NHSL Extension Meetings / Workshops Announced

The story hit the Inky this morning: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local ... t_go_.html and of course attracted the inevitable cadre of NIMBYs and armchair mechanical engineers along with a disgusting number of anti-everything nut jobs and racists.

MACTRAXX wrote:There were five Market-Frankford Budd 1960 vintage 600 series single unit cars that were modified to operate on the NHSL back during the late 80s and 1990s primarily - these cars were re-trucked with standard gauge trucks from retired PATH Class K (1958) cars and with modifications such as outside door ledges and a farebox
allowing a Conductor (these cars - and the CTA cars required two crew members) to collect fares... This group of five cars would primarily be used on the short Bryn Mawr - 69th Street local runs...

Thanks, MT. The Budd car mods were definitely a case of "it's not that simple". I talked to a couple of the guys who worked on the cars; they said even though the changes outwardly seemed straightforward the reality of getting them running, even on a stopgap basis, was a lot different.

For those who may not remember - SEPTA purchased a group of just-retired CTA 6000 series cars for for literally scrap value back in the late 80s to alleviate a car shortage and placed them in NHSL service as a interim measure - along with the five MFSE cars - until the N5 cars replaced them during the 90s...

The situation was so desperate that the CTAs were put into service as fast as they could be made mechanically ready. They were still in CTA livery on day one.

There is a remaining pair of CTA cars that has been sitting near the 69th Street shop complex that is supposedly being saved to be preserved either by a individual or a group that would relocate them - and since they have not been moved they have fallen victim to vandalism and neglect...

That's a real shame. Even though I disliked riding the CTAs as a commuter (drafty, dim lighting, noisy, rock'n'roll suspensions) they absolutely saved rail service on the line. When the Bullets had to be pulled there was serious talk of paving it for BRT, but once the CTAs started running that talk evaporated.

JeffK wrote:

There is a remaining pair of CTA cars that has been sitting near the 69th Street shop complex that is supposedly being saved to be preserved either by a individual or a group that would relocate them - and since they have not been moved they have fallen victim to vandalism and neglect...

That's a real shame. Even though I disliked riding the CTAs as a commuter (drafty, dim lighting, noisy, rock'n'roll suspensions) they absolutely saved rail service on the line. When the Bullets had to be pulled there was serious talk of paving it for BRT, but once the CTAs started running that talk evaporated.

Indeed. Sadly I just missed riding the Bullet Cars, so my first Norristown HSL experience was riding the CTA cars (and as a special treat, the M3s) on the line. I was glad to see that a part of CTA cars were retained, but saddened to see them falling into such bad condition.

Just read the inquirer article. The impression I got from it is that no matter what trunk/branch options Septa chooses they plan on building an elevated structure for it... what happened to building it at-grade? For people concerned about the visual impact of an elevated structure putting the line at-grade would be much easier for them to swallow I'd think.

And I still think they could do a better job with hitting major "landmarks" with the different trunks/branches. I wonder why, for example, the line can't loop around the north side of the mall, hitting the major business park area on First Ave, and then wind around towards the casino, CHOP facility under construction, and the eventual Golf course development. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Some frequently asked questions about the line - there are about 41 here: http://www.kingofprussiarail.com/docs/K ... 202014.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

34thStreet wrote:Just read the inquirer article. The impression I got from it is that no matter what trunk/branch options Septa chooses they plan on building an elevated structure for it... what happened to building it at-grade? For people concerned about the visual impact of an elevated structure putting the line at-grade would be much easier for them to swallow I'd think.

And I still think they could do a better job with hitting major "landmarks" with the different trunks/branches. I wonder why, for example, the line can't loop around the north side of the mall, hitting the major business park area on First Ave, and then wind around towards the casino, CHOP facility under construction, and the eventual Golf course development. Why does it have to be one or the other?

SEPTA mentioned at the last public hearing that they removed the at-grade option because there would be too many crossings required with small roadways. Plus, adding a grade crossing for rt 202, with the frequent service of the line, would make things much worse for 202 drivers.

Someone brought up the idea of a loop for the area. I'm not sure why it isn't being considered...but perhaps one day they want to keep a provision for another expansion somewhere else in the future?

Another reason grade crossings were nixed is that anything wider than the length of one car would require catenary. They'd have to either construct cat lines at every affected crossing or scrap third rail entirely for continuous overhead, which has its own set of visual negatives.

Tritransit Area wrote:Someone brought up the idea of a loop for the area. I'm not sure why it isn't being considered...but perhaps one day they want to keep a provision for another expansion somewhere else in the future?

I was one of the people who pushed to keep a loop option open. Maybe somebody's listening to us b/c the new branch options that each end near Gulph Road and First Avenue make a future connection much more viable. The prior proposals had two "hooks" whose endpoints were close on a map but physically separated by difficult topography.

I've had a couple of sidebar conversations and got the impression that some of the stakeholders really wanted to have both branches. Both the Village development on Gulph Road and new mixed-use construction on First Ave. apparently could support a line. The problem, as always in this state, is that the dollars aren't there.

Tritransit Area wrote:
SEPTA mentioned at the last public hearing that they removed the at-grade option because there would be too many crossings required with small roadways. Plus, adding a grade crossing for rt 202, with the frequent service of the line, would make things much worse for 202 drivers.

Someone brought up the idea of a loop for the area. I'm not sure why it isn't being considered...but perhaps one day they want to keep a provision for another expansion somewhere else in the future?

Ah, good point I didn't think about the grade crossings. The NHSL doesn't have them now so that wouldn't make much sense to build the extension with them. Plus they'd have to use the horn at grade crossings which tends to make the NIMBY's get upset.

JeffK wrote:

Tritransit Area wrote:Someone brought up the idea of a loop for the area. I'm not sure why it isn't being considered...but perhaps one day they want to keep a provision for another expansion somewhere else in the future?

I was one of the people who pushed to keep a loop option open. Maybe somebody's listening to us b/c the new branch options that each end near Gulph Road and First Avenue make a future connection much more viable. The prior proposals had two "hooks" whose endpoints were close on a map but physically separated by difficult topography.

I've had a couple of sidebar conversations and got the impression that some of the stakeholders really wanted to have both branches. Both the Village development on Gulph Road and new mixed-use construction on First Ave. apparently could support a line. The problem, as always in this state, is that the dollars aren't there.

The loop would be interesting and it does make a lot of sense. I don't get why if you're proposing two branches that are both viable options to build that end within a few blocks of each other why you don't just combine them. The more places you can serve such as business parks/offices/stores/new developments the better I think.

34thStreet wrote:Ah, good point I didn't think about the grade crossings. The NHSL doesn't have them now so that wouldn't make much sense to build the extension with them. Plus they'd have to use the horn at grade crossings which tends to make the NIMBY's get upset.

That and the fact that grade crossings and third rails don't mix that well (and before someone says the CTA, the CTA shouldn't have grade crossings at all with the type of third rail they use (that can't even be covered).

Grade Crossing and Street Level Tracks would be a disaster. Like someone said Caternary would have to be installed....plus the gates and constant bell ringings, plus the horn....that would drive the residents INSANE...PLUS THE TRAFFIC ON 202.....IF ITS BAD NOW IT WOULD BE WORSE. I say stick to the Elevated Structure. It might be a eyesore but it has advantages.

34thStreet wrote:The loop would be interesting and it does make a lot of sense. I don't get why if you're proposing two branches that are both viable options to build that end within a few blocks of each other why you don't just combine them. The more places you can serve such as business parks/offices/stores/new developments the better I think.

That's the point several of us have brought up at every meeting since the branch proposals took shape, but the planners are extremely concerned about funding one let alone two branches. They've already made changes (e.g. not running to VF Towers) to reduce costs. I don't know how much of that is posturing to make the line more palatable to the "don't spend anything" crowd, but even with local gov't in favor and Act 89 passed, the state as a whole remains hostile to most transit initiatives. Now that the extension's looking more like reality the NIMBYs and RWNJs are already crawling out from under their rocks.

BuddCar711 wrote:

34thStreet wrote:Ah, good point I didn't think about the grade crossings. The NHSL doesn't have them now so that wouldn't make much sense to build the extension with them. Plus they'd have to use the horn at grade crossings which tends to make the NIMBY's get upset.

That and the fact that grade crossings and third rails don't mix that well (and before someone says the CTA, the CTA shouldn't have grade crossings at all with the type of third rail they use (that can't even be covered).

Everyone: Another thing to remember about grade crossings on third rail electrified rail lines is the possibility of
"gapping" in which a train loses power when all shoes lose contact with the third rail...The short one or two car
NHSL trains could have a problem if these proposed crossings and gaps are too long or wide here...

The systems that have third rail grade crossings - the CTA, LIRR and MNCR - run trains that are long enough for
this problem not to happen on grade crossings - and more importantly in the LIRR and MNCR cases their trains
are long enough for large third rail gaps in major interlocking complexes that both of these railroads have...

This proposed NHSL extension would be much better off not having any grade crossings for a variety of reasons
and even though this option may be more costly it is clearly best that any new line be grade separated...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote:Everyone: Another thing to remember about grade crossings on third rail electrified rail lines is the possibility of "gapping" in which a train loses power when all shoes lose contact with the third rail...The short one or two car NHSL trains could have a problem if these proposed crossings and gaps are too long or wide here...MACTRAXX

The N5s are designed to be fitted with pans if needed. IF they were to run at-grade, some crossings (e.g. 202) are simply too wide to avoid gapping so those places would require catenary. I'm not sure how practical it would be to have alternating overhead and third rail, so it would (naively) seem easier to go with catenary for the entire extension ... but then you have poles and wires which IMO would be at least as much of a visual negative as a raised guideway.

This proposed NHSL extension would be much better off not having any grade crossings for a variety of reasons and even though this option may be more costly it is clearly best that any new line be grade separated...

Correct. An at-grade route could require a dozen or more crossings depending on which branch is chosen. Safety issues, warning-horn noise, and traffic disruptions all argue against going at-grade. At least based on the most recent meeting, it's is effectively off the table. That's one decision both the planners and residents seem to agree on.

Does anyone know how the meeting on the 25th went?

http://www.timesherald.com/general-news ... sion-plans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fair use quote...

BRIDGEPORT >> Borough council got a look at the proposed extension of the Norristown High Speed Line into King of Prussia Tuesday as Liz Smith, a SEPTA manager for long-range planning, gave a presentation on the transit authority’s plans.

Smith said the extension was needed because King of Prussia is the region’s largest employment center outside of Philadelphia, and while there are there are currently six bus routes that serve the community, they are, on average, on time 65 percent of the time, whereas the Norristown High Speed Line is on time 99 percent of the time.

I think having an actual transfer point at Radnor with a reduced transfer fare would help truly tap the potential of this extension.