Manayunk Bridge

Lucius Kwok wrote:

The SVM study included both commuter rail and light rail over this bridge.

Yes, and several other ideas were studied as well. Option 3 was converting Ivy Ridge via East Falls into a branch of the Broad Street Subway connecting north of the BSS North Philadelphia station, as well as a connection between the former PRR route and former Reading route west of Ivy Ridge for remaining R6 operations.

The initial concept that I requested to be studied was for something like the Amsterdam Sneltram, Rotterdam Sneltram, or the western segment of metro Line 4 in Oslo. These systems take power from catenary or third rail, and operate through level crossings.

By the time SEPTA and the study contractors finished twisting it around, it had become a full heavy-rail branch with complete grade seperation and third rail-only operation. They said it failed evaluation. Small wonder.

If a transit facility were to be built using the R.O.W. of one of the two R6 branches, it makes sense in my mind for it to be Ivy Ridge via East Falls. Manayunk, as a destination is more effectively served by this route, and East Falls is the next up & coming location (which transit could support). Other areas along the route would benefit from new stations (i.e. @ Henry Avenue in support of MCP or lower Manayunk @ Shurs Lane) The population density is greater (especially given the presence of Fairmount Park along much of R6 Cynwyd), and the people are more likely to use it.

For greater explanation on that last point, I ask how many regionally- familiar readers of this post think that any of the upper crust in Lower Merion would be willing to ride along Lancaster and Girard Avenues? The reality is that the vast majority of Lower Merion residents would never use an extention of Subway-Surface, and, IMHO, if you think they would, yer crazy. These are people who are afraid to drive on the Philadelphia side of City Line Avenue.

Norristown via Cynwyd brings people to 30th Street and to Suburban Station faster. It would also support diesel train operation for longer distance (i.e. Reading) trains if the lower level of 30th Street was used.

Closer to the topic, rest assured that if given over to the trail advocates, you'll never get the bridge back. SEPTA would have the perfect excuse to abandon the thing outright.

Once again, PARailwiz, no disrespect was intended. I apologize if you took offense.

S'ok, no problem. It's easy to get frusturated when the subject is SEPTA .

Norristown via Cynwyd brings people to 30th Street and to Suburban Station faster. It would also support diesel train operation for longer distance (i.e. Reading) trains if the lower level of 30th Street was used.

Closer to the topic, rest assured that if given over to the trail advocates, you'll never get the bridge back. SEPTA would have the perfect excuse to abandon the thing outright.

Another way to look at it is that Manayunk, Wissahickon, and East Falls currently have much higher ridership and could better support a short three station line with frequent service than Wynnefield, Bala and Cynwyd can. And definately, at all costs we must keep the trail people off the bridge.

PARailWiz wrote:And definitely, at all costs we must keep the trail people off the bridge.

Even though I'm a devoted bicyclist, I couldn't agree more. Once the ROW is given over to trail use it will never be restored to rails. Look no further than the Lehigh Valley.

whovian wrote:...What makes you think that SEPTA, Philadelphia, Montco., Pennsylvania, and the feds will put forth any money to restore service along a PARALLEL route with an already existing service. Have you lived in the Philadelphia area all of your life? These things simply don't happen here. Reestablishing service to Ivy Ridge West would provide additional rail service, but who is going to pay for it? Once again, the only way you'll see that ROW restored is in conjunction with the SVM. It is that simple.

Exactly, build a train to Reading and suddenly the Cynwyd Branch becomes the most valuable line SEPTA owns. At this point we're not going to get an electric line to Reading, since that's tied in with the SVM debacle and everyone probably wants to distance themselves from that mess. An engine swap or timed passenger transfer at Norristown would be burden on the riders and on SEPTA's operations. The only diesel terminal SEPTA has access to is 30th St Station Lower Level, and while that'd require negotiation to gain access to it'd still be preferable to the inevitable missed transfers or 30-60 minute late/cancelled trains due to problems hooking up the electric or the diesel at Norristown. We can easily get trains from 30th St Station to Reading simply by fixing up 52nd St interlocking, the Cynwyd line, the bridge, and constructing the Ivy Ridge connector tracks between the Reading and PRR lines. It'd only make sense to electrify and double track the line from the RDG-PRR junction north of Ivy Ridge through to 52nd St Interlocking as that'd allow better service on the Norristown line north of Ivy Ridge, and would potentially simplify some deadhead moves if neccesary.

I would like to see the R8 run over the Cynwyd on the diesel side if the PRR side is to terminate at Ivy Ridge. The Chestnut Hill West and Norristown lines are a much better fit for each other than the Fox Chase and Chestnut Hill West lines are. Of course if the Ivy Ridge line is run all the way out to Norristown, Port Kennedy, or even out to Pottstown then it might make sense to just do R6 on both sides. This way they'd end up kind of like the NJT Main and Bergen Lines, in that they'd end up at the same place but go different routes to get there. Of course at the current time I couldn't see anything more than an extension of the R6 to Port Kennedy, R8 service between Ivy Ridge and Fox Chase, and peak hour diesel operation of through trains between Reading and 30th St Station via Cynwyd, but even that may be wildly optimistic.

On a somewhat pipe-dreamish tangent, I have to wonder if SEPTA could convince the FRA to grant a waiver such that they could do their proposed LRV on the Cynwyd branch without sacrificing it's utility for diesel commuter trains. I first must blame this idea on Mr. Nasadowski, since he posted it on the NJT Forum. The sucess of the Riverline surely must lead some folks to wonder why we can't have LRVs and FRA compatible trains sharing tracks at the same time. A great place to start would be a carefully controlled commuter line such as the Cynwyd Branch (or in the case of the NJT forum, the Northern Branch to Tenafly NJ). LRVs could run down the Cynwyd branch to somewhere just north of 52nd St interlocking, then be dumped on the street. From there they'd run down the Rt10 tracks to Girard, cross the river and then use the City Subway to get downtown from there, probably terminating at 12th and Bainbridge or something. This of course has all the flaws that all other "LRVs on the Cynwyd Branch" schemes have suffered from, chiefly the slow operation on the Rt10 and 15, the many obstructions to the City Subway Branch, and the street running in Center City. The only advantage this time is that by getting an FRA waiver to run FRA compatible EMUs, DMUs, and diesel push-pulls alongside the LRVs we don't sacrifice the utility of the Cynwyd branch in running diesel trains to Reading and Quakertown from 30th St Station. We possibly could even run the R8 or R6 to Ivy Ridge alongside the LRVs, with the regional rail providing all day service to Center City while the LRVs simply run across on the Rt15, providing a somewhat unique crosstown service or run into the city on the City Subway, providing access to center city along a different axis. Of course this is likely a complete pipe dream, as the FRA would never go for LRVs and their overweight EMUs, DMUs and push pull trains sharing tracks no matter what safety precautions are taken or how low the traffic density is. As Bill notes the Montco residents would turn their noses up at an LRV which dumps them on the street with 'those' people at 52nd.

I too am a rather avid biker, and have made fairly frequent trips up that way, but would much rather see the Manayunk PRR bridge stay a transit facility rather than a trail.

I think they could even run the push/pull diesel service all the way into upper level 30th street if need be. SEPTA could have the Reading train return to 30th st., via the Cynwyd branch and Zoo interlocking. The train could pull the engine out to the eastern limits of the platform at 30th st. (provided the engine is on the east end) thus clearing the shed. Then reverse into Powelton ave. yard for inspection and testing. For its westbound turn, reverse the same train back into 30th st. (3 track via the EY) and operate 3 track to Zoo and continue on to the Ivy Ridge branch.

I don't think there would be much of a conflict using Lower Level 30th street, the only trains that really use the 36th street connection are Amtrak Keystone trains and for turning the engines for those trains during Wye moves. By the time the SVM hopefully becomes reality Amtrak will likely be operating electric service to Harrisburg, probably eliminating the need for Wyeing the engines, thus freeing up more time on the connection.

Wdobner wrote:
On a somewhat pipe-dreamish tangent, I have to wonder if SEPTA could convince the FRA to grant a waiver such that they could do their proposed LRV on the Cynwyd branch without sacrificing it's utility for diesel commuter trains. I first must blame this idea on Mr. Nasadowski, since he posted it on the NJT Forum. The sucess of the Riverline surely must lead some folks to wonder why we can't have LRVs and FRA compatible trains sharing tracks at the same time. A great place to start would be a carefully controlled commuter line such as the Cynwyd Branch (or in the case of the NJT forum, the Northern Branch to Tenafly NJ). LRVs could run down the Cynwyd branch to somewhere just north of 52nd St interlocking, then be dumped on the street. From there they'd run down the Rt10 tracks to Girard, cross the river and then use the City Subway to get downtown from there, probably terminating at 12th and Bainbridge or something. This of course has all the flaws that all other "LRVs on the Cynwyd Branch" schemes have suffered from, chiefly the slow operation on the Rt10 and 15, the many obstructions to the City Subway Branch, and the street running in Center City. The only advantage this time is that by getting an FRA waiver to run FRA compatible EMUs, DMUs, and diesel push-pulls alongside the LRVs we don't sacrifice the utility of the Cynwyd branch in running diesel trains to Reading and Quakertown from 30th St Station. We possibly could even run the R8 or R6 to Ivy Ridge alongside the LRVs, with the regional rail providing all day service to Center City while the LRVs simply run across on the Rt15, providing a somewhat unique crosstown service or run into the city on the City Subway, providing access to center city along a different axis. Of course this is likely a complete pipe dream, as the FRA would never go for LRVs and their overweight EMUs, DMUs and push pull trains sharing tracks no matter what safety precautions are taken or how low the traffic density is. As Bill notes the Montco residents would turn their noses up at an LRV which dumps them on the street with 'those' people at 52nd.

aren't the 15 and 10 a different guage? (not standard guage)

whovian wrote:I think they could even run the push/pull diesel service all the way into upper level 30th street if need be.

They did this with the detour trains during RailWorks(NSM) in 1993-94.

Wdobner wrote:On a somewhat pipe-dreamish tangent, I have to wonder if SEPTA could convince the FRA to grant a waiver such that they could do their proposed LRV on the Cynwyd branch without sacrificing it's utility for diesel commuter trains.

No.

The trends are actually worsening--FRA and the rest of the government being more risk-averse.

nittany4 wrote:aren't the 15 and 10 a different guage? (not standard guage)

Of course they are, specifically Philly Broad Gauge I believe. This is proof of why I shouldn't be allowed to post after a day of studying, my brain is fried.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

Wdobner wrote:On a somewhat pipe-dreamish tangent, I have to wonder if SEPTA could convince the FRA to grant a waiver such that they could do their proposed LRV on the Cynwyd branch without sacrificing it's utility for diesel commuter trains.

No.

The trends are actually worsening--FRA and the rest of the government being more risk-averse.

That is of course true, but can't I have my small fantasy? If we can't break the upward spiral in passenger railcar weight we're going to end up with the only development in passenger trains being through Light Rails.

The bridge is just another example of our underutilized transportation infrastructure in the region. Maybe a relic to the past as well. What a waste it was to use transit dollars to repair it, only to have it as a "backdrop" for Manayunk.

More to the point, is that no one is accountable for the money (tax dollars) used to fund restoring the bridge. No one is asking questions. These are the type of things that are really frustrating. SEPTA performs so many capital projects, in which they get goo-gobs of money for, and half the time the public only gets partial benefit from it. The initial Silverliner V bidding process, the EIS for SVM, laying new ties and rail on the Cynwyd branch only to run single cars at 25 mile an hour along the branch, etc., are all prime examples and no one has made any noise. It seems as though this money materialises from some philanthropic entity (us taxpayers in disguise) and a falls continually down a bottomless pit.

whovian wrote:More to the point, is that no one is accountable for the money (tax dollars) used to fund restoring the bridge. No one is asking questions.

The problem was the bridge was crumbling and concrete was raining down.

Fixing it was cheaper than tearing it down.

Which would you have preferred?

I would have preferred to see a train operate over a refurbished bridge, sir. Would you fix a delapidated house up to habitable condition only to have it sit unoccupied? I remember, quite well, the state of disrepair that Manayunk bridge was in. If you ever ride a R-6 Cynwyd train, why don't you take a look at the bridge just past the old 52nd street station, which trains still go over miraculously, and ask yourself how you can justify using that eyesore and not the refurbished one at Manayunk. That 52nd street bridge looks like a candidate for being condemned, especially viewing it from the head-end.

Clearfield, I agree with you that repairing the bridge is cheaper than tearing it down. I also think that repairing the Manayunk bridge solely because it was falling apart, WITHOUT the intent of resuming train service, only strengthens the rails-to-trails advocate's argument. I am not sure that's such a good thing .

We know the bridge had to be repaired for safety reasons, but if it was being restored soley for that reason, the money should NOT have gone to SEPTA or come from transit funding sources. Should rail service have ever been restored, SEPTA could have paid some kind of fee towards use of the bridge, but we all know that bridge will never see a train again, yet gobs of money that could have gone to other projects was wasted on keeping some concrete supplier busy for a few years. Waste, waste, waste

how pathetic is this

it's begging for rail traffic

BEGGING!

http://www.svmetro.com/svm/history/img/ ... top-1l.jpg