|
|
| Re: Interesting and optimistic project, ... by Philadelphian Trolley-Fans (176472) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Interesting and optimistic project, ... by Philadelphian Trolley-Fans |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Nov 28 20:36:36 2005, in response to Interesting and optimistic project, ... by Philadelphian Trolley-Fans, posted by tramrunner on Mon Nov 28 19:20:41 2005. adding shoes to double-ened K-cars, will not force "getting rid of pantographs?"No, presumably the pantographs would remain even after the shoes were added. They'd most likely be lowered upon reaching 3rd rail territory for the trip to 19th St. I believe there'd have to be a cutoff system such that the shoes would be depowered when operating off an overhead system. Will their tracks west of 69th street remain Catenary-Equipted? Yes, it would be largely infeasible to reelectrify the 101 and 102 with 3rd rail, especially the street running sections of the 101 in Media. How many tracks are there between 69th street and 30th street along MFL? (I suppose you suggest to run Routes 101 & 102 over Express between 69th & 19th) Just two. The 101/102 through-trains would likely be peak hour runs and would not be any faster than the MFL trains they'd inevitably end up tailgating. If new low floor rolling stock were ordered then they could put a set of doors above the wheelset provided that was level with the platform and make all stops, allowing greater flexibility for off-peak through-train runs. The only real advantage is that this arrangement eliminates the transfer 101 and 102 passengers have to go through at 69th St terminal. It'd seem somewhat feasible to run these trains such that in the morning the 101 and 102 would meet at the junction between those lines, each with two cars to form a 4 car train, thereby cutting some of the traffic on the MFL. The trains could either be coupled into one four car train for the run from the junction to 19th St at that point, or the coupling could be done at 69th St. Coupling at 69th St allows whatever train arrives earlier to slow down and wait for it's counterpart along the run into 69th, such that the passengers are not subjected to a minute plus wait while the train waits at 69th for it's counterpart. The big problem here is that the boxy profile of the Suburban and Subway-Surface K-cars restricts their ability to turn tightly in confined spaces or when coupled to each other. The Subway Surface K-cars have a large fold-out coupler at either end for MUing (picture is of 9082, with a piece of plastic or something obscuring the coupler face), while the Suburban cars have a far shorter rigid coupler. The long coupler on the subway surface cars provides clearance between the two boxy cars while they negotiate the city's trolley network. In addition as I noted originally the Suburban cars are 52 feet to the City car's 50 or 51 feet length. The City cars supposedly are nearly rubbing the tunnel walls in spots so adding a foot or two to the car is probably a bad idea. If we got new rolling stock, it's probable that this all could be accounted for, but that's quite a while off, if it ever happens. In any event it's highly unlikely that there'd be much benefit placing the 101 and 102 on the MFL as the transfer at 69th St is fairly easy provided you have adaquate time to make your connection. At peak hours the trains are running frequently enough that transfers become a bit of a non-issue, so this would only really benefit off-peak riders, when ridership is too low to justify the cost. will it be easy to rebuilt the loops for 52ft K-cars to turn around? Heck no. You're talking about excavating a significant portion of Dilworth Plaza in front of City Hall, as well as perhaps a very busy combined section of Broad and Market on the southeast and northeast sides of City Hall. I believe that area was last reconstructed in the 1970s, and with the construction site looking like this I don't think anyone is quick to change it, especially for the tiny ridership increase this would provide. The fact that the subway surface tunnel accomodates 50 foot LRVs is damn good, and if SEPTA would just accept articulation then they'd have no problems accomodating larger subway surface crowds. For the money we spend to dig up Dilworth Plaza and much of City Hall we probably could have extended an LRV out West Chester Pike to Broomall and reequipped both the Subway Surface (10, 11, 13, 34, and 36), Surface (15, 23 and 56 including rebuilding), and Suburban (101, 102, and 104[?] to Broomall). At this point our downtown terminals pretty much work, SEPTA should be worrying about extending transit out to the more transit poor areas of Philadelphia and it's suburbs than messing with their downtown terminals. I'd like it noted that as far as I know this whole scheme is nothing more than conjecture on the part of a few Philly area Railfans who looked at the track gauges and had the lightbulb go off in their head. I don't think SEPTA is looking at it, I don't think DVARP is arguing for it, nor do I think DVRPC is thinking about it, and other than a few bitterly cold days in January and Feburary I don't think most of the riders even concieve of the notion. |
|
|
|
