NHSL Line - Some basics please.

Hi guys. I'm a traction/interurban fan from Chicago, so I take a lot of interest in your NHSL line due to the DC interurban history and the Electroliner and CTA 6000's used by the line at one time.

What I can't get my mind around - why does the line stop at 69th street instead of going downtown? I understand that you've got a broad gauge subway connection, right, which is your basic reason. But out here there's been a pattern of interurbans operating over CTA and Class I's to get downtown. There's also been a pattern of failure when you cut that one-seat ride. The CA&E cut back to Forest Park with a transfer to downtown and was gone in three years. We also know the fate of the NYW&B. Nobody wanted to ride a line parallel to the New Haven, then transfer to a subway for the ride downtown.

So why does this work in Philly? Did they ever think of broad-gauging it to work with the connecting subway?

Also, why did they buy such specialized one-off N5's? It strikes me that they could've done any number of more economical things like piggyback on a subway car order, convert to AC and use Silverliners, or piggyback on the similar-timed South Shore order to Sumitomo for DC interurban cars. Or am I imputing way too much logic or rationality to SEPTA?

Thanks for your input! Please pardon some basic questions and assumptions, I'm not from Philly and have only spent a few days there. My friends out east seem to be everywhere but PHL.

I guess the best excuse I can think of is that nobody could agree on who would pay to have these suburban companies encroach on Philadelphia Rapid Transit's territory.
All I know about the Philadelphia and Western I got sitting on my daddy's knee in the front of a Brill bullet car in the 1960's, and in a wonderful book "The Red Arrow" by Ron DeGraw, which does give some good explanations, or at least tries to explain some of the excuses why the P&W, and the Red Arrow's broad gauge West Chester, Ardmore, Media and Sharon Hill lines terminated at 69th St.
In fact before 1907 those broad gauge lines ran to 63rd St, where there was no physical reason why they couldn't have kept going on the PRT's tracks. And the equipment Philadelphia and West Chester Traction bought to prepare for 69th St terminal's 1907 opening was to interurban standards with traps and train line doors, so they could have run on the Market St El, but like the Norristown line never did go past 69th.
I can remember wondering why my dad called it the P&W, and I'm sure many of my gentle readers are wondering why I'm acting like an old coot, but guess what, I'm turning into my father.

Patrick, thanks for some good answers. Old habits die hard. I still refer to the brown line around here as the Ravenswood out of habit. They quit calling it the Ravenswood 20 years ago, they quit serving Ravenswood station 50 years ago (still serves the neighborhood thoroughly though), and they extended it into Albany Park 100 years ago. So it no longer has the station, terminus, or designation of Ravenswood but a bunch of people still use that name.

From what I have heard, the great and powerful PRR didn't want any other lines competing with it in the city. What the practical outcome of that was back then, was a subway that could not connect with CNJ/RDG directly. That's coming from old timers no longer with us, so pardon me if any of that is in error.

They could use a 2 gauge track if that's even possible as I don't even know the loading guages or track geometries etc.

As far as the N5, it's SEPTA... Too much logic involved to piggyback on an order.

Here's what info I have, following Patrick's thread to some extent:

> Steam railroads (principally the PRR) were afraid the upstart trolley lines would cut into their freight business. They had enough political clout to define the so-called Pennsylvania gauge of 5' 2½" and impose it on most trolley operators. That distance was chosen to effectively prevent any possibility of shared running: the 6" difference versus standard gauge was too big for wide-flange wheels but too small for mixed-gauge rails.

> As Patrick noted, when the Market Street line was built there were plans to connect with the P&WCT trolleys so it too was constructed using Pennsylvania gauge rails. However the two companies were never able to reach an operating agreement so a physical connection was never made.

> Despite its similar name, the P&W (Philadelphia and Western) Railroad was a separate entity from the Philadelphia and West Chester trolley system. At inception it was an ambitious plan to compete with the PRR, with the first leg running from Parkesburg to center city and eventual extensions to the midwest. The Philadelphia portion was to be an elevated line along Chestnut Street while the rest would be at grade level. Like so many other startups it didn't have enough money to meet its goals so plans were scaled back to a route from Upper Darby to Strafford on the Main Line. Unlike a lot of startups, the P&W did have both the capital and management to maintain high construction standards on the section that was actually built. In addition the owners were able to use standard gauge by keeping the new line completely separate from any existing steam-hauled routes.

> In 1912 the P&W opened a second branch from Villanova to Norristown. The Norristown branch eventually became the most heavily used part of the line. The Strafford portion was cut back to a single track and was abandoned in 1956.

> The P&WCT eventually morphed into Red Arrow Lines. The P&W operated independently until 1948 when it was acquired by Red Arrow, forming the system that many of us grew up with in the 1950s and 1960s. SEPTA was created in the late 1960s to take over the failing Philadelphia Transportation Company, and a few years later it absorbed Red Arrow's operations as well.

Every so often the idea of connecting the two former systems' rails resurfaces but political, managerial, and technical challenges have proved to be insurmountable. Regauging the P&W to 5' 2½" would be one of the least costly options for physically joining the rails but the two lines' rolling stock would still be incompatible. In addition a broad-gauge P&W would never be able to connect to any other standard-gauge system. About 20 years ago there was a moderately-serious investigation of hooking the 2 remaining trolley lines (101 and 102) into the El but it too faced huge costs.

Finally, before the N-5s were ordered there was discussion of various "piggyback" orders - P&W / PATCO, P&W / 101-102, etc. - but again, politics and money trumped rationality.

JeffK wrote:About 20 years ago there was a moderately-serious investigation of hooking the 2 remaining trolley lines (101 and 102) into the El but it too faced huge costs.

I cannot even imagine how that would work.

Yes, hard to imagine, especially with today's regulations that frown upon mixing relatively light lrv's with relatively heavy subway cars, but as Ron Degraw's The Red Arrow, and Jeffk mentioned, that was indeed one of the early 1900's ideas, and P&WCT's rolling stock for about 20 years was heavy, and just about the right size, to run on the Market St El.

JeffK wrote:Finally, before the N-5s were ordered there was discussion of various "piggyback" orders - P&W / PATCO, P&W / 101-102, etc. - but again, politics and money trumped rationality.

There was a surprising amount of rationalty involved in the decisions made to NOT proceed with those various piggyback options.

Kawasaki made a proposal to supply what was basically a K-Car with a highlevel platform compatible body for the P&W.
It was believed (I think correctly) that the K-Car propulsion system would not be adequate for the P&W operation.
The PATCO design suffered from the same performance concerns, although to a lesser extent.

The nature of the P&W operation is a very high duty cycle high speed operation.
PATCO has a significant length of relatively low speed operation on the Philadelphia end of the line which allows for cooling of the motors and control equipment.
The P&W has only a very short slow speed segment at each end of the line, which requires the equipment to run at maximum output for something like 95-98% of the cycle versus something like a 65-75% period on PATCO.

In automotive terms, if the PATCO car is a Corvette, the N5 is a Formula 1 race car in terms of performance.

While not without shortcomings, both real and perceived, the N5 is proving to be every bit the robust and reliable vehicle in it's operating environment that the Kawasaki LRV has proven itself to be in it's environment.

60 Car wrote:
While not without shortcomings, both real and perceived, the N5 is proving to be every bit the robust and reliable vehicle in it's operating environment that the Kawasaki LRV has proven itself to be in it's environment.

agreed, i just wish they both weren't so damn ugly! especially when placed next to the cars they both replaced.

60 Car wrote:There was a surprising amount of rationalty involved in the decisions made to NOT proceed with those various piggyback options.

Kawasaki made a proposal to supply what was basically a K-Car with a highlevel platform compatible body for the P&W.
It was believed (I think correctly) that the K-Car propulsion system would not be adequate for the P&W operation.
The PATCO design suffered from the same performance concerns, although to a lesser extent.

What about a modified K-Car with a B-IV propulsion system?

I don't think that would have cut it either.
The B-IV has a more or less traditional cam type rheostatic control system, if memory serves.
Despite the similar top speed capability, the N5 has higher acceleration and braking rates.

In fact, the N5 was designed for a top speed around 80 mph, despite being limited to 70 mph on the NHSL.
One of the design goals of the N5 was reduced maintenance requirements, and a DC rheostatic control system was precluded by that design goal.

The AC drive system has minimal (if any) contactors to maintain, and since the motors are brushless, the motor maintenance is reduced to that required for bearing lubrication.

I'm not sure what the HP rating of the B-IV motor is, but the N5 has 200 HP motors.
The high HP/Weight ratio of the N5 is the key to the car's performance.

BuddCar711 wrote:

60 Car wrote:There was a surprising amount of rationalty involved in the decisions made to NOT proceed with those various piggyback options.

Kawasaki made a proposal to supply what was basically a K-Car with a highlevel platform compatible body for the P&W.
It was believed (I think correctly) that the K-Car propulsion system would not be adequate for the P&W operation.
The PATCO design suffered from the same performance concerns, although to a lesser extent.

What about a modified K-Car with a B-IV propulsion system?

B-IV? I know I'll kick myself later. Someone please refresh my memory.

Clearfield wrote:

BuddCar711 wrote:

60 Car wrote:There was a surprising amount of rationalty involved in the decisions made to NOT proceed with those various piggyback options.

Kawasaki made a proposal to supply what was basically a K-Car with a highlevel platform compatible body for the P&W.
It was believed (I think correctly) that the K-Car propulsion system would not be adequate for the P&W operation.
The PATCO design suffered from the same performance concerns, although to a lesser extent.

What about a modified K-Car with a B-IV propulsion system?

B-IV? I know I'll kick myself later. Someone please refresh my memory.

BuddCar711 wrote:

60 Car wrote:There was a surprising amount of rationalty involved in the decisions made to NOT proceed with those various piggyback options.

Kawasaki made a proposal to supply what was basically a K-Car with a highlevel platform compatible body for the P&W.
It was believed (I think correctly) that the K-Car propulsion system would not be adequate for the P&W operation.
The PATCO design suffered from the same performance concerns, although to a lesser extent.

What about a modified K-Car with a B-IV propulsion system?

I thought all of the B-IV cars had the propulsion systems completely replaced with cam-less components..

Regarding that B-IV, are those induction loops still used for train control? We had them in Chicago but they'e been gone for a decade or two at least.