SEPTA Paving over Route 23 trolley tracks

jfrey40535 wrote:

It is sad that Philly can't see the advatage of trolleys

I'd have to debate its advantages after seeing how well the 15 was put together. Trolleys are nice if you're watching them roll by (railfans), they're suboptimal if your a passenger.

That's only because Inepta it seems WANTS the 15 to fail...and can't seem to get ANYTHING right.
trolley's work in every other city where they're re-instated.

That's only because Inepta it seems WANTS the 15 to fail...and can't seem to get ANYTHING right.

That's half true. One of biggest problems us 15 riders run into is the trolley being delayed by parked vehicles (delivery trucks, trash trucks, etc.). Not much SEPTA can do about that. Sure having a T-car out there issuing tickets would help, but these things pop up and dissapear rather quickly and randomly so enforcement is difficult. Just today I lost 15 minutes of work because of a trash truck. The delay on the trolley was about 5 minutes, coupled by another 7-10 minutes waiting for the El, as when we did approach Front Street, an El was just pulling out.

The other big problem is the operators. Some handle the trolley well, others drive like snails. That is in SEPTA's control, and they should be pushing these operators to drive the trolley at its best speeds. So the current end result is inconsistencies with operating times. Hopefully that will improve in February with the next picking.

Based on SEPTA's competencies, most riders will protest any future trolley projects. I kind of agree they are a waste of money to some extent. Trolleys can't manuver around parked cars and are slower (I can't remember the last time a bus had to slow for a switch or pass through a speed restricted zone). Chestnut Hill certianly doesen't need a trolley, they already have 2 rail lines. I think our public money would be better spent on expanding the railroad system. How far would $80 million get us on a Newtown project?

IMHO the city streetcar is STILL the most efficient transit vehicle ever designed. The problem today is that because the country engaged in an almost wholesale scrapping of streetcar and interurban systems during most of the 20th Century, technological developement of the streetcar was pretty much aborted after the PCC Car was developed. If streetcars, and streetcar dervied rail vehicles had been allowed to develop the same way that the diesel bus did, there would be no feeling among passengers or anyone else, that the streetcar is not an attractive mode of transport.

In Philadelphia's case, this situation was actually made worse by the durability of the cars which ran in Philly. Few cities ran their PCC cars for as long as Philadelphia did, and by the time they were replaced on the subway-surface lines by the Kawasakis, and simply retired on the all-surface lines after those lines were bustituted, in terms of passenger amenities ( such as air-conditioning), they had simply become obsolite. ( And it is interesting to note that the Kawasakis, both the city and suburban versions, are now 25 years old). There are a number of other electric rail vehicle types that had the same problem--- ie being run for so long because of their durability, that they ceased being attractive to riders ( other than railfans), among them, the Brill Bullet Cars, the PRR MP-54 suburban cars, the Reading "Blues", the 1941 Red Arrow Brilliners and the 1949 Red Arrow PCC body St. Louis Cars.

And remember, though they have been extensively re-built, with many more passenger amenities than they had originally, the PCC II Cars are still 58 year old streetcars.

Walt, you don't get it. Its not the cars that are the problem, its the mode os service. Streetcars and automobiles simply don't mix. What people want is an efficient mode of transportation that is reliable. I hardly call a vehicle that can't manuver around a parked/broken down vehicle reliable.

The PCCII's aren't bad. They have shortfalls, such as the wheelchair lifts but other than that they're ok. They do have other issues, such as a lack of emergency exits, but that's for another forum.

Problems I see with streetcars here in Philly are simply because its an antiquated system. On all of our streetcars, boarding passengers have to venture into traffic to board the vehicle. That means you're sometimes taking your life into your own hands if some nutcase decides to pass the trolley on the right, which does happen. On the 15, the boarding islands are awful. People don't know how to form single file lines for boarding and exiting, so there is just this mass pile of people trying to board and exit the trolleys on these islands which just adds to dwell time. On all surface routes, it would be nice if people acutally used the back door for exiting!

Other inefficiencies are the fact that streetcars slow to a crawl when passing through a switch, are subject to the pole coming off the wire, take turns slowly and can't go fast down narrow streets.

These are all problems that can't be fixed by new cars, its simply the nature of the beast, and when you have to be somewhere at a particular time, a slow streetcar is very aggrevating.

walt wrote:And it is interesting to note that the Kawasakis, both the city and suburban versions, are now 25 years old.

This is a good thing to remember: these cars have really held up well, especially when you consider they are just five years short of their design life. Their bus contemporaries were the RTS II, which SEPTA got rid of years ago, and had been rattletraps for years before that.

I dare say the Kawasakis have another 20 good years left in them. And aside from the rather high floor level, they still are an attractive vehicle to travel in.

Matt Mitchell
(misses the original paint scheme with the black belt rails)

Other inefficiencies are the fact that streetcars slow to a crawl when passing through a switch, are subject to the pole coming off the wire, take turns slowly and can't go fast down narrow streets.

I don't think you can use those points against trolleys in general...Good engineering should obviate those problems. For instance, pantographs versus trolley poles, properly rebuilding all the rail, etc. It's not the technology so much as the 100 year old system that's been poorly maintained with little future planning.

Boston and San Francisco have less problems with their very similar light rail systems. They've also upgraded their rolling stock while SEPTA has not. The main advantage of rail is the abillity to run longer vehicles that hold more people than the average bus. The Kawasaki design doesn't allow for that. It's the same problem with the Norristown Route 100 line's cars. With articluated rail vehicles, the revenue increases while the cost-per-passenger decreases. It's just that SEPTA's "replace in kind" policy keeps them in the dark ages.

The Route 100 cars are not articulated, but two cars can be coupled together for use at most of the platforms. Articulated trolleys are a lot less estentically pleasing to many people.

greg19051 wrote:The Route 100 cars are not articulated, but two cars can be coupled together for use at most of the platforms. Articulated trolleys are a lot less esthetically [estentically] pleasing to many people.

However the N-5s are still independent vehicles, each needing an operator because they do not have passthrough doors. I don't know if the trailer operator receives the same hourly scale as the driver for the duration of their trip. Either way it seems to me that there should not be any great savings from paired running vs. more frequent single cars.

The CTAs were married pairs so they couldn't be separated even for off-peak service. Somehow the suits got it into their heads that the N-5s should also run paired whenever possible. On light runs the trailer car was never needed and its operator was idle. One of the drivers told me that in spite of being paid for reading the newspaper & drinking coffee, they were so bored that the union approached the suits about going back to single-car runs. Even so, it was almost 3 years before off-peak runs were all single cars.

Didn't SEPTA do away with coupled runs on the 100? They keep tweeking the schedule, but it always seems to be getting worse.

jfrey40535 wrote:Didn't SEPTA do away with coupled runs on the 100? They keep tweaking [tweeking] the schedule, but it always seems to be getting worse.

I still see double cars on the line during peak hours. I don't ride often enough these days to know exactly how many runs are still coupled.

The kicker is that some operators spot the front car so that the rear one is clear of the platform, even at those stations where it's long enough to take both. They fill up the front car, then move up a couple of yards, stop again and open the rear car. Can anyone explain that practice, since it seems to do nothing but cause increased dwell time?

jfrey40535 wrote:Walt, you don't get it. Its not the cars that are the problem, its the mode os service. Streetcars and automobiles simply don't mix. What people want is an efficient mode of transportation that is reliable. I hardly call a vehicle that can't manuver around a parked/broken down vehicle reliable.

All of the problems you've cited can be corrected if SEPTA cared to invest the money to fix the system. Tracks could be relocated to eliminate center-of-road running, create median running, overhead could be modified to use pantographs not subject to dewiring, and SEPTA could work with the PPA and PPD to enforce traffic laws along the line. As you say, many of the operators do not know how to operate their LRVs properly, which quite obviously something else SEPTA could (quite easily) do to improve operation. A bus may offer slightly superior cornering speeds, but when the streetcar system is designed properly the LRV can take advantage of segregated right of ways in the median of the wider segments of the route to bypass traffic. So long as we're going to have funding problems for transit it is incumbent upon the transit system to save money through as many methods as possible. SEPTA's light rail system is quite a bit cheaper to operate than their bus fleet, so even with a slight inconvenience to the riders it is more than worthwhile. It is incredibly unfortunate that SEPTA did not work and invest the money right off the bat to reduce operating costs while not unduely inconveniencing the riders when compared to bus operation.

jfrey40535 wrote:These are all problems that can't be fixed by new cars, its simply the nature of the beast, and when you have to be somewhere at a particular time, a slow streetcar is very aggrevating.

SEPTA surely could improve the operation of the Rt 15 through a change both in the rolling stock and fare control system. A low floor articulated LRV combined with a proof-of-payment fare system would be superior to the PCC IIs. The LRVs would provide higher capacity, easier boarding, better wheelchair accomodation and reduce stop dwell times through multi door boarding with a lower step height.

Stopping in the middle of the street and endangering the lives of allighting passengers is by no means a situation unique only to SEPTA's trolley operations. It's rare that I have a bus actually pull up to the curb and frequently find myself getting off the bus a fair distance from the curb.

JeffK wrote:However the N-5s are still independent vehicles, each needing an operator because they do not have passthrough doors. I don't know if the trailer operator receives the same hourly scale as the driver for the duration of their trip. Either way it seems to me that there should not be any great savings from paired running vs. more frequent single cars.

Yet another SEPTA route which would benefit from the implementation of a POP fare system. Proof of payment would allow SEPTA to run their two car trains without having to pay two operators. Admittedly they'd undoubtedly lose some fares from people playing the odds that they'll won't have to prove they paid, and they'll have to pay a few fare enforcement teams. The advantage of course is that boarding could be faster, and the Rt100's cars and stations are quite well suited to proof of payment fare enforcement.

jfrey40535 wrote:Walt, you don't get it. Its not the cars that are the problem, its the mode os service. Streetcars and automobiles simply don't mix. What people want is an efficient mode of transportation that is reliable. I hardly call a vehicle that can't manuver around a parked/broken down vehicle reliable.

All of the problems you've cited can be corrected if SEPTA cared to invest the money to fix the system. Tracks could be relocated to eliminate center-of-road running, create median running, overhead could be modified to use pantographs not subject to dewiring, and SEPTA could work with the PPA and PPD to enforce traffic laws along the line. As you say, many of the operators do not know how to operate their LRVs properly, which quite obviously something else SEPTA could (quite easily) do to improve operation. A bus may offer slightly superior cornering speeds, but when the streetcar system is designed properly the LRV can take advantage of segregated right of ways in the median of the wider segments of the route to bypass traffic. So long as we're going to have funding problems for transit it is incumbent upon the transit system to save money through as many methods as possible. SEPTA's light rail system is quite a bit cheaper to operate than their bus fleet, so even with a slight inconvenience to the riders it is more than worthwhile. It is incredibly unfortunate that SEPTA did not work and invest the money right off the bat to reduce operating costs while not unduely inconveniencing the riders when compared to bus operation.

jfrey40535 wrote:These are all problems that can't be fixed by new cars, its simply the nature of the beast, and when you have to be somewhere at a particular time, a slow streetcar is very aggrevating.

SEPTA surely could improve the operation of the Rt 15 through a change both in the rolling stock and fare control system. A low floor articulated LRV combined with a proof-of-payment fare system would be superior to the PCC IIs. The LRVs would provide higher capacity, easier boarding, better wheelchair accomodation and reduce stop dwell times through multi door boarding with a lower step height.

Stopping in the middle of the street and endangering the lives of allighting passengers is by no means a situation unique only to SEPTA's trolley operations. It's rare that I have a bus actually pull up to the curb and frequently find myself getting off the bus a fair distance from the curb.

JeffK wrote:However the N-5s are still independent vehicles, each needing an operator because they do not have passthrough doors. I don't know if the trailer operator receives the same hourly scale as the driver for the duration of their trip. Either way it seems to me that there should not be any great savings from paired running vs. more frequent single cars.

Yet another SEPTA route which would benefit from the implementation of a POP fare system. Proof of payment would allow SEPTA to run their two car trains without having to pay two operators. Admittedly they'd undoubtedly lose some fares from people playing the odds that they'll won't have to prove they paid, and they'll have to pay a few fare enforcement teams. The advantage of course is that boarding could be faster, and the Rt100's cars and stations are quite well suited to proof of payment fare enforcement.

I don't think POP would help. The doors most likely physically cannot be opened in both cars at once, making the other car dead weight if no one in the car can open them.

JeffK wrote:The kicker is that some operators spot the front car so that the rear one is clear of the platform, even at those stations where it's long enough to take both. They fill up the front car, then move up a couple of yards, stop again and open the rear car. Can anyone explain that practice, since it seems to do nothing but cause increased dwell time?

I suspect that's a function of the pay when you're away from 69th St. fair system. If the driver pulls up far enough so that both cars can be boarded, then passengers boarding/deboarding his/her car have to walk the length of the car to pay the fair.

What might work is having those drivers stay in touch and, if there's a station where nobody in one car wants to get off, just have the other car pull up to the platform and just board everyone into that car. But given that MU consists tend to run during peak hours, ridership is heavy enough that both cars probably have people disembarking.

If service to King of Prussia is started during the N-5's lifetime, could 5-10 articulated cars for the line be included in the costs?