Lack of Long Distance service on former RDG system

Most people I know that live in Bucks and work in NYC take NJT or the Amtrak Clocker from Trenton. Tenton is an easy drive across the river. The service is great. Locals, NJT Expresses and the Clocker. A new line into Bucks would not be able to compete.

Andrew--Thanks for the background on Phila. to Newark ROW. I live in Yardley, Bucks County and Travel to NYC twice per week. Traveling from Bucks County Or W. Trenton would be appealing. The Trenton station lacks adequate parking and coordination between Septa and NJT. Trains are also particularly overcrowded (at rush hours). If the ROW is intact service should be restored ASAP. Furthermore, if there are problems with the NEC (as there was yesterday and today!) this would be a viable backup Phila to Newark ROW. This is a very important corridor and EVERY effort should be made to have service available to as many commutors as possible even if it may seem redundant. This should be a one seat ride from Philadelphia.

I think NJT and SEPTA should share operations from Philly to Newark via W. Trenton when NHT rehabs it, make a one seat (except for transfer at Newark, but hey) ride which will greatly broaden appeal. However I don't think they plan on it being electrified initially.

I used to take the RDG to Newark in the late 70's. It was an RDC that ran from Reading Terminal via West Trenton and Bound Brook. It was fast and cheap and one seat.

Glad the info was appreciated. I don't remember how long the trip took but I have a couple old TT's that I can look at. And I feel that a W Trenton connection would be able to compete. The R3 and R7 each hold their own - neither of them was under SEPTA's gun in the recent service cut threats. And a parallel route makes excellent sense in case of major service disruptions. (Of course I'm a little optimistic on ridership right now, having just returned from Tokyo where you can't look in any direction without seeing a long, speedy, full passenger train.) I agree that NJT and SEPTA should ideally operate joint thru service but that assumes that a) SEPTA will ever look beyond the end of its nose and b) that NJT will be able to operate a significant route outside of its home state. (I know there's that Port Jervis line, but I seem to recall reading that some were upset about NJT's storage yard being built in Morrisville and not in NJ.) Another thing I like to think about in my "fantasy baseball in the Transit League" is the possibility of running semi-express service from the Downingtown area over the NS Morrisville Line as far as Woodbourne, then down the connector to the R3 and thence to N. Jersey. This could be developed as part of a Cross-County Metro plan (which from what I hear is so far on the back burner it might as well be dead). Every other train would run through to Newark, the ones in between would tie up at Trenton. An off-the-shelf locomotive, and some Bomber coaches with a cab car would do it. I feel that such a route would draw a lot of ridership, both with commuters who currently drive the Turnpike to Trenton and day trippers to NY from the northern Phila suburbs.

Amtrak might be interested in the West Trenton route if it had the funding. It would provide an alternate route for the busiest part of the NEC in the event of a derailment or other problem affecting service. At least keep the Acela Express and long distance trains operating if the mainline was blocked.

jfrey40535 wrote:Well that's what I'm talking about. Newark, NJ isn't exactly SEPTA territory. Although neither is Newark, DE.

But Reading Terminal to Newark, NJ in my view is a intercity route, so I'm just suprised that once SEPTA (or even Conrail) took over the RDG, that there was no one saying "hey that should be an Amtrak route", I mean maybe they could of at least found a way to keep it open. Would be convenient today.

Newark to Philly is already served by Amtrak with few stops in between. If they ran an alternate route via west trenton instead of trenton, I think they would lose money. I hardly see people board these trains at Trenton as is. Getting more ridership from West Trenton and Jenkintown would be a nice project for SEPTA and NJT to work out, but Amtrak has enough problems without entering that arena. 20 years ago they prioritized routes and they've been only cutting routes ever since. If they had money they could upgrade the R3 track, but they are spending what they have now on the R7 corridor, which is enough for Amtrak.

If they ran an alternate route via west trenton instead of trenton, I think they would lose money

Midpoints ought to be considered, not endpoints. The Northeast Corridor does not serve places like Bound Brook, Plainfield, Westfield or Cranford in NJ.

Of course, the crux of the problem is how passenger rail is still viewed in terms of making money versus serving passengers. If competing modes of transportation had to support their infrastructure directly, they wouldn't make any money either.

Passenger rail still has to be financially accountable. If we think of it as a service like trash pickup, police, and fire protection, then passenger rail still needs to show that the money is being well spent and results in good service. The problem is that rail is very capital intensive and has high operational costs. Unlike the other services I mentioned, a railroad has a budget at least 10 times larger than a typical township budget.

I've heard the same argument a thousand times: give more money to rail and transit, and that will magically fix all problems.

Governments build highways and airports in order to drive growth that will increase tax revenues through more jobs and higher property values. Yes, I know that the gas tax doesn't pay for all the highway expenditures each year. That's not really the issue. The issue is that when you invest in infrastructure, you expect a return on the investment (ROI).

You will have a more persuasive argument if you can frame it not in an ideological rail-vs-highway fashion, but in a rational manner with costs-vs-benefits and ROI.

Governments build highways and airports in order to drive growth that will increase tax revenues through more jobs and higher property values

The ironic thing is that one of the greatest factors that increases property value is adjacent passenger rail service. (Note across the Delaware—despite the bellyaching over the "River Line", property values have gone up in the towns it serves.) Highways merely create urban sprawl (look at the Poconos and even the ABE area, well served by highways that everyone uses and airports that almost nobody uses, but with extant rail lines with no passenger service—a big mess)...and there is no job migration to the Poconos, existing industry in the ABE area that is not expanding...but the highest wages and greatest business expansion are still happening close to Philly.

The problem is that rail is very capital intensive and has high operational costs

Competing transportation modes have even greater capital intensity. However, they separate the transport vehicle costs from infrastructure costs while rail counts them all together. Per mile, rail is the real bargain infrastructure-wise, and has the potential to carry more passengers per mile, and at faster average speeds, than its competitors. Starting to see benefits yet...? Don't forget to look up at that catenary wire; that's another benefit.

I've heard the same argument a thousand times: give more money to rail and transit, and that will magically fix all problems

Magically fix...? No, I don't believe that's an accurate quote. And you've seen the results of underfunding for yourself. But when you do apply the principle of increasing funding towards rail and transit, you do get real-world results—and all one has to do is look overseas at what other countries have. Sorry, but it's self-evident.

You will have a more persuasive argument if you can frame it not in an ideological rail-vs-highway fashion, but in a rational manner with costs-vs-benefits and ROI

Rail advocates have been providing those for years and getting no results from those providing the funding. Care to offer another route for them to take?

We can beat the rail-funding discussion to death, and similar themes appear on several boards here. Irish is correct---- if the competing modes of transportation--- all of them---- had to pay for the infrastructure which is essential to their operation the same way that railroads and rail systems have had to ever since they were first established, we would be arguing about whether it is cost effective to run our automobiles, buses,& trucks the way we do, or to fly our airplanes, and would be demanding the same kinds of justification for the existence of these modes that we demand for our rail systems today. ( Most people couldn't afford to operate one automobile, let alone two or three, if we had to pay the actual costs, out of pocket, which the automobile really requires).

If the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure were the only issue, it would be a simple fix to have the state or local governments take over and maintain the rails, rights-of-way, and accompanying structures, the same as roads and highways. Separate the operations of trains from the maintenance of way, same way it is done in Britain. Have Amtrak concentrate only on running passenger trains and providing service. To level the playing field with automobiles, charge only $1 per track mile, or make it free to Amtrak to run on these rails.

I agree the only sane option is to fully fund Amtrak and local transit agencies. I agree that starting new passenger rail service in an area will increase property values. I agree that building and widening more highways generally results in people moving further out and expanding the suburban edge. You won't find any argument from me about this.

Back on topic - I found my Philadelphia Division ETT effective 2:01 A.M. Monday July 1, 1963.

Train 600 (labeled as New York Express in the employee TT, otherwise known as the Crusader, daily ex Sat Sun Hol) dep Wayne Jct 6:05 a.m., Jenkintown 6:14, Neshaminy Falls 6:24, W. Trenton 6:34, Bound Brook 7:05, Jersey City 7:38, New York (Liberty-Cortland St. ferry dock) 7:50. Of course you'd have to guess at the time arriving at Newark since a/o the publication of this TT, the Aldene Plan hadn't yet gone into effect. This train plus others with the NY Express designation (602, 620, plus 1600, Sat. ex holidays) originated at Wayne Junction, with a scheduled MU connection from Reading Terminal: train 600 had instructions to wait 5 minutes for train 704, due at Wayne Jct at 5:58, and again at Jenkintown, 5 minutes wait for connecting passengers off of train 224, a Hatboro local due in Jenkintown at 6:11. The timetable states: "Trains having direct connections should wait if connection is in sight, or known to be close. If passengers are reported, tables above will govern."

A public TT from September 24, 1950 (when the FP7's would have been gleaming in their Simonized finish) shows the Crusader leaving Reading Terminal at 7:00, with stops at N. Broad 7:06 Wayne Jct 7:11, Jenkintown 7:18, W. Trenton 7:37, New York 8:50.