Newtown line leased to Montco for recreational trail

My boss lives in Huntington Valley. I assumed he got the R3 at Bethayres, but I just found out today he gets the R8 at Fox Chase. Although a further drive it's a cheaper ticket, Bethayres is zone 3, Fox Chase zone 2. Also he's more comfortable boarding and alighting at the end of the line, especially alighting where there's much less chance of sleeping and getting an involuntary ride back to center city, as opposed to sleeping through his stop.
I must remember to grill him about if he'd ride a restored Newtown branch.

Limejuice, I really don't see the people living within three miles of the Ocatario branch giving up their Mercedes Benzes for the train. If expectations of potential riders is three and you get nine, that's 300% more than expected!

cpontani wrote:Limejuice, I really don't see the people living within three miles of the Ocatario branch giving up their Mercedes Benzes for the train. If expectations of potential riders is three and you get nine, that's 300% more than expected!

Ah, see? This is an excellent point you raise, cpontani. The Mercedes Benz owners would never take public transport, either today or in 1950. They are what I call a "lost audience." There are much more needier fish to fry. Those without cars, those who are older, those who want better transport.

Heck, look at me. I live in Phoenixville and work in NE Philly. On some days, I trek to Paoli's R5, then transfer to the MFL. It can be long, but it relaxing. If I need some flexibility, then I drive. The Schuylkill is what it is. It can be good on some days, a horror on others.

The point is: I have an option. You have an option. Co-exist. This is the message we must relay to our legislators.

I think the point that needs clarification here is - will a revitalized R8 Newtown train attract totally new riders, or simply divert existing riders from other lines? The argument that you're "freeing up capacity" for new riders on those other lines doesn't hold water. To me, if you don't attract new riders, but increase your operating costs (train and car miles, crew costs) and maintenance expense for the new stations, signals, track, etc., it's a loser. It's certainly a capital funds loser in the eyes of the Feds, who have fairly strict user benefit regulations on use of federal money for transit projects.

Is there anyone here who can do more than just speculate about what *new* riders might be attracted to the line? Is there a recent ridership study that points to all new passengers being attracted?

For my railroad manager's mind, it doesn't make much sense to increase my costs without getting some quantifiable benefit in return.

jb9152 wrote:Is there anyone here who can do more than just speculate about what *new* riders might be attracted to the line? Is there a recent ridership study that points to all new passengers being attracted?

The real game-changer on ridership levels is fuel prices.

If (when) gas prices are back to or above the $4.00 level, ridership on all lines will again skyrocket. Everyone will be attracted to any line they can get to easily.

Clearfield wrote:The real game-changer on ridership levels is fuel prices.

If (when) gas prices are back to or above the $4.00 level, ridership on all lines will again skyrocket. Everyone will be attracted to any line they can get to easily.

Yeah, but I'm not talking about transitory ridership. I mean a real ridership study, that looks at long term potential growth.

^ Very true. Gas prices would change everything.

But then again, "...Chance favors the prepared mind."

The current railroad choked on the increasing ridership. The system actually doesn't have much slack at peak hour. This is an argument for a much harder look at what capacity we would desire for the future. If gas prices ran up quickly, SEPTA will not be able to do much to alleviate the pain. There won't be room on the trains.

Also, we should think hard about through ridership and reverse commuting...

The current railroad choked on the increasing ridership. The system actually doesn't have much slack at peak hour. This is an argument for a much harder look at what capacity we would desire for the future.

I combined the inbound morning Airport, Newark, and Media/Elwyn timetables and noticed that the shortest time interval between arrivals at 30th Street Station is three minutes, with the R1, R2, and R3 arriving at 7:30, 7:33, 7:36 respectfully. Other than that, there are mostly four, five, or six-minute intervals on arrivals at 30th Street between those three trains. (I grouped them together because I knew they arrived at the same platform). Is that three-minute interval between trains the smallest that SEPTA can risk without risking one late train holding up the system? For those who work for SEPTA or DVARP or who understand how capacity works, I'd love to hear from you.

Where is the capacity tightest, and where is there room?

If gas prices ran up quickly, SEPTA will not be able to do much to alleviate the pain. There won't be room on the trains.

Maybe SEPTA shouldn't be so keen on scrapping the SL II's and III's when the SL V's roll onto the SEPTA main.

Also, we should think hard about through ridership and reverse commuting...

Definitely reverse-commuting, but don't forget off-peak. Most of my train travel is actually off-peak. I'd take the fictional R3 to classes at West Chester U. from Media during off-peak hours.

MikeBPRR wrote:I combined the inbound morning Airport, Newark, and Media/Elwyn timetables and noticed that the shortest time interval between arrivals at 30th Street Station is three minutes, with the R1, R2, and R3 arriving at 7:30, 7:33, 7:36 respectfully. Other than that, there are mostly four, five, or six-minute intervals on arrivals at 30th Street between those three trains. (I grouped them together because I knew they arrived at the same platform). Is that three-minute interval between trains the smallest that SEPTA can risk without risking one late train holding up the system? For those who work for SEPTA or DVARP or who understand how capacity works, I'd love to hear from you.

Capacity is a function of signal headways, which themselves are affected by stopping frequency and stopping pattern (because the longer a train lingers in a given track circuit - at a station stop, for example - the longer the circuit is "down", and trains behind will be getting downgraded wayside or cab signal aspects). The three minute headway coming from the south into Center City is probably very close to the shortest supportable headway. Even on the High Density Interlocking System installed on the NEC between Newark, NJ and Penn Station New York, the shortest supporable headway is about 2 to 2.5 minutes.

MikeBPRR wrote:Where is the capacity tightest, and where is there room?

Line capacity is inextricably tied to the block/track circuit that has the longest average clearing time (i.e. the time that it takes the signal protecting that block, after the passage of a train, to cycle up to its least restrictive aspect, allowing a following train to proceed into it at maximum authorized speed). If you have a bunch of blocks that will support 25 trains per hour, and one that supports 20 trains per hour, your line capacity will be 20 trains per hour. It would be an interesting exercise to determine where those points are on each of the two SEPTA branches and the NEC trunk coming up from the south, and also for the northern branches and trunk SEPTA Main Line. It would take, at a minimum, a simulation/train performance calculation.

All you have to do is stand at Market East during the PM rush hour, look up at the track boards, and you'll notice there are chunks of time where the trains come every three minutes on each track. Market East is your bottleneck, as you can originate/terminate some ex-Pensy trains on the stub tracks at Suburban.

But the other capacity issue is the number of available cars in the fleet. Many of the rush hour trains can have a car or two added to them, as the Center City stops have long platforms, but if all cars don't platform in the suburbs, the dwell times will go through the roof.

jb9152 wrote:Is there a recent ridership study that points to all new passengers being attracted?

No, and that what we are pushing for at present to be included in the budget. A new, accurate study performed by a third-party consultant. Cannot do anything without that.

The argument being made is that reactivtion results in new riders + change in commuter habits for existing ones.

MikeBPRR wrote:Maybe SEPTA shouldn't be so keen on scrapping the SL II's and III's when the SL V's roll onto the SEPTA

No, they should be stored all along the Newtown trackage in the interim. Will spur interest, preserve the ROW, and give SEPTA one less reason for beating up the line.

...and attract vandals?

I caught up on this thread yesterday and I feel like adding a few thoughts:

The argument has been made (by Joe Casey, for example, in the Metro article from last week) that the Newtown extension isn't needed because of the close proximity of the R2 and R3 lines.

However, if you look at the existing Regional Rail system, you will find other lines that are much closer together than these three.

I got out my trusty map and looked at Byberry Road for example. The distance from the old Woodmont (R8) location to the Hatboro station (R2) is about 2 miles. From Woodmont to Forest Hills (R3) is about 3.5 miles.

But look at the two Chestnut Hill lines. They're within a mile of each other, basically, and their termini are even closer than that. What about the Cynywd branch? Isn't this pretty redundant with only three stations and Overbrook being a little over a mile away down City Ave? (Yes I know the Fox Chase line is only five stations but it gets much more ridership, especially Fox Chase, and the stations are spaced out better.) And how about the PRR-side of the R2 and R3? Stations along these lines are within a couple of miles of each other as well.

This shoots down the proximity argument, I think.

Also, someone made the comment about the Newtown line drawing 2500 riders from the R2 and R3, and then having 2500 "new" riders attracted to the R2/R3. He then claimed that this means 5000 new riders, but this is incorrect... it's only 2500 "new" riders since the 2500 that transferred from the R2/R3 to the R8 were already taking the train. (Unless I misunderstood what he meant.)

R8Guy wrote:But look at the two Chestnut Hill lines. They're within a mile of each other, basically, and their termini are even closer than that. What about the Cynywd branch? Isn't this pretty redundant with only three stations and Overbrook being a little over a mile away down City Ave? (Yes I know the Fox Chase line is only five stations but it gets much more ridership, especially Fox Chase, and the stations are spaced out better.) And how about the PRR-side of the R2 and R3? Stations along these lines are within a couple of miles of each other as well.

Yes, but those lines are built and operating with decent ridership. Proximity is not a good argument *for* the Newtown Line either. Again, what is truly needed is a third-party ridership study done to gauge the attractiveness to truly NEW riders (i.e. those not currently riding the rails) of re-activation. Unless there are enough of those truly new riders to balance out the cost of the project, the Feds won't pay for it. You could do it with local funds, but that's no guarantee either. In the current anti-tax climate (which I support, by the way - the government needs to become much less wasteful before it goes back to the well for more taxpayer money and removes yet more dollars from the market), it'd be a hard sell unless you could demonstrate some concrete benefit in terms of new riders served. If there are very few new riders, all that crap about congestion mitigation and improvements in air quality are just that - crap.

R8Guy wrote:Also, someone made the comment about the Newtown line drawing 2500 riders from the R2 and R3, and then having 2500 "new" riders attracted to the R2/R3. He then claimed that this means 5000 new riders, but this is incorrect... it's only 2500 "new" riders since the 2500 that transferred from the R2/R3 to the R8 were already taking the train. (Unless I misunderstood what he meant.)

Yes, it was misunderstood. I stated that the ridership numbers were mostly a shift from the other two lines and are not necessarily all "new" riders.