Paving Over Rt 23

How about down south along Clarissa/Pulaski? I'm wondering whether my "Wayne Junction to 10-Bigler" trackless might be better suited on that routing north of Erie to stay off busy Germantown Ave. and keep a trackless from having to ever make an awful turn to share the 75's loop.

Revision: Route 23 rerouted as trolley from Germantown to Northern Liberties Loop via Girard. No direct route exists from Northern Liberties/Fishtown to Temple which is a huge market. Such a route has often been proposed by the public via the Annual Service Plan.

Trackless from Wayne Junction to 10-Bigler via route 53 routing to Broad-Erie, current route 23 routing thereafter.

I rode up through Chestnut Hill last week and was amazed by how good of shape the trolley infrastructure is still in. Looks like a trolley could hit those tracks tomorrow.

SCB2525 wrote:Revision: Route 23 rerouted as trolley from Germantown to Northern Liberties Loop via Girard. No direct route exists from Northern Liberties/Fishtown to Temple which is a huge market. Such a route has often been proposed by the public via the Annual Service Plan.

Trackless from Wayne Junction to 10-Bigler via route 53 routing to Broad-Erie, current route 23 routing thereafter.

I like that, but I'd rather see the trackless 23 go to Broad-Oregon as the temporary buses do now.

One really has to face the facts, SEPTA has no real intention of ever brining back any sort of rail based electric street transportation, and would even eliminate the electric trolley bus [EBT] service if it could.

Yes in the 1990’s there was some support from the University community, and from the Chestnut Hill businesses to support revived rail based electric street transportation, sadly that interest and support is now all gone. Chestnut Hill businesses are now more concerned with parking and traffic, with local residents worried about bicycles and baby carriages wheels being stuck or wedged in the track infrastructure.

Returning rail based electric street transportation to the North Philadelphia communities is really not practical unless several, that is at least four or five lines, probably more, interconnected routes are totally restored or new creative routes implemented, with each line having at least a 10,000 daily ridership from day-one, with a twenty-year projection that would see at least a 15-20% growth level.

In addition, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) - Federal Public Transportation Act of 2012 would most likely consider any such endeavor as a “new start” (reference Boston – Arborway route abandonment – any reactivation considered “new start”), and this in turn would place all current measurement and standards in to play, this in turn could wind up as another Schuylkill Valley Metro (SVM), millions in preliminary design and planning, but something that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) could not and would not approve.

Also SEPTA’s 2014 Route Statistics would work against any reactivation replacing comparable bus service in most cases, Route 15 average daily ridership of 12,313 (17th), and with operating ratio of 36% (28th), Route 15 average daily ridership of 22,801 (3rd) with operating ratio of 37% (25th), and Route 56 average daily ridership of 11,470 (20th) with operating ratio of 42% (25th), none of which would impress any Federal Transit Administration (FTA) reviewers.

In addition, one just has to look at the difference in reconstruction of the Toronto infrastructure to permit heavier more power hungry current production modern Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) from Bombardier Transportation Flexity Freedom for its intra city street running operation to the new reconstruction on Delaware Avenue, and within the last two years on upper Germantown Avenue by PENNDOT.

The work of PENNDOT is all for nothing, as one can see many photographs that the track bracing, and mounting is much lighter in PENNDOT’s rebuild, also not current switch type needed for modern Light Rail Vehicles (LRV), power infrastructure not adequate either, and overhead power wire support poles to support and handle the required catenary for “pan” (pantograph) operation. In addition, the “devil strip” rebuilt by PENNDOT to the PCC 1930’s width geometry, again not to current Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) standards.

The Bombardier Transportation Flexity Freedom could work in Philadelphia for street running, except for the deliberate “poison pill” action by SEPTA in the modification of the subway beneath 1234 Market to prohibit any possibility of ever running modern Light Rail Vehicles (LRV), which would cost millions to correct and may be highly disruptive to both the SS lines and the MFL service.

SEPTA has never believed in catenary or “pan” (pantograph) operation, supposedly the entire 1981 Kawasaki order was ordered with “pans” (pantographs) to be field installed locally later on, that have either been deposed of, or sitting in a lot near Elmwood, as SEPTA had plans to upgrade to catenary and “pan” (pantograph) operation with the follow-on order of Kawasaki for the North routes (neither happened, and neither was really planned or intended by SEPTA).

Also, the track gauge and track geometry between “city” and “suburban” needs to be unified, and again should have been done in the 1980’s with a physical track (powered) interconnection to a common maintenance facility.

tdoran1951 wrote:Also, the track gauge and track geometry between “city” and “suburban” needs to be unified, and again should have been done in the 1980’s with a physical track (powered) interconnection to a common maintenance facility.

Are you talking about joining the 101/102 system to the city? I don't think that's feasible. The closest they come, I believe, is the Sharon Hill terminus and the Darby Loop, and they are just over a mile apart.

Can pantographs run on trolley wire? Also, I have written a post for my blog, which will be posted on Sunday at 6 AM. septasagas.blogspot.com

Quinn wrote:

tdoran1951 wrote:Also, the track gauge and track geometry between “city” and “suburban” needs to be unified, and again should have been done in the 1980’s with a physical track (powered) interconnection to a common maintenance facility.

Are you talking about joining the 101/102 system to the city? I don't think that's feasible. The closest they come, I believe, is the Sharon Hill terminus and the Darby Loop, and they are just over a mile apart.

Grand plan, as a possible adjunct to expanded city service, or potential emergency diversion, via Market from 63rd street to city bus loop just short of 69th street; interconnection from that point would be extremely short.

Even rush hour 15 could terminate at such, providing a western MFL connection to the MFL.

jackintosh11 wrote:Can pantographs run on trolley wire? Also, I have written a post for my blog, which will be posted on Sunday at 6 AM. septasagas.blogspot.com

From I understand “trolley wire” is possible, provided the tension is not too slack, but it is the typical hardware and connectivity devices common to “trolley wire” that would be snagged by the pan, and then pulling the wire down.

Boston ran old PCC (trolley) and Boeing LRV (pan) during transition period of from older PCC train set conversion to LRV with offending (to pan) hardware changed out until complete train set conversion and ultimate full overhead conversion.

The problem in the past with the Northern Philadelphia routes, especially after the mid 1980’s, was the lack of “interconnection” and “alternate / diversion” ability, as most “non-revenue” track at that point was already in very bad shape, wisely and best probably not to be used at all, as the normal “revenue” and “special work” track infrastructure was already to the point of need a massive complete rebuilding.

Also in the 1979 / 1980 SEPTA’s decision not to exercise the option with Kawasaki for another large amount LRV’s for the Northern Philadelphia routes then still functional or could be reactivated (i.e. temporarily bus) pretty much sealed the fate of all the Northern Philadelphia routes. In addition, the Kawasaki’s would have issues with the un-rebuilt Northern Philadelphia track infrastructure, as well as possible power feed (supply) issues.

This did not affect the five subway-surface routes, as there was much functional and serviceable “non-revenue” track offering a fair amount of “alternate / diversion”, two major modern facilities (Elmwood & Callowhill); of course nowhere like Toronto then or now, especially the 504 (King) and 501 (Queen) routes where due to need upgrades to accommodate the forthcoming LRV operation massive and extensive upgrades and rebuilding has been ongoing for several years; one today never knows where the 504 (King) and 501 (Queen) routes will go on any given day, there seems to be almost an endless amount of “alternate / diversion” routes available.

SEPTA had an opportunity to “savage” what was left of a really bad PTC network, after a massive “kill off” of routes in 1955 / 1956, with a tremendous amount of somewhat serviceable “non-revenue” track, much “dead” track unused in any form since the mid 1950’s that could have been fairly easily reactivated or made somewhat serviceable.

Looking at trolley route 47, it was clear that SEPTA had no intention of maintaining and/or preserving any sort of trolley operation anywhere;; but the City of Philadelphia also had “dirty hands” in this, as there was years and years of differed and postponed maintenance of the city street infrastructure, the water and sewer specifically that need a massive public works project span a decades to rebuild and/or replace all; this is still impacting service today. I saw railroad ties several feet below ground during water main break on route 15, this is the early 1900’s layer, jus filled over with dirt and sand, then a new layer, and another layer.

Daily Ridership Ranking
01-MFL
02-BSL
03-23
04-47
05-18
06-11
07-36
08-13
09-10
10-52
11-34
12-33
13-G
14-42
15-17
16-14
17-15
18-26
19-60
20-56
Since routes 15, 23, 56 were already mentioned as candidates for “restoration”. . .

Route 15 however has no real terminus on one end, split to two routes, with current daily bus / trolley ridership 12,313, overlapping 15A - 69th Street / Market Street (City Bus Loop) – Westmoreland Loop (63rd Street to Market Street), and 15B – Baltimore Avenue / 61st St Angora Loop – Frankford Transportation Center / MFL (via Bridesburg – Bridge Street) – Multiple interconnections, 1xBSL, 2 or 3xMFL, route 34, route 56 and route 60. Route changes as suggested should push daily ridership to well over 15,000.

Restore route 60, current daily bus ridership 11,925.

Restore route 56, current daily bus ridership 11,470.

Just restoring above three routes, bring to full LRV standard would account for daily ridership of 35,000 that probably would grow to nearly 50,000 in a following ten-year period following conversion.

Want to throw in another 10,198 in daily ridership, convert current bus 21 to LRV, and build the foundation for a historic center city loop; and this would intertie with the extended and expanded route 15. Loop due I95, via South Front Street from Chestnut to Walnut.

Probably good for another 10,000 or so in daily ridership, new route 23S - 12st Street / Spring Garden St – Pattison Avenue Sports Complex (SB via 12th, Bigler to 7th, SB on 7th, to Pattison, EB on Pattison, to Darien, NB on Darien to Hartranft, WB Hartranft to 10st, resume old route to Spring Garden). This is just another small part for the foundation for a historic center city.

Possibly, another smart choice, service to Pattison Avenue Sports Complex (11th St.) via Columbus and north past Pier 70 shopping to Delaware and finally the Westmoreland Loop; again interconnected.

There is plenty of space for large shop in Bridesburg / Arsenal / Frankfort Creek from old abandoned sites and unused rail facilities.

Beside the $ 1,000,000,000.00 or thereabouts problem, probably the best choice would be to detach all city transportation from SEPTA, a new “METRO” for urban Philadelphia.

tdoran1951 wrote: The work of PENNDOT is all for nothing, as one can see many photographs that the track bracing, and mounting is much lighter in PENNDOT’s rebuild

Really? Track bracing and mounting lighter in rebuild? Do you know how the rebuilt tracks are being installed compared to what was originally in place and what is installed elsewhere in the world? Please enlighten us with your analysis from "pictures".

the sarge wrote:

tdoran1951 wrote: The work of PENNDOT is all for nothing, as one can see many photographs that the track bracing, and mounting is much lighter in PENNDOT’s rebuild

Really? Track bracing and mounting lighter in rebuild? Do you know how the rebuilt tracks are being installed compared to what was originally in place and what is installed elsewhere in the world? Please enlighten us with your analysis from "pictures".

Just go to any rail-fan, transit or traction orientated web site and/or blogs and/or social media that contains pictures of construction of the new infrastructure ongoing in Toronto, and commonly available pictures of how Delaware Avenue was reconstructed last year, it would be clear to the simplest of minds that Toronto used much more track cross bracing, of a heavier gauge, as well as compensated for potential harmonics and vibration with damping devices (something needed for LRV operation that also reduces such retransmitted to the LRV itself and thus reducing operational lifespan). Also in Toronto’s case, the project packages for most such work is readily available which contains very detailed specifications, methods and procedures.

In today’s world, there is no “universal” concrete track setting arrangement, what was used by PENNDOT was more common and typical in the United States during the period prior to general LRV acceptance and usage.

The LRV’s sold today in the United States at the present may soon “disappear”, as there is a movement within factions of the NTSB and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that want to implement similar standards to the Railroad Passenger Safety Act of 2008 for light rail, and metro (i.e. subway et al.) especially in terms of “crushability”, “fire”, “rollover”, and “command and control (i.e. PTC/ATC)” given the deaths in the Washington METRO crash and others, and the increasing number of “bumping incidents” with light rail.

Yes, in a technicality, PENNDOT rebuilt to the required prior existing, and what was condition, but not to something that could be functional and usable for modern light rail vehicles. And it is almost a given that SEPTA will never order any form of a modern light rail vehicle, just like SEPTA will never be fully ADA compliant either.

tdoran1951 wrote:Just go to any rail-fan, transit or traction orientated web site and/or blogs and/or social media that contains pictures of construction of the new infrastructure ongoing in Toronto, and commonly available pictures of how Delaware Avenue was reconstructed last year, it would be clear to the simplest of minds that Toronto used much more track cross bracing, of a heavier gauge, as well as compensated for potential harmonics and vibration with damping devices (something needed for LRV operation that also reduces such retransmitted to the LRV itself and thus reducing operational lifespan). Also in Toronto’s case, the project packages for most such work is readily available which contains very detailed specifications, methods and procedures.

You still didn't answer my question. Just look at the pictures and see for yourself is not sufficient. I've been involved in traction rail projects for New Orleans, Boston, Toronto, and Philly and still cannot wrap my simple mind around your assessment. Do you actually know the type of rail construction system used in Toronto or what SEPTA specs out for theirs? The similarities and differences between the two? Do you understand that the cross ties (cross bracing as you state) for both systems do not provide much additional structural support once the roadway is poured? Do you know that SEPTA uses the same "vibration and dampening" system the TTC uses? - and this system was installed on the rails for the rebuilt trackage - I assume you missed that picture.

tdoran1951 wrote:The LRV’s sold today in the United States at the present may soon “disappear”, as there is a movement within factions of the NTSB and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) that want to implement similar standards to the Railroad Passenger Safety Act of 2008 for light rail, and metro (i.e. subway et al.) especially in terms of “crushability”, “fire”, “rollover”, and “command and control (i.e. PTC/ATC)” given the deaths in the Washington METRO crash and others, and the increasing number of “bumping incidents” with light rail.

It's statements like this that spreads misinformation. Yes, the above may have spread through DC and made it to a few college classroom discussions; especially in regards to rapid transit lines like subways. But, I wouldn't classify some knee-jerk comments from a few years ago with an actual "Movement" within the NTSB and FTA. Also, if such a thing would be pushed, it would not apply to any of the trolley routes within the City of Philadelphia.

the sarge wrote:

tdoran1951 wrote:Just go to any rail-fan, transit or traction orientated web site and/or blogs and/or social media that contains pictures of construction of the new infrastructure ongoing in Toronto, and commonly available pictures of how Delaware Avenue was reconstructed last year, it would be clear to the simplest of minds that Toronto used much more track cross bracing, of a heavier gauge, as well as compensated for potential harmonics and vibration with damping devices (something needed for LRV operation that also reduces such retransmitted to the LRV itself and thus reducing operational lifespan). Also in Toronto’s case, the project packages for most such work is readily available which contains very detailed specifications, methods and procedures.

You still didn't answer my question. Just look at the pictures and see for yourself is not sufficient. I've been involved in traction rail projects for New Orleans, Boston, Toronto, and Philly and still cannot wrap my simple mind around your assessment. Do you actually know the type of rail construction system used in Toronto or what SEPTA specs out for theirs? The similarities and differences between the two? Do you understand that the cross ties (cross bracing as you state) for both systems do not provide much additional structural support once the roadway is poured? Do you know that SEPTA uses the same "vibration and dampening" system the TTC uses? - and this system was installed on the rails for the rebuilt trackage - I assume you missed that picture.

I do not have to answer your questions. Moreover, so far what you have stated has just been your opinion

Photographs are considered proof in most cases, and there are significant differences in construction techniques.