Manhattan bound riders on New Jersey Transit's Raritan Valley line must change trains at Newark because the diesel locomotives that pull their trains are barred from the Hudson River tunnels to New York Penn Station. However, NJT now has dual powered locomotives that can switch from diesel to electric power. Raritan Valley riders want a one seat ride into Manhattan.
Martin E. Robins, Director Emeritus of Rutgers' Alan E. Voorhees Transportation Center says: "This corridor is vitally interested in getting a fair shake" and adds that a one seat ride would reduce commuting time by 15 minutes. Other members of the Raritan Valley Coalition say that reduced commuting time would also increase property values.
NJT Spokesman John Durso, Jr. points out that there is no capacity at New York Penn Station for additional NJT trains and there are "no plans" to allow Raritan Valley commuters a one seat ride.
Robins is not persuaded. He believes NJT schedulers 'could come up with a solution that is equitable and reasonable."
This is reported in the May 28 Sunday Star-Ledger by Mike Frassinelli: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/05/raritan_valley_line_riders_pus.html
Yes. But the dualies have not been accepted by Amtrak as yet (several did run into NYP on a weekend a month or so ago from Dover because of an emergency power situation where power was cut off west of Summit for some work...but again that was an emergency situation and Amtrak has not fully accepted them). There are slots for NJT into NYP that are not presently used and supposedly reserved for more Mid Town Direct services once the Cut Off and west program ever gets going or for emergency use should the need pop up. They all have to remember that NJT does not own or operate the Corridor nor NYP, Amtrak does; they make the rules, parameters, and charge for it, too. Too bad NJT elected to go with push pull trainsets instead of more MU's...then they could more easily combine and part trains at such places as South Amboy, Matawaan, and Summit, even Newark Broad or Penn (of course that means being able to switch power modes, too, but that would be part and parcel of the service). If that were to be feasible, then maybe the could use a present slot for a dual mode schedule from Bay Head, High Bridge, or Hackettstown/Andover. I am no longer holding my breath in hopes NJT makes these proper service oriented decisions.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Henry,
Your point that Amtrak has not accepted dual power locomotives is well taken. John Durso did not mention that. He did say that NJT is all ready over capacity at New York Penn Station which suggested to me that there are no more slots or at least that is NJT's position.
You are right about NJT choosing locomotives to pull trains rather than mu's. I have heard that decision justified on the basis that each powered mu is a "locomotive" and needs to be taken out of service and be inspected as often as a locomotive is. But I really don't know which is the better way. However, when I go up to Providence it is hard for me not to notice that Metro North chooses mu's for its New Haven line.
John
MNRR and CONDOT have chosen MU's to New Haven, New Caanan, Southeast (Brewster), and Harmon. LIRR from Penn Sta to Port Washington, and from both Penn Sta and Brooklyn Barclay Center to Hempstead, Huntington, Babylon, West Hempstead, Long Beach, and Far Rockaway. PRR did to South Amboy, Princeton and Trenton. The DL&W to Montclair, Gladstone and Dover. NJT elected to push pull locomotive trains. The fear of MU units being locomotives over came the reality of efficiency, speed, capacity, and providing service because they think they are running trains. Just ride a push pull out of Hoboken to the hinterlands some day then take the same ride the next on an MU. (#634 at 4:33PM out of Hoboken is a three car mu to Dover. Compare that ride with any other either 800 numbered diesel train over the same route or any other 600 numbered train with electric and see the difference in how it achieves speed and smoothly stops more quickly. Run a 6 to 19 car train faster and more often and you've increased capacity, provided a service, took in more money, and did it with less equipment. As for "slots" at NYP...they are there. Notice a jump in train numbers in some instances like from 6655 to 6659 leaving space for a 6657 or other train if needed in that spot. Trenton is running NJT rail since management failure with Sandy, all information comes from there and not Newark.
For NJT routes that leave 25 kv cat wire and enter ATK 12 kv wire territory, they need to be loco hauled, as the EMUs have no practical way to make the voltage transition. MNRR and LIRR do not face that transition.
MidlandMike For NJT routes that leave 25 kv cat wire and enter ATK 12 kv wire territory, they need to be loco hauled, as the EMUs have no practical way to make the voltage transition. MNRR and LIRR do not face that transition.
The point is that NJT should never have let that happen...they had time to decide to get MU's that were compatible with Amtrak or with what they had. They think hauled trains are better than trains that haul butt. Double decker cars that have only 10 more seats than the Comet cars and weigh way much more that increases dwell times and are slower to achieve speeds and don't allow even the best diesels they have to maintain schedules is running trains instead of providing service except to Trenton.
henry6 The point is that NJT should never have let that happen...they had time to decide to get MU's that were compatible with Amtrak or with what they had...
The point is that NJT should never have let that happen...they had time to decide to get MU's that were compatible with Amtrak or with what they had...
I think the EMUs are compatible with either voltage. It's simply done adding a center tap to the transformer. Unfortunately to make the voltage transition, they must stop the train and make the tap change on the transformer under each car, from the outside. I think it was mentioned in another thread that for Phily they designed an EMU to make the transition, but since they never upgraded the cat there, they were not built.
henry6Just ride a push pull out of Hoboken to the hinterlands some day then take the same ride the next on an MU.
Maybe I'm just not observant enough, Henry. I have ridden both and did not notice a difference but them I wasn't looking to notice a difference either. John
They are except that they can't make the changeover on the fly. The whole system is cobbed together by incompetence in planning and inability to discern the difference between running choo choos and providing service in an atmosphere in which saving money is more important than doing a job. If they cared about providing a rail commuter service they would have ironed out the problems of voltage either by doing it all with one system and they'd have done it with EMU's. The EMU's are now 40 to 50 years old and not worth worrying about but the next generation railroad is.
henry6 They are except that they can't make the changeover on the fly. The whole system is cobbed together by incompetence in planning and inability to discern the difference between running choo choos and providing service in an atmosphere in which saving money is more important than doing a job. If they cared about providing a rail commuter service they would have ironed out the problems of voltage either by doing it all with one system and they'd have done it with EMU's. The EMU's are now 40 to 50 years old and not worth worrying about but the next generation railroad is.
Actually I believe they did plan to have the same system as Amtrak. When the old Lackawanna DC system needed replacement, they planned modern 25 kv 60 hz AC,as ATK was planning to upgrade to same. It's just that ATK has not got around to it yet in NJ. Of course, voltage issues not withstanding, I can't dispute your contention that they may have preferred loco haul regardless.
But Midlandmike, the point is that NJT didn't do anything about it and went to push pull locomotives and cars instead of getting MU's and setting them up to serve the public. Poor judgement, poor management decisions, poor service offered. But they are running trains.
I seem to recall that NJTransit's argument about using locomotive pulled consists instead of buying EMUs was that the non-powered coaches could be used on both the electrified and diesel powered lines, thus increasing operating flexability.
Yes, that was the plus argument used disregarding all the plus arguments for MU operations. They think in terms of running trains instead of providing a service.
henry6 Yes, that was the plus argument used disregarding all the plus arguments for MU operations. They think in terms of running trains instead of providing a service.
But if they used MU's which are faster their use even with one less car would be an increase in service because they'd could be running at least one, maybe two, more trains an hour with an increase of 20-30%. And yes, an M8 would serve well.....
LOCOMOTIVES AND SELF-PROOPELLED MU CARS REQUIRE A THOROUGH INSPECTION EFERY 90 DAYS. COAHCES EVERY 360 DAYS. MAINTENANCE OF AN MU CAR IS ABOUT AS COSTLY AS FOR A LOCOMOTIVE.
THAT IS THE REASON
But if they use a motor car + trailer there would be some savings. More importantly, the idea is that if they can carry more people quicker in any given time frame, the cost of the MU as a locomotive can be offset. The idea is to provide reliable and efficient transportation not to run trains.
It should also be noted that MARC has gone with locomotive-hauled trains on its electric lines, also for flexibility in car assignments.
henry6They think in terms of running trains instead of providing a service.
I don't suggest New Jersey Transit is perfect. But the agency does provide over 281 thousand rail passenger trips each weekday and the figure is rising. Given that number of passengers I find it difficult to deny that they are providing a service.
But longer trip times and fewer trains, frequent delays, and underpowerd trains are not providing service. The most effective and efficient schedules are with MU's, especially on the hilly, curvey, and close stations stops on the Morristown lines.
Over here in europe we have dual current EMUs for a long time now (for example all french TGVs, but suburban units are widespread). Since that a 'dual frequency EMU' will probably be less complicated to build than a full 'dual voltage' unit, maybe in some case that might be a good solution for NJT in the near future. There are also 'dualie' railcars that change from diesl to electric power on the move, so solutions in the market exist. Maybe NJT only considers the use of EMUs in certain corridors (NEC) and specific times of the day, altough in some cases it looks to me that a 'mixed bag' is an accurate description for the kind of service operated
CSSHEGEWISCH It should also be noted that MARC has gone with locomotive-hauled trains on its electric lines, also for flexibility in car assignments.
Mario_v Over here in europe we have dual current EMUs for a long time now (for example all french TGVs, but suburban units are widespread). Since that a 'dual frequency EMU' will probably be less complicated to build than a full 'dual voltage' unit, maybe in some case that might be a good solution for NJT in the near future. There are also 'dualie' railcars that change from diesl to electric power on the move, so solutions in the market exist. Maybe NJT only considers the use of EMUs in certain corridors (NEC) and specific times of the day, altough in some cases it looks to me that a 'mixed bag' is an accurate description for the kind of service operated
Since most of the equipment built for US commuters is foreign nameplate, I wonder if they have offered NJT, solutions for running EMUs in NJT's mixed electrical systems routes?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.