VA calls R8 "Rapid Transportation"

SubwaySurface wrote:Many of the stations are at-grade and would seem to be difficult to secure with turnstiles.

While (most, Chelten Avenue is the exception) the existing stations are low platform, it wouldn't even be necessary to raise the platform or install turnstiles. Run cars that have low-platform stairs on the right side of the car and a fare collection box on the vehicle. The left side of the car could have high-platform doors that would enable speedy movements of passengers in the tunnels. The Chelten Ave station platform could be lowered, or they could all be raised, but by leaving the fare collection box in the vehicle, you don't need turnstiles to be installed on the existing CHW stations.

Since we're presenting hypothetical systems, I'll go into more detail as to what I'm envisioning.

CHW cars (with dual or all-high platform doors) depart CHW every 15-30 minutes (higher at peak -- think routes 101 & 102). After picking up passengers who pay as they enter at Queen Lane, the tracks turn south, running as an el or subway with island platforms over or under 24th or 25th street. That provides ample buffer space between this line & the BSS so that you're not just siphoning off riders but establishing a whole new set of them. As the vehicles run through Norht Philly, they'll make 4-5ish stops (Allegheny, Erie, Cecil B. Moore, Girard for transfer with the 15, Fairmount come to mind as the most logical, but others might exist, too). At some point, the cars head underground -- either they start there, or go through a portal, but once they hit the Ben Franklin Parkway, they're underground. They turn onto the Pennsylvania Avenue Subway just east of the active freight tracks (easier to avoid them completely than try to finagle the times & rights to run together), with a stop for the Art Museum, Rodin Museum, etc. The cars would continue along these tracks to about 20th street, where they turn south under 20th, stopping now on the opposite side of the Ben Franklin Parkway (Franklin Institute, Academy of Natural Sciences, etc). The cars would continue south under 20th street for a free interchange for passengers between this line & the SS lines at 20th & Market. From there they'd continue south to Locust Street, where they turn east. They provide access to Rittenhouse Square/Rittenhouse Row, and ultimately connect with PATCO's Locust Avenue Subway. PATCO will be displaced by this plan, and I'll deal with them in a minute. The CHW cars continue under Locust St, turning north under 8th Street to 8th & Market, where a new transportation center is built at the DisneyHole. The CHW cars will all terminate in this center, as will PATCO cars that come off the bridge and no longer use the Locust Ave Subway.

The Ridge Subway could also be routed into here, and a pedestrian connection to the 8th Street MFL station could also happen. Ideally, the Ridge Subway would no longer be its current useless self, but instead the Roosevelt Subway could be routed down Ridge and into this transportation center. So now we have CHW, PATCO, MFL, and Roosevelt lines all meeting in this new station where Philadelphia would have an intermodal transit center with incredible ridership potential. The potential could be even more realized if the CHW line were branched -- from 8th & Locust, a branch could head south into South Philly into the Sports Complex (as the new stadiums are closer to 8th than Broad) and into the Naval Business Center... from 20th & Locust, a branch could be routed over the Schuylkill to merge onto the R1 tracks (below PHIL) and establish a transit connection to the airport.

I realize it would be expensive, but I also tried to suggest a route that would utilize as many existing tracks & tunnels as possible... and SEPTA could move huge numbers of new people. At the very least, there would be few places left in the city of Philadelphia that could not be reached relatively quickly with just a 2-seat rail ride... getting polluting cars & buses off the streets.

Matthew Mitchell wrote:
Sure, but SEPTA can't even get minimal added productivity from the cashiers right now, let alone abolishing the position (and replacing it with a station agent position a la Washington Metro) now that it is technically obsolete.

In order to do this, you'd have to adopt a farecard system similar to the DC Metro----tokens wouldn't do it.

I suppose it would be possible to convert the entire RRD to some form of Light Rail operation ( BSS style rapid transit operation would be more of a problem because of the third rail and the grade crossings on the RRD. Though there are systems which use third rail and have grade crossings, this is not the safest situation.) On board fare collection and one man operation, which is characteristic of most Light Rail systems would greatly reduce laobor costs. Whether or not the riding public would accept Light Rail Vehicles as a substitution for the more substantial commuter rail equipment is an open question. Connecting with the BSS would be best accomplished by constructing cross- platform transfer capability wherever the two "systems" would meet, given the unsuitabilty ( IMHO) of employing the third rail current collection system where grade crossings exist. Additionally this would avoid the necessity of building high level platforms on the "former" RRD stations to accomodate the BSS type rapid transit equipment.

walt wrote: I suppose it would be possible to convert the entire RRD to some form of Light Rail operation

Well, it might make sense to have transit style opertion for the shorter lines- or at least the lines that have good connections to the bus system at the train stations.

The lines that SEPTA talks about cutting - R6 Cynwyd, R8 Chestnut Hill,
R1 Airport are all possibilities since they're not connected to anything.

The longer R2 Newark, R5 Thorndale, R5 Doylestown, R3 West Trenton and R7 Trenton aren't "transitable" since they're on heavy rail.

The real hard part is finding a way to connect the odd little parts into
the existing transit system.

That means you're looking at Broad Street Subway or Route 100 compatability.

walt wrote: Whether or not the riding public would accept Light Rail Vehicles as a substitution for the more substantial commuter rail equipment is an open question.

If you re-arranged the seats, I doubt anybody notice much difference between 85 foot rail car and 67 foot subway cars.

You'd have 5 subway cars for a 335 foot train instead of 4 railroad cars for a 340 foot train - nobody's going to notice the difference in the trains
Broad Street Subway or PATCO cars they'd get right on.

Route 100 trolleys, they'd notice- of course with SEPTA you could go zipping down the tracks on a bumper car and nobody would blink an eye.

walt wrote: On board fare collection and one man operation, which is characteristic of most Light Rail systems would greatly reduce laobor costs.

This would be THE big problem- dealing with the change in how the fare is paid and going from tickets to tokens.

Sounds like you've got a problem that was already addressed with the Route 100 - Was the fare collection the same on the older bullet Cars?
How did SEPTA deal with the fare collection when they had Chicago cars
and modified El cars?

walt wrote: Connecting with the BSS would be best accomplished by constructing cross- platform transfer capability wherever the two "systems" would meet, given the unsuitabilty ( IMHO) of employing the third rail current collection system where grade crossings exist.
. . .
BSS style rapid transit operation would be more of a problem because of the third rail and the grade crossings on the RRD.
. . .
Though there are systems which use third rail and have grade crossings,
this is not the safest situation.

I don't recall seeing any, that many grade crossings on these shorter lines.

Converting any of the existing RR lines to 3rd rail would be horribly expensive - wouldn't it be much simpler to graft a pantograph onto a Broad Street Subway car, and change the overhead wires on the routes to 650 volts DC?

The new Route 100 were supposed to have dual mode capacity
- 3rd rail and overhead wires. Can't the same be done for other cars?

Alternatively if you're running 335 foot subway trains, and the roads are 100 feet wide, you've still got a pretty good amount of overlap with 3rd rail at the back of the train, while the front of the train looses contact, crosses the road, and regains contact at the other side.

Hal

Hal---You're thinking about a conversion to a "rapid transit" type of operation. My comments were actually more geared toward going one step further "down the scale" and employing actual light rail vehicles ( more like those we have here in the Baltimore Area-- two car married pair units, which are often coupled into four or six car "trains") These units wouldn't require any significant conversion of the infrastructure of the lines you're talking about in that they are already pantograph equipped, ground level loading type cars, but which are usually "manned" ( or "Womaned") by a single operator.

Route 100 has had on board fare collection ever since it opened as the P&W back in 1907. P&W went to one man operation in the 1930's ( the Bullet Cars were designed to be one- man cars, and the older Strafford cars were re-built just prior to the introduction of the Bullets to increase their speed, and to make them one man) I don't know how fare collection was handled on the ex CTA cars, as I moved from the area long before they were acquired. P&W/ Route 100 has often been described as "America's most unsual electric railroad" because it has elements of both of the old interurban railways( generally single car trains, on board fare collection) and of rapid transit ( third rail current collection, high level loading, complete grade separation). There is not another road just like it anywhere in the country.---- With regard to fare collection, the P&W went from railroad type tickets ( sold at a booth at 69th Street or on board the cars, -----AND you could buy a round trip ticket) to the transit style on board fare box sometime in the 1960's.

Years ago, I had thought that the Media- West Chester portion of what is now the R-3 ( now cut back to Elwyn) should have been made "light rail" ( or an interurban) but there would be significant FRA problems unless the two sections were completely severed---- which would leave the light rail cars completely physically cut off from anything else operated by SEPTA. Going back as far as the 1960's, there was rarely enough passenger traffic on the western portion of that line to support full commuter railroad operation.

SubwaySurface wrote:Also, a RRD fare ticket is not acceptable as a fare on the subway or any transit division vehicle

That's OK...it's like that for almost every city across the USA and in other countries too. You can't transfer from the LIRR or Metro-North onto the NYC subway; you can't transfer from NJ Transit rail onto PATH or the subway or vice-versa; I believe that it is also impossible to transfer from MBTA commuter rail onto MBTA subway or light-rail, ad nauseam. SEPTA is merely in line with everyone else in that respect.

walt wrote: Hal---You're thinking about a conversion to a "rapid transit" type of operation.

My comments were actually more geared toward going one step further "down the scale" and employing actual light rail vehicles
Two car married pair units, often coupled into four or six car "trains"

Well, I'd actually begun this thought experiment as a "what if" about using Route 100 cars with pantographs on the R8 Chestnut Hill.

I figured the big problem is the connection to the rest of the system-
the time you save on frequent service is lost waiting for a connection.

So I though about the Subway Surface Trollies versus 69th Street Station.
You can have a transfer station, or you can run the trolleys themselves into the subway. And the best option I could figure would be a portal from North Philadelphia Rail station to North Broad Subway Station.

walt wrote: These units wouldn't require any significant conversion of the infrastructure of the lines you're talking about in that they are already pantograph equipped, ground level loading type cars, but have . . . a single operator.

I had thought that the Media- West Chester portion of the R-3 ... should have been made "light rail" ( or an interurban) {but} there would be significant FRA problems unless the two sections were completely severed---- which would leave the light rail cars completely physically cut off from anything else operated by SEPTA.

Ahh, that's the really problem- money you save on minimizing changes to catenary and infrastructure are spent making a transfer point to the rest of the Rail system.

You really have to connect to an existing transit system- you can't run a trolley on a train track unless you have a 69th Street Station situation-
or a Subway Surface option.


Trains to Trolley
So, the obvious thing to do is take low volume lines and turn them into trollies, then have a Trolley terminal to connect them to the Regional Rail at North Philly Station. North Philadelphia RR/North Broad Subway would be like 30th Street Station & 30th Street Transit Station- but it would have the same problems - the connections are close but not quite close enough.


Trolley to Subway Surface
So, I think it might be workable to route the transitized lines down the Broad Street Subway's LOCAL - OUTER tracks- just like the Subway Surface Trollies run on the OUTER tracks under Market Street. You might be able to do this by running up to Erie- where the BSL has an "upstairs track" and was designed for connections.


Subway to Train
The interesting thing is that I just realized that while converting some heavy rail to transit would increase service; converting some transit to heavy rail might help return service to the far suburban areas of SEPTA's un-electrified lines.

I'm thinking about the "Rail Power situation" (?) when Market east first opened- where SEPTA had to divert passengers from Train to Subway at Fern Rock. This is basically the same thing, but rather than switch the passengers from Reginal Rail tracks to Broad Street Subway track, switch the entire train.


R5 Quakertown to City Hall ASAP
I think you could restore train service to R5 Quakertown TOMMOROW- Take a dual mode DM30 AC from Long Island RR and start in Quakertown.
Power up the diesel and down the R5 as far as Fern Rock and switch to the service track. At Fern Rock shut down the diesel and take power from the 3rd rail. Run the train down the Express track.

Now, the track alignment at Fern Rock is difficult - you'll need a dedicated gateway between the RR and the Express Tracks. The logical location for that is the North Broad Station where all the trains come together so you could use the dual mode trick on any train - something that might not be bad as an alternate when Septa needs to work on lines.


Old is new - run to City Hall instead of Reading Terminal
Diesel trains could provide service to the unelectrified Regional Rail run down to North Broad/North Philly, switch to 3rd rail electric, and run on the Broad Street Subway's EXPRESS- INNER tracks and stop at City Hall.

No, it wouldn't have the service to Suburban Station or 30th Street,
but hello! THESE STOPS NEVER had that service ANYWAY-

The stops that were dropped when the tunel went through aren't loosing anything- they're basically just getting back to where they werew 20 years ago.

From the train, heading East you transfer from City Hall to the El.
Heading West, the El or Green Line
heading south, the Broad Street locals are right there.


If you get creative, you might get better distribution inside the city by routing the trains down the Broad Ridge Spur and 8th Street Subway and Locust but you'd have to use subway length cars to fit the turns, and I don't know if the 75' long dual mode engines would fit in the turns.

Hal

Don't ever expect third-rail to materialize on the RRD. That's duplication of electrification, more expensive in terms of continued operation than overhead high-voltage catenary, and a waste of dough.

As for dual-modes, their reliability is not quite to the point where most commuter rail operators are comfortable with its widespread use—otherwise, it would be a no-brainer for NJ Transit to embrace it, which it refuses to do. LIRR hardly uses it; Metro-North and Amtrak use it far more than LIRR does (the Genesis II), but only in terminal locations (more specifically, at station platforms). It's also possible to build catenary-based dual-mode locomotives anyway—a Genesis III would certainly be feasible using the GEVO prime-mover, but that would take SEPTA ordering enough of them for GE to make their money back from constructing them.

walt wrote:

Matthew Mitchell wrote: Sure, but SEPTA can't even get minimal added productivity from the cashiers right now, let alone abolishing the position (and replacing it with a station agent position a la Washington Metro) now that it is technically obsolete.

In order to do this, you'd have to adopt a farecard system similar to the DC Metro----tokens wouldn't do it.

I suppose it would be possible to convert the entire RRD to some form of Light Rail operation

Let's first dismiss the idea of transitizing the railroad, which has some kind of magical spell over railfans. Any such conversion, especially one which requires some kind of physical connection into the present subway system or requires enclosure of the rail stations, is going to have a prohibitive capital cost. Such conversions aren't going to be funded from Washington, and SEPTA has lots better uses for capital.

Now, back to my earlier point, which pertained strictly to the transit side, where the capital is already sunk.

The WMATA fare system has three key elements: distance-based fares, controlled entry and exit at stations, and a stored-value farecard. You don't really need any of these things to abolish the cashiers' position or to convert it into a station agent à la WMATA. All you need is an investment in vending machines and the will to make them work. See PATCO for example.

In fact, the fully controlled stations like WMATA and PATCO are no longer necessary, nor are they state of the art. The state of the art is "proof of payment," sometimes mistakenly referred to as an honor system. For POP, you simply replace your turnstiles with a line painted on the floor and a bunch of security officers making spot checks that passengers have either a valid pass or a valid fare receipt.

Now SEPTA did consider a stored value card several years ago in their fare collection and fare policy studies (they were impressed by the success of Metrocard in New York and wanted to know what the effects of such a system here would be) but they decided they didn't want to spend the money for such a system or for other technology and reforms to the fare structure.
[/u]

As for POP, let us not go there. Anything but "state of the art". I'd rather have a barrier system and full grade-separation before POP. When I started hearing reports of 15 brawny "fare inspectors" holding up the LRVs in order to check passengers' tickets in certain European countries, I immediately came to the conclusion that POP is the fare system of the police state. No thankee...

Irish Chieftain wrote:As for POP, let us not go there. Anything but "state of the art". I'd rather have a barrier system and full grade-separation before POP. When I started hearing reports of 15 brawny "fare inspectors" holding up the LRVs in order to check passengers' tickets in certain European countries, I immediately came to the conclusion that POP is the fare system of the police state. No thankee...

I tend to agree with Irish on this---- Baltimore's Central Light Rail Line uses this system and while it seems to work well enough the temptation is too great to try to "cheat" the system and take your chances that you won't get caught. I don't think we need to invite people to try to "beat the system", too many do this very well on their own. POP does, however, seem to be the "wave of the future".

Matthew Mitchell wrote:Let's first dismiss the idea of transitizing the railroad, which has some kind of magical spell over railfans.

From my personal experience, railfans are the ones who are most opposed to such conversions. They tend to be more interested in keeping things the way they were when their grandparents rode the rails than in looking for better ways to move people today.

Umblehoon wrote:

Matthew Mitchell wrote:Let's first dismiss the idea of transitizing the railroad, which has some kind of magical spell over railfans.

From my personal experience, railfans are the ones who are most opposed to such conversions. They tend to be more interested in keeping things the way they were when their grandparents rode the rails than in looking for better ways to move people today.

My experience is quite the opposite. Railfans more than other groups support such conversions more than any other.

As for "better ways to move people today", the prevailing point is that the rail lines are already there. What is required is that, no matter what mode the rails are currently using (whether FRA rail, "rapid-transit" or LRT), improving the quality of service is what will attract riders more than anything. Improve the quality of the stations, plus improve the frequency and operating speed of operations, and you are already attracting riders—because you've got a railroad line that goes right to Center City staring you in the face and it doesn't matter that it's part of the FRA's network or uses Silverliners (those being a plus IMHO).

Hal wrote:
Well, I'd actually begun this thought experiment as a "what if" about using Route 100 cars with pantographs on the R8 Chestnut Hill.

Hal

Route 100, the former P&W, is such an unusual electric railway that it probably isn't that good a model for anything, despite the fact that it is, was, and always has been a GREAT rail line. The present cars, really, are not much more than third rail operated LRV's. You could accomplish the same thing ( converting the R8) using the Baltimore type of LRV that I described earlier, especially if you're going to operate more multi-car consists than are currently operated on Route 100.

"Transitising" any of the Regional Rail Lines would probably be advantageous only where there is enough potential ridership to support more frequent off peak service than is typical of commuter rail lines, and where you could significantly cut costs by "downgrading" the line from conventional railroad status to "urban rapid transit" status ( FRA terms).
For lines which do not require BSS or MFSE style rapid transit service, a form of Light Rail would probably be best. It should not be that difficult for some manufacturer to produce an LRV which is more comfortable with more railroad type passenger amenities than is typical of today's LRVs,-- the classic interurban car was really nothing more than a faster, heavier, more comfortable version of the city streetcar.

With regard to connecting the several types of rail lines that you are looking at, IMHO the best method is simply to provide cross- platform connections where the segments meet. This way you avoid the technical, financial, and FRA (regulatory) problems that go with operating different types of equipment over the same trackage, yet you still provide reasonable convenience for passengers who are moving from one mode to another.

walt wrote:

Hal wrote:
Well, I'd actually begun this thought experiment as a "what if" about using Route 100 cars with pantographs on the R8 Chestnut Hill.

Hal

to connect ... the several types of rail lines that you are looking at,

the best method is simply to provide cross- platform connections where the segments meet.

This way you avoid the technical, financial, and FRA (regulatory) problems that go with operating different types of equipment over the same trackage,

yet you still provide reasonable convenience for passengers who are moving from one mode to another.

Very astute observation -

But if that's the case, why did SEPTA go to the expense of building the Market East station and the Commuter Tunnel?

Yes, you have good passenger distribution with 2 center City Stations, Suburban Station and Market East; but you started with 2 Center City Stations before you started, Suburban Station and Reading Terminal!


Couldn't SEPTA have achieved equal or better passenger distribution to Center City by establishing a Regional Rail to Express Subway transfer at Fern Rock?

Trains have 2 Center City stations,
16th and 12th street,

Subways have 8 Center City stations
2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 19th and 22nd

Seems like the subway system is much better suited to getting passengers to their final destination.


If we were starting over, would it make sense to stop trains at Fern Rock,
transfer passenges to the Broad Street Subway then run to City Hall?

That would give commuters 8 different stations for passenger distribution?


Hal

No, the commuter tunnel is different, because the systems on both sides were already compatible. Building a connection allowed SEPTA to better use existing equipment and gave them much more flexibility with equipment moves and the like. If you keep n spares for the split-system commuter rail service, then you need to split it n/2 for the Pennsy and n/2 for the Reading. With the tunnel, you can keep less than n in the middle, ready to go to whichever side is necessary. Thus you need fewer trains with the tunnel, and can shuttle equipment between the two existing networks as necessary. You might argue that a cheaper connection could be built at North Philly/North Broad, but the neighborhood isn't as nice, and would provide no commuter benefits to the Pennsy side, except from the R7 and R8.

Allowing people to take the train all the way to Market East might sell someone living in, say, Bryn Mawr and working at 11th & Market, to take the train instead of driving, whereas with the walk from 15th, he/she wouldn't want to. Transfering from a train to a subway for a short haul within the city has very little appeal in Philadelphia, since the train already reaches a good bit of the CBD, and transfering to go one stop doesn't seem effective, especially considering the fare system (but let's not go there).