New Trolleys for Philadelphia?

SCB2525 wrote:The 56 is hurting pretty bad. It would probably be easier to rebuild the 60 than the 56 at this point.

How about the 38?

stupid fanboy fantasy, but i've always wanted to see the 40 and 42 come back.

The 38 and 40 don't do numbers warranting rail conversion and the 38's route is too meandering. Even if the 38 were rerouted as was intended in the 50's to the subway, the numbers aren't there. A short-turn 40 would be fairly easy to implement with a short extension of the diversion track to Parkside, but only extending a short-turn likely isn't worth it. The 52 would make more sense than the 40 though I can't see a trolley on City Line Ave.

The 42 should have been routed to the subway from the get-go, but realistically necessitates the 46 or 52 being rail also for deadheads and short turns during trouble. The 46 could be argued as it would seriously reduce deadheading from Callowhill to Elmwood/Woodland for current routes and is a straightforward route.

The 6 is more than justified for ridership but would require entirely too much non-revenue track.
The 53's ridership is paltry and will never see rails again.

The 60 is relatively short with high, stable ridership, is simple in route with minimal turnouts and wouldn't require a ton of non-revenue track assuming the upper end of the 23 comes back. It honestly makes the most sense.

SCB2525 wrote:The 38 and 40 don't do numbers warranting rail conversion and the 38's route is too meandering. Even if the 38 were rerouted as was intended in the 50's to the subway, the numbers aren't there. A short-turn 40 would be fairly easy to implement with a short extension of the diversion track to Parkside, but only extending a short-turn likely isn't worth it. The 52 would make more sense than the 40 though I can't see a trolley on City Line Ave.

The 42 should have been routed to the subway from the get-go, but realistically necessitates the 46 or 52 being rail also for deadheads and short turns during trouble. The 46 could be argued as it would seriously reduce deadheading from Callowhill to Elmwood/Woodland for current routes and is a straightforward route.

The 6 is more than justified for ridership but would require entirely too much non-revenue track.
The 53's ridership is paltry and will never see rails again.

The 60 is relatively short with high, stable ridership, is simple in route with minimal turnouts and wouldn't require a ton of non-revenue track assuming the upper end of the 23 comes back. It honestly makes the most sense.

I think the 6 should be restored as a trolley not just to Cheltenham/Ogontz but up to at least Glenside going along the 22.

SCB2525 wrote:The 60 is relatively short with high, stable ridership, is simple in route with minimal turnouts and wouldn't require a ton of non-revenue track assuming the upper end of the 23 comes back. It honestly makes the most sense.

The 54 would be an equally good candidate and they're only a couple of blocks apart.

What do the street boarding platforms in Portland look like? Will they work in Media?

loufah wrote:What do the street boarding platforms in Portland look like? Will they work in Media?

Portland Streetcar

I can only think of what one Sen. Bernie Sanders said about infrastructure and jobs. Maybe you'll all get your favorite route to "come back".

Are there any spec sheets for these newfangled streetcars?

SCB2525 wrote:The 38 and 40 don't do numbers warranting rail conversion and the 38's route is too meandering. Even if the 38 were rerouted as was intended in the 50's to the subway, the numbers aren't there. A short-turn 40 would be fairly easy to implement with a short extension of the diversion track to Parkside, but only extending a short-turn likely isn't worth it. The 52 would make more sense than the 40 though I thcan't see a trolley on City Line Ave.

The 42 should have been routed to the subway from the get-go, but realistically necessitates the 46 or 52 being rail also for deadheads and short turns during trouble. The 46 could be argued as it would seriously reduce deadheading from Callowhill to Elmwood/Woodland for current routes and is a straightforward route.

The 6 is more than justified for ridership but would require entirely too much non-revenue track.
The 53's ridership is paltry and will never see rails again.

The 60 is relatively short with high, stable ridership, is simple in route with minimal turnouts and wouldn't require a ton of non-revenue track assuming the upper end of the 23 comes back. It honestly makes the most sense.

The current 38 bears little relation to the trolley so I'd imagine ridership numbers on the current route are little indication of potential ridership. The infrastructure is mostly there and current service to that part of west philly I'd atrocious. The 42 is a good candidate if it can get dedicated right of way but how would it access the portal from convention ctr blvd?

TrainPhotos wrote:Are there any spec sheets for these newfangled streetcars?

As I understand the situation, most current low-floor artics would have difficulty with the (somewhat) unique operating characteristics of the Subway-Surface lines. One article said that SEPTA has to huddle with manufacturers to see whether any of them can modify an existing product or whether [ARRGHHH!!] a Philadelphia-specific design will be needed. I'm guessing it'll be a while before we lay-people get to see specs and/or visualizations.

Are there any areas where the underside could bottom out? Is that a concern?

TrainPhotos wrote:Are there any areas where the underside could bottom out? Is that a concern?

Not that I know of; horizontal curvature is the limiting factor here. There are plenty of trolley/tram systems with healthy vertical curves so I doubt that is an issue.

SCB2525 wrote:

TrainPhotos wrote:Are there any areas where the underside could bottom out? Is that a concern?

Not that I know of; horizontal curvature is the limiting factor here. There are plenty of trolley/tram systems with healthy vertical curves so I doubt that is an issue.

the Toronto new cars get down to about 36-38ft (references vary) radius.

Per the 2016 Capital Budget Proposal, pg. 42:
Trolley Routes 23 & 56 (FY 2021 ‐ 2027) Budget: $2 million

In the latter part of the twelve year capital program, SEPTA will review the feasibility of restoring trolley service to Routes 23 and 56. These routes, which are located in the City of Philadelphia, are currently served by buses.

Remember that Newtown was also on the "latter part" of the capital budget for for almost 2 decades before being quietly dropped. The difference here is the trolley acquisition will put the spotlight on the 23 and 56 so it won't be as easy to sweep under the rug.