Regional Rail "R" System

chuchubob wrote:
I didn't forget the Media Local...I just got tired of typing. [I'm an old fart].

You said that--- I didn't--- besides I suspect that we are of the same vintage.

As for the numbering system, the most effective way to combat the kind of confusion described here would be to employ transit style route and destination signs on the cars---- though this may be an anathema to "true" railroaders.

I suspect that most of us who read the forum are aware of the origins of the pairing of regional rail lines. It would be great if pennengineer would be kind enough to post the original article, or reference the article. Thanks.

I agree that each branch should have its own number. The pairing of lines is confusing, unnecessary and often inaccurate. Trains do not always follow there pairing or terminate without thru service. Schedules should only show the individual line. Also each line should have its own color on the brochure. All of the maps need to be updated anyway to reflect station closing. The new SV cars will have destination signs to reflect the new numbering.

Also, another idea, mini schedules for popular stations that include advertising from local businesses. (to cover the cost of printing). LIRR does this very effectively. For example, the restaurants at and near Jenkintown station as well as local cab companies can advertise in the Jenkintown Schedule.

Lol, lucky bastard, I'm a civ eng major at the special ed school across the street from Penn! :)

I also find all this talk of eliminating the R number system ridiculous. Given the nature of the SEPTA system with it's center city tunnel and the virtually unlimited possibilities for through-running that that brings, it's ridiculous to increase train crew workload and at the same time attempt to further confuse passengers by adding numbers. Instead of undoing what has been around for 20 years now, I'd rather see SEPTA either swap some terminals to reflect changes in demographics, the R6 Pennsy side going to Chesnut Hill East and the R8 Pennsy side going to Cynwyd, or extend the R6 Cynwyd out across the Schuylkill to Ivy Ridge (with re-double tracking and reinstallation of speed control west of 52nd St), I've heard of and seen myself terrible crowding at the Manayunk-area stations, an R6 Ivy Ridge might not be a perfect fit with the R6 Norristown, but it's better than the current situation.

Also SEPTA would benefit from better signage and information conveyance, perhaps make the Reading side background and font color the opposite of the Pennsy side background and font color. The R3 West Chester would retain the White Number on Orange Background, while the R3 West Trenton would become Orange Number on White Background. Numbers like the R1 might need a black outline around the yellow letters, but in my opinion, that's far less confusing than having routes out to 15. Also a R15 would require the crew to change the sign in or approaching Center City. The crews don't seem to be too keen on changing the sign to reflect the fact that their train coming off the R5 will become a R2 south of Suburban Station, and as such just sign it as an R5 when leaving Lansdale, what makes you think the crew will do anything other than slap a R2 sign up there, creating every bit the chaos we have now?

Rather than stripping a system that has worked (more or less) for 20 years and to which people have adapted (for example, some 20-something accountants [decidedly not railfans] I did temp work with last summer actually refered to their commutes as the "R5 Reading" or the "R3 Pennsy"), I'd have SEPTA simply put out a regional-rail ride guide. It doesn't have to be a large pamphlet, just something explaining the system, it's regulations (bikes, pets, fares avoidance penalties, etc), and why the numbering system is as it is. This would likely be cheaper (even with things like moving the R6 to CHE and the R8 to Cynwyd or changing the Reading side's color) than completely renumbering half or so of the system while providing a potentially better customer service record. You can either rearrange the routes on a sinking system, or you can leave the routes where they are, move the two sinking the system and fix what is wrong, not the numbers, not the R, not even really most of the routes, you fix the flawwed customer service that SEPTA exhibits toward it's customers, then you have a working solution.

greg19051 wrote:I suspect that most of us who read the forum are aware of the origins of the pairing of regional rail lines. It would be great if pennengineer would be kind enough to post the original article, or reference the article. Thanks.

To make a long story short, Vuchic proposed pairing of lines by ridership, with the intent of minimizing car requirements by avoiding pairings of high and low-ridership routes (in which case you'd be hauling extra cars around on the low-ridership routes).

But the big problem was that ridership never increased to the point where SEPTA was running more than minimum consists outside of peak hours(*), and a lot of those peak trains were not run-throughs (in fact, the system would be most efficient if you avoided any through-routing of those long trains, and instead ran all your low-ridership peak trains through to different lines (e.g. terminate all the peak Lansdale-Doylestown trains at 30th Street and run-through Fox Chase to both Hill West and Paoli rather than terminating some trains on both lines and running some through).

In other words, it turned out that the issue Vuchic was concerning himself with has only a minor impact on costs today--reducing turnaround times is more important. Pairing lines on that basis is a much more complicated task, especially once you consider constraints like slots on Amtrak for Wilmington, Hill West, and Trenton trains.

One more thing is that Vuchic's plan assumed construction of the Swampoodle connection (which see), which of course never happened. That's why there is no R4 (which see ad nauseam).

*--remember that at the time Vuchic was drawing up these plans, we were just a few years removed from Carter-era gas lines, and it was widely assumed that transit ridership would increase because the cost of driving would increase.

Sorry, I keep forgetting the article in my appartment as I rush out to work every morning. I'll be sure to bring it with me and scan it tomorrow.

matt1168 wrote:

Why not just do a bit of a number swap??

R1 - Airport
R2 - Wilmington/Newark
R3 - Media/Elwyn
R4 - West Trenton
R5 - Thorndale
R6 - Cynwyd
R7 - Trenton
R8 - Chestnut Hill West
R9 - Warminster
R10 - Lansdale/Doylestown
R11 - Norristown
R12 - Chestnut Hill East
R15 - Fox Chase

The original post in this thread implies the question: Inside 1234, does SEPTA view RRD as a railroad or an S-Bahn wannabe (transit). The original Schuylkill Valley Metro proposal suggests the latter. The original Vuchic concept was to S-Bahn-ize RRD as much as possible.

To that end, the R scheme was implemented.

No other North American commuter railroad uses an S-Bahn like system for designation of services: most use the termination point of service or the name of the corridor traveled. However, no other North American commuter railroad has a tunnel connecting two sides providing the option of through-routing and line pairing, as well as electrification over the trackage used to provide service.

Until there is a firm commitment to one idea or the other, RRD will continue in it's current mess.

I would prefer to name the lines (assuming existing conditions):

R1 Airport = Airport Line
R2 Warminster = Central Bucks Line
R2 Wilmington/Newark = Diamond State Line (name suggest commitment to Delaware service)
R3 West Trenton = Mercer Line
R3 Media = Brandywine Valley Line (a stretch)
R5 Doylestown = North Penn Line
R5 Paoli = The Main Line
R6 Norristown = Schuylkill Valley Line
R6 Cynwyd = City Northwest Line
R7 Chestnut Hill East = Chestnut Hill East Line
R7 Trenton = Northeast Corridor Line
R8 Fox Chase = Tookany Valley Line (struggle for a name here)
R8 Chestnut Hill West = Chestnut Hill West Line

If you want to be German about it, each line could have a letter designation so that they could matched for line pairings

R1 Genside = RA
R1 Airport = RB
R2 Warminster = RC
R2 Wilmington/Newark = RD
R3 West Trenton = RE
R3 Media = RF
R5 Doylestown = RG
R5 Paoli = RH
R6 Norristown = RI
R6 Cynwyd = RJ
R7 Chestnut Hill East = RK
R7 Trenton = RL
R8 Fox Chase = RM
R8 Chestnut Hill West = RN

By example: An airport train to Glenside would be designated RBA, "B" as the starting point and "A" as the end point.

Wdobner wrote:

Also a R15 would require the crew to change the sign in or approaching Center City. The crews don't seem to be too keen on changing the sign to reflect the fact that their train coming off the R5 will become a R2 south of Suburban Station, and as such just sign it as an R5 when leaving Lansdale, what makes you think the crew will do anything other than slap a R2 sign up there, creating every bit the chaos we have now?

Who's fault is that? The answer is SEPTA management for mismanaging RRD by allowing crews to do what they want. It is right to acknowledge reality, but wrong to suggest that incompetent management should be the reason for implementing a different solution.

The bottom line: RRD crews should change the signs as they are supposed to. And I say that as a card-carrying member of a union.[/quote]