Project Prioritization

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

AlexC wrote:6) Integration with the Maryland transit authority for Newark DE.... or Elkton,MD?

While this looks like an obvious need from a railfan's perspective, where is the market for such a service??? There's a degree of synergy from the back to back Wilmington and Philadelphia markets (it's always effective to fill the seat twice on a run), but that's not enough to overcome the rather small market for the amount of additional train miles you have to run.

I would tend to agree---MARC already runs to Perryville-- for those commuters into Baltimore and DC from the Harford & Cecil County area of Northern Maryland. Unless significant potential commuter traffic from Delaware ( either Wilmington or Newark) into the Baltimore-Washington Corrider developes, there probably wouldn't be much demand for MARC to connect with SEPTA in Wilmington, Newark, or Elkton. That area North of Baltimore County is not nearly as heavily urbanized as the area to the south and I suspect that most of the Delaware traffic south of Wilmington is headed North rather than south.
If a demand for this kind of service ever did develop, it really wouldn't be that difficult, logistically, to impliment, as long as it didn't interfere with Amtrak's intercity service on the NEC.

On the subject of low floor trams: I was assuming that the LRVs in question would be about 12 inches of clearance above the ground at the door. Instead of building platforms or something that'd likely end up expensive or unworkable on SEPTA's streetcar, why not just adapt the ramps that the new D40LF buses have? I prefer a design similar to the Skoda Astra 3T, a single-ended low floor LRV with a pantograph. One of the reasons I think the double articulated LRV would work is that it rides on two trucks at either end, with the center section cantilevered, the center idler truck with no axles that has caused so many problems for MBTA's Type 8s is not there. At 66 feet long they're not too large for the streets either, an important consideration on the 23 and 15 in spots.

And thanks for the info on West Chester, I'd been out in the area and I guess the sparseness of people out there didn't quite register. I would like to see Kennett Square get electrified service to downtown in the near future, it seems like one of those areas primed to explode with exurbs. However, if West Chester has the tracks, wires (or at least uprights) and such, in the near term it'd be better to see them get service.

I'm still somewhat baffled by everyone's hostility to an electrified Schuykill Valley Metro. If GWB and Spector can cough up the cash to electrify to Reading, who are we to bitch and moan? Diesels cost far more than electrics to operate, electricity is cheaper for an equivilant unit of energy than diesel, our system is completely incompatible with Diesels, and SEPTA maintains virtually no diesel shops that could maintain the diesels for that service. We'd save money in the long term if SVM were electrified straight through to Reading, runtimes would be cut, headways could be shorter, standard maitenance equipment could be used on both the ROW and the vehicles, and the current fleet could be run there. I would not mind seeing SVM and say a Kennett Square diesel line through-routed via 30th St Station's LL, but they'd have to purchase the locos, get the funding (or at least an agreement to funding), and an agreement from Amtrak to allow their use at 30th St LL, as well as possibly maintain them, and NS to operate the service with their engineers.

Wdobner wrote:I'm still somewhat baffled by everyone's hostility to an electrified Schuykill Valley Metro. If GWB and Spector can cough up the cash to electrify to Reading, who are we to bitch and moan?

Point well taken. I'm not so sure people would object if and when other people pay for it--it's just that in comparison to other things we could invest capital money in, it oughta be a low priority.

I'm still somewhat baffled by everyone's hostility to an electrified Schuykill Valley Metro

Let's see...$2 billion, all-new alignment, a 62-mile ride with no toilets. It's worse than a joke. The cheapest scenario is to restore the past diesel service (which would require restoration of the missing fourth track as probably the largest capital measure, a connection to 30th Street's lower level and diesel traction for the existing push-pull fleet coming in as second and third—of course, instituting an engine change at Conshohocken would knock new tracks to 30th Street lower level off the capital budget thereof). A better scenario would be to electrify from Conshohocken to Reading and restore the missing fourth track. You're still coming in way cheaper than the insane SVM proposal.

If GWB and Spector can cough up the cash to electrify to Reading

Biggest "if" on the board there, yes? All concerned know that no such thing would happen. Besides, as already noted, the actual SVM involves building a new alignment and electrifying that from Philly to Reading. Why no non-SVM alternatives considered?

I agree. if Reading service were electrified, I would not object, but only if it's run like the current Regional system (except bathrooms). The current plan is automated Route 100-like cars on a completely new track which would not interconnect with the Regional system. Am I mistaken? If not, this is a ridiculously gold plated project taht would just complicate everything.

SCB2525 wrote:I agree. if Reading service were electrified, I would not object, but only if it's run like the current Regional system (except bathrooms). The current plan is automated Route 100-like cars on a completely new track which would not interconnect with the Regional system. Am I mistaken?

In several ways.

First of all, the MetroRail plan which SEPTA submitted to FTA and had rejected was to interconect with the existing railroad, but it would have been on tracks segregated from the NS freight tracks between Norristown and Reading. Also, there was never a plan for "automated" cars in this service, even in the various light rail options considered in the earlier phase of the study.

Though they've not held any public meetings or otherwise announced any specifics, it appears that SEPTA is now working on a more cost-effective plan using conventional commuter rail equipment on shared track. There has not been a decision on whether they would seek to electrify the route, or whether SEPTA or NS would operate the service (NS is much more open to passenger service at this time, of course on the condition that they are adequately compensated--they're even talked about operating services in other states).

Presently, the project is in the hands of a task force convened by Congressman Jim Gerlach, who must have been pretty sick of seeing SEPTA [bowa] around with its MetroRail folly. The task force includes representatives from SEPTA, NS, and PennDOT. If they're going to submit a grant application for FY 2006, they're going to need to come to a decision on a plan by the end of the summer.

The route from Norristown to Reading is about 40 miles. If electrification costs $2-4 million per mile, that's about $80-160 million for electrification. NS already runs freights under the electrified tracks at Norristown, so it won't be a problem to use the existing tracks. A diesel loco is going to cost more than an electric one, and you get the benefits of being able to use EMUs and running straight to Suburban Station without an engine change or transfer.

I think NS should operate the service. Part of the problem with SEPTA is that they're not represented by Berks county, which is where Reading is located. The state could provide tax breaks and passenger subsidies for 5 or 10 years to get things started.

They should run as an express between Conshohocken and Temple U during peak hours, and during off-peak run every other train to Reading as locals. Most R6 trains terminate at 30th St Station, so there are no issues with through-running.

Lucius Kwok wrote:NS already runs freights under the electrified tracks at Norristown, so it won't be a problem to use the existing tracks.

NS may run a few freights under the wires there, but the bulk of their freight is on the other side of the river, where there is no electrification.

I think NS should operate the service.

It certainly gets around some potential problems, and opens the door to eventual competition, but it might also add some overhead costs. That said, it would be good to have real railroaders in charge.

Part of the problem with SEPTA is that they're not represented by Berks county, which is where Reading is located.

No problem. BARTA (Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority) has been a co-sponsor of the SVM planning studies, and would fund the operation in their county, probably through a contract like DelDOT's sponsorship of R2 service in Delaware.

As for NS being the operator, do they have trackage rights on SEPTA territory in Center City? Do they also have engineers qualified in that territory? or indeed, do the engineers working in the pool of that service area have passenger certification...?

RE: Brandywine Valley, check out these photos on another forum to see what the area is like. From that set: some railroad tracks near Route 100, I don't know where.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

SCB2525 wrote:I agree. if Reading service were electrified, I would not object, but only if it's run like the current Regional system (except bathrooms). The current plan is automated Route 100-like cars on a completely new track which would not interconnect with the Regional system. Am I mistaken?

In several ways.

Thats why I asked. Thank you for setting me straight.

About operation, does anyone else think Reading should become R9 and the R6 left as is, just as would occur if an R4 Bryn Mawr were added with the R5 Paoli as to reduce travel times? Perhaps the R1 instead of Glenside as to keep a Reading and Pennsy side for each R.

SCB2525 wrote: About operation, does anyone else think Reading should become R9 and the R6 left as is, just as would occur if an R4 Bryn Mawr were added with the R5 Paoli as to reduce travel times? Perhaps the R1 instead of Glenside as to keep a Reading and Pennsy side for each R.

They should give the train a name like all other commuter rail operations in this country and Canada. Call it the "Reading Line" or the "Schuylkill Valley Line".

The trains are going to terminate at 30th Street Station, so there's no need to assign a number. In fact, the more I look at the schedules and watch first-timers trip over the distinction between the Reading and PRR sides of each R-number, the more I think the line-pairing idea was a mistake.

SCB2525 wrote:About operation, does anyone else think Reading should become R9 and the R6 left as is, just as would occur if an R4 Bryn Mawr were added with the R5 Paoli as to reduce travel times? Perhaps the R1 instead of Glenside as to keep a Reading and Pennsy side for each R.

I agree with Lucius. Passengers find the R numbering confusing--in particular they do things like get on the R5 Doylestown instead of the R5 Paoli. We don't have the multiplicity of through-city routes like the German stadtbahns which were the inspiration for Vuchic's R-numbering system, and we don't have much through-city ridership, so there's not the same justification for that numbering system.

Having separate numbers for the Reading- or Pennsy-side lines would avoid the abovementioned confusion while giving passengers a easy-to-remember number for their line in addition to the destination name (e.g. R13 West Trenton).

Why not just dispense with the R number system (which makes practically NO sense) and do what's done up around NY, i.e. name the lines by the terminal station?

As for an electric service to reading? If it could be done for sub 200 million, it's stupid not to - diesels would require their own maintenance shop and staff, plus you'd have 2 noncompatible fleets, plus the much poorer performance (unless you went DMU), plus the limitations of only being able to terminate at the lower level of 30th street, and not being able to run the diesels on other lines. If you assume the typical Septa 2/3/4 car trains, a locomotive setup would be insanely expensive to implement if you were going to have any usable frequency to the service (i.e., a few times an hour). The days of the cheap passenger diesel are over - EMD's gone from the market, the GE offerings are going to be pricey on account of EPA and new FRA regs (plus the new models have gotten zero orders, so a small order itself will be more expensive). Amtrak has a few P-40s floating around - but for how long? The initial cost savings wouldn't amount to much (if any), and the long term costs would likely be higher, not lower. And forget a 40 year lifespan on diesels. Recent history has shown even a 15 year first life isn't very realistic for diesels in passenger service. You might save a few million now, but you'll get killed with costs years from now.

In any case, if Septa gets fixated on short trains hauled by locos (why? The operation is suited for EMUs), the performance of an ALP-46 pulling 4 comet cars will blow any diesel clear out of the water - they can pretty match the Arrow III MU in terms of 'go' (though they should be better at high speed acceleration, as they have even more HP per car than an arrow).

Loco hauled cars are cost-effective compared to MUs when you have four or more cars. MU cars are essentially locomotives which have passenger seating. However, SEPTA is unable to fill 2-car MUs most of the time, so there's not much call for loco-hauled trains.

They also can change from diesel to electric easily, with a loco swap. Diesel operation has its pros and cons. Diesel fuel costs are about 3 times electric costs, but electrification has a high initial capital cost. I've estimated and calculated some numbers, and it turns out which one is the better choice depends on how many round-trips the trains will make each day.

If you're going to have only 6 round trips a day (a typical peak-only commuter operation), diesel wins hands down, since you'll never recover the cost of electrifcation. But if you're going to run 20 or more round trips each day (hourly service like most other SEPTA rail lines), electrification is better.

I think initially we should provisionally start operation to Reading with diesels. NS already has experience operating diesels. They would just need to hire and train three crews to operate between Reading and Norristown, where they would do an engine change and crew change and let SEPTA run the rest of the line. If ridership warrants it, and we go to full hourly operation, we can electrify the line.

As I've said before, I'd like to see NS operate it just to give SEPTA some competition, and to show how horribly inefficient SEPTA is.

The first $2 billion MetroRail plan was a boondoggle which if were approved, would probably put all other SEPTA capital projects on hold. To put it in context, the US-202 & I-76 widening project at King of Prussia just completed cost $290 million. Despite that snafu, there are a lot of people working on making the SVM work. Rep. Jim Gerlach is one player, the DVRPC is another.

Since SEPTA has failed to come up with a viable plan, why don't they hire an independent company to draft a plan?