Signals through jenkintown interlocking

So maybe taking the existing blocks and dividing them into more, and tying them together in a way that gives a less anticipatory series of aspects that can both accommodate express moves AND trains that are making a station stop....?

You could also maybe rework the whole signal system, so you have warning of impending speed drop if indeed you need one, say if a train is in the station or fouling the switch. Plan A program would be express, plan B would be station stop. That way if you are stopping, you don't have to crawl that last mile leading up, and if you are not stopping, you can go as fast as the track/equipment allows. And say on th doylestown branch, you could reconfigure the siding by link belt, lenthen it to its former length, allowing both trains to move vs one stop on the shorter siding.......?

There are a number of places that these things seem to have been ignored or made worse over time. PATH is setting its system up so trains can travel faster when they are closer, vs getting hit with a slower speed, effectively they are shortening minimum distances. Why can't SEPTA do this? Even NJT often parks their equipment right up behind SEPTA on track 5 at trenton, or they stack at newark if need be. Makes no sense why SEPTA can't get its head in the game, you know?

25Hz wrote:You could also maybe rework the whole signal system

Uhhhh... are you qualified to make that statement?

Clearfield wrote:

25Hz wrote:Wondering if PTC will help this area speed up at all?

Unfortunately, and in general, the safer a system is, the slower the operating speeds become. SEPTA has been a risk-adverse system for a number of years. That's why you don't read about it as you do Metro-North or CTA. Only in Chicago can you find a train that can go up an escalator. And these are well-funded systems.

What a cop out. Fix the damn signals so the trains can go at normal speeds. The trains are slower today than they were 60 years ago. Pathetic.

25Hz wrote:What changes could be done here to improve the situation????

I went over this several times with SEPTA's the head of signals. They made several changes after the initial installation and fine tuned it to what we have now.

I'm not completely convinced they have it right. There's a piece of the puzzle I don't have and I'm not enough of an expert to ask the right questions at this stage. I believe it relates to stopping distance with an unfavorable signal indication at JENK.

Well, when the new high level station is put in on the other side of the bridge, stopped trains wont be fouling anything, so maybe we have to wait for that?

And save for a rolling stock malfunction, creating a "smart" cross-link from rydal to elkins park, and glenside to the signal just past the station inbound and glenside to rydal for the two traffic patterns could in theory get trains into the station faster, because you'd not be slowed for something that is not there yet, and if tuned properly it would be allowing a train to coast through the station outbound to west trenton (express) while granting a "slot" to a train that might need to "wrong rail" stop, vs the west trenton train stop well inbound and let the other move go first which is what they do now.

Seems like this would not only allow faster transit through the area, but better flexibility and less likelihood of the timetables going out the window from a single bad switch, disabled train, etc.

I mean, the area in question is a pretty vital transitory point for the entire reading side, so it'd make sense and be nice if they could figure out how to do it. Could mean being able to squeeze another train or two during peak hours vs stuck at current pattern?

25Hz wrote:Well, when the new high level station is put in on the other side of the bridge, stopped trains wont be fouling anything, so maybe we have to wait for that?

And save for a rolling stock malfunction, creating a "smart" cross-link from rydal to elkins park, and glenside to the signal just past the station inbound and glenside to rydal for the two traffic patterns could in theory get trains into the station faster, because you'd not be slowed for something that is not there yet, and if tuned properly it would be allowing a train to coast through the station outbound to west trenton (express) while granting a "slot" to a train that might need to "wrong rail" stop, vs the west trenton train stop well inbound and let the other move go first which is what they do now.

Seems like this would not only allow faster transit through the area, but better flexibility and less likelihood of the timetables going out the window from a single bad switch, disabled train, etc.

I mean, the area in question is a pretty vital transitory point for the entire reading side, so it'd make sense and be nice if they could figure out how to do it. Could mean being able to squeeze another train or two during peak hours vs stuck at current pattern?

What?????

25Hz wrote:Well, when the new high level station is put in on the other side of the bridge, stopped trains wont be fouling anything, so maybe we have to wait for that?

And save for a rolling stock malfunction, creating a "smart" cross-link from rydal to elkins park, and glenside to the signal just past the station inbound and glenside to rydal for the two traffic patterns could in theory get trains into the station faster, because you'd not be slowed for something that is not there yet, and if tuned properly it would be allowing a train to coast through the station outbound to west trenton (express) while granting a "slot" to a train that might need to "wrong rail" stop, vs the west trenton train stop well inbound and let the other move go first which is what they do now.

Seems like this would not only allow faster transit through the area, but better flexibility and less likelihood of the timetables going out the window from a single bad switch, disabled train, etc.

I mean, the area in question is a pretty vital transitory point for the entire reading side, so it'd make sense and be nice if they could figure out how to do it. Could mean being able to squeeze another train or two during peak hours vs stuck at current pattern?

HUH??

Guys, try reading again. I know its hard for some people to visualize certain things with just text, but try. I'd make some kinda graphic with a map, but i have no software capable of that.

And yes, there is a plan to relocate the station to the other side of the bridge, one with high level platforms, not sure on any solid details past that.

25Hz wrote:Guys, try reading again. I know its hard for some people to visualize certain things with just text, but try.

25Hz, you wrote a 111 word sentence. I think the burden is on YOU to get your point across clearly, not the reader.

And as Penny would say in Big Bang....... WOW!!!!

Trains would not need to slow if the system was signaled correctly.....

Clear enough?

Computerized system using certain algorithms could likely route the trains more efficiently. They would utilize signals farther down the line to speed up or slow down a train so no trains on the reading side need to slow way way down unless making a station stop. This concept is called Throughput Management, or "theory of constraint" and is used in a very wide range of applications from airports to container ports, and warehousing to durable goods manufacturing (automobile factory being one example). If they are too scared to signal the system like a real railroad, then instead of "better super super needlessly slow than sorry", you rework the entire thing so it functions better, safer, and far more efficiently. UPS has such a system. It is very successful.... maybe they could lease the algorithms to septa for a nominal fee? I have no idea.

I'm sure there is no money for any of this, so i don't know why i even brought it up to be honest.

I guess my point is that they are working hard, not smart, and the result is lost efficiency, which translates to lost revenue & increased operating costs, both in terms of crew, and the traction power wasted by slowing trains down for no reason. The re-gen braking utilized by silverlliner 5's on a system so sparsely populated by other equipment loses vs more efficient accel/decel maps........

25Hz wrote:Trains would not need to slow if the system was signaled correctly.....

Clear enough?

Computerized system using certain algorithms could likely route the trains more efficiently. They would utilize signals farther down the line to speed up or slow down a train so no trains on the reading side need to slow way way down unless making a station stop. This concept is called Throughput Management, or "theory of constraint" and is used in a very wide range of applications from airports to container ports, and warehousing to durable goods manufacturing (automobile factory being one example). If they are too scared to signal the system like a real railroad, then instead of "better super super needlessly slow than sorry", you rework the entire thing so it functions better, safer, and far more efficiently. UPS has such a system. It is very successful.... maybe they could lease the algorithms to septa for a nominal fee? I have no idea.

I'm sure there is no money for any of this, so i don't know why i even brought it up to be honest.

I guess my point is that they are working hard, not smart, and the result is lost efficiency, which translates to lost revenue & increased operating costs, both in terms of crew, and the traction power wasted by slowing trains down for no reason. The re-gen braking utilized by silverlliner 5's on a system so sparsely populated by other equipment loses vs more efficient accel/decel maps........

Could you kindly advise where you obtained your FRA and NORAC compliant signaling expertise?

25Hz wrote:So maybe taking the existing blocks and dividing them into more, and tying them together in a way that gives a less anticipatory series of aspects that can both accommodate express moves AND trains that are making a station stop....?

[Insert Shenanigans]

Makes no sense why SEPTA can't get its head in the game, you know?

25Hz wrote:Well, when the new high level station is put in on the other side of the bridge, stopped trains wont be fouling anything, so maybe we have to wait for that?

[Insert More Shenanigans]

Could mean being able to squeeze another train or two during peak hours vs stuck at current pattern?

25Hz wrote:Guys, try reading again. I know its hard for some people to visualize certain things with just text, but try. I'd make some kinda graphic with a map, but i have no software capable of that.

And yes, there is a plan to relocate the station to the other side of the bridge, one with high level platforms, not sure on any solid details past that.

25Hz wrote:Trains would not need to slow if the system was signaled correctly.....

Clear enough?

[Clearly Moved Beyond Shenanigans]

The re-gen braking utilized by silverlliner 5's on a system so sparsely populated by other equipment loses vs more efficient accel/decel maps........

Ok, i'm done.

It isn't my job to educate people on the technologies of the world. If you can't understand how a computer would route trains better vs humans doing math, then i can't help you.

25Hz wrote:Ok, i'm done.

It isn't my job to educate people on the technologies of the world. If you can't understand how a computer would route trains better vs humans doing math, then i can't help you.

I don't think the disconnect is with US. I think you're confusing simple logic with real world applications.