R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study

Thank you for your interest in the R6 Norristown Line Service Extension Study. We appreciate your patience while we completed the study. We are pleased to announce the study is being released this Friday, February 20, 2009, at a press conference. The study will be available at http://www.R6extension.com on February 20 at 10 a.m. Please visit the site to review the study. We would like to hear your comments on our recommendation.


Leo D. Bagley
Assistant Director
Montgomery County Planning Commission

well, here she is...

http://tinyurl.com/aghy6q

No mention of running diesels to the lower level of 30th st via the cynwyd branch...

theWatusi wrote: No mention of running diesels to the lower level of 30th st via the cynwyd branch...

sadly enough. It was relatively pointless for the conshy scenario to be studied anyway. They shoudla looked at direct deisel to temple and via the cynwyd branch instead. that said, the report's nice, but I'll hold my breath until I hear something is going to happen.

Well, some progress is progress. Let's hope that this can be greenlit 100% and I hope I'll see it in action before I hit 40..

You know, if I didn't know better I would think the Reading used to run a passneger train on that route. Hey, but I know better than that, no one has ever thoguht of the idea of running passenger trains between Reading and Philadelphia. This study is probably going to go nowhere, just like the last one did. I hate to say it, but I dont think the support will be there to accomplish this and I seriously doubt that after they figure out some new astronomical cost to make this route occur that anyone will agree to furthering the plan. Don't get me wrong, if there was a one seat ride to Reading from 30th St I'd be on it a lot, however I just have trouble believeing there is a future for this after the failure of the last plan.

rrbluesman, I imagine you know that the Reading's line no longer terminates at above ground Reading terminal, but runs into a tunnel intended to replace 2 stub end terminals with through routing, and so has limited turnback facilities, especially in that direction, and questionable ventilation, especially in the older part of the tunnel.
There has been debate about if one can run diesel trains into that tunnel. The powers that be decided in the 1980's that we can run diesels through the tunnel only on special occasions.
No matter on which side of that debate you stand, it is still something to consider, even if it's just to think of the potential loss of passengers from the other lines who just don't want to smell diesel at Suburban station.

The extension to VF is $27 million and one would have to think this is relatively easy to implement. With all the stimulus money, some could be found for this scenario as step 1 while they figure out funding for the rest of the line (I'd imagine Chesco might fund an extension from VF to Phoenixville). IMO, even the full electrification at $227 million is attainable and much more reasonable than the $2bn (which I'm sure is $3bn) for the ill fated SVM. It confirms many people's suspicions that the whole project has wasted two decades when people could have been riding on the corridor long ago. It's such a PITA to get up there I never go. I'd love to see them add back the north broad stop though. while it's somewhat mothballed now, it would make for much better connections to the R7, the broad st subway, and potentially any Amtrak trains to NYC.

I'm not sure what you mean by "add back the north broad stop". There's nothing to keep them from having the trains that pass North Broad to stop there. I'm assuming you mean run whatever diesel service they institute down to North Broad and have the transfer to electric trains happen there, as opposed to Norristown or Conshohocken.

Your reference to R7 makes me think you're talking about North Philadelphia. North Philadelphia, ex Pennsy now Amtrak northeast corridor 1 story above and mostly west of Broad street just north of Glenwood Ave, and North Broad, ex Reading "9th St branch" 1 story below and completely east of Broad street just south of Lehigh Ave, stations are only a few blocks from each other, but they are different stations on different lines.

There are a few problems with sending the diesels to either North Philly or North Broad: you're duplicating trackage for electric and diesel service; you still have a 2 seat ride for anybody heading to center city Philly, the only improvement is 2 seat vs 3 seat ride for those who want to transfer to somewhere other than 30th St-Market East stations; you've put the transfer point, and terminated train, where it will add to congestion at a through point on a major throat line with less than perfect turnaround facilities. Norristown also has less than perfect turnaround facilities, but at least you conflict only with 1 SEPTA line and a few freight trains on what I believe is SEPTA property.

Battery advances being what they are, a batttery-diesel locomotive is on the verge of being worth considering. Much simpler than a "dual mode". SEPTA's qualms about any vehicles carrying fuel aboard through the tunel would be the last defense.

gardendance wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by "add back the north broad stop". There's nothing to keep them from having the trains that pass North Broad to stop there. I'm assuming you mean run whatever diesel service they institute down to North Broad and have the transfer to electric trains happen there, as opposed to Norristown or Conshohocken...
Your reference to R7 makes me think you're talking about North Philadelphia. North Philadelphia, ex Pennsy now Amtrak northeast corridor 1 story above and mostly west of Broad street just north of Glenwood Ave, and North Broad, ex Reading "9th St branch" 1 story below and completely east of Broad street just south of Lehigh Ave, stations are only a few blocks from each other, but they are different stations on different lines.

"add back" I didn't see any mention of the trains stopping at north broad, seemed liked they intended to skip it. Second, yes, I think it would be a better transfer point than Conshohocken. Third, I'm aware that they are different lines, about two blocks apart. At one time they were connected via the BSL concourse. Ultimately, reconnecting them should be a goal. Walking the two blocks to northbound R7 and Keystone trains would be much shorter than riding the train through to 30th st.

gardendance wrote: There are a few problems with sending the diesels to either North Philly or North Broad: you're duplicating trackage for electric and diesel service; you still have a 2 seat ride for anybody heading to center city Philly, the only improvement is 2 seat vs 3 seat ride for those who want to transfer to somewhere other than 30th St-Market East stations; you've put the transfer point, and terminated train, where it will add to congestion at a through point on a major throat line with less than perfect turnaround facilities. Norristown also has less than perfect turnaround facilities, but at least you conflict only with 1 SEPTA line and a few freight trains on what I believe is SEPTA property.

I believe there's room for an extra stub track at Temple. After this analysis, it seems that any of the diesel connections should be thrown out anyways. Either go through or incremental. The transfer costs too much for not enough benefit.

The point I was trying to make in my previous post somewhat subtlely and sarcastically was made by another in a different post. The proposed train in question is one that has been run by railroads before, and the closure of the service has been and continues to be an inconvienience to the commuter base who need it. I am more that aware that there of the CCT, I think it was a wasteful connecting option that SEPTA made as a part of the trimming of railroad services. I think it could be possible to do the easiest possible all diesel route by doing this, given the current system. Terminate the train at 30th Street, run it up the PRR side until 16th Street CP with the Reading, then run the train all the way up the Reading, no tunnel involved. Now matter how it is put given the attitude of SEPTA, this is going to be a two seat ride to reach PRR Suburban Station and then Market East. I would rather change trains at 30th anyway. If trains were convienient, schedule and location, to my residence and many of my long distance destinations, I would take the train any day over driving. If SEPTA is serious about the project this time, I think that is the attitude that would be best for them to have, the more convienient you make it, the more likely you will build a strong ridership base.

rrbluesman wrote:The point I was trying to make in my previous post somewhat subtlely and sarcastically was made by another in a different post. The proposed train in question is one that has been run by railroads before, and the closure of the service has been and continues to be an inconvienience to the commuter base who need it. I am more that aware that there of the CCT, I think it was a wasteful connecting option that SEPTA made as a part of the trimming of railroad services. I think it could be possible to do the easiest possible all diesel route by doing this, given the current system. Terminate the train at 30th Street, run it up the PRR side until 16th Street CP with the Reading, then run the train all the way up the Reading, no tunnel involved. Now matter how it is put given the attitude of SEPTA, this is going to be a two seat ride to reach PRR Suburban Station and then Market East. I would rather change trains at 30th anyway. If trains were convienient, schedule and location, to my residence and many of my long distance destinations, I would take the train any day over driving. If SEPTA is serious about the project this time, I think that is the attitude that would be best for them to have, the more convienient you make it, the more likely you will build a strong ridership base.

Going from Reading (or wherever) to 30th Street via the North Philadelphia Connecting Track would require the connector to be rebuilt. The grade is too steep for passenger trains to use. Also I think somebody said there is a severe speed restriction because of the curve of the connector.

scotty269 wrote:Going from Reading (or wherever) to 30th Street via the North Philadelphia Connecting Track would require the connector to be rebuilt. The grade is too steep for passenger trains to use. Also I think somebody said there is a severe speed restriction because of the curve of the connector.

If you were to bypass Norristown, you could hit 30th lower or upper with the restoration of the freight conection at Zoo.

The North Philly connection can't be much steeper than the flyover at Phil. The curve is certainly tight, but there's no alleviating that unless you knock down the prison. And there's really no point in doing all that to gain 5 mph. It's somewhat feasible, but there seems to be enough trouble getting CHW trains across the corridor. Adding more trains here seems like trouble to me, unless somebody pays a lot of money to reconfigure the layout from Zoo through North Philly. If you're going to spend a lot of money, it might as well go to the best option, which is to run the trains down a re-double-tracked Conshohocken (Ivy Ridge) line down through a rebuilt Valley interlocking. Even if you electrify out past Norristown, additional trains could cause congestion at 16th St. Since existing trains are already jammed at rush hour, transfer at Norristown wouldn't seem to be that great of an option. The most economical option is to pay NS to operate limited service into 30th Street via a new Zoo connection.

Place a new connection between Ivy Ridge and Manyunk on the Septa R6 line to the ex- Pennsylvania Cynwyd Branch. Run the diesel service express from the NTC to 30th Street Station.