SEPTA to increase service on CHE and Norristown lines

Maybe the experts should have thought of that before they abandoned Reading Terminal. Odd though that the Reading had no problem with more trains from more destinations mixed with freight on the 9th Street branch compared to what SEPTA operates today.

bikentransit wrote:Maybe the experts should have thought of that before they abandoned Reading Terminal. Odd though that the Reading had no problem with more trains from more destinations mixed with freight on the 9th Street branch compared to what SEPTA operates today.

that and the inability to add reading side diesel

Suburban Station wrote:

bikentransit wrote:Maybe the experts should have thought of that before they abandoned Reading Terminal. Odd though that the Reading had no problem with more trains from more destinations mixed with freight on the 9th Street branch compared to what SEPTA operates today.

that and the inability to add reading side diesel

The concept of the CCCT dates back at least to the early 60's when the PRR and the Reading were still profitable. Back then, agencies like the EPA didn't exist and it was much cheaper to build and electrify lines (like the electrification from CP Newtown to Fox Chase).

PRR freight lines were electrified. It seemed that all lines would be electrified because it was relatively cheap.

I believe that Reading Terminal had reached the end of its useful life in light of the CCCT project.

Just 10 years ago, the concept of a dual powered locomotive was technologically far fetched. NJT is successfully running ALP-45DP locomotives which could run from center city through the CCCT if nessessary to Reading, Quakertown, Newtown, and even New Hope without changing engines of fouling the air in the CCCT.

That all may be true, but you missed my original point. How is it that the Reading got so much out of their "limited track capacity" on the mainline with comingled freight/passenger, unsafe automatic block signals, and non-PTC operated trains? It's no wonder all hell didn't break loose, yet they managed to run expresses to NY, Reading, Allentown and so forth, along with freight at various points on the 9th Street Branch, and allowed the B&O on their tracks as well. Nowadays someone mentions adding a train or extending a line, and pencils go flying with some guy in a suit at 1234 telling us it's impossible.

Clearfield wrote: I believe that Reading Terminal had reached the end of its useful life in light of the CCCT project.

Just 10 years ago, the concept of a dual powered locomotive was technologically far fetched. NJT is successfully running ALP-45DP locomotives which could run from center city through the CCCT if nessessary to Reading, Quakertown, Newtown, and even New Hope without changing engines of fouling the air in the CCCT.[/size]

I don't believe this to be the case. I think the the Reading Terminal never became obsolete nor had it reached the end of its useful life anymore than St Pancras station has reached the end of its useful life. Perhaps people thought that way but it turned out to be short sighted. I think the real driver was finances, SEPTA likely did not have the money to maintain both the CCCT and the RTM though I maintain it's possible shortsightedness was the real culprit. as we know, service to fox chase, newtown, pottstown, allentown all ended with the cessation of diesel services. we also know that there are limitations on capacity in the tunnel itself. seems to me that the RTM could well have served as a low level, diesel station for decades. dual powered locomotives came much later and come with their own set of tradeoffs. even today it would be cheaper to reactivate the RTM than add tracks to the CCCT.

Suburban Station wrote: we also know that there are limitations on capacity in the tunnel itself. seems to me that the RTM could well have served as a low level, diesel station for decades. dual powered locomotives came much later and come with their own set of tradeoffs. even today it would be cheaper to reactivate the RTM than add tracks to the CCCT.

Uh, first of all, there is this little thing called the Americans With Disabilities Act. I am not re-hashing that argument with you, just putting it out here.

Secondly, how in the world is it cheaper to "reactivate the RTM?" The Reading Terminal headhouse and ROW have been repurposed for the Convention Center, and it was originally determined that building a rail bridge over Vine Street was cost-prohibitive.

The CCCT had efficiencies and cost savings that the Reading Terminal never could have provided had it stayed open.

Nobody is proposing to reactivate Reading Terminal. The points being made is it may have been a shortsighted decision, based on finances and the scope of the system at the time. What we lost with the closing of Reading Terminal was the possibility of a larger rail system that could have included the closed lines, plus New York. When SEPTA was handed the rail system, it may have also been shortsighted to include the long distance lines in their responsibility. Had they been handed to Amtrak, Amtrak would have had different resources to maintain the lines, and could have used RT as their eastern Philly hub. There was no ADA in 1983, so that's neither here nor there.

No one is questioning the benefit of the tunnel, but clearly a few things went wrong if SEPTA is saying they can't fit any more trains on the tracks (or they just like to be perpetual whiners when it comes to operating trains).

bikentransit wrote:if SEPTA is saying they can't fit any more trains on the tracks

What SEPTA unofficially said was the area from 16th st through the tunnel couldn't handle a rush load of CHW traffic IF the Swampoodle connection were made.

This is all a what if.

Mr. Clearfield, I've had the same conversations with the same SEPTA officials (I believe at least one we were both present for), and my takeaway was that the real problem was the at-grade crossover at 16th St fouling the mainline, and constructing a flyover from Track 1 was hugely expensive and therefore not cost-effective. If the move to 30 minute headways on the Manayunk/Norristown Line is successful, and spurs further increases in frequency, that may change. But for now, SEPTA has a lot of catchup on deferred maintenance to get through, and a 16th St flyover (+ optional Swampoodle) is merely a "nice to have", and thus comes firmly after a long list of critical needs. (I would argue that another "nice to have" -- the high-leveling of the entire CHW, CHE, and NOR lines -- should come before flyover/Swampoodle, and would be a much more powerful benefit to riders.)

I'm sick of how long it takes for CHW trains to go through the NEC. The 3:37 from suburban station ALWAYS gets restricting and stop signals, with no inbound trains other than a Chestnut hill west train. Some outbound amtraks though.

CComMack wrote:Mr. Clearfield, I've had the same conversations with the same SEPTA officials (I believe at least one we were both present for), and my takeaway was that the real problem was the at-grade crossover at 16th St fouling the mainline, and constructing a flyover from Track 1 was hugely expensive and therefore not cost-effective. If the move to 30 minute headways on the Manayunk/Norristown Line is successful, and spurs further increases in frequency, that may change. But for now, SEPTA has a lot of catchup on deferred maintenance to get through, and a 16th St flyover (+ optional Swampoodle) is merely a "nice to have", and thus comes firmly after a long list of critical needs. (I would argue that another "nice to have" -- the high-leveling of the entire CHW, CHE, and NOR lines -- should come before flyover/Swampoodle, and would be a much more powerful benefit to riders.)

All reasons that Swampoodle will not be a reality. You would be doubling the traffic diverging from the main and entering the main at 16th in both directions at rush hour.

I have to agree with Clearfield.

16th St Junction to 30th Street can't handle the extra CHW traffic and expanded Norristown service with 4 tracks, and trains running every 4 or 5 mins during rush hour.

PTC is going to be another fly in the ointment with compressing all that traffic into a new system that is designed to slow trains down when they are closing into a train in the signal block ahead. The primary goal of PTC is to slow down or stop trains from rear-ending each other, passing a stop signal, or exceeding track speeds.

Comparing the main trunk in today's operation versus 40 years ago with the Reading Railroad is apples and oranges. Their schedule was mostly a rush-hour only service with very little mid day and night service. This gave bigger running windows for freight traveling up the New York branch and Bethlehem branch. Take a look at an old Reading or Conrail commuter schedule and compare it with today's schedules. BIG DIFFERENCE in service frequency during mid day, nights and weekends. On major holidays, you can count on one hand how many trains were run on each branch.

There's nights, weekends, and midday to run freight. Most of the lines run every hour off peak. 7 trains per hour per direction per hour midday, 6 TPH on weekends, and 0 TPH late nights.

It has been pointed out above that we're talking about increased frequencies during nights, weekends, and midday. In addition, it's time for the idea that freight can run anytime at all to be buried somewhere with a stake through its heart. Freight needs to run when the customers need it to run. The remark we often hear that "freight doesn't complain" is nonsense. The people who pay to ship it sure as hell complain, and they know who to complain to and how to do it. If they have to find another way to move their freight, they find it.

Is there even that much freight running between the Norristown split and CCP? I don't think there's any. Freight shouldn't be an issue for this.