RE: R3 single tracking from Woodbourne to West Trenton

The RailPace columnist Dale Woodland reported in the January 2006 issue that SEPTA is considering a reduction to single track for the R3 West Trenton Line east of Woodbourne.

Can anyone confirm or rebut this claim with authority? What are the plans (timeframe, etc.) if true?

You could say its more CSX that's forcing SEPTA's hand in the matter. They've already gotten SEPTA to single track the Fox Chase line, and now they want to single track Woodbourne to West Trenton so they have a free track they don't have to share with anyone for the entire length of the Trenton Line. CSX was complaining that SEPTA dispatchers were tying up their freights too much, or something to that effect.

No idea what the timeframe on the West Trenton single tracking is, but its bound to happen sooner or later (sooner being more likely).

There is a separation plan to have Csx run #2 tk exclusively from Wood to Trent and for Septa to only use #1 track exclusively. In addition, Csx has proposed building a single main track to "run around" the MU yard at West Trenton, thus eliminating any passenger train interference.

With the "Cheltenham to NX" segment already separated and dispatched by Csx NI, this plan would let Csx NI dispatch from Port Reading Jct. directly to
South Philadelphia. There are also plans for "double stacking " the entire route, thus eliminating the need for Csx to use the NS Morrisville Line as is done now.

There was also a report of CSX wanting to re-extend Berry siding all the way to Neshaminy and restore the second switch there. If this keeps up, they'll want to make the R3 single track from Neshaminy on....

Why does SEPTA have to continuously cave in to meet CSX's demands? I don't see how its our problem that CSX does not have enough capacity.

<pipe dream>Someone should go tell CSX to run a spur track over to Newtown and run their freights down to Cheltenham that way since SEPTA has no interest in using the track. </pipe dream>

not really much SEPTA can do since CSX owns the line.

If I was SEPTA though, I would try to buy the rest of the line from NESH to TRENT.

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does SEPTA have to continuously cave in to meet CSX's demands? I don't see how its our problem that CSX does not have enough capacity.

<pipe dream>Someone should go tell CSX to run a spur track over to Newtown and run their freights down to Cheltenham that way since SEPTA has no interest in using the track. </pipe dream>

That's TOO funny....I had exactly the same thought. Could you only imagine the NIMBY's then?

Would be funny to see a bunch of SD-40's rolling through Southampton, I'd really take anything rolling along that line, but I don't think there is any easy way to connect anything to Newtown since the land isn't really available. Plus the Newtown line is probablly too curvey for freights to get any meaningful speed unlike the NY Short Line which is a nice straight run.

The only thing I could think of that's semi-practical would be to hook the line up to the Trenton Cutoff somehow, which would at least bring the line back County Line-Fox Chase, and I don't think Bryn Athen could take on a giant like CSX like they do SEPTA (look at the CSX-Philadelphia standoff). I thought it was an entertaining idea anyway. But this all goes to show how much trouble the freight companies are in, in terms of capacity.

How wide is the ROW past Woodbourne. Given NJT's long term plan of restoring West Trenton service, I'd think reducing SEPTA's capacity is not a good call. Though the R3 to West Trenton is a longer ride then the R7 to Trenton, a New York bound connection almost certainly boost traffic, especially for potential supercommuters in bucks county. Adding a third track as far as Woodbourne or even the cutoff or the shortline, if possible, could benefit both SEPTA and CSX by improving track conditions, signalling, and allowing more traffic on the line. 3 Tracks could allow CSX to run freights during the day in both directions, with SEPTA using the third track. I know NJT's plan may be a far away pipe dream, but I don't think its fair to burden SEPTA with single track operation to solely benefit CSX

NS and CSX are going backwards while the other big Class Is are going forwards (expanding track capacity). How is it that CSX can't dispatch their own trains properly?

And now that I think of it...this makes no sense. One of the conditions CSX laid out for NJ Transit to restart their service between Bound Brook and West Trenton is that they restore the second track between those two points. Rumorpace striking out yet again.

[quote="aem7"]There is a separation plan to have Csx run #2 tk exclusively from Wood to Trent and for Septa to only use #1 track exclusively. In addition, Csx has proposed building a single main track to "run around" the MU yard at West Trenton, thus eliminating any passenger train interference.

Any idea how CSX would route that track around the West Trenton yard
and station area? "Back in the day" it can be seen that the station had
four tracks through it, but it must be many years since that was the case.
Would CSX take advantage of one of the unused bridges over Grand Ave/
Sullivan Way and place trackage once again in the presently paved-over
platform area on the "public" side of the station? I wonder how much
those architects who own the main station building pay attention to all
the trains passing through - probably don't even notice them.

Since the proposal is giving Septa exclusive access to the MU yard and all the wired territory, Csx would divert around the yard on the east side of the yard and existing main tracks.

CSX would have to make one hell of a diversion around the MU yard at West Trenton, and given the hill there, they'd need a lot of land to make the curve smooth enough to maintain a 40 or 50mph speed limit.

CP-Wood would need some major reconfiguring to avoid SEPTA-CSX conflicts. And since if it does happen, I bet it would be BEFORE any double-stack clearance work south of CP-Wood is done, so Q190/Q191 would still have to cross SEPTA to maintain a connection with the Morrisville Line. So a complete separation will not work there.

Add in a new interlocking north of the MU yard to provide a passing siding for CSX between CP-Wing and West Trenton.

Shared Assets doesn't seem to have too much problem dispatching freights around NJT trains between CP-Aldene and CP-NK. Not to mention the BNSF working with their freights, Amtrak, and Metra trains together on their mainline out of Chicago. So why does it seem to be a problem for SEPTA and CSX?

If they'd fix whatever the constant problems with CP-Wood are that forces the freight speed restrictions, the freights would not foul the interlocking for extended time periods while passing through.

Silverliner II wrote:CSX would have to make one hell of a diversion around the MU yard at West Trenton, and given the hill there, they'd need a lot of land to make the curve smooth enough to maintain a 40 or 50mph speed limit.

Don't know what's there right now, but the study plan for segregating the passenger and freight operations calls for only three yard tracks, which may be less than what's there right now.

There are the two main tracks, a runner, the 3 yard tracks, and the lead to an unwired industrial park(can't remember the formal name). SEPTA placed a sound barrier between the MU yard and the Runner because of the complaints by some of the residents of the overnight noise. Equipment stored overnight on the runner is mandated to drop their pantographs until its ready to go southbound again.