd line is the quickest route to Center City. This is true. But it doesn't change the fact the no one uses it, despite the obvious time advantage. Only by re-connecting it to Manayunk, and utilizing the accessibility (and reduced price) of a Subway-Surface line can SEPTA ever add enough ridership to make the line profitable. As a Regional Rail line, it is too short to attract enough ridership to make SEPTA deem it profitable. As a trolley line, it is comparable in length with the 10, 11, 13, 34, and 36, all of which have high ridership and are in no danger of being cancelled.

Wdobner wrote:We'd sacrifice the one easy path we have to get a diesel train from Reading to near center city, and we'd sacrifice what should be the fastest route into Center City from that area.

True, the Schuykill Valley Metro line is more important in the long run, but unless SEPTA adopts diesel-electric engines, a diesel route into CC isn't all that practicable anyway. (Besides, I like the route through the other end of the R6 better, anyway. )

Jbad wrote:I'm not an engineer so I can't speak to the arches, but when I walked over the bridge about 2 years ago the roadbed, mayways, etc. appeared to be brand new. If only they could solve the tiny problem of missing rails, ties, and caternary...

I'm not sure about the condition of the bridge - I haven't even ridden this line since I graduated from St. Joe's in '01 - but I'm sure that the repairs and track replacement would be cheaper if they only had to support trolley cars, not Silverliners. The lower costs, and the possiblity of higher ridership all mitigte in favor of a trolley line (Route 16, perhaps?) rather than a three-stop Regional Rail.

diesel-electric engines

Perhaps you mean dual-mode diesels? The vast majority of diesel locomotives are diesel-electrics. The only other version that I am aware of is the diesel-hydraulic, which is very maintenance-intensive. Dual-mode diesels allow drawing current from an external electric source (either third-rail or catenary wire) to permit the prime-mover to be shut down in limited-ventilation areas.

the Schuykill Valley Metro line is more important in the long run

When diesel service is mentioned in relation to rail service between Philadelphia and Reading, it is not usually mentioned in relation to the porkified SVM project but a restoration of the old SEPTA diesel service between Philly and Reading via the old Reading line, but (most likely) terminating at the lower level of 30th Street instead of operating via the CCCT.

I'm sure that the repairs and track replacement would be cheaper if they only had to support trolley cars, not Silverliners

Not too much weight difference between Silverliners and a lot of modern LRVs. And converting an extant commuter rail line into light rail is more expensive than one may think.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Perhaps you mean dual-mode diesels? The vast majority of diesel locomotives are diesel-electrics. Dual-mode diesels allow drawing current from an external electric source (either third-rail or catenary wire) to permit the prime-mover to be shut down in limited-ventilation areas.

The only dual-mode engines currently invented are 3rd rail units. The transformers needed to convert the catenary voltage are huge. Using a dual-mode unit and puttign 3rd rail from Temple U to 30th should work pretty well.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Perhaps you mean dual-mode diesels?

Yes, that's what I meant to say.

Irish Chieftain wrote:When diesel service is mentioned in relation to rail service between Philadelphia and Reading, it is not usually mentioned in relation to the porkified SVM project but a restoration of the old SEPTA diesel service between Philly and Reading via the old Reading line, but (most likely) terminating at the lower level of 30th Street instead of operating via the CCCT.

Oh, I see. Well, I see then why the ex-Reading side of the R6 wouldn't work. Still, I like the route better through the R6 Norristown, if the dual-mode technology is feasible. Connecting directly to Market East and Suburban stations would make such a line far more convenient.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Not too much weight difference between Silverliners and a lot of modern LRVs. And converting an extant commuter rail line into light rail is more expensive than one may think.

I admit, my lack of an engineering background limits how much I can reliably speak on such subjects. But just from looking at a Subway-Surface trolley and a Regional Rail train car, the former looks less weighty than the latter. Again, I speak only from the point of view of a liberal-arts degree-holder.

Irish Chieftain wrote: And converting an extant commuter rail line into light rail is more expensive than one may think.

Yes - no one has mentioned the fact that the Cynwyd tracks would have to be re-gauged since all local trolley lines use the so-called Pennsylvania gauge (5' 2.5") forced on them by steam railroads 100+ years ago.

If the line had any places that still needed to support standard gauge as well you'd have to use a three-rail arrangement such as that on the old PE system, Bethlehem Steel's ore tracks in the Lehigh Valley and other lines that had to share. However AFAIK triple-railing will only work when you have a fairly significant difference in gauge. Six inches is probably far too close to be practical.

The arches over the Schyukill River have not been restored. The ROW has been restored for since 1999. I am not sure exactly what PennDOT and SEPTA are doing with the bridge at present. I think just waiting. Anyone who knows better, please chime in.

JeffK wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote: And converting an extant commuter rail line into light rail is more expensive than one may think.

Yes - no one has mentioned the fact that the Cynwyd tracks would have to be re-gauged since all local trolley lines use the so-called Pennsylvania gauge (5' 2.5") forced on them by steam railroads 100+ years ago.

If the line had any places that still needed to support standard gauge as well you'd have to use a three-rail arrangement such as that on the old PE system, Bethlehem Steel's ore tracks in the Lehigh Valley and other lines that had to share. However AFAIK triple-railing will only work when you have a fairly significant difference in gauge. Six inches is probably far too close to be practical.

Dual gauge is cool.

http://community.webshots.com/photo/229 ... 6335RJZkEw

But in the illustrated case, the difference is 20.5 inches.

The arches over the Schyukill River have not been restored. The ROW has been restored for since 1999. I am not sure exactly what PennDOT and SEPTA are doing with the bridge at present. I think just waiting. Anyone who knows better, please chime in.

I'm pretty sure PennDOT isn't doing anything with it at the moment. I'll look into it more deeply when I get a chance.

JeffK wrote:Yes - no one has mentioned the fact that the Cynwyd tracks would have to be re-gauged since all local trolley lines use the so-called Pennsylvania gauge (5' 2.5") forced on them by steam railroads 100+ years ago.

Is that right? I thought I read somewhere on this site that the trolleys were standard gauge. Well, if they're six inches too big, I guess that bollixes my idea. Of course, it is possible to change a gauge (I read somewhere that the L&N did their entire network in a weekend, but that was in the days before labor regulations) but it does add to the costs substantially.