LRT sharing PATCO Ben Franklin tracks?

For the next generation of RIVERline cars, assuming they could be equipped with electric motors, shoes, and the right control systems, could they theoretically operate over PATCO tracks into Philadelphia proper? This is with the understanding that they couldn't serve the existing PATCO platforms, so would require their own surface tracks on either side of the bridge (or would need high-level doors in a semi-low-floor car.

I don't believe there's any wholly unfixable legal reasons why it wouldn't be possible - light rail and heavy rail share tracks in Cleveland - but the time-separation issue might come into play. The River Line is not 24 hours, but PATCO is. So theoretically a misdirected PATCO train could roll (albeit without power) into the path of a freight train. However, there are probably sufficient safety systems possible to make that a non issue.

There are also potential problems with the RL being a mainline rail operation, and PATCO being a sealed rapid transit operation. Loading gauge, for one. Signalling, for three. FRA rules like couplers, for three. Union and federal work rules, for four.

PATCO also uses faregates, while the RL uses proof of payment.

The injection point into PATCO would also be difficult. Your best best is about a mile of tunnels under Linden Street to avoid ugly tunneling under the Rutgers Camden campus. And there's almost no way to get a Glassboro line into PATCO as well.

The EGE wrote:There are also potential problems with the RL being a mainline rail operation, and PATCO being a sealed rapid transit operation. Loading gauge, for one. Signalling, for three. FRA rules like couplers, for three. Union and federal work rules, for four.

I read an excellent book several years ago about the history of Patco. In it, the book describes how lawyers went to great lengths to distance and separate the system from freight operations. I don't recall if the book stated that they severed all links but it would make sense if they were trying to avoid the problems experienced by PATH. I doubt that there would be interest since there appears to be a bottleneck with turning around trains in the city.

Maybe they should reinstall tracks in the outer roadway lanes of the bridge for the riverline. Trolleys ran in those lanes when the bridge opened.

What about the fact that its two different states youre dealing with?

Light rail and heavy rail lines often have rail ground to a different wheel profile than FRA RR rail, so there could be a potential incompatibility there. Would depend on what lineage PATCO's designers originally chose. While the difference is small enough that it wouldn't necessarily prevent RiverLINE rolling stock from safely sharing track, a wheel profile difference would probably speed-restrict the LRV's to hedge against the inherently higher derailment risk. Especially on curves.

Bigger problem is probably going to be weight differential between a 6-car PATCO consist and a RiverLINE singlet. The Stadler GTW 2/6 DMU's weigh as little as 40 tons in their minimal configuration (closer to NJT's order) to 68 tons in their longest + highest fuel-capacity configuration. I can't find PATCO I/II specs anywhere, but heavy rail cars usually range mid-50's to upper-60's in tonnage per car...then throw in fact that they're married pairs operating in six-pack consists instead of singles or deuces. If the RiverLINE eventually ditches the DMU's and goes to HBLR-style all-electric LRV's that weight differential is going to diverge much further. Unless the co-mingling is extremely short-distance the amount of extra fail-safe spacing required between the PATCO cars and the LRV's is probably going to do lots of harm to PATCO headways. And harm them most severely if both have to share stations one vehicle behind the other.

mtuandrew wrote:For the next generation of RIVERline cars, assuming they could be equipped with electric motors, shoes, and the right control systems, could they theoretically operate over PATCO tracks into Philadelphia proper? This is with the understanding that they couldn't serve the existing PATCO platforms, so would require their own surface tracks on either side of the bridge (or would need high-level doors in a semi-low-floor car.

Even if they did buy rolling stock compatible with PATCO, the two different trains are regulated by different Federal agencies, PATCO by the FTA like every subway, metro, light rail, and streetcar system in the USA, while Riverline trains are regulated by the FRA like every commuter rail, Amtrak, and freight railroad company in the USA. Any train capable of running with PATCO trains will probably not be allowed to run on Riverline's tracks - or vice versa.

Patco currently has an maintenance connection to the RR national network at Lindenwald to the ACL. Considering the Riverline has to run under temporal separation, you are closer to having comingling of the LRV and PATCO rolling stock than what Ron suggests. However PATCO would thus be wholly attached to the national network, and their equipment, book of rules et.al. would fall under FRA jurisdiction (or waivers) and open up a greater can of worms.

Apart from all of the above, there is still the problem of what to do with the RiverLINE trains on the Philadelphia side. I can't imagine there's enough capacity in the PATCO tunnel for additional trains in rush hours, which is when it would have to work. While there could only be 4 trains an hour to and from the RiverLINE, physical constraints on the RiverLINE trackage require those 4 trains to run at exact 15-minute intervals. Having to schedule PATCO around RiverLINE's needs would really be the tail wagging the dog.

ExCon90 wrote:... Having to schedule PATCO around RiverLINE's needs would really be the tail wagging the dog.

All true, but still a fun subject to think about... JS

Figured it was worth a suggestion - you'd have to have a hard RIVERline-PATCO interlock with derailers on both sides (open sidings, I suppose) and would need to install whatever train control system the PATCO cars have. And yeah, it'd mess up PATCO.

But it'd be a way to connect more NJ commuters into Center City, which benefits everyone.

My understanding is that the bridge is currently at its structural limit for how many trains an hour it can handle.

The ultimate solution to the Jersey-Philly commute is a four track tunnel under the Delaware River that would carry commuter rail, light rail and PATCO. Commuter would then get a connection to Market-East and the CCCT, PATCO would continue on its current alignment, and light rail would be street running on Market.

Looking at the PATCO schedule, there are 12 or 13 inbound trains per hour in the AM rush, and the same outbound in the PM. Every 5 minutes or so. That doesn't sound like there is much headway to squeeze in more traffic.

Up until patco All lines fed into Camden. I really think your best option is the commuter rail tunnel. Dredge out the river and sink a 4 track tunnel in sections. Lay the framework for a real south jersey transportation plan. We should have been talking about this years ago. As long as the AC Line continues to take the slowest most out of the way route to 30th street it will continue to suffer ridership issues. In order to get people out of cars they need a real alternative.

Why not put PATCO + NJT Rail under the river, instead of NJT LRT + Rail? Saves PATCO a pretty significant climb and descent, and gets DRPA more firmly on board the tunnel project. LRT can go up and over the Ben Franklin.

mtuandrew wrote:Why not put PATCO + NJT Rail under the river, instead of NJT LRT + Rail? Saves PATCO a pretty significant climb and descent, and gets DRPA more firmly on board the tunnel project. LRT can go up and over the Ben Franklin.

Why would a tunnel's grade be any easier than that on the bridge? Besides, since the railroad on the bridge was rehabbed two years ago, the PATCO trains are not going anywhere.

NJT has no plans for any tunnels under the Delaware River, much less for their existing diesel LRT service that cannot use high platforms and thus cannot stop at any PATCO or SEPTA stations. They already spent a lot of money on that Pennsauken transfer station that there is insufficient service to connect to on the Atlantic City Line above. (Any call for commuter rail between Philly and Mount Holly, since this thread is kinda in pipe-dream mode?)