SEPTA and its Problems (Pawson's take, 1979)

Thank you, one and all, for your interest in the Warminster Line, which long was a backwater line. Thanks, too, for the generous complements.

I believe that we have the capacity for 20-minute frequency on this line at the peak of the peak. The South Warminster passing track is key to that. With meets at Ardsley, Grove North, and South Warminster (all about 8-10 minutes apart), a turnaround of about 17 minutes at Warminster would be theoretically possible; but with SEPTA's frequent latenesses, it probably isn't practical today. So I fall back on a consistent 30-minute afternoon headway as feasible now.

We have about 50 boardings at just Market East on the 3:40; and that calls for an added 3:10. This round trip would require no added rolling stock (it gets back downtown before the last yard pull-out). RRD will soon have more cars available in any case. That consistent 30-minute headway should be a start in attracting back some of the drive-ins.

As far as parking is concerned, I advocate expanding Ardsley parking, using the vacant lot next to the outbound high-block platform. It should provide 30 more spaces.

The existing exit driveway from Roslyn station down to Bradfield Road can be widened to provide 20 more spaces in addition to the 20 present unused speaces. South of Bradfield Road would be a narrow cul-de-sac unsuited to parking or a station site.

Where all the info given here comes from mystifies me. Maybe some posters work for SEPTA and know what its intentions are, but we on the outside certainly do not. All I know is what goes through DVRPC and into its yearly TIPs. Sometimes all we learn is the project station's location, its cost (all too often in EIGHT digits!), funding sources, and the years to be funded.

With all the elaborations and grandeur resulting from these projects, I fear a maintenance-cost time bomb down the years.

Like Ardsley, Crestmont can be expanded for about 30 more cars, using the vacant lot north of the nice, new, reasonably-sized station building.

Willow Grove has about 50-60 spaces available every day.

As far as rolling stock is concerned, I'm beginning to consider the logical requirements for a Silverliner VI design for delivery six to ten years from now. The prime requirement is that it must obviate the 100% high platform "solution" to the ADA "level boarding" issue by having at least two floor levels--a low floor between the trucks with low doors and a high floor above the trucks with high doors. A lift between the two levels can move the wheelchair to one level from the other--no "rocket science" here.

The all-high station platform "solution" would cost well over a billion dollars and take decades to implement at all present low-platform locations. However, with one low-high Silverliner VI on each train, the ADA requirement can be achieved on every train and at every station by the end of the decade (present deadline, AIR, is in 2018).

[quote="redarrow5591]
7) Which railroad's cars are you talking about????
[/quote]

He may be referring to cars like the Amfleets/Horizons, which have that connectable black shrouds that link up between cars. SEPTA has something like that between married sets with the big black tube things.

One railroad, though, that has this available for all EMUs is Metro. Even the South Shore cars have this at the front of the "cabs", so when in the middle of a train, they provide such a shroud to protect those walking in between those cars from the elements. I don't think that would work for our Silverliner Vs because the door is just so incredibly narrow. Honestly, I'm not thrilled with the fact that they use the "M4" style doors because they are hard to open. A tad frustrating for passengers, likely incredibly frustrating for conductors. Techology has advanced enough to have automatic or at least sliding doors.

Here's a pic for reference of the South Shore cars and the "shroud" mentioned above (by Robert E Peace). http://urbanindiana.com/in_south_shore/20080330-021.jpg

Now that I look closely, it seems like they also have the black tube things, which really could be applied to our Silverliners although they'd lose that smooth look.

delvyrails wrote:As far as rolling stock is concerned, I'm beginning to consider the logical requirements for a Silverliner VI design for delivery six to ten years from now. The prime requirement is that it must obviate the 100% high platform "solution" to the ADA "level boarding" issue by having at least two floor levels--a low floor between the trucks with low doors and a high floor above the trucks with high doors. A lift between the two levels can move the wheelchair to one level from the other--no "rocket science" here.

The all-high station platform "solution" would cost well over a billion dollars and take decades to implement at all present low-platform locations. However, with one low-high Silverliner VI on each train, the ADA requirement can be achieved on every train and at every station by the end of the decade (present deadline, AIR, is in 2018).

Very interesting idea. I've never seen this implemented into an FRA Compliant EMU before. It would be interesting to see something like this, maybe with one BIG door for the low floor section and ramps/lifts to the higher section as you said. Maybe to maximize seating capacity, they could link the train into "triples", with two cars at the end having the typical high/low boarding arrangement and one train in the middle that's focused on low floor boarding with access to the other two cars. I would dare dream that these could be articulated cars to boot, similar to the Acela cars. Perfect for the typical off-peak train.

Too bad making it bi-level may not work with the close clearances and such...but who knows?

I know that Dallas DART's Lightrail cars are being configured for this very arrangement, adding a low floor section between the two high floor sections. Also, most of the extra "goodies" that are typically below the EMUs can go to the two high floor cars.

Delvy's idea of linking high/low floor cars in one train to satisfy ADA has been used by agencies like Portland's MAX and the MBTA Green Lines. I'd never seen such an arrangement on the commuter rail side, but why not pioneer that for SEPTA's "transitized" railroad?

To have "level boarding" SEPTA will still have to rebuild many platforms to match the floor height of the "low floor EMU". However, according to Matt Mitchell's information that he posted about the costs of mid level platforms compared to building high levels, it would still be a lot cheaper and faster to construct the platforms in such a manner.

I don't think a combined high/low single-level car is practical under current ADA and FRA regulations and interpretation. You would lose a lot of seating space with the necessary stairways and wheelchair lifts, and you'd need an additional set of doors, costing more space. Spacewise, it would be worse than an NJT multilevel minus the top deck. Remember under current interpretation you have to make every car and the entire platform wheelchair-accessible: the common-sense solution of mini-high platforms and making the first car in each train accessible is considered "Jim Crow segregation" by the activists.

Also, I don't think it was me posting comparative costs of mid- and high platforms.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

BuddSilverliner269 wrote:Regardless how far back the double track was cut back near Roslyn, 2900 feet isnt going to prevent any additional trains from being run on the line.

While it may not prevent such service, it has the potential to make it more difficult--it cuts about two minutes out of the window you have to schedule meets, and if you were to extend the line further north, you might want to move the meet farther up so you can still have enough layover time.

This is why it's important for SEPTA to have an intermediate-term plan for the railroad: if one of the potential extensions of service depends on making a meet on that segment feasible, then you shouldn't be downgrading that infrastructure, but if there's no realistic possibility of such in the next ten years, it probably makes sense to rationalize the plant. In other words, there'll be less criticism of SEPTA based on speculation if they can show the public a clearer vision of the future.

My point exactly. Thank you, Matthew.

delvyrails wrote:Thank you, one and all, for your interest in the Warminster Line, which long was a backwater line. Thanks, too, for the generous complements.

John - both you and Matthew Mitchell are an endless source of facts, history and credibility concerning an agency such as SEPTA which continues to boggle our collective minds. No doubt they must wrangle with politics like every other North American public transit agency, but the shoddy treatment of the commuter lines is unacceptable.

John - what were the headways like on the Warminster line before SEPTA took over in 1983? You have mentioned this previously and I know SEPTA has reduced service. The quiet removal of all the passing sidings confirms that they have a disticnt distaste for this line, akin to the ever-popluar Newtown line (dubbed SEPTA's "red herring" by a board member recently).

Tritransit Area wrote:[quote="redarrow5591]
7) Which railroad's cars are you talking about????

He may be referring to cars like the Amfleets/Horizons, which have that connectable black shrouds that link up between cars. SEPTA has something like that between married sets with the big black tube things.

One railroad, though, that has this available for all EMUs is Metro. Even the South Shore cars have this at the front of the "cabs", so when in the middle of a train, they provide such a shroud to protect those walking in between those cars from the elements. I don't think that would work for our Silverliner Vs because the door is just so incredibly narrow. Honestly, I'm not thrilled with the fact that they use the "M4" style doors because they are hard to open. A tad frustrating for passengers, likely incredibly frustrating for conductors. Techology has advanced enough to have automatic or at least sliding doors.

Here's a pic for reference of the South Shore cars and the "shroud" mentioned above (by Robert E Peace). http://urbanindiana.com/in_south_shore/20080330-021.jpg

Now that I look closely, it seems like they also have the black tube things, which really could be applied to our Silverliners although they'd lose that smooth look.[/quote][/quote]

Those are all just different types of diaphragms, which most commuter railroads include on their cab cars for when they operate mid-train. At least on the older Silverliners, I can't see why they couldn't have worked, since on the old MU's the cab is essentially similar to a cab car. Actually, looks like they could probably work on the Silverliner V too.

Is there an operational reason not to have them on Silverliner cab ends, other than it just was never done?

What passing tracks did Septa remove? Hatboro siding was never used as such, and the same applies to the Warminster storage track. Grove siding was shortened a long time ago when the line was under Reading ownership. The shortening of the double-track has already been discussed, and I attempted to explain the reasoning behind it. It only makes a difference of about two minutes, assuming trains pass each other here - which they usually do not. And like I said before - they originally located it there because they had intended to put in a 45mph switch so the outbound wouldn't have to slow down to 30 - therefore being a net improvement. You do a disservice to the movement you're trying to promote when you spread incorrect or incomplete information. I also suggest doing away with this "If you're not 100% with us, you're against us" tone. See how well it worked for George W. Bush?

Lime, that's exactly what I wad trying to say. Septa did not rip out any sidings and although they relocated Lynn interlocting, its not an impedent of expanded service. I know that line like the back of my hand having ran what , hundreds of times as an engineer . I don't think the warminster line ever had great service or at least the 20 minute service that everyone claims it should have .

Matthew Mitchell wrote:There's not a risk of losing service to West Trenton, but there's a risk the outer end of the line could be single-tracked like the Fox Chase was several years ago. Both CSX and SEPTA would find it more convenient for freight trains to be segregated from passenger trains, but it would result in a significant inconvenience to the passengers, which is why there's been resistance from DVARP and CAC when the possibility was first raised several years ago, and there'll be even more resistance if they try to do it now.

Thanks for this information.

In fact, I think something like this is already being done on weekends. Someone using the name "trainutjob" often posts videos shot at Woodbourne. On some of the weekend videos, even the outbound SEPTA trains come into Woodbourne on the inbound track.

I now realize the importance of freight trains to the American economy, but for many years, I wondered when the freight line would give up that third track so that SEPTA could have "real" stops, with boarding/alighting on both sides at Langhorne and Woodbourne. Of course, the reverse commuters who use Langhorne have it better than the reverse commuters at other outlying stations with buildings because they can wait inside when the weather is bad and still be on the correct side to board. So, I don't think any of them want to have to move to the other side!

I thought there were 4 tracks Neshaminy to at least West Trenton, and sometime in the 1980's they got reduced to a single track for Septa and 2 tracks for freight. Or maybe the other way around, 2 tracks for Septa and a single track for freight.

gardendance wrote:I thought there were 4 tracks Neshaminy to at least West Trenton, and sometime in the 1980's they got reduced to a single track for Septa and 2 tracks for freight. Or maybe the other way around, 2 tracks for Septa and a single track for freight.

Looking at the platforms for West Trenton, which apparently have been extended to the two tracks in the middle, that may have been the case. I do wish that there were two platforms at these stations. It will be impossible to make the system 100% ADA accessible because of these stations as well as stations on the R7 Trenton Line!

I doubt four tracks are feasible any more with current clearance standards.

Sorry to get behind, but replies sometimes take 20 times the time it takes to ask a question.

In the post-Reconstruction decades in the South, the "Jim Crow" affliction beset a large part, in some locations even a majority, of the train-traveling community.

Today, wheelchair passengers are but a small fraction of 1% of potential RRD passengers.

Everyone recognizes that in necessarily-compact seating locations such as theaters and trains, the seats must be fixed in place and spaced closely; and that fact requires putting a few locations aside for those in wheelchairs. For practicality, the "rights" of all of us, including minorities, must be somewhat circumscribed and balanced.


In December of 1994, Don Nigro and I consulted with the top recognized expert in mutiple-level passenger railcar design. The expert told us that with a few dimensional concessions, three-level cars could be made to go in RRD's downtown tunnels.

Basically, he said the cost of a car is in the car itself; and using more of the car's available volume adds only incrementally to the car's cost. Even with 2+2 seating throughout, there would be more seats. The cost per seat compared to SEPTA's existing cars would be about the same for a better travel experience. The discussions presumed full ADA accessibilty.

It's not a technical issue, he said, but a SEPTA institutional issue. Beyond a nominal seats-for-all standard for RRD, they are not willing to go with all of the standards which in many other regions ask a significantly higher-than-transit fare for higher-than-transit comfort and space standards. RRD is conceived, he said, as a "suburban rapid transit" operation. That has been, IMO, the basic long-term issue that some of our politicians have been unwilling (it's politically inconvenient) to confront ever since they began to fund the service.

delvyrails wrote:Everyone recognizes that in necessarily-compact seating locations such as theaters and trains, the seats must be fixed in place and spaced closely; and that fact requires putting a few locations aside for those in wheelchairs. For practicality, the "rights" of all of us, including minorities, must be somewhat circumscribed and balanced.

You and I might not like it, but that practicality isn't applicable to government agencies when an interest group makes enough noise.

Now if the multi-levels fit SEPTA clearances (I think it's 14'6), they might be a welcome addition to the system for peak trains, but the light-density nature of the off-peak service (and some of the peak) means they'll be less efficient than they are on the New York roads(*). Furthermore, the capacity-building tactic of using multi-levels stands in conflict with the capacity-building tactic of running 20-minute peak headways (#) instead of 30 minute.

*--Virginia also runs bi-levels, but they are especially constrained with respect to mid-day train storage so they're a special case too.

#--I regularly commute on various Warminster trains, and the heaviest loads on them are being handled with 5- and 6-car consists and are not (usually) overcrowded, so much as I'd like it, I don't see a strong motivating force for increasing the peak service yet. Plus putting the Warminster on a different fleet cycle (20 minutes instead of 30) adds complications in scheduling the trunk, though I'm pretty confident it can be done, particularly if you run the Warminster trains as express to Jenkintown or Glenside.