Tracking the Philadelphia Schuylkill Metro project
Tammy
diesel / electric service to eliminate the need for
electrifying the Reading mainline while maintaining through
service in the Philadelphia tunnel. I disagree with the
Bush administration trying to cut federal share to 60 or
even 50 percent. I realize the government has to reduce its
spending, but if highway funding can be paid 80 percent, so
can regional rail for a project that will compete directly
with crowded underpowered highways to move commuters.
( BTW How come the Reading RR never electrified its own
mainline?)
====================================
Tracking the Metro project 02/01/2004 The Mercury
http://tinyurl.com/2qsqz
Officials throughout the region have recently begun a push
to keep alive the proposal to build a 62-mile rail line
between Philadelphia and Reading and prevent what TriCounty
Area Chamber of Commerce President Dale Mahle calls "a slow,
painful death" of the dream to restore rail service.
The Schuylkill Valley Metro, a $2.1 billion light-rail line
proposed to carry 27,000 riders daily along river towns from
the City of Brotherly Love to the Queen City, has faded from
the headlines in the past 18 months.
Facing the Bush administration’s penchant for cutting the
federal share of funding for such projects from 80 percent
to 60 percent, the project has a huge financial obstacle to
overcome.
U.S. Rep. James Gerlach, R-6th Dist., confirmed that the
Bush administration has proposed further cutting the federal
share down to 50 percent, but observed "I don’t think that’s
going to pass Congress."
Many have credited Sen. Arlen Specter with keeping the
project on life support by procuring congressional funding
for the consulting engineers to continue engineering studies
and designs for the project.
This has been done despite the Federal Transit
Administration’s refusal to recommend the project to
Congress for funding.
Task force aims to jump-start proposal
"We were making such great progress and then we got kind of
stopped on the tracks for a while," said Dennis D. Louwerse,
executive director of Berks Area Reading Transportation
Authority, better known as BARTA.
"We had a (state) budget where transit got cut 6 percent and
we were worried about just keeping what we had, and we were
all getting kind of frustrated," he said.
"I’m really encouraged by Gov. Rendell’s and Congressman
Gerlach’s interest in this project," said Louwerse.
On Jan. 14, state Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler, at
Gerlach’s urging, convened a new task force aimed at
jump-starting the proposal and pushing it forward.
"I think the meeting went really well," Gerlach said in an
interview Friday.
"We have hit the reality phase with this project," he said.
"This is a critical year for that as the authorization for
funding this expires in March," said Gerlach, although he
noted that the $45 million in federal funding and $2 million
in state funding has not been entirely spent on the
engineering studies up to this point.
With federal funding being key to the project ever getting
off the ground, Gerlach said the first priority has to be
making the Schuylkill Valley Metro attractive to the Federal
Transit Agency and the Congress that has to fund it.
That means "a leaner, meaner project," said Gerlach. "The
bottom line is, we have more limited funds, and we have some
hard questions we need to answer."
It was with an eye toward cutting the price tag that Biehler
called the recent meeting, which included representatives
from SEPTA, BARTA and representatives from Specter’s office
and Rendell’s office.
"Gov. Rendell is very interested in this project," said
PennDOT spokesman Rich Kirkpatrick. "This is a vital region
of the state, and it’s our hope to find a way to bring
everyone together so this project can move ahead, not to
have everyone throw up their hands and walk away," he said.
The group convenes again on Feb. 20 when the project’s
consultants will report on how they plan to address the
issue of redesigning the project to cut costs.
Group touts option of regular rail
One option that may be considered is something the Delaware
Valley Association of Rail Passengers has been screaming
about from the project’s first inception -- regular commuter
rail.
Don Nigro, president of DVARP, met with the SEPTA board Jan.
23 to present a proposal written three years ago by Richard
Peltz when he was Pennsylvania’s deputy secretary of
transportation for the bureau of public transportation.
Boiled down, this proposal calls for the use of a
combination of electric and diesel engines to pull rail cars
that would run on the existing Norfolk-Southern freight line
tracks that already run along the metro’s proposed route --
the former Reading Railroad tracks.
SEPTA’s current commuter service, which reaches as far west
as Norristown, is entirely electric.
And the $2.1 billion Schuylkill Valley Metro proposal would
have extended electric service, on a separate but parallel
set of tracks, all the way to Wyomissing, with a spur line
to the King of Prussia malls.
Peltz’s proposal would have the line from Reading to
Norristown pulled by a new type of diesel engine and
combined with electric cars at Norristown for the stretch to
Philadelphia.
Advantages of this approach include eliminating the need to
electrify the line up to Reading, as well as the need to
build additional tracks.
"While this corridor is wide, there are several areas that
could not accommodate additional tracks and several areas
which would require bridge reconfigurations," Peltz wrote in
the Jan. 24, 2001, plan.
One of those areas is Pottstown, where the train line cuts
through town and several bridges, including Charlotte,
Washington, Evans and Franklin streets had been identified
as requiring re-building if the metro proposal were built.
Even some homes and properties had been identified as having
to come down in order to widen the rail corridor through the
borough.
"Hundreds of millions of dollars could possibly be saved if
(the diesel engines) were run on the existing
Norfolk-Southern tracks from Reading to Norristown," the
2001 proposal notes.
The estimated cost of this proposal, $668 million, more
closely aligns itself with the original $700 million
estimates when the metro was first proposed in 1998, and is
more than half the $2.1 billion cost of the electrified
light-rail plan that has languished for two years.
It is an idea DVARP has championed for years, and Nigro said
it should now be getting a more serious look.
"We’ve been vindicated because we’ve been saying this for
four years," he said, adding that the apparent interest of
Gov. Rendell and other officials marks "a new beginning for
this plan; it’s just too bad we had to waste four years."
Breaking the whole into parts
Nigro said any new plan should include some kind of rail
service along the entire 62-mile route, and not just
sections of it. He was referring to another alternative that
has surfaced.
That would be to build the electric metro as planned, but in
phases.
Under this approach, the first leg would reach from
Norristown to Phoenixville; the second from Phoenixville to
Pottstown and the third from Pottstown to Reading.
Nigro derides that approach as building "a gold-plated
railroad" only to Phoenixville as he expresses doubts the
second two phases would ever be built.
Nevertheless, it is an approach being closely looked at by
this task force.
It is also favored by Peter Quinn, executive director of the
Greater Valley Forge Transit Management Association, who
told The Phoenix newspaper on Jan. 22 that building the
metro in three sections makes "fiscal sense."
Louwerse pointed out that "phasing" could include having
diesel trains from Reading to Norristown with
electrification coming later.
State Sen. John Rafferty, R-44th Dist., who represents the
Montgomery County towns through which the Metro would run
from Norristown on into North Coventry in Chester County and
into Douglass and Amity in Berks County, said he is not yet
entirely convinced the project makes sense at all.
"I have constituents who are for this project and those who
are against," said Rafferty, who said he personally leans in
favor of it, but is mindful of the concerns of his
constituents who are opposed.
Those opposed, primarily in rural areas of Chester County,
fear the development a commuter rail line might bring to
their townships, Rafferty said.
Those in favor, mostly in the already developed river town
areas in Montgomery and Chester, favor the rail line for the
same reason their rural neighbors fear it -- the development
money it could attract.
Build a rail line or widen the road
Rafferty said he puts "transportation on my list of top five
issues," but said he fears funding the state’s share of such
a project.
Instead, said Rafferty, he favors the more immediate
solution of expanding the capacity of Route 422.
That is an prospect that steams Andy Paravis.
A North Coventry Township Supervisor, Paravis recently
presided over a forum on economic development in the area in
his capacity as chairman of the Pottstown Metropolitan Area
Regional Planning Commission.
"So many people feel jammed up on Route 422 that everyone
feels we have to do something about it," Brian N. O’Leary, a
section chief with the Montgomery County Planning
Commission, told the regional planners during the Jan. 28
meeting.
Referring to the Jan. 14 meeting Gerlach initiated, O’Leary
said "the metro is on its last legs and they’re trying to
keep it alive."
"Our priority should be the train," Paravis responded,
arguing that a wider highway would attract as much, or even
more development, than a commuter rail line.
Noting that the Bush administration still funds 80 percent
of highway projects, Paravis said "the feds aren’t willing
to put money into a smart growth project like the metro, but
they’re happy to pour money into making Route 422, six,
eight even 12 lanes -- it’s unbelievable."
"The congestion is already at crisis proportions and you’re
never going to build enough lanes on 422 to handle all the
traffic," said Louwerse. "What are you going to do when they
get to the Schuylkill Expressway? Build a second level?
There’s no room to expand there," he said.
"You have to make these decision based on what’s best for
the community and the region and these decisions should be
‘modal-neutral," he said. "There’s no reason why we should
be funding highways at 80/20 but have a different formula
for transit."
Nonetheless, the metro, which Mahle said is "dying a slow,
painful death," is "key to the future growth of this
region," she said.
Rendell agrees, said Kirkpatrick.
"Gov. Rendell believes very strongly in balanced
transportation and he understands what this rail line would
mean to a community like Pottstown," Kirkpatrick said. "And
he also understands that the economic success of communities
like Pottstown is crucial to the economic prospects of the
entire commonwealth."
"You look at places like Reading, Pottstown and
Phoenixville, small cities, that thrived when manufacturing
was king and the train was an important part of that,"
Louwerse said. "There is a lot of land available in those
towns and companies will want that land when the rail line
comes through. Do you think if you add lanes to 422 that
will fuel the revitalization of any of those towns? I don’t
think so."
But "given the environment the federal government has set
up, and the amount of money we have to come up with, we are
faced with a very difficult challenge," Kirkpatrick said.
"They have set up this atmosphere of competition where if a
project comes to them with 50 percent non-federal funding,
it moves to the top of the list and we have to contend with
that," he said.
Louwerse remains optimistic.
"Look, the Schuylkill Valley Metro is going to get built,
it’s just a matter of how long it takes and what we’ve got
to do now is push to make sure it gets built by 2008 and not
by 2035," he said.
Silas Warner
>
> ( BTW How come the Reading RR never electrified its own
> mainline?)
>
hauler. It still is, north of Reading, only now it's Andy
Sidaris's Blue Mountain & Reading. It might have made sense
to electrify from Norristown to Reading, but there were more
heavy steam coal haulers than passenger trains on that line,
even in the best of times.
Silas Warner
mary
Tom
James Nowotarski
news:UEkTb.8716$GU7....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Northern, (RBMN). Colloquially referred to as the "RN" on the radio
(or "RN man" from the NS Harrisburg East DS and the Spring St.
yardmaster).
-
Jim
Silas Warner
> Is there passenger service to Reading or is it being planned?
>
That's what we're talking about. The debate was whether to
electrify up to Reading, or use diesels. Diesels can't run
into Philadelphia, but must connect at Norristown. But
electrification is murderously expensive, and Conrail
doesn't want to run diesel doublestacks under 11 kv
catenary.
For a long time, the choice was to inatall some kind or
low-voltage catenary, or to us some kind of RDC. For
years, the service to Reading was ith Budd RDCs, but
diesels now can't run in the center of Philadelphia.
But now SEPTA sems to have decided to go diesel.
Silas Warner
Philip Nasadowski
Silas Warner <si...@value.net> wrote:
> But now SEPTA sems to have decided to go diesel.
Where? The article mentioned the DVARP's nonexistant dual mode, and the
state's desire to keep the project 'alive' (though it's clearly dead
now). One doesn't imply the other at all.
Matthew Mitchell
<nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote:
>In article <FlBTb.20925$_O3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
> Silas Warner <si...@value.net> wrote:
>
>> But now SEPTA sems to have decided to go diesel.
>
>Where? The article mentioned the DVARP's nonexistant dual mode,
No it doesn't. It mentions separarate electric and diesel
locomotives, in the plan proposed by PennDOT deputy secretary Rick
Peltz.
You never miss an opportunity to try and resurrect that tired old slam
at DVARP, do you. Who whizzed in your Wheaties?
>and the
>state's desire to keep the project 'alive' (though it's clearly dead
>now). One doesn't imply the other at all.
While the MetroRail option is dead (as we've been saying for four
years), the project is quite alive. Now it's only a question of
whether it's going to be done with SEPTA as a participant or in spite
of SEPTA.
John S
One proposal was to have the state rebuild the Enola low grade
Branch through Lancaster County to free up Norfolk Southern's
Reading-Philadelphia mainline for passenger use. The Enola
Branch railroad line was originally built by the Pennsy Railroad
to move their freight from Philadelphia to Harrsiburg (Enola
Yard actually) without interfering with passenger traffic on the
Pennsy mainline. It was built with minimum grades which is
optimum for freight. Conrail abandoned the line circa 1991,
having decided to move freight via Reading instead.
The Schuylkill Metro plan for the line would have entailed
Norfolk Southern shifting their freight to use the Enola branch,
rather than their existing Reading-Philadelphia line. SEPTA
would then be able to use that Reading-Philadelphia line (via
Phoenixville, Royersford, Pottstown, etc) for passenger
service.
Local freight destinations (for example to Cromby, Exelon
Limerick, and Occidental Chemical) on the line would be served
at night, when the SEPTA trains were not running. Since most
freight on the line is moving between Philadelphia and
Harrisburg, it might have worked well. It also would have
been very (prohibitively) expensive to rebuild the line.
http://www.svmcoalition.com/anncmt.html
A number of groups have also been looking to convert the
abandoned Enola branch to a rail-trail. (They have claimed they
would not object to returning the RoW to rail use instead). A
number of legal actions have ensued to continue or block the
rail-trail project, prevent Norfolk Southern form knocking down
bridges, etc.
According to this New Era article, the rail trail movement for
the Enola Branch is continuing. Apparently the SEPTA-Norfolk
Southern swap idea is dead.
Lancaster New Era
The renewed movement to turn the abandoned Enola Low Grade
railroad line into a public trail and linear park is chugging
confidently along.
But can it cross the bridge? In a startling turnabout from a
decade ago, County Commissioners and both Armstrong legislators
from the southern end are aboard the effort to preserve the
23-mile, 850-acre corridor.
full story:
http://www.lancasteronline.com/articles/5336.shtm
AK47
Why not run mixes trains of self propelled diesel cars and electric cars?
The diesel cars could propel the trains north of Norristown and the
electric cars could push-pull them into Philkadelphia.
--
To e-mail me get rid of the cats and dogs.
Matthew Mitchell
wrote:
>Why not run mixes trains of self propelled diesel cars and electric cars?
>The diesel cars could propel the trains north of Norristown and the
>electric cars could push-pull them into Philkadelphia.
Such an operation has been considered, though there are no
off-the-shelf trains of this type that are FRA-compliant for US
operation. The IC3 trains used in Denmark are capable of this kind of
operation.
The prime obstacle to such a solution is having enough power for the
electric to haul the diesel out of the Center City tunnel (the grades
are relatively steep) and for the diesel to haul the electric once you
get past the changeover point.
Matthew Mitchell
>The Schuylkill Metro plan for the line would have entailed
>Norfolk Southern shifting their freight to use the Enola branch,
>rather than their existing Reading-Philadelphia line. SEPTA
>would then be able to use that Reading-Philadelphia line (via
>Phoenixville, Royersford, Pottstown, etc) for passenger
>service.
>
>Local freight destinations (for example to Cromby, Exelon
>Limerick, and Occidental Chemical) on the line would be served
>at night, when the SEPTA trains were not running. Since most
>freight on the line is moving between Philadelphia and
>Harrisburg, it might have worked well. It also would have
>been very (prohibitively) expensive to rebuild the line.
>http://www.svmcoalition.com/anncmt.html
The plan SEPTA submitted to FTA with its major investment study, which
until SEPTA finishes re-scoping the project is still the official
plan, maintained separate freight and passenger tracks the length of
the corridor, rather than diverting freight onto the Enola Branch and
taking over the existing line for passenger service. I've got the
diagrams here on my desk.
Jeff nor Lisa
> While the MetroRail option is dead (as we've been saying for four
> years), the project is quite alive. Now it's only a question of
> whether it's going to be done with SEPTA as a participant or in spite
> of SEPTA.
I haven't followed this project too closely, but I do not agree
that a light rail approach, similar to NJT's River Line, would be
such a bad idea. It is a tough balancing act.
Yes, in terms of shared track and compatibility, it would be
easiest to electrify, share tracks with the freights, and run
a commuter oriented service as is done now on SEPTA Regional Rail.
I think with some good planning, electrification should be a lot
cheaper than past projects (at least I hope so). The catenary
will not be supporting heavy freights or high speed trains, and
can be simpler/lighter as a result.
Commuter rail would be appropriate for people heading from the
distant points to center city Philadelphia.
But commuter rail has several downsides. It is a costly style
of operation. While such trains can achieve a high top speed,
in reality they won't get too fast, and acceleration/braking is
the most important aspect. Close station spacing is very
impractical and inefficient.
A light rail approach would allow zippy little trains on a more
frequent headway. Stations could be closer. This would allow for
a good distribution network in King of Prussia, which is where many
people from Pottstown and Reading and headed to; and also for K of
P people to get to downtown Phila.
It may be worthwhile to consider converting some other Reg Rail
lines to light rail, such as the two Chestnut Hill lines, and let
all them share their own tracks to downtown.
There are of course pros and cons to each issue.
Frankly, I think the outer towns near Pottstown and Reading should
field the whole cost of the project since they are the beneficiaries.
They also showed little interest in keeping the former Reading service
going in the 1980s by not paying for it. (I don't know how much
patronge there was at closure, but I don't think Valley Forge was
much of a destination during the bicentennial.)
Art Clemons
> A light rail approach would allow zippy little trains on a more
> frequent headway. Stations could be closer. This would allow for
> a good distribution network in King of Prussia, which is where many
> people from Pottstown and Reading and headed to; and also for K of
> P people to get to downtown Phila.
One of the problems with light rail is that it has a high startup cost
and requires much of the same attention that "heavy" rail requires.
Finally in regard to your Chestnut Hill line comments, I don't think the
Chestnut Hill West line could easily be converted to light rail since
it has to cross Amtrak rail and Amtrak avoids any not FRA types
crossing its rail if can. Chestnut Hill East is even more problematic
since it terminates in Trenton and a good deal of its route is right
over Amtrak rail.
Mark Cahill
service area by extending electrification (Newtown branch, Bethlehem branch,
Reading main line) has been the cost.
Is it, really? Perhaps it is time to revisit the subject.
I've heard in the past, a million dollars a mile. If that's still valid,
then electrifying the Newtown branch (probably less than 10 miles of single
track), the Bethlehem branch to Quakertown (16 miles from Lansdale) or the
Reading main (40 miles Norristown to Reading) sounds cheap. I mean, $16
million to electrify to Quakertown? That's pocket change. As soon as it
would be completed, trains could roll. No waiting for new diesel or
dual-mode diesel equipment and coaches and no problem with the CC Rail
tunnel..
I know there's NIMBY resistance from the Bryn Athyn residents, but what
about the Lansdale to Quakertown route? I live in this part of Bucks County
and traffic is as bad here as anywhere. I think people would easily
patronize such service even with hourly headways and/or rush hour service
only. 309 and the Turnpike extension are really bad at rush hour.
SEPTA committed to an all electric fleet years ago, perhaps to save on
maintaining a diesel servicing facility. OK, fine. Now commit some of the
capital budget to electrify. It can't be that cost prohibitive. As others
have pointed out, you would not need a robust catenary structure like the
Pennsy. NJT's Coast Line has a very modest looking catenary system between
Matawan and Long Branch.
So what if the FTA funds only 80% or even 50-60% (as Bush wants) of the
project. It's still a bargain.
Mark
"Matthew Mitchell" <mitc...@dvarp.org> wrote in message
news:uamd201sb98n91oej...@4ax.com...
Philip Nasadowski
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
> I haven't followed this project too closely, but I do not agree
> that a light rail approach, similar to NJT's River Line, would be
> such a bad idea. It is a tough balancing act.
I'm in the same boat. But I didn't see much wrong with SEPTA's dual
system LRV (i.e., could run on 11kv power), other than the FRA's
boneheadedness
> Yes, in terms of shared track and compatibility, it would be
> easiest to electrify, share tracks with the freights, and run
> a commuter oriented service as is done now on SEPTA Regional Rail.
Probbably cheap, too. IIRC, electrification wasn't even 5% of the SVM's
projected costs.
> I think with some good planning, electrification should be a lot
> cheaper than past projects (at least I hope so). The catenary
> will not be supporting heavy freights or high speed trains, and
> can be simpler/lighter as a result.
Simply adopting European best practices, and ignoring what the DOT did
on the CT shoreline, would help a lot.
> But commuter rail has several downsides. It is a costly style
> of operation. While such trains can achieve a high top speed,
> in reality they won't get too fast, and acceleration/braking is
> the most important aspect. Close station spacing is very
> impractical and inefficient.
Yes. Septa's existing system is by design quite slow. Despite the
80mph top speeds of the older Silverliners, I don't think they ever get
quite that fast - they just weren't made for high end acceleration. The
SL IVs are a bit faster, but I've been on a number of Trenton line
trains that nonetheless didn't reach 80 between stops, though they got
to the upper 70's.
> A light rail approach would allow zippy little trains on a more
> frequent headway. Stations could be closer. This would allow for
> a good distribution network in King of Prussia, which is where many
> people from Pottstown and Reading and headed to; and also for K of
> P people to get to downtown Phila.
It would also allow street / near street running, something that while
theoretically possible, would be a legal field day for commuter rail
(though Michigan City on the South Shore Line seems to do ok, but I'm
not sure if they run more than 2/3 car trains through there)
> It may be worthwhile to consider converting some other Reg Rail
> lines to light rail, such as the two Chestnut Hill lines, and let
> all them share their own tracks to downtown.
This would be interesting to see. It'd be even more interesting to see
the performance differences between the two.
Decent level boarding is needed at a number of Septa stops...
> There are of course pros and cons to each issue.
Well, yes :)
> Frankly, I think the outer towns near Pottstown and Reading should
> field the whole cost of the project since they are the beneficiaries.
> They also showed little interest in keeping the former Reading service
> going in the 1980s by not paying for it.
Well, if nobody was going to paty for it, can we really blame SEPTA for
pulling the plug? IIRC, SEPTA was more set up to be Philly oriented, in
fact, I believe the city even owns a few of the Silverliners. It's a
much more compact commuter system than, say, the LIRR, or NJt or MN.
Jeff nor Lisa
> One of the problems with light rail is that it has a high startup cost
> and requires much of the same attention that "heavy" rail requires.
That is not true at all. Light rail has many advantages so that
construction can be cheaper than heavy rail. Light rail can exist
with some street running, tighter curves, tighter grades (just to
name some examples), all of which can make construction cheaper.
> Finally in regard to your Chestnut Hill line comments, I don't think the
> Chestnut Hill West line could easily be converted to light rail since
> it has to cross Amtrak rail
Alternatives exist so Ch-H-W does not have to cross Amtrak.
> Chestnut Hill East is even more problematic
> since it terminates in Trenton and a good deal of its route is right
> over Amtrak rail.
The Chestnut Hill East route happens to go out to Trenton, but
it can be routed anywhere.
Jeff nor Lisa
> Yes. Septa's existing system is by design quite slow. Despite the
> 80mph top speeds of the older Silverliners, I don't think they ever get
> quite that fast - they just weren't made for high end acceleration. The
> SL IVs are a bit faster, but I've been on a number of Trenton line
> trains that nonetheless didn't reach 80 between stops, though they got
> to the upper 70's.
The Silverliner design was a great advance forward--for 1963. It
provided significantly improved performance, yet retained commuter car
comforts. The city engineers who developed it were quite smart--they
knew railroading AND they knew their customers. Unfortunately, I
don't think that unit (City of Philadelphia, Dept of Public Property,
Transit Division), is around anymore, I suspect SEPTA handles it all
now. BTW, it was the City who built the commuter tunnel, on time and
under budget.
Too much acceleration/braking will make riders uncomfortable, esp
on a long trip. Some subway-surface, Media/Sharon Hill, and trackless
operators take full advantage of the chopper power and "floor it"
then brake hard. Besides being rough on equipment it's fatiguing.
Not all of us want to ride in a fighter jet.
Many Phila Reg Rail customers feel very strongly about riding
a _train_ rather than a trolley or subway.
I had a professor from Boston tell us ridership on the MTA's
converted trolley line (from a commuter line) was much lower
since people didn't like the trolley. Don't know if true.
> Decent level boarding is needed at a number of Septa stops...
Sure would help.
> Well, if nobody was going to paty for it, can we really blame SEPTA for
> pulling the plug? IIRC, SEPTA was more set up to be Philly oriented, in
> fact, I believe the city even owns a few of the Silverliners. It's a
> much more compact commuter system than, say, the LIRR, or NJt or MN.
That is all true, the city owns ALL the 63 and 67 Silverliners, and
a bunch of the 74. SEPTA is the five counties only, not out to
Reading. That's why SEPTA doesn't run to Harrsiburg even though
Amtrak does poorly there when it really took it over from the PC.
Art Clemons
> That is not true at all. Light rail has many advantages so that
> construction can be cheaper than heavy rail. Light rail can exist
> with some street running, tighter curves, tighter grades (just to
> name some examples), all of which can make construction cheaper.
Things like purchases of right of way and other fixed costs jack up the
price of light rail to closer to rail able to carry freight in the US.
In the locale you suggested, the only lower costs would be for the
ability to run in streets but even that has a cost and isn't
encouraged. I have no great animus against light rail, it just hasn't
demonstrated any ability to replace heavy or commuter rail over long
stretches. If it's possible, it's certainly better than what exists
now.
>> Finally in regard to your Chestnut Hill line comments, I don't think
>> the Chestnut Hill West line could easily be converted to light rail
>> since it has to cross Amtrak rail
>
> Alternatives exist so Ch-H-W does not have to cross Amtrak.
Only if Septa is willing to reroute CHHW and it's not clear just how
feasible it would be. It has to cross Amtrak somewhere unless new
track is laid. One run that would be barely possible just using
Septa's present owned right of way would be to go from CHHE to Fox
Chase, but note that would require turning around somewhere or not
going all the way into center city. That would leave CHHW as the
Trenton line which would require some rerouting at 30th Street but is
theoretically possible.
>> Chestnut Hill East is even more problematic
>> since it terminates in Trenton and a good deal of its route is right
>> over Amtrak rail.
>
> The Chestnut Hill East route happens to go out to Trenton, but
> it can be routed anywhere.
Could be, but something has to go to Trenton, and a line just devoted to
Trenton doesn't fit Septa's present operating mode. A number of folks
ride CHHE to Trenton and would be upset if it did change.
Matthew Mitchell
wrote:
>I haven't followed this project too closely, but I do not agree
>that a light rail approach, similar to NJT's River Line, would be
>such a bad idea. It is a tough balancing act.
There's a huge difference between Camden-Trenton and the Schuylkill
Valley corridor. Camden-trenton always was a secondary freight route,
carrying mostly local traffic. Norristown-Reading is a main line
freight route, carrying all of Norfolk Southern's Philadelphia-bound
freight.
Time separation of freight and light rail operations is not an option
for Schuylkill Valley. There's too much traffic and it's too
important for NS to make wait half a day or more for the line to open
up for freight operations.
So you gotta have completely separate track for a light rail operation
on this corridor. Not only is it far more expensive than improving
the existing track for freight and commuter trains can share it, it's
physically impossible to build two passenger tracks on much of the
route, so you end up with profound scheduling/operational challenges,
which relates to the fatal flaw we found in SEPTA's MetroRail plan.
David Gunn spent less than two days looking at the corridor and at
SEPTA's light rail proposal, and told them it was a stupid idea (and
I'm sure Gunn was more blunt than that).
>Commuter rail would be appropriate for people heading from the
>distant points to center city Philadelphia.
And you're saying it's not an appropriate mode for reverse commuters
or people traveling off peak or commuters going to the offices in
Conshohocken?
>But commuter rail has several downsides. It is a costly style
>of operation.
No it's not. The key difference in SEPTA's mind is the possibility of
one-man operation with light rail. But they forget all the human
overhead that requires. In the MIS, they budgeted for the same number
of fare enforcement personnel with light rail and commuter rail, even
though the commuter trains would all have a conductor on board
checking tickets.
>While such trains can achieve a high top speed,
>in reality they won't get too fast, and acceleration/braking is
>the most important aspect. Close station spacing is very
>impractical and inefficient.
Well nobody's talking about close station spacing on this
line--distance between statouns would be longer than any of SEPTA's
other routes.
>A light rail approach would allow zippy little trains on a more
>frequent headway. Stations could be closer. This would allow for
>a good distribution network in King of Prussia, which is where many
>people from Pottstown and Reading and headed to; and also for K of
>P people to get to downtown Phila.
Wait a minute! Where do you think these trains are going in KOP? If
they're continuing to Philadelphia, they're going to stay down by the
river, and there's no benefit distributionwise.
>It may be worthwhile to consider converting some other Reg Rail
>lines to light rail, such as the two Chestnut Hill lines, and let
>all them share their own tracks to downtown.
SEPTA thinks this way too sometimes, but doesn;t ever work through the
ramifications. If frequent service was the key to growing ridership
on these routes, then why did SEPTA end up threating the R8 with
closure? It was running half-hour base frequencies like Paoli.
I'd be quite supportive of a coherent experiment by SEPTA to make the
railroad more relevant to the in-city neighborhoods, but their
planning is so shoddy that we'd learn nothing from the things they
propose. See for example the proposal to chop RRD fares on some of
the city lies to transit fare levels. Under our questioning at the
public hearing, SEPTA admitted they never tried to estimate the impact
of this on things like diverting traffic from stations like Jenkintown
and what this would do to parking availability and traffic in the
immediate vicinity of the stations where fares would be cut. These
[expletive deleteds] can't plan their way out of a paper bag!
>Frankly, I think the outer towns near Pottstown and Reading should
>field the whole cost of the project since they are the beneficiaries.
Philadelphia isn't paying the whole cost of its rail service, why
should Berks have to?
Philip Nasadowski
> Too much acceleration/braking will make riders uncomfortable, esp
> on a long trip. Some subway-surface, Media/Sharon Hill, and trackless
> operators take full advantage of the chopper power and "floor it"
> then brake hard. Besides being rough on equipment it's fatiguing.
> Not all of us want to ride in a fighter jet.
It's a problem if you don't control it well. if you control it well,
and modern AC inverters make this easy, it's no biggie.
> I had a professor from Boston tell us ridership on the MTA's
> converted trolley line (from a commuter line) was much lower
> since people didn't like the trolley. Don't know if true.
I'm not aware of any commuter routes converted to trolley in Boston.
Interestingly, the NYCTA converted a few commuter routes into subway
lines with great success, noteably the Dyre Ave and Rockaway lines.
> That is all true, the city owns ALL the 63 and 67 Silverliners, and
> a bunch of the 74. SEPTA is the five counties only, not out to
> Reading.
Then, really, Reading service isn't high on SEPTA's priority list. And
maybe, it shouldn't be, if residents there aren't paying taxes. I'm not
exactly sure why there's such a push to go to reading, especially when
SEPTA's got plenty of problems as it is.
John Mara
"Philip Nasadowski" <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote in message
news:nasadowsk-A6BB5...@reader3.news.rcn.net...
> In article <de64863b.04020...@posting.google.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) wrote:
>
> > I had a professor from Boston tell us ridership on the MTA's
> > converted trolley line (from a commuter line) was much lower
> > since people didn't like the trolley. Don't know if true.
>
> I'm not aware of any commuter routes converted to trolley in Boston.
The Boston and Albany's Highland Branch was abandoned in 1958 and was
connected to the subway in 1959 and operated with trolley cars as the
Riverside Line.
I don't know what happened to ridership.
John Mara
Art Clemons
> The Boston and Albany's Highland Branch was abandoned in 1958 and was
> connected to the subway in 1959 and operated with trolley cars as the
> Riverside Line.
>
> I don't know what happened to ridership.
That portion of the "green line" is heavily ridden still, and I doubt
that commuter rail would haul more passengers than the Riverside line
does.
Jeff nor Lisa
I am not saying light rail is preferable in this case. I am saying
that traditional commuter rail has some disadvantages that do need
to be examined. Just because SEPTA came up with lousy plans
(I think the city's demands hurt it too) doesn't mean the basic
concept should be disregarded outright.
> So you gotta have completely separate track for a light rail operation
> on this corridor. Not only is it far more expensive than improving
> the existing track for freight and commuter trains can share it, it's
> physically impossible to build two passenger tracks on much of the
> route, so you end up with profound scheduling/operational challenges,
> which relates to the fatal flaw we found in SEPTA's MetroRail plan.
If there is only presently a single track out there now, to provide
effective service you'll need to double track it anyway. The
Reading had four tracks in that corridor.
Now I do think that a double track line sharing psgr and freight
is more efficient and a win-win for both than two single tracks
each dedicated to one carrier. That of course makes commuter rail
style a preferred choice since it can mix easily.
However, commuter rail in itself, especially for Philadelphia,
is certainly not necessarily a good option for several reasons:
1) It is very expensive and inefficient to operate, 2) it isn't
very fast, and 3) it doesn't serve today's diverse origins and
destinations very well.
> >Commuter rail would be appropriate for people heading from the
> >distant points to center city Philadelphia.
>
> And you're saying it's not an appropriate mode for reverse commuters
> or people traveling off peak or commuters going to the offices in
> Conshohocken?
Commuter rail stinks for reverse commuting. I dare say the
vast majority of people who reverse commute are those who have
no choice due to no car, plus a few who are lucky enough to live
near that boarding station and can walk to their ultimate
destination when they get off. For way too many people, doing
reverse commute requires a ride to the station, the train ride
(or maybe two train rides to make a connection), and a ride to
the ultimate destination. Many people have to walk considerable
distances (ie 2 miles) on open roads with no sidewalks.
Because light rail tends to have more sprightly and flexible
vehicles than an 85' Silverliner, they can ecnomically have
many flag stop stations in a short areaa. For instance, a line
could loop around K of P stopping every few blocks near key
industries and stores. A train wouldn't fit on the tight curves.
Many existing commuter rail stations are not near the business
activity. For instance, Ft. Washington is distant from the
industrial park. They actually made the P&W Norristown Terminal
_further away_ from the Court House! Woodbourne is nowhere near
the shopping and automall district (a shuttle bus for it failed).
People don't like to transfer, esp when the next vehicle doesn't
run very often. I realize some shuttle vans will be ineveitable
for reverse commuting, indeed they need many more routes now,
but it's better to have a rail station itself close by if
practical.
There are tough tradeoffs to make. Look at the latest routing
of the Trenton bus, Rt 127. It takes a long roundabout routing
from Trenton to Oxd Val--it serves industries, not residents.
That is, this bus is a reverse commuter bus, not as in the past
to get people to Trenton. But it now takes three times as long.
> >But commuter rail has several downsides. It is a costly style
> >of operation.
>
> No it's not. The key difference in SEPTA's mind is the possibility of
> one-man operation with light rail.
On the P&W and Media/Sharon Hill, typically they use one person
on the train to drive it, run the doors, and collect fares.
There is no expense for fare machines, validators, and inspectors
(though there are ticket sales agents). There's no reason a light
rail line couldn't run the same way.
On Regional Rail, they run the trains as they did 100 years ago.
Manual doors and tickets. Just this past Saturday I saw a three car
train with only one set of doors open despite it being very crowded.
The idea was for one conductor to watch a set of doors (which is why
they kept them adjacent at the car ends).
Even systems with the infrastructure to support automation don't
use it--NJT is adding crews to long trains and the Metra Electric
is discontinuing AFC. Despite success in an experiment years ago,
the LIRR and MNRR aren't considering it--and they have automatic
train doors and high platforms.
> Well nobody's talking about close station spacing on this
> line--distance between statouns would be longer than any of SEPTA's
> other routes.
But you mentioned reverse commuting. Wouldn't there be one or
two stops in K of P as well as Valley forge for tourists?
> If frequent service was the key to growing ridership
> on these routes, then why did SEPTA end up threating the R8 with
> closure? It was running half-hour base frequencies like Paoli.
They weren't being logical.
SEPTA is not interested in ridership, but staying on a very
lean budget. A heavy route like 23/125 suffers with 20 minute Sat.
headways and crowded buses because they get away with it
"the psgrs have passes anyway so there's no new revenue".
Look at how much ridership exploded when the PRSL trains were
converted to rapid transit by PATCO. The pre-PATCO trains
carried but a handful of people in that corridor. PATCO, offering
fast, comfortable, and frequent service, does great.
I can't help but wonder if a DC-Metro or PATCO approach might
do much better out there. Unfortunately, it would also cost $$$$.
> I'd be quite supportive of a coherent experiment by SEPTA to make the
> railroad more relevant to the in-city neighborhoods,
Unfortunately, the infrastructure--where the stations, tracks,
and routes are--is 125 years old and not in sync with today's
travel patterns. SEPTA did right by making Temple U it's main
stop and downgrading North Broad Street and North Philadelphia.
I don't know how many people lost out when they closed Spring
Garden, Nicetown, and Tioga, but the big manufacturing district
along Hunting Park Ave is mostly gone.
Matthew Russotto
Jeff nor Lisa <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>Because light rail tends to have more sprightly and flexible
>vehicles than an 85' Silverliner, they can ecnomically have
>many flag stop stations in a short areaa. For instance, a line
>could loop around K of P stopping every few blocks near key
>industries and stores. A train wouldn't fit on the tight curves.
Where are you going to put the light rail? Run it down US-202? Gulph Road?
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue." But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.
John S
Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
> Matthew Mitchell <mitc...@dvarp.org> wrote
>
> > While the MetroRail option is dead (as we've been saying for four
> > years), the project is quite alive. Now it's only a question of
> > whether it's going to be done with SEPTA as a participant or in spite
> > of SEPTA.
>
> I haven't followed this project too closely, but I do not agree
> that a light rail approach, similar to NJT's River Line, would be
> such a bad idea. It is a tough balancing act.
The River line uses tracks sharing light rail and freight, separated by
time. Otherwise they could not share the tracks. The Reading line is far
too busy to run only at night, it is already quite busy 24 hours a day.
>
>
> Yes, in terms of shared track and compatibility, it would be
> easiest to electrify, share tracks with the freights, and run
> a commuter oriented service as is done now on SEPTA Regional Rail.
> I think with some good planning, electrification should be a lot
> cheaper than past projects (at least I hope so). The catenary
> will not be supporting heavy freights or high speed trains, and
> can be simpler/lighter as a result.
Doesn't N-S run double stacked cars on this line? Is this compatible with
catenary wires overhead?
>
>
> Commuter rail would be appropriate for people heading from the
> distant points to center city Philadelphia.
>
> But commuter rail has several downsides. It is a costly style
> of operation. While such trains can achieve a high top speed,
> in reality they won't get too fast, and acceleration/braking is
> the most important aspect. Close station spacing is very
> impractical and inefficient.
If your going to use light rail, you're talking about building new tracks
for the length of the corridor. (unless you could somehow use the old
Pennsy Schuylkill Branch right of way)
>
>
> A light rail approach would allow zippy little trains on a more
> frequent headway. Stations could be closer. This would allow for
> a good distribution network in King of Prussia, which is where many
> people from Pottstown and Reading and headed to; and also for K of
> P people to get to downtown Phila.
And where would said light rail be located?
>
>
> It may be worthwhile to consider converting some other Reg Rail
> lines to light rail, such as the two Chestnut Hill lines, and let
> all them share their own tracks to downtown.
>
> There are of course pros and cons to each issue.
>
> Frankly, I think the outer towns near Pottstown and Reading should
> field the whole cost of the project since they are the beneficiaries.
That makes no sense at all. This is a regional project. It benefits the
entire region, including the entire Schuylkill Valley along the route, not
just the areas you mention. It would also reduce the demand for the
ultra-congested US 422 and I-76 corridor, especially the daily parking lot
east of PA 29. What "outer towns near Pottsown and Reading" are you
referring to? By your own reasoning, Philadelphia should field the entire
cost of subway, El, and trollies since it is the beneficiary. They don't
seem to mind cashing checks paid for with state provided money from outside
the city.
>
> They also showed little interest in keeping the former Reading service
> going in the 1980s by not paying for it. (I don't know how much
> patronge there was at closure, but I don't think Valley Forge was
> much of a destination during the bicentennial.)
I think your memory is a bit faulty here.
John S
Jeff nor Lisa wrote:
> Philip Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote
>
> > Yes. Septa's existing system is by design quite slow. Despite the
> > 80mph top speeds of the older Silverliners, I don't think they ever get
> > quite that fast - they just weren't made for high end acceleration. The
> > SL IVs are a bit faster, but I've been on a number of Trenton line
> > trains that nonetheless didn't reach 80 between stops, though they got
> > to the upper 70's.
>
> The Silverliner design was a great advance forward--for 1963. It
> provided significantly improved performance, yet retained commuter car
> comforts. The city engineers who developed it were quite smart--they
> knew railroading AND they knew their customers. Unfortunately, I
> don't think that unit (City of Philadelphia, Dept of Public Property,
> Transit Division), is around anymore, I suspect SEPTA handles it all
> now. BTW, it was the City who built the commuter tunnel, on time and
> under budget.
The city hired the people who built the tunnel, but the project received 80%
federal funding and $30 Million from the state.
> Too much acceleration/braking will make riders uncomfortable, esp
> on a long trip. Some subway-surface, Media/Sharon Hill, and trackless
> operators take full advantage of the chopper power and "floor it"
> then brake hard. Besides being rough on equipment it's fatiguing.
> Not all of us want to ride in a fighter jet.
>
> Many Phila Reg Rail customers feel very strongly about riding
> a _train_ rather than a trolley or subway.
>
> I had a professor from Boston tell us ridership on the MTA's
> converted trolley line (from a commuter line) was much lower
> since people didn't like the trolley. Don't know if true.
Maybe it was true in 1960. (You did say MTA, not MBTA) It's not true today,
the D line you refer to is very busy and goes directly into the downtown
subway. Since the stations are relatively far apart, the trolley can achieve
up to 45-50 mph between stations.
Philip Nasadowski
> The River line uses tracks sharing light rail and freight, separated by
> time. Otherwise they could not share the tracks. The Reading line is far
> too busy to run only at night, it is already quite busy 24 hours a day.
How many trains a day? 25? 50? 100? Over how many tracks? 1? 2?
> Doesn't N-S run double stacked cars on this line? Is this compatible with
> catenary wires overhead?
The 'compatible' solution - state buys tracks from NS, strings up wires,
restricts equipment types. More realistically, whatever is so gosh darn
amazing about doublestacks that they have to be allowed to every last
rail line on the earth?
Or, simply string the wires higher :)
> If your going to use light rail, you're talking about building new tracks
> for the length of the corridor. (unless you could somehow use the old
> Pennsy Schuylkill Branch right of way)
Either way, you're talking about a major rehab or new track. Let's face
it, a few beat up, used coaches on what passes for track in most places,
with poor boarding and roll-the-dice reliability will not attract
riders, and frankly, IMHO is a waste of money. If the state's going to
do it, they should do it in a manner that attracts ridership, and that's
NOT going to be cheap, period. IMHO, it's the half assed solutions that
don't attract ridership, but suck up money, that have given commuter
rail, and to an extent intercity rail, a bad name in the US.
> And where would said light rail be located?
Prefferably near people. Like, down the main drag in the main commerce
area. LRVs could go from private ROW to street and back. Commuter
rail...can't.
> That makes no sense at all. This is a regional project. It benefits the
> entire region, including the entire Schuylkill Valley along the route, not
> just the areas you mention.
It's the outlying regions that want access, they should pay for it. Not
all, of it, but a chunk. They certainly shouldn't be getting it for
free.
Matthew Mitchell
<nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote:
>> Doesn't N-S run double stacked cars on this line? Is this compatible with
>> catenary wires overhead?
Double-stacks can run under catenary, if it's high enough (my
understanding is 24 feet)
>The 'compatible' solution - state buys tracks from NS, strings up wires,
>restricts equipment types.
Over David Goode's (CEO of NS) dead body.
>More realistically, whatever is so gosh darn
>amazing about doublestacks that they have to be allowed to every last
>rail line on the earth?
They're a significant and growing revenue source for the railroads.
Intermodal is now 20% of NS revenue,and in a few years, it could
surpass even coal revenue. Profits had lagged for a while, but stack
trains are now quite profitable too. NS doesn't break down expenses
or profits by traffic type though--it would be subject to accounting
vagaries as well as a tactically bad thing to do (giving the customers
a chance to see how much they're leaving on the table)
I think it was in Trains magazine I saw the remark that intermodal is
getting to be like running unit trains, and I can believe it. Once
they have the infrastructure in place, this is going to be a major
profit center.
Matt Mitchell
[ObDisclaimer: I have some NS stock in my son's college fund]
Silas Warner
> In article <402988CA...@no.spam>, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
>>Doesn't N-S run double stacked cars on this line? Is this compatible with
>>catenary wires overhead?
>
>
> The 'compatible' solution - state buys tracks from NS, strings up wires,
> restricts equipment types. More realistically, whatever is so gosh darn
> amazing about doublestacks that they have to be allowed to every last
> rail line on the earth?
cost, that's why. Doublestack freights cost 7 cents a ton-mile, as
opposed to 9 cents for single TOFC and 10 cents for single-stack
COFC. THese are old estimates, from 1995 on Santa Fe (before BNSF.)
At that time, thru truck rates were estimated at 8.5 cents/ton-mile.
Undoubedly the actual figures have changed by now, but the ration
are sill valid: COFC and TOFC are more expensie than trucks (but
significantly faster: 6 hours CHI-LA in 1995). Bbut doublestacks
are significantly cheaper.
Silas Warner
John S
I didn't make any claims to the contrary. I just pointed out that there
was previously a possibility that NorfolkSouthern might be willing to
exchange its Reading _ Philadelphia line for a reconstructed Enola low
grade Branch through Chester, Lancaster counties, and that possibility
(for all reasonable intents and purposes does not exist at this time).
John S
> In article <402988CA...@no.spam>, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> > The River line uses tracks sharing light rail and freight, separated by
> > time. Otherwise they could not share the tracks. The Reading line is far
> > too busy to run only at night, it is already quite busy 24 hours a day.
>
> How many trains a day? 25? 50? 100? Over how many tracks? 1? 2?
I would estimate 30-50. The line is double tracked except for a tunnel or two.
> > Doesn't N-S run double stacked cars on this line? Is this compatible with
> > catenary wires overhead?
>
> The 'compatible' solution - state buys tracks from NS, strings up wires,
> restricts equipment types.
NS is not going to give up its main route out of Philadelphia! That would
cripple its business. The state is not in the business (nor should it be) of
grabbing something so essential to a business when it is not necessary. Even if
eminent domain was on the table, the expense alone for "fair market value" would
be prohibitive. It would also be tied up for a decade in courts. Fortunately
nobody is suggesting that the state take this route.
> More realistically, whatever is so gosh darn
> amazing about doublestacks that they have to be allowed to every last
> rail line on the earth?
The Efficiency gains they bring for the railroad. Remember the railroad (and
predecessors) have already invested in this capacity.
> Or, simply string the wires higher :)
>
> > If your going to use light rail, you're talking about building new tracks
> > for the length of the corridor. (unless you could somehow use the old
> > Pennsy Schuylkill Branch right of way)
>
> Either way, you're talking about a major rehab or new track. Let's face
> it, a few beat up, used coaches on what passes for track in most places,
> with poor boarding and roll-the-dice reliability will not attract
> riders, and frankly, IMHO is a waste of money. If the state's going to
> do it, they should do it in a manner that attracts ridership, and that's
> NOT going to be cheap, period. IMHO, it's the half assed solutions that
> don't attract ridership, but suck up money, that have given commuter
> rail, and to an extent intercity rail, a bad name in the US.
>
> > And where would said light rail be located?
>
> Prefferably near people. Like, down the main drag in the main commerce
> area. LRVs could go from private ROW to street and back. Commuter
> rail...can't.
That makes for a nice usenet argument, but given the actual area, it doesn't
sound very feasible in practice.
>
>
> > That makes no sense at all. This is a regional project. It benefits the
> > entire region, including the entire Schuylkill Valley along the route, not
> > just the areas you mention.
>
> It's the outlying regions that want access, they should pay for it.
Actually it's the entire Schuylkill Valley region from Norristown-Reading.
> Not
> all, of it, but a chunk. They certainly shouldn't be getting it for
> free.
Nobody has suggested that it be for free. However it IS a regional (county)
issue, not asking towns that can't scrape together enough cash to patch a pothole
to fully fund a railroad that also benefits the entire region. SEPTA covers
Montgomery & and Chester Counties. Berks county is covered by BARTA which is
also a party in the project.
Philip Nasadowski
Matthew Mitchell <mitc...@dvarp.org> wrote:
> Double-stacks can run under catenary, if it's high enough (my
> understanding is 24 feet)
>
IIRC, my back ofthe envelope, out of my ass guestimate a while back was
25 feet. Interestyingly, i believe tis is still within the reach of a
Silverliner, though just barely (I'm guessing they're speed restricted
at that point, though, but I don't know if there was any restrictions
for operation in 'high wire' areas.)
24 feet might have been good for 11kv (we agree for once! :). Though
ANY extension of electrification should probbably be 60hz (12kv), which
all the Silverliners might be able to do right now (The SL IVs can), and
can probbably do with minor modification.
Anyway, it's an issue of pantographs, though that'd be one honk'n big
one. I don't know what the lowest point in the system is...
Matthew Mitchell
<nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote:
>How many trains a day? 25? 50? 100? Over how many tracks? 1? 2?
20 to 30 trains per day, mostly double track.
Matthew Mitchell
>I didn't make any claims to the contrary. I just pointed out that there
>was previously a possibility that NorfolkSouthern might be willing to
>exchange its Reading _ Philadelphia line for a reconstructed Enola low
>grade Branch through Chester, Lancaster counties,
Well while there was a newspaper article speculating about this
possibility, it never reached the point of being included in the
study.
>and that possibility
>(for all reasonable intents and purposes does not exist at this time).
Indeed.
bras...@despammed.com
Nasadowski <nasa...@nospam.usermail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, it's an issue of pantographs, though that'd be one honk'n big
> one. I don't know what the lowest point in the system is...
For what it is worth, the Southern Pacific Red Electric lines in Oregon
used a pantograph extension platform mounted on the roof of the car.
Apparently there was enough large freight loads (most likely lumber loads)
going over the lines to justify a higher catenary than most other places
used.
--
-Glenn Laubaugh
Personal Web Site: http://users.easystreet.com/glennl
Philip Nasadowski
Matthew Mitchell <mitc...@dvarp.org> wrote:
> 20 to 30 trains per day, mostly double track.
That's it? Or is that per track? That's practically no traffic.
John S
Matthew Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2004 10:10:53 -0500, John S <joh...@no.spam> wrote:
>
> >I didn't make any claims to the contrary. I just pointed out that there
> >was previously a possibility that NorfolkSouthern might be willing to
> >exchange its Reading _ Philadelphia line for a reconstructed Enola low
> >grade Branch through Chester, Lancaster counties,
>
> Well while there was a newspaper article speculating about this
> possibility, it never reached the point of being included in the
> study.
To be fair, it was more than merely a newspaper speculation. H. Craig Lewis,
Norfolk Southern's vice president of corporate affairs came forward with the
offer for an Enola Branch swap.