SEPTA seeks $$ for major West Trenton Line Help

wagz wrote:

R3 Passenger wrote:In a perfect world, high level platforms would be added. However, I am interpreting this to mean that the 3rd track that CSX runs on exclusively between Neshaminy Falls and Woodbourne would be extended to West Trenton. While doing this separates SEPTA and freight operations, it forces Yardley into the same boat Langhorne and Woodbourne are in with regards to high platforms. Segregating the freight and passenger traffic may prevent either freight or passenger to be held up by the other, but the West Trenton Bridge has no room for additional track, and freight traffic would still block one of the West Trenton platforms in addition to possibly still blocking the yard tracks.

I don't see what benefit this has outside of SEPTA's attempt to transitize the Regional Rail. It is not worth it in my opinion and does not address the biggest problem: yard tracks being blocked by a late freight.

There are many other things that are higher priority than this in my book, such as the aging electrical systems and substations. No electricity, no trains.

Have you not read the rest of the thread (or at least the first post)? The third track isn't because they felt like it, but because of the Federal mandate of installing PTC systems on all passenger rail lines. Said PTC system is incompatible with freight operations (unknown how this will affect NS/CSX in NJ where they share trackage with NJT), so trackage for freight and passenger operations must be segregated. In fact SEPTA is losing some capacity in the deal since the Delaware River viaduct can only support two tracks, so SEPTA will single track from some point in PA through West Trenton.

Also I'm not sure where you get the idea of freight trains regularly blocking the yard? Except for some extenuating circumstance like a train going in to emergency because a brake line broke, a freight train should not be stopped blocking the interlocking ever.

well, I presume passenger and freight CAN coexist...amtrak operates over freight territory. it just may not be worth it for SEPTA to install the equipment over such a short stretch and it seems like they'd prefer to have their own track anyway. I thought from the picture it was the track closest to the station, no?

wagz wrote:Also I'm not sure where you get the idea of freight trains regularly blocking the yard? Except for some extenuating circumstance like a train going in to emergency because a brake line broke, a freight train should not be stopped blocking the interlocking ever.

I never said it happens on a regular basis. What I meant was that it has happened before and usually causes delays. Those CSX trains can be 40-60 cars long (I counted while waiting for my delayed SEPTA train )

bikentransit wrote:Why is SEPTA and the politicians saying this will improve times? Are there lots of delays now? If so, how frequent. If time is to be gained, how much? Would it have been cheaper/more effective for SEPTA to have adopted a system compatible with CSX?
It doesn't sound like this is an efficiency gain at all. I suppose this also does nothing to allow more frequent service in the future?
Are there any plans to do short turns on the line, perhaps at Somerton or Langhorne? The service is quite dismal now, better headways would be more desirable.

please correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the reading run ****loads more freight and passenger trains on the same tracks on this line at on time?

wagz wrote: Have you not read the rest of the thread (or at least the first post)? The third track isn't because they felt like it, but because of the Federal mandate of installing PTC systems on all passenger rail lines. Said PTC system is incompatible with freight operations (unknown how this will affect NS/CSX in NJ where they share trackage with NJT), so trackage for freight and passenger operations must be segregated. In fact SEPTA is losing some capacity in the deal since the Delaware River viaduct can only support two tracks, so SEPTA will single track from some point in PA through West Trenton.

Also I'm not sure where you get the idea of freight trains regularly blocking the yard? Except for some extenuating circumstance like a train going in to emergency because a brake line broke, a freight train should not be stopped blocking the interlocking ever.

As was discussed before the PTC issue is a red herring. NJT's plan is to use a dual system on the part of the RVL it shares with Conrail which is exactly what SEPTA could do in this case and that SEPTA will still have to do since it will still share interlockings with CSX. SEPTA just doesn't want to deal with sharing the line with CSX so their solution is to fully separate the lines. One advantage in their eyes may be a future transitization of the RRD.

Suburban Station wrote:well, I presume passenger and freight CAN coexist...amtrak operates over freight territory. it just may not be worth it for SEPTA to install the equipment over such a short stretch and it seems like they'd prefer to have their own track anyway. I thought from the picture it was the track closest to the station, no?

SEPTA must install PTC equipment by December 31, 2015 (I may have the year wrong) by federal law. The issue is having freight operations on a track that is PTC equipped. I believe SEPTA is going with ACSES which is what Amtrak uses on the NEC. Freight obviously does operate on the NEC so I'm not sure what the issue is. I know CSX has many non-cab signal euipped locomotives (and hence no PTC systems) so it could be that CSX doesn't want the hassle of having cab signal equipped leaders in the area, even though they have the same issue down on the RF&P. It could also be they only installed ACSES equipment on a very small sub-fleet that is tethered to NJ for operations on the NEC.

So the whole mess isn't really SEPTA's idea in the first place. I'm sure they've wanted CSX off their rails, but this just an excuses to do it finally. The grandstanding about reducing delays and is just for the headlines to make it seem like this is some great thing. In reality SEPTA is becoming a single track railroad from Yardley up through West Trenton. So there's no more freight interference, but now schedules have to be altered and built around a single track operation for a couple miles. I'm not sure what kind of limits that will place on rush hour schedules.

As for your other point about Amtrak (long distance trains I assume), I believe they use/will use a different type of PTC system that I'm guessing is more freight friendly.

bikentransit wrote:Why is SEPTA and the politicians saying this will improve times? Are there lots of delays now? If so, how frequent. If time is to be gained, how much? Would it have been cheaper/more effective for SEPTA to have adopted a system compatible with CSX?
It doesn't sound like this is an efficiency gain at all. I suppose this also does nothing to allow more frequent service in the future?
Are there any plans to do short turns on the line, perhaps at Somerton or Langhorne? The service is quite dismal now, better headways would be more desirable.

Delays do happen when freight trains encounter problems etc so SEPTA winds up with 9 miles of single tracking between West Trenton and Woodbourne. I don't see any way this situation will make things any faster (assuming regular unimpeded operations) except SEPTA maybe making MAS 70mph on their track as opposed to 60mph now. The single track operation this forces will not help headways for sure.

SEPTA is pretty much stuck with using ACSES since that is what Amtrak uses on the NEC which SEPTA utilizes for large segments (plus I believe the S Vs were built for easy ACSES installation later). Technically SEPTA could install a different system on their own rails but that would require installing and maintaining two sets of equipment in all their rail cars then.

jtaeffner wrote:please correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the reading run ****loads more freight and passenger trains on the same tracks on this line at on time?

They did, but the Reading also had four tracks from Neshaminy all the way to Port Reading Jct, NJ where it joins the Lehigh Line. The two track Delaware River Bridge was the only exception. The ROW is still visibly wide enough for four tracks between Woodbourne and the river.

wagz wrote:Technically SEPTA could install a different system on their own rails but that would require installing and maintaining two sets of equipment in all their rail cars then.

Ding ding ding ...

Jersey_Mike wrote:As was discussed before the PTC issue is a red herring. NJT's plan is to use a dual system on the part of the RVL it shares with Conrail which is exactly what SEPTA could do in this case and that SEPTA will still have to do since it will still share interlockings with CSX. SEPTA just doesn't want to deal with sharing the line with CSX so their solution is to fully separate the lines. One advantage in their eyes may be a future transitization of the RRD.

Wasn't it mentioned earlier that simply crossing over at an interlocking (as in SEPTA going from Track 1 to the Yard at West Trenton) has no affect on straight through CSX operations (what is now Track 2 at that location) as far as PTC compatibility goes? The way I understand it is that would be the only conflicting point as well, outside of Q190/Q191 crossing through WOOD to get to the Morrisville Connector (unless CSX by some miracle finishes undercutting the Trenton Sub. by then).

Also, we all know the State of PA is already short changing SEPTA with funding, so I have no problem with them not wanting to install dual PTC systems on a fleet of 340ish MUs and locomotives. If NJT found funding to maintain dual systems then good for them.

wagz wrote: Wasn't it mentioned earlier that simply crossing over at an interlocking (as in SEPTA going from Track 1 to the Yard at West Trenton) has no affect on straight through CSX operations (what is now Track 2 at that location) as far as PTC compatibility goes? The way I understand it is that would be the only conflicting point as well, outside of Q190/Q191 crossing through WOOD to get to the Morrisville Connector (unless CSX by some miracle finishes undercutting the Trenton Sub. by then).

Also, we all know the State of PA is already short changing SEPTA with funding, so I have no problem with them not wanting to install dual PTC systems on a fleet of 340ish MUs and locomotives. If NJT found funding to maintain dual systems then good for them.

You would still need both sets of PTC hardware in the relay huts at both WOOD and TRENT. What those tell trains is simply a software issue. Furthermore there is nothing that would stop SEPTA and CSX reaching an agreement to maintain their own PTC equipment on the joint stretch of track. Like I said over on the NJT forum people involved with the RVL planning have said that a joint system is 100% not a problem. When I say a dual system I mean the single stretch of track has both ACSES and whatever the freight railroads want to use. They aren't mutually exclusive technologies. If CSX has a problem with cab signals it is technically possible to use ACSES v2 without them, but you would have to treat every automatic as an absolute signal. That is not without precedent as the Southern RR commuter zone to Mananas was set up that way for some reason.

If you look at the facts behind what goes into PTC systems it is clear that the whole separation thing all a SEPTA snow job to not have to deal with a jointly operated track and reduce their maintenance burden from two tracks to one track.

SEPTA must install PTC equipment by December 31, 2015 (I may have the year wrong) by federal law. The issue is having freight operations on a track that is PTC equipped.

BTW the GAO has informed congress that the deadline is unrealistic and will not be met. One possible situation that could emerge is a scaled back requirement to CSS/ATC, which is what a number of commuter rail systems are pushing for. In such a case I doubt that CSX would be allowed to unequipped trains on the joint track which is where the separation would come into play.

I'm sure SEPTA just wanted its own tracks. it is the same agency that is trying to gate its regional rail stations instead of integrating the system with amtrak and njt

I think both companies wanted this seperation. SEPTA encounters delays when a freight breaks down, goes into emergency where the conductor has to walk back 100 cars, or pulls a knucle. And also CSX gets held when a push pull set breaks down and their freight trains get lined up until after the rush because they are single tracking. Also the heavier frieght trains tear up the track, switch points and frogs so maintenance on the 2 SEPTA tracks should be less for the Authority. I think a third track is a good idea.

wouldn't CSX be screwed if one of their frieghts broke down when the tracks are separated?

When SEPTA single tracked the Fox Chase line, the headways and schedules all degraded. There are morning rush outbound trains that literally sit in the woods between stations for 20+ minutes until the next inbound rolls by. Maybe alot of people aren't affected, but that's a really cruddy byproduct of this single tracking-separation mentality that's going on. The government should be looking for ways to help SEPTA improve headways and reduce times, not increase them!

bikentransit wrote:When SEPTA single tracked the Fox Chase line, the headways and schedules all degraded.

The alternative was having the Fox Chase line dispatched by CSX out of Jacksonville. Which is better?

zebrasepta wrote:wouldn't CSX be screwed if one of their frieghts broke down when the tracks are separated?

CSX wants the separation. When SEPTA was redesigning CP NEWTOWN, CSX, not SEPTA decided they wanted full separation.

I personally don't care if trains are dispatched out of Kalamazoo, the fact remains service has degraded because of "separation", and its now not possible to increase/improve service because of this. How many more lines are going to be "separated" while politicians and SEPTA propaganda staff tell us its a good thing?