Schuylkill Valley Metro

PARailWiz wrote:The Reading and PRR both ran diesels...

I remember the Reading's Budd Cars and FP7's, but I can't picture Pennsy diesels in Philly. Where did they run?

http://community.webshots.com/photo/285 ... WbHCFFpcjK

http://community.webshots.com/photo/286 ... QGLHuauPxF

<i>Electric service would be nice, but it should follow the pattern of most
commuter lines; diesel first to prove the service has ridership, then convert to electric if/when the line becomes heavily used.</i>

That's a joke. You can't develop the traffic with a diesel line, and even if you do it doesn't make electrification happen. The LIRR's going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into electrifying the Port Jefferson line, even though virtually everyone agrees it's not only desperately needed, it's what everyone wants. Instead, the LIRR wants to build a 200+million dollar yard to act as a dumping ground for the DE/DM-30 fleet, and continue to act as if the DM-30s are 'just like an MU', even though they <b>don't work</b>.

I'll say it again - the costs of electrification are only a small percentage of the SVM's cost. And it'll save more money in the long term.

Sub out maintenance to CSX? YOu're joking, right? CSX cant' even maintain track adequately, I'd hate to want to see their locomotive maintenance.

trainhq wrote:Diesel service for SVM makes perfectly good sense. Since SEPTA (or
someone) would have to share the line with CSX, I see no reason why
they couldn't sub out the locomotive maintenance to CSX too, assuming
they have the capacity.

You misspelled "Norfolk Southern."

My mistake; I forgot who owned the Reading line. The point is that maintenance can be subbed out. But back to the original point. Yes, electrifying the line would
be nice. But up here in Boston, we have diesel service,
on all lines and nobody up here is crying for electric. In fact, the MBTA could run electric on the NEC line to Providence if they wanted, and nobody's thinking about it, because the MBTA diesels go up to 80 mph and the stations are far enough apart that the acceleration times are not a major factor, just as they would be
on SVM.

The whole point is that SVM will only get federal $$$
when the cheapest startup is presented, and that's
diesel. If you look around the country, every other
startup commuter rail (no, the people who thought
SVM should be a 62 mile light rail were out of their
minds) is proposed to be diesel, because that's
cheaper to start out. And that's the way to get
rid of the FTA's "Not Recomended" rating, by removing
a 200 million dollar portion of the line expenses.
Which is also the position of the DVARP.

trainhq wrote: If you look around the country, every other
startup commuter rail (no, the people who thought
SVM should be a 62 mile light rail were out of their
minds) is proposed to be diesel, because that's
cheaper to start out. And that's the way to get
rid of the FTA's "Not Recomended" rating, by removing
a 200 million dollar portion of the line expenses.
Which is also the position of the DVARP.

Actually, the really big cost driver (and the cause of the fatal technical flaw in the plan) is SEPTA's wish to have its own track all the way to Reading instead of sharing tracks with NS.

That's definitely true; the new track was by far the greater projected
expenditure, but electrification was also an added factor. The point is,
SEPTA has no intention of building an SVM that FTA will fund; diesel
service shared with freight. In order for that to happen, the folks in
Reading will have to start their own agency, work with PennDOT and
submit their own proposal to FTA.

SEPTA's wish to have its own track all the way to Reading instead of sharing tracks with NS

Considering the number of OOS tracks in their possession plus the condition of some of their operating trackage, that's a tad hypocritical.

And speaking of such, how much of the NS line has four-track capacity, and does it support four tracks all the way from Conshohocken to Reading? Draw a line down the middle of the alignment and have SEPTA buy half of it, or let SEPTA take ownerhship of the "local" tracks...if they ever get the money, that is.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

SEPTA's wish to have its own track all the way to Reading instead of sharing tracks with NS

Considering the number of OOS tracks in their possession plus the condition of some of their operating trackage, that's a tad hypocritical.

And speaking of such, how much of the NS line has four-track capacity, and does it support four tracks all the way from Conshohocken to Reading? Draw a line down the middle of the alignment and have SEPTA buy half of it, or let SEPTA take ownerhship of the "local" tracks...if they ever get the money, that is.

There won't be four tracks. Modern freight railroads space their tracks farther apart both to clear larger loads and for a greater margin of safety when crews are working on the track. What was once a four-track RDG right of way is only going to have room for three NS tracks.

And if you segregate NS and SEPTA, you get no regulatory or other benefits unless the spacing is extreme, like 25 feet on centers.

In 2002, SEPTA released the final MIS/DEIS (Major Investment Study / Draft Environmental Impact Statement) for the Schuylkill Valley Metro project. The information below is derived from the executive summary of that report found at svmcoalition.com.


TSM
Bus from Reading to Philadelphia via 422, Port Kennedy, King of Prussia Mall, and I-76. Electric trains from Port Kennedy to Center City via East Falls. Electric trains from Ivy Ridge to Center City via Cynwyd.


1D
Diesel trains from Reading (Wyomissing) to Center City via East Falls. Electric trains from Port Kenendy to Center City via East Falls. Electric light rail from Ivy Ridge to Center City via Cynwyd, Girard Avenue, City Branch, and street running. Route 100 extension to Port Kennedy.


1E
Electric trains from Reading (Wyomissing) to Center City via East Falls. Electric light rail from Ivy Ridge to Center City via Cynwyd, Girard Avenue, City Branch, and street running. Route 100 extension to Port Kennedy.


2D
Diesel trains from Reading (Wyomissing) to Center City via Cynwyd. Electric trains from Ivy Ridge to Center City via East Falls, through to Port Kennedy via Cynwyd. Route 100 extension to Port Kennedy.


5E
Electric light rail from Reading (Wyomissing) to Center City via Cynwyd, Girard Avenue, City Branch, and street running, with branch to King of Prussia. Electric trains from Ivy Ridge to Center City via East Falls.

5ET
Same as 5E above, but with a new tunnel instead of street running in Center City.


6
"MetroRail" from Reading (Wyomissing) to Center City via East Falls and Cynwyd, running through Center City Tunnel, with branch to King of Prussia.


Legend
Some stations omitted for clarity.

Why does everyone make this so complicated? Why not just have a diesel start at Norristown and go to Reading from there? Do we need all these loops and what if's to CC?

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does everyone make this so complicated? Why not just have a diesel start at Norristown and go to Reading from there? Do we need all these loops and what if's to CC?

Man, I gotta agree with you there. Run diesel power from 30th street station (lower level) to Reading via Ivy Ridge branch and reclaimed ROW to ex RDG branch and to Norristown and Reading from there. Investment required would be a group of diesel trainsets (heck, DMUs for "operational flexability" if necessary) and a rebuild of the track between the ex PRR mainline and Ivy ridge as well as a connector with the ex RDG branch. Perhaps some additional track at the Reading terminus. Many stations are already in place.

Fueling of trainsets could easily be done with tank trucks requiring no permanant infrastructure. Servicing toilets could be achieved the same way.

Alright, that is my proposal. How much do you think it costs if there is 1 2 car train/hour during the weekday? Trains run express making no stops between Norristown and Ivy Ridge. This service will also replace the current local R6 Cynwyd branch service. How fast can the service operate RDG to PHL 30th st? 90 minutes? Could 5 full trainsets protect this service?

Scale upwards as necessary as demand warrents.

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does everyone make this so complicated? Why not just have a diesel start at Norristown and go to Reading from there? Do we need all these loops and what if's to CC?

Because a forced transfer reduces ridership by about half (depending on where you put the transfer--in the middle of the trip like this is worst).

Also, you're going to make most of the necessary investment anyway (in providing adequate track capacity and signaling for NS and for passenger trains, and for trains and fixed facilities), so the incremental investment for getting to Philadelphia is a relatively small proportion.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:

jfrey40535 wrote:Why does everyone make this so complicated? Why not just have a diesel start at Norristown and go to Reading from there? Do we need all these loops and what if's to CC?

Because a forced transfer reduces ridership by about half (depending on where you put the transfer--in the middle of the trip like this is worst).

Except when that forced transfer occurs near King of Prussia, the largest office park and shopping area in the 3 county area...

Then, perhaps, it might simply provide a simple way for people to get to where the jobs and commercial areas are?

Somehow this assumes that it's 1970, most of the jobs are in Philadelphia
and people shop at Macys, Strawbridge and Clothier and Wanamakers on Market Street.

Since more jobs seem to be in the area of the King of Prussia business parks, why not focus on service where jobs are now?

Hal

Hal wrote:Except when that forced transfer occurs near King of Prussia, the largest office park and shopping area in the 3 county area...
[snip]
Since more jobs seem to be in the area of the King of Prussia business parks, why not focus on service where jobs are now?

Sure, except the bulk of the market is bound to Philadelphia (see ridership projections in the MIS), and travel to any of the King of Prussia employers is going to be a two- or three-seat ride regardless.

Frankly, the best way to serve the KOP employers (mall and elsewhere) is going to be with shuttle buses from Norristown or Port Kennedy. The area sprawls too much to effectively serve with rail only.

This is all dumb.....I'm sorry this is why we get nowhere. All we do in this city is debate and study. Soon we'll study how to debate. The only new start we got since the PRR/RDG went under is the stupid airport train which no one rides. Hec, we can't even restore an existing trolley line!

I've already given my 2 cents about transfers, but it fell on deaf ears. Hate to say it, but thats why I continue to stay in my car. The whole system is broken. Not just the transit part, but the part that helps us improve the system. Instead of getting expanded service (actually its more like resoration of discontinued service), we get flashy electronic signs on the MFL, and really awful looking art sculptures at FTC.