Airport Line

Limited-Clear wrote:Sorry, I mean when they use the non baggage track, would it be a case of too bad and leave or would it be a case of "customer service and wait", I'm not sure at 30th street if there would be charges that septa would have to pay for "using" lower level platforms, they have trackage rights and run trains down there, but to implement a service pattern may uncover more costs, also passenger assistance would be an issue, the Amtrak personel wouldn't want to extra passenger volume to deal with passengers that aren't theirs, just a few things to ponder

I think that that SEPTA should allow (pay for) amtrak red caps to help passengers using the airport line (amtrak will help you to and from SEPTA if you are an Amtrak passenger). I'm sure you're right that "additional fees" may apply though most of this money comes from the state which also pays amtrak directly already. Obviously the best solution is for more frequent service on the current alignment but I hear that is difficult to accomplish to I asked about using the unused capacity. Perhaps if we are ever lucky enough to have PennDOT pay for Amtrak Reading service it could run to the airport via the lower level as a state supported train. one question, would the trip to the lower level be faster or about the same as the current trip?

Besides "Red Cap Service" (not an awful idea but no reason why SEPTA couldn't just do it themselves), there is no reason for Amtrak to run Airport service. Amtrak exists for intercity service and the only airport stations it services are those already on lines which they service between one city to another. If you're proposing to have SEPTA service 30th LL via Amtrak and expect that to be speedy, go ride a CHW train and see how "speedy" Amtrak dispatches SEPTA between Zoo and N. Philadelphia.

The single track between Phil and 60Th St North is not the bottleneck; it could easily allow more service albeit with slight issues in case of moderate delays . The fact is that the city has yet to provide the push or funding for additional service, although this is desired in the not too distant future (like Norristown and CHE are getting). I had heard that freight coming from Chester/Lester is an issue and may result in interlocking and track improvements between 90th North and 60th South to allow this increased frequency.

I'm suprised nobody mentioned extending the NJT trains to the airport. At least they will do something other than foul a track for a long time while laying over at 30th St.

There's also the possibility of an KPHL-KPNE shuttle service through 30th St LL. Time to upgrade the Bustelton branch & it would let Trenton trains run an express service from HOLMES to 30th St Upper.

Not sure why you are try to imply Amtrak deliberately runs CHW trains slowly, the signals dictate how fast the train can go up to the top allowable speed, there are reasons signals are used to decrease a trains speed and the big 15mph curve not to mention the slow speed crossovers are two of them.

The single track most certainly is a bottleneck for a proposed extra 2 trains each way through there, you have late trains to contend with, you have switch time outs to contend with.

Money is needed to rehab the escape track, have you actually seen it?

More service is being pushed for but they cant even fill a 4 car train at 4 terminals as is, so the big plan is to run more empty trains and claim septa is wasting money? Terminal E should have its track extended first so people don't have to walk/drag their entire belongings through a car that isn't being used, all because the track is 60 odd feet too short to properly platform the train.

The extra trains should be 4 bilevels with an ACS64 on each end and dedicated to [redacted -AlexC] service

One bottleneck that hasn't been mentioned is that a train from 30th St. LL to the escape track (the only access to the Airport Line from the LL) has to cross northbound Track 2 on the flat at PHIL. One thing PHIL doesn't need is more conflicting moves (especially when they conflict with an Acela). And I still don't see how running from the Airport to the LL is desirable.

nomis wrote:I'm suprised nobody mentioned extending the NJT trains to the airport. At least they will do something other than foul a track for a long time while laying over at 30th St.

Don't forget that when Amtrak was running to Atlantic City, they actually DID run to PHL. I believe it was a (short lived) joint venture with Midway Airlines at the time to provide service from the midwest to AC. It obviously was not all that successful and did little to prevent the demise of Amtrak's service to the shore.

Limited-Clear wrote:Not sure why you are try to imply Amtrak deliberately runs CHW trains slowly, the signals dictate how fast the train can go up to the top allowable speed, there are reasons signals are used to decrease a trains speed and the big 15mph curve not to mention the slow speed crossovers are two of them.

The single track most certainly is a bottleneck for a proposed extra 2 trains each way through there, you have late trains to contend with, you have switch time outs to contend with.

Money is needed to rehab the escape track, have you actually seen it?

More service is being pushed for but they cant even fill a 4 car train at 4 terminals as is, so the big plan is to run more empty trains and claim septa is wasting money? Terminal E should have its track extended first so people don't have to walk/drag their entire belongings through a car that isn't being used, all because the track is 60 odd feet too short to properly platform the train.

when the state added more train to the Keystone corridor ridership doubled so I'm not sure the claim that 4 car trains can't be filled leads to the conclusion that the train would be empty at better headways. SEPTA's own ASP numbers indicate that growth on the airport line as been strong and my own experience confirms this, the trains are not as empty as they used to be even if service frequency remains a problem (not sure why people have trouble understanding the importance of service frequency to a line like the airport). the goal of the LL proposal being desirable is predicated on greater service frequency not keeping things the same as they've always been for the sake of doing so.
Reading-PHL makes sense, PHL_AC..not so much. At the airport end they need to add a platform for the international terminal. Terminal A and B could be consolidated, the fact that it stops twice on one platform seems fairly ridiculous. an added byproduct would be better service to the fast growing u city station

Suburban Station wrote:At the airport end they need to add a platform for the international terminal. Terminal A and B could be consolidated, the fact that it stops twice on one platform seems fairly ridiculous. an added byproduct would be better service to the fast growing u city station

I really don't get this. Where do you plan to shoehorn an International Arrivals station? At the same time, why eliminate the second stop at B? You're talking about a huge capital expenditure for marginal convenience gains while eliminating a stop that makes use of an existing platform for convenience. Because stopping at one very long platform seems silly? This isn't a commuter operation, people with baggage are using the service and need the convenience of stopping as close to the skybridges as possible; the same reason you want an International station.

All in all, the actual operation is pretty damned convenient. Is there another heavy rail service in the US that goes from the city center and makes inter-terminal stops? The real deficiency in convenience is frequency.

SCB2525 wrote:All in all, the actual operation is pretty damned convenient. Is there another heavy rail service in the US that goes from the city center and makes inter-terminal stops? The real deficiency in convenience is frequency.

I believe that one of the problems with offering 20 minute headways is the Essington station with no pedestrian underpass, overpass, or pair of elevators. It creates a traffic bottleneck. I know that 20 minute headways have been discussed at 1234.

Eastwick (Not Essington) itself is no limitation to throughput; though I understand what you're getting at. The current station is "temporary" and lacks amenities (and is wood) for that reason. Building a more permanent, built-out station in conjunction to service improvements has been the plan since it was built; but the timing is indefinite. Even the actual location is not set in stone; moving the station somewhat was also always a possibility in conjunction with a trolley extension, surrounding business development and/or changing travel patterns.

SCB2525 wrote:
I really don't get this. Where do you plan to shoehorn an International Arrivals station? At the same time, why eliminate the second stop at B? You're talking about a huge capital expenditure for marginal convenience gains while eliminating a stop that makes use of an existing platform for convenience. Because stopping at one very long platform seems silly? This isn't a commuter operation, people with baggage are using the service and need the convenience of stopping as close to the skybridges as possible; the same reason you want an International station.

All in all, the actual operation is pretty damned convenient. Is there another heavy rail service in the US that goes from the city center and makes inter-terminal stops? The real deficiency in convenience is frequency.

The B stop is downright silly (it doesn't just seem that way, it is that way) people can walk to the end of a high level platform. Stop the train in the center of the platform, end of story. I can't see why you think international travellers should be inconvenienced yet domestic passengers can't walk an extra 30 feet instead of moving an enormously expensive train.
An international arrival station should have been built as part of the then new terminal. People on international flights have more luggage and the provide airline's with an outsize share of their profits.

If it were a bad operation I wouldn't be looking to expand on it. yes it's nice but that isn't to say it couldn't be improved. Yes the frequency should be improved as I've stated numerous times (and still been questioned on that). sometimes this board is mind boggling. the airport wants it to run more often, the passengers want it to run more often.

as an aside, I know the airport has looked at extending the trolley to the airport as well.

SCB2525 wrote:Eastwick (Not Essington)

Thanks. Brain Fart!

Suburban Station wrote: An international arrival station should have been built as part of the then new terminal..

Perhaps, but it shouldn't have been up to SEPTA to do so. If anyone dropped the ball its the airport itself; at this point SEPTA can't be expected to drop that kind of money itself. It's a much bigger expense than you may think; much of the track west of A terminal station would have to be realigned and a sizable number of cat towers removed and replaced to even make room for the necessary island platform.

Suburban Station wrote:as an aside, I know the airport has looked at extending the trolley to the airport as well.

Not many people flying via PHL would want to come into Philadelphia via a plodding surface ride on Elmwood Ave. The smarter money would go towards an extension to serve the workers, which would have to be fairly intensely studied for best bang for the buck. Into the complex? Cargo City? It's not cut and dry. Not cheap either.

More realistically for SEPTA, I think extending the trolley to 88Th Street with a footbridge across the railroad would do fairly good business for not a wild amount of money. Serves PNC and the hotels there and leaves an extension to Cargo City open.

Having waited in the rain, walking all the way to the far end of the row of terminals and back from behind he us airways hangar waiting for an air cargo delivery that was delayed due to weather out of celeveland for 4 hours, i can tell you now, a stop there would be very welcomed by the workers, including the freighter crews. I do not know how that would fit (wye?), but it would be very welcomed indeed. The walk is about 18 minutes just to reach the nearest terminal at my brisk tall-person pace.

SCB2525 wrote:Eastwick (Not Essington) itself is no limitation to throughput; though I understand what you're getting at. The current station is "temporary" and lacks amenities (and is wood) for that reason. Building a more permanent, built-out station in conjunction to service improvements has been the plan since it was built; but the timing is indefinite. Even the actual location is not set in stone; moving the station somewhat was also always a possibility in conjunction with a trolley extension, surrounding business development and/or changing travel patterns.

every time i'm down at eastwick loop i wonder why they don't extend the line down to meet the airport line. the ROW is already there and the knuckleheads still own it!