Schuylkill Valley Metro

They just came out with buses that run through short tunnels on an all electric mode using their batteries

"Just" came out...? Those have been around since the 1930s. Those also require an electric motor to turn the axles. They are quite complex mechanically. (Public Service of NJ tried to replace the Newark City Subway with such vehicles, then decided that they were not worth the headache.)

As for dual-mode locomotion, that has been around for some decades as well. It can be avoided by not requiring a trip through the CCCT.

I think the dark horse candidate has always been just a hybrid diesel-electric rail car

All that does is transfer the dual-mode setup from a standalone locomotive to a railcar. An even tighter squeeze.

My main point was that hybrid technology as a reliable medium has begun to arrive on the scene. There is a big difference between a 1930's and 1970's hybrid transit vehicle and what might be a hybrid rail or RDC-like vehicle today and in 10 years time. Five years or 10 years ago did anyone forsee hybrid cars and buses as the principal econ-friendly, vehicle...no. California was trying to get 10% of people to use CNG or all-electric vehicles. Where is the technology going??

Being a transportation engineer, I have noticed that there is an increasing trend towards better computer systems that can run a hybrid system effectively and more efficiently whether it would be going through a tunnel or accelerating up a grade (each car would have a propolsion system or come in pairs perhaps like modern EMU's). As for the battery...they get better and smaller every year....the batteries on top of the Seattle buses take up about the same amount of space as the AC system...what about in 2010...what about when fuel cells arrive as a reliable storage medium for electronics (secondary propolsion system power source). The vehicle would have to run and pull its own self through, what, a 2.5 mile stretch plus dwell time at stations.

It would be ideal that they electrify the line but the cost and affects on freight mobility (double stack trains) are a little frightening to NS I would imagine. Dual mode vehicles are very problematic from an electrical engineering standpoint (have to incorporate different cycles of power like 25 Hz, 60 Hz) plus the diesel engine...yikes. If you could have two vehicles plugged into each other with separate engines, it could work but you are in a lot of trouble if something is wrong with one and not the other....ever have a TV that has a VCR built into it? Red flag.

My point is that soon the technology in some shape or form will be there to have capabilities built into oen vehicle that is emission free through Center City AND 50%+ cleaner and a little quicker on the entire route. Wait and see, I could be wrong, but I could also be right. It could be that the solution has yet to be invented...I would hate to see someone invest in another unrelaible, dual-mode, paired or un-paired vehicle or consist, and waste all that time maintaining what might be a European piece of junk where spare parts are as easy to come by as comfortable weather in Philly.

<i> Being a transportation engineer, I have noticed that there is an increasing trend towards better computer systems that can run a hybrid system effectively and more efficiently whether it would be going through a tunnel or accelerating up a grade (each car would have a propolsion system or come in pairs perhaps like modern EMU's). </I>

Computers are not magic. They can't violate the laws of physics.

<i>As for the battery...they get better and smaller every year....the batteries on top of the Seattle buses take up about the same amount of space as the AC system</i>

Bettery technology is mature. It's not getting much better much faster anymore.

<i>
...what about in 2010...what about when fuel cells arrive as a reliable storage medium for electronics (secondary propolsion system power source). The vehicle would have to run and pull its own self through, what, a 2.5 mile stretch plus dwell time at stations. </i>

Hate to burst any bubbles, but fuel cells are DEAD. Billions of dollars invested in the technology of the last 5 or so years has resulted in no breakthroughs that will make then even near competitive to anything else. Even the best fuel cell cars being shown today have almost no power, poor reliability, can't operate in freezing weather, are VERY expensive, and the FC's die after a year or so of use.

Further, there's no readilly available source of hydrogen, and dealing with hydrogen itself is a big question mark.

<i>It would be ideal that they electrify the line but the cost and affects on freight mobility (double stack trains) are a little frightening to NS I would imagine.</i>

1 million a mile is cost prohibitive? Geez, a decent rail signalling system costs more than electrification, but nobody's agruing to do away with signals. As for double stacks, well, it's the big fad today. It might not be tomorrow, and in any case, you can run them under wires with the right equipment and right catenary design. IIRC, the max height of a Silverliner pan, minus 6 inches, is just high enough to put the wire high enough for double stacks.

<i> Dual mode vehicles are very problematic from an electrical engineering standpoint (have to incorporate different cycles of power like 25 Hz, 60 Hz) plus the diesel engine...yikes.</i>

Dual modes don't work. The FL-9 didn't, the P-32s are a mess, even for pulling trains 100 feet out of Penn, the DM-30s are a total failure.

<i> If you could have two vehicles plugged into each other with separate engines, it could work but you are in a lot of trouble if something is wrong with one and not the other....ever have a TV that has a VCR built into it? Red flag. </i>

Oh, a DMU/EMU combo is much nicer, by far. There's no mixing of systems. You're simply getting around a few minor control issues, plus using the EMUs to dead tow the DMUs, and vice versa.

<i>My point is that soon the technology in some shape or form will be there to have capabilities built into oen vehicle that is emission free through Center City AND 50%+ cleaner and a little quicker on the entire route.</i>

Hybrid rail cars are not comming. About the only experiments now are hybrid switchers, which may/may not actually offer advantages. Realize too, that you've not considered weight here. Standard US diesels are too heavy for passenger service, and even DC EMUs are too heavy now (thanks to the FRA). It remains to be seen what the SL Vs will be like, though they'll be very heavy and use a LOT of power - look at the LIRR M-7s, which are heavier than existing Silverliners, and do not have a 20,000 lb transformer under them.

<i>I would hate to see someone invest in another unrelaible, dual-mode, paired or un-paired vehicle or consist, and waste all that time maintaining what might be a European piece of junk where spare parts are as easy to come by as comfortable weather in Philly.</i>

Oh, in other words, NIH. Not Invented Here. Face it, when it comes to rail equipment, Europe leads the world, and the US's stuff is a joke. Complain all you want about European DMUs, the Voith transmission has decades of proven experience behind it in thousands of railcars. They took an idea discarded by the RRs in the US ages ago, and made it work far better than anything over here, and at lower cost, to boot. Yeah, it's sad, but the US simply hasn't made anything approaching modern passenger equipment in about 3 decades, and there's nobody here who knows how to anyway. Cheer up - Boeing's handing the comercial airliner market to Europe now too. So the airliner buffs are in the same boat as us...

First off I do believe that there is some confusion over Dual-Mode Buses vs Hybrid buses. Dual Mode buses are those that have a diesel engine and an electric engine running off an overhead trolley wire. The two engines cannot be used in concert with one another. Systems that use Dual-Mode buses included, or will include shortly, Seattle's KC Metros (the 1990-vintage Breda Duo-Buses), PSNJ (as Irish already pointed out), and MBTA (the Diesel+ETB Neoplan Artics for the Silver Lie). A Hybrid bus is far newer and relies upon a diesel and an electric engine working together to move the bus, the electric power usually comes from a battery rather than overhead wires. Many systems these days are using Hybrid buses, including SEPTA with their 32 DE40LFs, and KC Metro (same as above), with 235 DE60LFs being delivered to replace the Breda Duo-Buses. At no time has MBTA ever rostered, or currently plans (AFAIK) to roster a Hybrid bus, they seem to be thinking in terms of ETB, Diesel, and CNG right at the moment.

It is to me seemingly obvious that no matter how much your Hybrid DMU reduces emissions out in the middle of the Suburbs, it's still pumping out CO2, NOx and other diesel crap in the middle of the Center City Tunnel. Seattle is only running the DE60LFs in their tunnel on a limited basis at this point, but already they're recieving complaints from riders about the odor, and it's possible the ventilation system will have to be rebuilt along with the overhead and rails when the tunnel closes in 2005 for the Central Link LRV. An EMU arrangement would eliminate all emissions in the tunnel, and if you do the DMU-dead-in-tow arrangement, then you can run anywhere on SEPTA's (used and unused) rail system without any special equipment while not disturbing the current situation in Center City. No matter how good battery technology gets, you'll still be hauling around a truely massive battery to pull out of two stations, as well as run the lights, heat, and ventilation systems during that time. I'd prefer not end up like some WWII U-boat with the battery dying halfway between Mkt East and the east end portal and then having to suck down diesel exhaust for the rest of the trip.

I fear that you are being lulled into the thinking that if it works for a bus it should be applicable to rail transit, but that's obviously not the case here. I do not think you grasp the difference in weight and performance between a bus and a train. We could be looking at a 200 ton Silverliner 5 by the time the feds are done with Tier requirements, in the mean time a DE40LF weighs only about 15-18 tons, and the DE60LF weighs in at roughly 25 tons. Just scaling up the DE40LF's battery pack (which is considerably larger than an AC blister) 10 times you end up with most of the roof of the car covered, and now have a high-weight item sitting at the top of the body. With the air compressors, HVAC, and diesel equipment underbody there's no room there either.

Sure, you COULD be right, but chances are you are not.

So thoses buses aren't what they are cracked up to be...there's a shock. Something seems to come up with respect to technology. Batteries will get better...how depends on the demands of consumer electronics and all those iPods, phones, and things that are all in one devices. When and how...if I knew, I'd be a billionaire. As for double stack containers (with wires in tunnels??) and the future of global trade and logistics, that's another discussion and forum and likely a class somewhere.

With respect to capacity: how well or how easy would it be to squeeze in more capacity to the Belmont-Reading or Abrams-Reading section of I guess it's NS's Harrisburg Line (?) West Coast expereince says that freight traffic is growing and monopolistic freight carriers requires huge sums of millions to install cross-overs, new signalling, more track and more just because they have something you want. What's in it for them...delay really unless you make the situation nice for them. Last I heard they [NS] want the Enola Branch rebuilt...too bad it's a court case/bike trail right now...and a pretty penny a la corporate welfare. But see, that's what I mean...there are so few of these Class 1's left that when you go into a deal with them like with SVM in the not too distant future...it's like Eddie Murphy's old line "What have you done for me lately?"

It seems the line has a lot of room for extra tracks (had more capacity in the past, see below), but has a few bottlenecks (tunnels). If things proceeded in the direction of a diesel train, how would these obstacles be circumvented?

The picture from this link below of the old Valley Forge Station in the 1970's with RDC's depicting 4 tracks (today it is 1-3, correct?) gives me hope that you won't get burned as bad as Metrolink, Sound Transit, and the Coaster to name a few victims.

http://www.thebluecomet.com/rdgRDCptken1.jpg

Well, as regards the NS Harrisburg line...if you go to Port Kennedy, Valley Forge, Royersford, etc., you can see that there used to be an additional set of rails on the inbound platform side. So the room is there.

I like what I'm hearing about pairing EMU's and DMU's...with the electrics doing the work under wires in the Center City area, and the diesels doing the work on the open rail.

-Urban

As far as some of those buses go, keep in mind too that the latest dual mode bus, the Neoplan/Skoda diesel-electric dual modes for the MBTA, aren't even in service. Only one has been delivered, and its still in testing. Also, they're being purchased by an authority that is still trying to get streetcars first delivered in 1998 to not fall off the tracks, so I wouldn't bank on getting good ideas for the Silverliner V out of it.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

His strong opposition to any diesel service in the Center City Tunnel - despite the fact that LIRR and Metro-North do this to some extent in NYC

Neither LIRR nor Metro-North run dual-mode locomotive prime-movers at the station platforms in either NY Penn or Grand Central—and if they can help it, they do not operate the prime-movers in the tunnels either. Nor does Amtrak, who also has operated dual-mode railroad equipment for longer than the Metro-North name has been in existence.

I should've rephrased my earlier comment. I had meant to say that the opposition is to allowing diesel locomotives or DMUs to enter the tunnel - even if the engines are off and the trainset is being towed by an electric locomotive or DMU. Obviously, I know that running diesels in the CCT is not a good idea...

I remember a few months ago there was an article in in Inquier about begining that line, has anything or will anything come of it, and if so, when will it open?

There are a lot of interesting ideas above. The state should commission an independent engineering study that isn't flawed like SEPTA's and figure out what is feasible and how much each alternative costs.

Any kind of dual-mode operation is going to be compromise with lower speeds and higher costs. SEPTA will require transformers that weigh 5-10 tons because they use a high-voltage AC system and not a low-voltage DC system. The railcar itself will weight 50 tons. You're going to be carrying extra weight and maintenance costs half of the time.

Yes, there is room for four tracks most of the way up to Reading, and it is currently double-track now, but why gold-plate the infrastructure when we don't even know if it will be built? The current trackage sees very little freight, and in many places there is another parallel pair of tracks to serve industrial areas.

I managed to hear from a reliable contact at 1234 Market that the MIS/DEIS for Schuylkill Valley will be extended for another year, at a cost of $390,948. This would make the total for the study thus far approx. $5.8 million. Just what we need, another year of inactivity...

There must be some engineering firms out there who are doing very well from all the studies that SEPTA has handed out over the past 12 years (?) or so. I'm not sure when the studies started, but it's been at least a decade.

Not only engineering firms, but consultants as well.

Oink! Oink! Speaking as one of the above named, I can safely tell you
that SEPTA does nothing but study lines because it's a lot cheaper than
actually building them; they can study them for $300,000 but building
them takes $300,000,000, about 1000 times more $$$. As someone who
lives in Mass and works with the T, I feel truly sorry for SEPTA riders;
the T has their share of problems, but they're nothing like SEPTA's.

The real problem with SEPTA is politics in the state legislature. The T serves at least half of the population of Massachusetts, while SEPTA
serves a much smaller percentage of Pennsylvania. In addition, Pennsylvania is a much more rural (and racist) state than Massachusetts.
That means that when the T goes to the Massachusetts legislature for
$$$$, they can get them, and when SEPTA goes to the Pennsylvania
legislature for $$$$$ they can't. And sadly for SEPTA, there's not
really a whole hell of a lot they can do about it. I feel truly sorry for
their riders, and the people in Reading; who knows when, if ever
they will get their Metro.

Well, look what I found.

Site http://www.legis.state.pa.us/2003%5F0/hb1634p3599.htm , PA House Bill No. 1634, of 2003. Section 5-a-10-x P. 84-86 (sorry, I'm not a lawyer).

Providing for the capital budget for the fiscal year 2003-2004, itemizing public improvement projects, furniture and equipment projects, transportation assistance projects…

Section 5. Itemization of transportation assistance projects.

(a) Mass Transit.--Additional capital projects in the category of transportation assistance projects for mass transit in which an interest is to be acquired or constructed by the Department of Transportation, its successors or assigns, and to be financed by the incurring of debt, are hereby itemized, together with their estimated financial costs, as follows:

(10) Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority

(x) Design and construction of Schuylkill Valley and Cross County Metros 400,000,000

Signed in House, June 22, 2004
Signed in Senate, June 22, 2004
In hands of the Governor, June 22, 2004
Last day for action, July 2, 2004
Approved by the Governor, June 22, 2004
Act No. 40

Does this mean we may see this animal after all?