Another proposal for thru NYP commuter traffic. Proposal is nice but IMHO until Gateway tunnels and there are more thru tracks to the east river tunnels ( including the 2 new east river tunnels ) implementation of this proposal is many years in the future.
http://blog.tstc.org/2015/07/08/through-running-at-penn-station-is-the-key-to-a-unified-regional-rail-network/
Notice also proposed is an Atlantic ave - Fulton - Hoboken route proposed including another 2 new tunnels.
"including the 2 new east river tunnels"What 2 new East River tunnels? I've never seen any serious proposals for such new tunnels (as opposed to Subchatters and other funky advocates drawing pretty lines on maps). Are you referring to the ESA (LIRR to Grand Central), as those tunnels have actually been open for years (IIRC the upper level for the F train).
chutton01 "including the 2 new east river tunnels"What 2 new East River tunnels? I've never seen any serious proposals for such new tunnels (as opposed to Subchatters and other funky advocates drawing pretty lines on maps). Are you referring to the ESA (LIRR to Grand Central), as those tunnels have actually been open for years (IIRC the upper level for the F train).
Don't know what the earlier poster was referring to, but I would point out that while "the upper level" of the tunnels you refer to, have been open for years and used by the subway train, the LIRR portion never had access on either side, and are just now getting close (?) to coming into service.
For decades I have advocated a regional approach to passenger rail services in the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. One seat, one ticket, one train set. No, not all lines and not all equipment is compatible but that is part of what has to be done. Immediately it is possible along the Corridor from most Philadelphia points through NYP to New Haven, for instance. But even if across the platform interline connections could be implemented at Trenton, Newark, Secaucus, and NYP, simultaneously or within say, no more than five minutes, with integrity and reliability, then reaches could be made to provide services that could be marketed and will be used. Yes, traffic analysis or market research has to be done, but a well marketed, priced, and operated train service would attract riders and utilize equipment to the utmost. SEPTA already does it internally. For instance, Doylestown trains (former Reading RR) will run through Center City to 30th Street and on to Paoli and Thorndale...one train, one number, one trainset, one schedule, one crew (?), wonderful. PRR and NH did it on intercity services even to where a GG1 would pull all the way to New Haven. NJT has worked with CONNDOT and MNRR for New Haven to Secaucus Jct. station (with trains actually going on to Trenton) for football and special events at the Meadowlands complex..one seat, one ticket, one train; regular crew assignments. LIRR gets in the act with one ticket to these events but an across the station connection. NJT could provide services from any point in North Jersey (except on former Erie lines to Suffern, Port Jervis, and Spring Valley lines) utilizing their dual electric-diesel electrics to CONNDOT points but compatibility has to be determined to and from LIRR points (locomotives must be stopped to lower and raise pantographs but power modes can be changed on the fly). No one need step on union contracts nor jurisdictions. How about a reverse move at NYP to go to Poughkeepsie or Albany? But it has to be studied and carefully planned and implemented. You can't run a train from Hackettstown, High Bridge, or Bay Head through NYP to Greenport, Montauk, Waterbury, Danbury, or Albany just because you can do it and it sounds like fun but because it makes sense and at least won't lose dollars.
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.
The website that the referenced article came from, seems to have a conflicted philosophy. The referenced article calls for trains to continue thru the city to serve cross-commuters. However, another article calls for the tearing down of I-81 thru Syracuse, and dumping the freeway into surface streets, thus forcing any cross-commuters to navigate city streets before continuing back onto the freeway.
Yeah, but that's Syracuse. I've spent a fair amount of time there and what the hell were they thinking when they plowed that road through the centre of town? They couldn't put it around the city? Large parts of Syracuse are ruined because of it.
In my opinion, there is actually relatively little 'through' regional traffic that's a compelling reason to set up this kind of scheme -- although there are certainly some routes I'd like to see implemented (for example from suburban New Jersey through to places like Easthampton). The real advantage is reducing the necessity for reversing moves or 'blind' moves to a car yard for terminating trains. This was the fundamental disaster behind the ARC project, which was nominally crippled by the assumption that so many of the very expensive added station tracks were 'terminal' tracks, apparently forgetting that trains, unlike the commuter loads they carried, don't just melt away to other transportation modes a few minutes after terminal arrival...
As noted here fairly often, and probably noted a great many times before I started reading comments here, the largest problem with 'through' regional operations is going to be crew qualification and allocations between the various 'bailiwicks'. Perhaps this could be simplified by things like intelligent signal overlays or run-through crew agreements ... but how likely is THAT with the current state of politics and inter-agency relationships? And the point here is that nearly every train that comes into NYP in either direction has to be cleared not only from the arrival platform but from the plant trackage required by subsequent arrivals and departures, including all the track mileage in tunnels and approaches, ASAP ... not to mention having rolling stock used for 'directional' commuter traffic stored on expensive (or expensively roofed-over) Manhattan-area real estate, or for any great length of time. The older approach of clearing everything to Sunnyside or wherever worked in the old days, but not so well with the current mix of trains that all converge on Penn in the mornings, and then have to converge on it again to load in the evenings and then go out again.
IMO for this to work several items would have to occurr first.
1. Equipment for use would have to have clearances for the most restrictive route(s).
2. Equipment would need to be compatible with all electrical source. over and under running shoes. 12.5 and 25 Kv capable transformer taps. ( Amtrak's 12 KV is close enough )
3. 25 / 60 Hz transformers.
4, Note MNRR M-8s meet #2 & 3 with just the replacement of its 60 Hz only transformer and dual use pickup shoes.
5. The Gateway tunnels, 4 tracking to Newark Penn, and new Portal bridges need to be in service. That will allow the critical on time arrivals to NYP to be like swiss operations. As well the 5th and 6th east river tunnels probably need completing as tunnels 1 - 4 are each going to need extensive out of service repairs sometime in the future.
Positives
11. Large (1000 ? ) car order would probably cost less even with extra electrical equipment.
12. Any expansion of electrical service could use less expansive CAT with fewer substations.
13. Failure of either CAT or third rail in tunnels would allow train to use other system eliminating a rescue diesel. Same in NYP.
Minuses
21. Additional maintenance on extral electrical equipment
22. The narrow platforms at NYP will cause some congestion for different direction passengers.
23. For those thru passengers making connections new sinage needed on both platforms and up stairs to direct passenges to correct platform.
24 Some provision for out bound trains from NYP in the morning to just put passengers into needed cas. ie 12 car train outbound has only 50 passengers loaded into just 2 cars, For those situations destination signs probably needed. Note these trips usually have reduced crew size some just engineer and conductor compared to some with as many as 3 assistat conductors.
.
blue streak 1 IMO for this to work several items would have to occur first....
IMO for this to work several items would have to occur first....
I suspect, at least to start, that some 'pairing' would be made between equipment type 'inbound' and 'outbound' that would limit the need to have full multipower capacity.
Another issue might be how the different entities apportion the additional cost. I presume, for the moment, that some amount of the regional 'counterflow' traffic will be much less than the 'commuter' consists now serving it would be sized to handle, Crew cost can be controlled, to an extent, by locking off part of the train, but power cost, equipment hours, etc. would still likely be greater than required to serve the traffic, even if rates were cut or incentives to travel put in place. I suspect the way to handle this would be some pooling of subsidies and distribution based on a formula involving miles, hours, and numbers of passengers actually served, perhaps like the way car and engine miles were balanced on the old City Streamliners, but it might be difficult in a number of respects to do this for agencies that took public money to pay for equipment that now runs substantial miles benefiting another jurisdiction's customers. (Probably require some sort of Congressional action involving interstate commerce under the article 1 section 8 'commerce clause' ... and perhaps more specialized versions of agreements like the one MN has with NJT for service on the Graham Line.)
Perhaps explicitly tie Federal money for the North River tunnel repairs/upgrades/mainetnance/flood protection, and for non-Amtrak access to Gateway, to a planned set of scheduled regional run-throughs demonstrated to relieve terminal congestion ... for Amtrak's trains and equipment. (Puts further legitimate 'teeth' in why Federal authority is justified, at least regarding NJ-NY traffic.)
Amtrak does plan EVENTUAL elimination of 25Hz power, all to be 12,500V and 25,000V 60Hz.
25-60Hz transforners won't fit in M8's unless passenger space is taken for a transformer cabinet.
blue streak 1 ... 5. The Gateway tunnels, 4 tracking to Newark Penn, and new Portal bridges need to be in service. That will allow the critical on time arrivals to NYP to be like swiss operations. As well the 5th and 6th east river tunnels probably need completing as tunnels 1 - 4 are each going to need extensive out of service repairs sometime in the future. ...
...
With the East Side Access siphoning some LIRR traffic off, why would we need a 5th & 6th East River tunnels? Then existing 4 tunnels could be closed one at a time for reworks. I have never heard any plans for extra ER tunnels.
Between Manhattan and the two boroughs, Brooklyn and Queens, located on Long Island, there are four railroad tracks in tunnels, shortly to become six (E-Side Access), six subway tracks for 9ft-wide cars in tunnels, twelve subway tracks for 10ft-wide tracks in tunnels, and six subway tracks for 10ft-wide cars on bridges. 30 tracks in passenger service altogether under the East River.
Under the Hudson: two railroad tracks and four subway tracks for 9ft-wide cars, a total of six tracks. When LIRR starts running to GCT, there will be five times the New Jersey number for the Long Island number.
MidlandMike I have never heard any plans for extra ER tunnels.
They are there, just not critical for the many years it will take before there are four 'matching' North River tunnels. The East River tunnels are also not subject to much of the pressure risk, etc. involved with long bores under a major tidal river.
Note that even if Gateway is restricted to Amtrak and long-distance NJT, there may be an East River 'bottleneck' if one of the tunnels is taken out of service on an extended basis, even if the work can be done largely in an 'off-peak' window.
It might be added that a proper version of "Gateway" would also include a high-speed connector to 'match' the trans-Hudson/Palisades section's characteristics. That would leave the four existing tunnels and much of their associated approach and yard trackage free of any fast 'through' traffic. But I doubt you would see even groundbreaking on such a thing until both the new Hudson tunnels and the Portal Bridge project are both complete; otherwise, dollar for dollar you'd be wasting money that could have been solving real problems.
That in turn implies that for some probably protracted time starting in the late 2020s you could expect four tunnels' worth of inbound traffic to have to be accommodated via those four tunnels ... plus the additional two tunnels I see being discussed. Otherwise, if I were responsible, I think I'd coordinate maintenance on one of the old North River tunnels with work on its counterpart East River tunnel...
MidlandMike With the East Side Access siphoning some LIRR traffic off, why would we need a 5th & 6th East River tunnels? Then existing 4 tunnels could be closed one at a time for reworks. I have never heard any plans for extra ER tunnels.
Does NJT send trains thru the East River Tunnels to layover at Sunnyside?
Yes, most rush hour and some off-peak. Some reverse in Penn Station.
That is why through service with LIRR or Metro-North New Haven would raise capacity, not lower it. LIRR would require new equipment, but NJT has the equipment for through service to Stamford and New Haven as proven by the ball game specials. Anyone know if they require an Amtrak crew between Penn Station and New Rochelle?
My suggestion is that NJT be given rights over Amtrak to New Rochelle, and crews change there. That way one more player at Penn Station would be avoided.
If you ride the No. 7 subway line, a worthwhile raid, ask Henry, you will see NJT equipment in Sumnnyside yard.
That's what I was thinking, that New Haven trains could fill East River tunnel time slots that will open when some LIRR trains divert to the East Side Access. They are planing some Metro North stops in the Bronx, so I would keep the (crew?) change point at NYP hub, as in the old days.
LIRR trains still using NYP could run thru to Metro North's Hudson Division, with adjustable 3rd rail shoes and electrification of Amtrak's West Side connector.
The RoW between Spyten Dyvel and Riverdale is 6-tracks wide. The West Side line could have LIRR third rail, also usable by Amtrak's diesel-electric electrics, and on the west side of the wye just across the bridge into The Bronx, a double-track turn-off could place two LIRR tracks west of the four MN tracks to Riverdale, where the existing southbound platform could also be the platform for an LIRR reverse-ends track. This could be a temproary solution pending insallation of dual-sprung third-rail shoes.
Syracuse is 275 miles from New York City and not part of the question here.
And as I've indicated many times, the run through service would be first for the economy of use of equipment, not having to deadhead or store it all day but use if for income. Second, one seat, one ticket, rides are a great markeing tool if only for perception. Third, no union rules and juristictions need be violated nor abandoned ...again it is the equipment usage that makes for the economies. And at certain times of day...in the commuting sense...there may in fact be sensible and viable interline schedules. Non commuter services have better chance of creating new and usable services. Day trips for sightseeing, special events and activities, beaches/shore activties, could attract more people than if they had to change to subways to buses to other trains, etc., but the price and timing and integrity would have to be right and maintained. Maybe the mindset of the operation would have to vacate the commuter mindset and some kind of other operational mind set be created. A through set to Easthampton doesn't really make sense but a through set from Easthampton to a sport event in NJ might. As time moves on and population density increases, the needs of travel will change and hourly through services with across the platform guaranteed connections to other destinations with one ticket just might be what will work even if it doesn't make sense right now.
I .too have been arguing for through service for some time. Yes there are people on Long Island and Connecticut that could work in Newark or Princeton. People in New Jersey who could work in Stamford or Bridgeport. Etc.
Actually Gov. Cuomo has proposed commuter service on the old New Haven line from New Rochelle to NYP with new stations, too. Therefore, MNRR crews would be qualified...which I believe is already the case of the NJ Meadowlands Specials. This program opens the door for New Haven to Poughkeepsie or Albany run through as well as through services NJT, SEPTA, and Corridor points. Again I emphasize the service has to assume to be first for equipment utilization followed by public marketability. Union rules and districts would not be violated. And if MNRR can offer a one seat ride from Yale to Princeton, all the merrier. But right now a one ticket ride should be available. Even NJT and SEPTA should be offering such a ticket to and from Philadelphia points and for NJT one ticket rides to Atlantic City. NJT has to have a change in attitude or personnel from Trenton before anything good can be done. Years ago NJT people told me it was other agencies which were not keen on interagency service but now they themselves are oblivious to the needs and desires of their populace nor of the obvious opportunities they have at their disposal to offer services. NJ politics at the moment is not working in the favor of NJT nor its customers.
For New Haven-Poughkeepsie, I would like to see the Danbury-Hopewell Junction-Beacon line re-activated.
New Haven Poughkeepsie would be interesting via this route. But one of the most important things needed to make it work is tight connections to trains on the Danbury and Harlem lines, too. OR, a compromise, with Danbury trains continuing on to Pou instead of terminating. But with the lines separated to effect a Harlem transfer (where did I hear that name before...DL&W in the Bronx I guess) would probably be best done at Towners unless the walk at Brewster or Southeast is less than a quarter of a mile...I can't remember.
Yes, it's a quarter mile from the NH line to the Southeast station. At one time the NH line connected to the Putnam and Harlem divisions at Putnam Junction. Re-establishing that connection would mean removing some industrial/commercial development. The easiest transfer would be at Dykemans (midway between SE and Towners) where the 2 lines are about 100' apart and level enough that a freight connection was built in PC days.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.