PATCO to Glassboro?

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/ ... /26318939/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looking at the geography it would seem to make more sense to operate it over the Walt Whitman with a terminus at broad and Pattison. It's my understanding that patco needs a better terminal in philadelphia to operate increased headways.

Except there is no way a rail line could run on the Walt Whitman.

Suburban Station wrote:Looking at the geography it would seem to make more sense to operate it over the Walt Whitman with a terminus at broad and Pattison. It's my understanding that patco needs a better terminal in philadelphia to operate increased headways.

the sarge wrote:Except there is no way a rail line could run on the Walt Whitman.

Suburban Station wrote:Looking at the geography it would seem to make more sense to operate it over the Walt Whitman with a terminus at broad and Pattison. It's my understanding that patco needs a better terminal in philadelphia to operate increased headways.

The structure is incapable of handling light rail vehicles?

Yes, it's incapable of handling in regards to the deck stiffness, which in comparison to the Benny, is very low. In general, a bridge has to be designed to handle railroad loading and this is the case for suspension bridges 100% of the time. Look at pictures of suspension bridges that were built to handle rail loads like the Benny, Manhattan, San Fran -Oak Bay bridge. The truss systems implemented for those decks are for providing higher stiffness. You can compare and see the difference between these bridges and the single deck ones only built for vehicle traffic - even the post "Galloping Girtie" bridges

Suburban Station wrote:The structure is incapable of handling light rail vehicles?

I see the same people that prepared the map in that article were the same people who presented at the PATCO planning meetings some years back. I am the only person that noticed that the terminus on the map in Glassboro is via connection over the former Reading/ACRR Williamstown Branch which the map indicates the branch continues several miles past Glassboro going towards Williamstown? To the last of my knowledge that right of way hasn't existed since before ConRail, how are they going to use that?

-Ed

the sarge wrote:Yes, it's incapable of handling in regards to the deck stiffness, which in comparison to the Benny, is very low. In general, a bridge has to be designed to handle railroad loading and this is the case for suspension bridges 100% of the time. Look at pictures of suspension bridges that were built to handle rail loads like the Benny, Manhattan, San Fran -Oak Bay bridge. The truss systems implemented for those decks are for providing higher stiffness. You can compare and see the difference between these bridges and the single deck ones only built for vehicle traffic - even the post "Galloping Girtie" bridges

Suburban Station wrote:The structure is incapable of handling light rail vehicles?

Although much further downriver from Philadelphia (in Chester) and light/heavy rail service being very unlikely in that area, would the Commodore Barry Bridge be capable of supporting a rail line??? Unlike the Walt Whitman Bridge, the Commodore Barry Bridge is a cantilever bridge (not suspension) and appears more "solid".

Yes, the Barry being a cantilever bridge would have plausible potential compared to the Walt which is none.

SubwayTim wrote:Although much further downriver from Philadelphia (in Chester) and light/heavy rail service being very unlikely in that area, would the Commodore Barry Bridge be capable of supporting a rail line??? Unlike the Walt Whitman Bridge, the Commodore Barry Bridge is a cantilever bridge (not suspension) and appears more "solid".

SubwayTim wrote:

the sarge wrote:Yes, it's incapable of handling in regards to the deck stiffness, which in comparison to the Benny, is very low. In general, a bridge has to be designed to handle railroad loading and this is the case for suspension bridges 100% of the time. Look at pictures of suspension bridges that were built to handle rail loads like the Benny, Manhattan, San Fran -Oak Bay bridge. The truss systems implemented for those decks are for providing higher stiffness. You can compare and see the difference between these bridges and the single deck ones only built for vehicle traffic - even the post "Galloping Girtie" bridges

Suburban Station wrote:The structure is incapable of handling light rail vehicles?

Although much further downriver from Philadelphia (in Chester) and light/heavy rail service being very unlikely in that area, would the Commodore Barry Bridge be capable of supporting a rail line??? Unlike the Walt Whitman Bridge, the Commodore Barry Bridge is a cantilever bridge (not suspension) and appears more "solid".

While we are throwing out crazy ideas, why don't we tunnel the Broad Street Line under the river via Pattison Lower Level, add a deep Navy Yard station, and extend service to Glassboro?

Someone pass the tequila this way, please?

This idea was actually proposed over 80 years ago - but as a road tunnel.

https://catalyst.library.jhu.edu/catalog/bib_3341184" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


....and I'll take mine neat, no salt, no lime....

R3 Passenger wrote:While we are throwing out crazy ideas, why don't we tunnel the Broad Street Line under the river via Pattison Lower Level, add a deep Navy Yard station, and extend service to Glassboro?

Someone pass the tequila this way, please?

Thanks for the explanation sarge.
Tunneling to glassboro? Wouldn't it make more sense to tunnel patco to university city?

Suburban Station wrote:Thanks for the explanation sarge.
Tunneling to glassboro? Wouldn't it make more sense to tunnel patco to university city?

I think he meant tunnel to City then tie into the existing ROW from there.

ekt8750 wrote:

Suburban Station wrote:Thanks for the explanation sarge.
Tunneling to glassboro? Wouldn't it make more sense to tunnel patco to university city?

I think he meant tunnel to City then tie into the existing ROW from there.

I was alluding to PATCO's shared history with the Broad Street Line peppered with some sarcasm and unrealistic pipe dreams.

But, since I unintentionally struck some historical gold per Sarge (document is stuck behind a login gate), I'm going to run with the idea as an exercise in thought.

I proposed extending tracks from the lower level of Pattison under the Delaware River and adding a deep level station at the Navy Yard. Any tunnel between the Navy Yard and National Park, NJ needs to at least meet or exceed Panamax depth clearances in the main shipping channel at low tide. Run the new tracks under Red Bank Ave using a combination of cut-cover and TBM for the deep parts coming across the river. However, I am completely at a loss when it comes to creating a junction with the existing line down through Woodbury into Glassboro. There is too much property in the way. I thought about maybe tunneling down to the power transmission ROW and bringing it above ground there to a flying junction, but it would need to go under existing residential neighborhoods to do that. Keeping it at a deep level with a TBM would only add to the cost and complication of this proposal.

In terms of equipment, use Light Rail vehicles that are Trolley Wire-Diesel dual powered. Retrofit the lower level of Pattison Station to accept the low boarding clearance (because face it, this project is not getting high-level platforms).

Edit: Replaced 3rd rail with Trolley Wire. I realized you can't have low level boarding with third rail shoes.

Heck, tunneling from Pattison to Woodbury may be the only way Glassboro sees any type of rail transit service. Conrail shared assets is currently imploding under the increased amount of trains along that route to Woodbury, and container traffic is slated to start in SJ once PANAMAX is completed.

The thread has drifted in this direction.

http://broad-street-subway-to-nj.webnode.com/

nomis wrote:Heck, tunneling from Pattison to Woodbury may be the only way Glassboro sees any type of rail transit service. Conrail shared assets is currently imploding under the increased amount of trains along that route to Woodbury, and container traffic is slated to start in SJ once PANAMAX is completed.

Yes, between the increase in freight traffic, the impact of the new high-tension wires on the R.O.W., and the planned grade separation planned along the west side of I-676 due to opposition to in-street operation on Haddon Avenue near Cooper Hospital, I have serious concerns about the additional costs associated with the DLRT system proposal. With no money in NJ transportation coffers, it remains to be seen how it will happen, despite previous comment from several political leaders.