Schuylkill Valley Metro

Studies HAVE to be done, you're not going to build anything without first conducting a study. Sure right now it sucks cause it looks like SEPTA's doing nothing, but hopefully someday a different management will look back and decide that those studies did hold some value after all, and that they'd do well to look more closely at them. You don't want SEPTA fast-tracking the project, more often than not that leads to cost overruns in excess of the norm.

In response to the comment on the region getting nowhere and drowning in plans. Tough, that's life, we need people to be able to cut through the red tape, something sorely missing in SEPTA's leadership now, but again you just have to hope that SEPTA gets their act together. You have claimed to have (rather dubious) sources at 1234 market, why not impress upon them your desire that they or their coworkers fufill their roles? It'd at least make some progress, probably more than could be created bitching to the board about the inefficiency of SEPTA. You're preaching to the choir, we already know SEPTA and the region are screwwed up, the question is what do we do about it?

As for the electrification of the Schuykill Valley Metro, I find it hard to believe that anyone would discount it's usefulness or advocate an inferior mode of transport to save what was less than 1/8th the total cost of the project. I'm sure that if SEPTA and BARTA could cut the dedicated track from their plans, they'd more than get down to the level where they could have 100% electrified operation to Wyomissing at a reasonable cost. The system doesn't HAVE to be diesel, and it'd make much more sense as an electric operation anyway. IIRC NS's diesel servicing facilities are at Enola, Frankford, and Oak Island around here. You'd have a hard time trying to run diesels on a daily basis from Norristown to Reading with that kind of logistic tail. And you REALLY do not want to call those diesel delivery trucks commonly found on construction sites filling up the equipment, they're ridiculously expensive and you'd likely need 2-3 just to fill one PL42AC (assuming that'd be the loco used by the SVM trains).

I do not see what is so difficult about bringing the R6 Cynwyd over the Schuykill to Ivy Ridge, and extending the wires in full to Wyomissing, why is this option completely missing from SEPTA's study? The R6 Cynwyd could be moved to Elm Street as it's terminal, while the Former R6 Norristown trains would run out of Wyomissing. It'd be SEPTA's ridiculous Metrorail plan without the extra track, possibly removing as much as 1 billion dollars from the plan. A 1.2 billion dollar SVM and a 60/40 split would be a lot more palatable to the FTA than a 2.2 billion dollar SVM with a 80/20 split. This way the local groups aren't paying any more, and the feds get their reduction of cost. The real trick is determining what we can get for that 1.2 billion dollars. I'd be willing to bet 100% electrification, operation through to Pottstown by 2008, Reading by 2010 and Wyomissing by 2011 are more than easily achievable.

Now, does the line HAVE to be high platformed? I'd argue that with an intelligent design to the Silverliner 5 correcting for the errors of Pennsy's way it would not be neccesary. You could knock 500,000 dollars off each station and not sacrifice any ridership or ADA accessibility with a low floor level boarding MU as has been discussed elsewhere.

A little off the current topic, but I have a somewhat radical idea I'd like to throw out there for public consumption. That single track that crosses route 23 near Beidler Rd (I think it's called the North Abrams Industrial Track) appears on my ADC map to wind pretty well into the industrial park back there. Here's what would happen: a diesel train comes to KOP and meets an electric train somewhere (maybe Port Kennedy?), which has just come from Philly. Anyone wanting to go on to Philly gets on the electric train, which will go to Norristown and then express to Philly. The diesel train will then proceed up that single track and make a couple stops back there, return to Port Kennedy, and run back to Reading, or stop at Abrams yard for servicing, etc.

The biggest problems I see with this idea is that it requires electrification to Port Kennedy, and I suspect there's not enough people working back there to justify it. I don't suppose it could be extended further, to reach more businesses/people (or even, dare I say it, to the mall)? Also, it would require some refiguring of the industrial track, and Port Kennedy is beyond the track switch, so it would require a reverse move to get back to it, as it exists now. Still, I think those problems could be resolved if the idea was useful.

Please let me know what you (all) think, but don't be too harsh. I'm just trying to think of other ways to make this work, and maybe make it more useful in the process.

PARailWiz wrote:That single track that crosses route 23 near Beidler Rd (I think it's called the North Abrams Industrial Track) appears on my ADC map to wind pretty well into the industrial park back there.

Yep. That's the alignment that would be used for a Route 100 extension beyond the mall, or to bring the RRD to the mall, as was part of some of the SVM alternatives.

A short electrification extension may not be hard to justify. Electrification is almost certainly warranted if the RRD were to be extended to the mall (it would replace the current Elm St. R6 terminus).

You have claimed to have (rather dubious) sources at 1234 market, why not impress upon them your desire that they or their coworkers fufill their roles?

No one at 1234 is interested in doing actual "work". Hec they have departments there that still do all their planning using a pen and paper, the big event of the day is exchanging snacks, reading horoscopes, and taking an extra hour break in the afternoon to run personal errands.

Sure studies have to be done, but we have a hard enough time getting funding for these much needed projects--YET---there are no studies done when unneeded ammenities are added to the system (again the LED sings appearing on the MFL). The major point is, money is being spent to re--invent the wheel.

I don't think anyone here ever said electrifying the Reading Branch was a waste. It is a waste to let the line continue to be unused while we debate on how to restore it. The point is, get it running now using conventional diesel (its worked before, it works elsewhere AND people all over this city endure the horrid torment of making transfers everyday. Ask anyone standing at a MFL station how many transfers are involved in their trip.) Trying to dream up a transfer free transit system is unrealistic. Ask anyone who uses SEPTA today. If you do use SEPTA and make no transfers, you either have to live next to a train station, or work next to one.

Wdobner wrote:I do not see what is so difficult about bringing the R6 Cynwyd over the Schuykill to Ivy Ridge, and extending the wires in full to Wyomissing, why is this option completely missing from SEPTA's study?

It was in the long list of alternatives, designated 2E, but did not make the short list. I don't quite understand SEPTA's reason for this, but there were a lot of areas of the study that are hard to make sense of.

At the very least, SEPTA should post their studies and planning documents online, even if it means scanning those things done on pen and paper, so that the public can get the products of all these studies that we are paying for. With the old svmetro.com site gone, a lot of useful information about the alternatives was gone, so people who are not familiar with the original MIS don't know what "alternative 2D" means. Certainly, the study had flaws, which is one reason the FTA rejected the project, but there is also a lot of useful information such as data on existing conditions.

The biggest problems I see with this idea is that it requires electrification to Port Kennedy...

Most of the "short list" alternatives includes Port Kennedy electrification. It's about five miles to extend the R6 to Port Kennedy, and doing so would require new catenary, signals, and a station, and I'd estimate it would cost from $50-100 million. So it's not much of a problem, I think.

No one at 1234 is interested in doing actual "work".

It may be better if PennDOT and the Montgomery and Berks Counties' planning departments do their own studies (or hire the engineering firms themselves) rather than have SEPTA do it. It's what Bucks County did with the Quakertown feasibility study.

It was in the long list of alternatives, designated 2E, but did not make the short list. I don't quite understand SEPTA's reason for this, but there were a lot of areas of the study that are hard to make sense of.

I agree.

Lucius Kwok wrote:Certainly, the study had flaws, which is one reason the FTA rejected the project, but there is also a lot of useful information such as data on existing conditions.

Yep. If it is decided the study has to be redone because of things like the flawed ridership estimates and the cost estimates skewed in favor of SEPTA's preferred alternative, we can salvage a lot of pieces from the original study. That will make a re-study cheaper and faster (then again, it would be hard to do any study in a slower and more costly fashion than that SVM MIS.

Most of the "short list" alternatives includes Port Kennedy electrification.

Actually, the diesel alternatives didn't--they included a Route 100 branch instead. That was one of the things that skewed ridership to favor SEPTA's plan. It included a branch giving a one-seat ride from the city to King of Prussia, so it could tap into the potential ridership there, while the commuter rail alternatives didn't get that potential ridership because they didn't go to KOP.

The proper thing would have been to optimize the commuter rail alternative, perhaps by including an electrified branch to KOP replacing the present R6 terminus at Elm St. along with the (diesel or electric depending on alternative) commuter rail line sharing NS tracks to Reading.

I agree fully that a one-seat ride would be the ideal goal, but systems all over the world function with transfers. If a network is going to connect many points, it becomes impractical to have a direct line between every possible combination of termini.

One key is to make the transfer as seamless as possible. That means things like single fare payment, no going outside, no walking great distances or climbing lots of stairs, and most importantly, no waiting a half hour or more if you just missed the last connection by 15 seconds.

<i>I agree fully that a one-seat ride would be the ideal goal, but systems all over the world function with transfers.</i>

So what? The simple fact is, the costs of electrification just aren't very high. There's zero point to eliminating it - it won't save money overall, it'll cost more in the long run to operate the line.

Heck, we could get rid of the signal system and save a cool 1 - 2 million per mile. I mean, pleanty of RRs out there don't use signals, so it's fine for Septa, right?

Or we could not do anything to the track and deal with the existing low speeds and poor ride quality - that'd save a few million a mile too. passengers won't like it, but hey, we shaved a few % off the projects's cost!

Why does anyone here think buying yet another incompatible fleet of equipment, building maintenance facilities for it, utilizing it for only a fraction of the day, and forcing riders to deal with a lower quality service is going to save SEPTA anything? It's not.

As far as restoring the track now? Sure. But the big cost here isn't electrification, it's everything else. For actual day in day out operation that can attract actual riders- as opposed to railbuffs, transit advocates, and the morbidly curious -there's big work that needs to be done to any track that's not today moving people. You'll need real stations, not dirt patches next to the track, you'll need real speed, and you'll need real ride quality. You'll likely need to upgrade crossings, upgrade the signals, replace lots of ties and rail, and you'll still have to build stations, parking lots, and such.

Once you've gotten to that point, throwing up wires is cheap anyway.

The Roosevelt Blvd study has some cost estimates that might be useful.

Electrification - catenary & substations: $1.6 million per track mile
Signals & communications, $1.0 million per track mile
Replace track with 115 lb rail: $1.0 million per track mile
At grade station: $4.0 million each
Parking spaces: $5,000 each, or $1.5 million for 300 spaces
Light maintenance facility & yard: $29 million

There are additional costs for crossovers and interlockings, plus add-on costs such as design and engineering. The maintenance facility might be eliminated for electric, while it may cost more for diesel.

You can do the math, but my calculations show that electrification is only 29% of the total costs of an electric option.

The simple fact is, the costs of electrification just aren't very high

You have numbers...? Mr. Kwok does. In the past, what prohibited en-masse electrification was the fact that the costs thereof were at least equal to the costs of building a railroad ROW. Such costs seem to prevent it today as well, otherwise there would be no Diesel commuter and/or long-distance passenger rail.

115lb rail? I doubt they'd use that light today. More like in the 130's or such.

1.6 million per track mile is about 2x what MK calculated back in the early 90's for Caltrain, though that was a 25kv 60hz AC system. Maybe it's high time Septa follows NJT and MN and starts looking towards a conversion to 60hz power - 25hz equipment is just gonna be more expensive, period, and it'd be possible to do a piecemeal conversion once the SL II/III cars are gone, since the SL IVs can automatically switch to 60hz right now, and the Vs will too.

I'd say that on a 60hz system, 1 million a track mile is realistically achiveable today, provided there's not much in the way of 'special' work (overpasses, drawbridges, etc). And we're talking a 10 mile spacing for substations, or 20 miles on 25kv power.

Anyway, 29 million for a yard and light maintenance facility? A heavy one's going to be more, and required for diesels because Septa has no heavy maintenance facility for diesels.

And we're not even bothering to discuss operating costs - and let's not forget the price of oil's going up again, and unlike the 70's, we've got China as the #2 importer of oil, and likely soon to be #1 (give them maybe 5 years at the most)

Why did RRs not electrify after WWII? Easy - it required 25hz equipment. And nobody really generated 25hz power back then. Had rectifier technology popped up 10 years prior, things would have been different.

I think we agree $150-200 million is about the right (low) estimate for
SVM electrification. That's only a 10th of the amount of the original planned SVM, but close to a third of the 700 million estimated by DVARP
for diesel type service to Reading on existing ROW. Agreed, it would
be nice to have, and it would be nice to make the system compatible
with the rest of the SEPTA system.

But the real issue is competition for federal $$$$. The bottom line is that
there are a long list of projects waiting in line for federal $$$. SVM as it
was originally proposed had a zero percent chance of being funded. The
only project that will get federal $$$$ is one which is in line with service
proposed around the rest of the country. FTA does not propose to fund SEPTA electric service when virtually every other line being funded of comparable length and service level is diesel. Now if you guys can scare up $200 million on your own for electrification, independent of the FTA (from PennDOT? local taxes?, you can do it. But if you really think that FTA will cough up the extra $$$$ for SEPTA electrified service and nobody else, you really need to get your head examined.

Another couple points that are being lost...

1. Any shared commuter rail will have to share trackage with Norfolk Southern. I can't imagine any freight railroad being too open towards stringing catenary over their lines. Despite the fact that its probably possible to accomodate high wide loads within the design, it might very well be a non-starter for them.

2. If diesel commuter rail is chosen, there is nothing that prevents the future conversion to electric commuter rail down the line. Instead of incrementally building a high-end system out a few miles at a time, build an economical full length system at first, and allow for the addition of electrification later. Even push-pull cars could still be used with new electric locomotives, and the diesels would either be at the end of their usable life, or could probably be resold on the second hand market at that time.

3. The need for a huge shop investment for the diesels is probably not necessary. If the Reading service were contracted to NS (this is just one example), servicing and maintenance could be included in the contract -- NS certainly has the capability on their system to do all the maintenance a diesel could need -- even if the heavy work means a trip to Altoona. Economies of scale dictate that that would probably be cheaper than SEPTA building its own diesel shop.

However, I'm sure the laws of common sense will not prevail in whatever SEPTA actually does...

Also, my apologies to Matt Mitchell and DVARP for arguing many of the points that they have already for years.

The July 2004 issue of the DVARP newsletter puts forth some arguments for diesel ops. The only two proven options for a one-seat ride are a dual-mode locomotive like those used by Amtrak, LIRR and Metro North in New York, or a locomotive change. A transfer between trains would need to be a guaranteed connection. The AC-catenary dual-mode locomotive is not realistic because the R&D costs are huge for such a small order, since no other system uses such a setup. A dual-mode DMU/EMU has a similar problem.

A big plus for diesel ops is that it would allow restoration of services ended in 1981 to Quakertown and Newtown. If they built the connection between the PRR and Reading lines west of Ivy Ridge, they could use regular diesels from both Reading, and Bethlehem and Quakertown (via Stony Creek) over the Cynwyd branch to 30th Street Station, where passengers could transfer to the many trains there. Or have third rail between 30th Street Station and Temple University, and restore diesel service to all three branches.

As for political realities, the FTA is looking for a 50-50 split between federal and state + local funding, and the non-federal share is at most $400 million.