• Reading, PA Service proposed to Philadelphia

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

  by barciur
 
I think we have to think of this service as a strictly commuter service from Reading to Philadelphia, not think about options to New York. Those wanting to switch to NY can do so after leaving regional rail at 30th and going into Amtrak and/or continuing on RR to Trenton and switch to NJT. There are enough problems for now with going to Philly from Reading - NS usually not being on board and trying to throw obstacles and then the need to come up with either duals to do electric + diesel or electrify it (much more expensive I would think). 422 between Reading and Philly is super crowded and it is in terrible state, the train would run through a number of communities that commute daily to Philly for work, so I think this would be a no brainer, as long as we went with the proposed 9x weekdays or at least the 6x daily to start. This could replicate the Keystone success to some extent, as those communities up here in Reading also travel to Philly.

Unfortunately there is no way to gauge any interest from current service because there simply is no service. There are no buses between Reading and Philadelphia since Bieber folded.
  by Return to Reading Company Olney Sta
 
What’s old is new again. When Reading Co (and later SEPTA up until 1981) operated the diesel commuter services between Reading Terminal, Reading/Pottsville, Bethlehem, and North Jersey (NJC Jersey City and later Newark post-Aldene plan) one set of equipment daily was operated Reading - Reading Terminal Phila - Newark/North Jersey, and then back in the evening. The Reading Terminal - North Jersey and back was remnant of the Crusader/ Wall Street service, but schedules did note the ability of the North Jersey/ NY connection from the inbound Reading AM trips.
  by BitterOldRRExec
 
STrRedWolf wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 2:06 pm
Launcher wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:55 pm
STrRedWolf wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:49 pm
Because PA centric study didn't think of hooking up with NS and NJ Transit for service from NJ Transit's Raritan Valley line, forking off at Bound Brook, to do service to Redding. No, it has to go through the state capitol, Philadelphia, first.
Sorry for my confusion if you weren't, but you were doing a sarcasm, here, right?
Not really. To do service direct to NYC, you're basically avoiding Philly and going directly east. There's a NS line there that ties into NJ Transit's Raritan Valley line. Since NJ Transit has experience running outside New Jersey (see Metro-North West-of-Hudson service), PA would be a contract for NJ Transit to run into PA... which is likely more expensive than SEPTA, which the state can control.
I think he may have been referring to your possible confusion about what the capital of Pennsylvania is.
  by amtrakowitz
 
JFTR, the state capital of Pennsylvania is Harrisburg, which no rail service to/from Reading in this proposal would serve (which seems barely Amtrak-related, given no connection between former RDG tracks and former PRR tracks to facilitate any operation between the two railroads into Philadelphia; and operating via the Center City Tunnel and West Trenton would be even less Amtrak-involved). And NYC is certainly not the state capital of New York; Albany is.
  by STrRedWolf
 
Okay, yes, I was confused there.

That said, the point I was trying to make was that the proposal wanted to keep as much control over the line in PA State Government hands, and not rely on NJ Transit.
  by PHLSpecial
 
Would Amtrak be able to run from Reading to the Philadelphia airport? That would be a boost to the line I would think?
First is trying to get NS let Amtrak or septa to run the line. I doubt NS will let Amtrak electrify it either.
  by ExCon90
 
Yes, since the only practicable route is via Norristown, 16th St. Jct., and the tunnel, but that means sharing the route from Norristown with locals. Trains from Reading would have to reach Norristown spot-on time in order to leave just ahead of a local, not behind it, and dual-powered locomotives would be needed. However, dual power would be needed in any case just to reach Center City -- I don't see any justification for electrifyiing to Reading, although it would be nice to have.
  by ExCon90
 
Something just occurred to me after writing that: When the airport extension was being planned -- back in the 1970's -- there was the problem of designing a flyover that would start under the B&O bridge (i.e., at the NEC track level) and then rise to go over the four NEC tracks. Girders thick enough to support a GG1 would require a gradient on the flyover considered unacceptably steep. It was pointed out that the flyover would only be used by MUs and would not have to support that kind of weight. I don't know what a dual-powered locomotive would weigh compared with a GG1, but that might be an issue. When Amtrak operated from Atlantic City to the airport, what power was used, and what did it weigh compared with a GG1?
  by PHLSpecial
 
ExCon90 wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:23 pm Something just occurred to me after writing that: When the airport extension was being planned -- back in the 1970's -- there was the problem of designing a flyover that would start under the B&O bridge (i.e., at the NEC track level) and then rise to go over the four NEC tracks. Girders thick enough to support a GG1 would require a gradient on the flyover considered unacceptably steep. It was pointed out that the flyover would only be used by MUs and would not have to support that kind of weight. I don't know what a dual-powered locomotive would weigh compared with a GG1, but that might be an issue. When Amtrak operated from Atlantic City to the airport, what power was used, and what did it weigh compared with a GG1?
Most likely a diesel locomotive because Amtrak didn't route into the CCCT. I guess for the Norristown line a reverse Swanpoodle would have been good? To connect the NEC to the Norristown line? Saves on having a dual locomotive but probably dual locomotive is best especially if they are trying to have service to Allentown and Scranton. I would think the NEC would benefit from dual loco as well.
  by Greg Moore
 
I can't answer the question directly (because I'm not sure what locomotives where used, but can give a partial answer based on some quick googling.

GG1 - locomotive weight - 475,000 lbs, spread across a 69' wheelbase.
GE P32AC-DM (picked dual mode here) - 274,000 lbs spread across a 43' wheelbase
ACS-64 (obviously not in use them) - 215,000 lbs spread across a wheelbase of 32.5'

So a modern electric weighs 1/2 of much, but its weight is spread over 1/2 the area.
  by jonnhrr
 
In the days when Amtrak was running AC to the airport they probably used an F40PH which is 282,000 lbs. max over 56 ft. which is the length, wheelbase would be a little shorter than that.

Jon
  by ExCon90
 
I just realized that the Atlantic City trains had to use the escape track to get from 30th St. Lower Level to the airport, so as far as I know there has never been a locomotive on the flyover. (Mr. Moore, thanks for checking that.) Trains from Reading via Center City and 30th St. Upper Level would have to use the flyover to reach the Airport line.
  by R36 Combine Coach
 
ExCon90 wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:23 pm When Amtrak operated from Atlantic City to the airport, what power was used, and what did it
weigh compared with a GG1?
AC service was F40 with Amfleets and a Metroliner as cab car.
  by CNJGeep
 
ExCon90 wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 1:14 am I just realized that the Atlantic City trains had to use the escape track to get from 30th St. Lower Level to the airport, so as far as I know there has never been a locomotive on the flyover.
Every SEPTA diesel has gone over the flyover multiple times. AEM-7s have gone down there a few times as well and an ACS-64 at least once.

Although if you really want to get technical, the FRA considers MUs to be locomotives at any rate.