send the R6 to Reading

Why can't SEPTA simply send the R6 line to Reading instead of this "Metro" contraption?

In short:

SEPTA doesn't own the ROW past Norristown. NS does.

No catenary past Norristown, and no diesels in the CCCT.

It ain't simple.......

Clearfield wrote:In short:

SEPTA doesn't own the ROW past Norristown. NS does.

No catenary past Norristown, and no diesels in the CCCT.

It ain't simple.......

All you would have to do is extend double tracking and cantnary to Reading. Then have the NS allow for some slots into the line and build the stations.

Or do what the Reading did, buy some RDC's (many are still in service today) and run them to NTC. People can then transfer to a waiting MU at NTC and head on to CC, or the Rt 100 to 69th St.

jfrey40535 wrote:Or do what the Reading did, buy some RDC's (many are still in service today) and run them to NTC. People can then transfer to a waiting MU at NTC and head on to CC, or the Rt 100 to 69th St.

Actually, that's what NS is reportedly going to present as its plan (except it would be locomotive hauled coaches), now that the SVM project is no longer a SEPTA project.

I'd like to see that, just to see how someone else in this area runs a passenger railroad other than SEPTA. Maybe this could be the beginning of the end of SEPTA as the railroad operator, wouldn't that be nice.

SEPTA is no longer in charge of or working on SVM?

jfrey40535 wrote:SEPTA is no longer in charge of or working on SVM?

Correct. SVM is now a Penndot project, with NS the current front runner for operation.

Bensalem SEPTA rider wrote:All you would have to do is extend double tracking and catenary to Reading. Then have the NS allow for some slots into the line and build the stations.

Getting the slots is not as easy as you think. NS will want improvements to its infrastructure to add capacity, especially if SEPTA wants to run as much service as is on R6 now, let alone the higher-frequency service SEPTA was planning. Figure some sections of third main track, additional interlockings, and some signal work. Probably several hundred million, but it's a lot cheaper than SEPTA's plan to have a separate passenger track/tracks the entire way.

Think of it this way. For the sake of argument, say NS has capacity for 50 trains per day on this route. They run 25 right now. You might think they therefore should welcome 25 SEPTA trains in exchange for a suitable trackage rights fee, since it's all "excess capacity." But then if NS wins some intermodal contract, and needs to add another four trains, there's no place to put them without displacing some of the other freight or reducing the passenger service, or undertaking a construction project under traffic. So in order to preserve opportunities to grow the business, NS isn't going to let SEPTA absorb all (or even most) of the capacity that isn't being used right now.

Actually it makes sense now that NS wants to run this op. They run passenger trains, get some subsidy for the operating costs, more subsidy for infrastructure improvements and in the end have a better railroad to run their trains on. Since there isn't money to be made in the passenger ops, they figure if they can improve the infrastructure of the line it will work out in the long run for their freight ops.

It will be so nice to ride a commuter train that doesen't have a big "S" on it too! If this all works out, I wonder if they would be interested in doing something with the Trenton Cutoff?

Septa is not running any trains above Norristown to Reading.. That line already sees many trains. The purpose of that route for trains heading to harrisburg to reroute around the Keystone Corridor without having to interfear with Amtrak and septa operations(east of Thorn). If Septa were to run a service to Reading, it would make sense to either run a new line or upgrade any abandoned trackage.

Couldn't NS shift more traffic to the cutoff? I think parts of it are out of service now, but most trains passing through Norristown (NS) are coming off the cutoff from Morrisville, using a portion of SEPTA's track before splitting off towards Reading.

Unfortunate thing about the Keystone line is there are many sections that are only 2 track so putting freight there wouldn't be a great idea, however, West of Thorn, there really is very little passenger traffic, you would think something could be done there as there are large sections that used to be 4+ tracks (like near Cork tower)

jfrey40535...
by Keystone Line, do you mean the old Pennsy mainline? It wasn't only 4 track by Cork. (Lancaster).
It was four track from Overbrook pretty much to Pittsburgh!

As far as the NS Harrisburg line, if I recall correctly, it was four track from Abrams to Phoenixville, then down to two, through Black Rock Tunnel on one, back to two till Royersford and four I believe up to at least Birdsboro.

Which reminds me of another problem.
Only one track through the tunnel.
Perhaps it would be wishful thinking to use the Pennsy alignment?

I think one of the earlier proposals for the SVM was to go over to Oaks via the old Perkiomen Branch. Then switch to the Pennsy tracks there through Port Providence, Mont Clare and back over to Phoenixville.
Of course that would hose up the redevlopment plans in that area. The PRR tracks are on the north side of the town... but maybe not.
Once through the Pennsy tunnel, it could switch back to the Harrisburg line at Cromby.
It's only one track from Perk Jct to Phoenixville, and no track through the tunnel north to the power plant at Cromby.

NS could shift more traffic to the cutoff if they used the western end of it from King of Prussia through to Thorndale/Glen Loch.
It's too bad the Atglen and Susquehanna has been pulled up. That would have gotten them to Harrisburg. And low-grade too.

I think alot of freight companies are now finding a lack of capacity due to the increase in traffic and decrease in available lines to use. I know in some cases NS & CSX are reopening some dormant lines to fix this problem. Since they are in a competitve industry they have to do their best to maintian a tight delivery schedule.