Amtrak's West Side Connection / Superliners

[daveklepper]

From what I understand, the new double-deck LIRR and NJT commuter cars are more popular with riders than most older single-deck commuter cars, primarily because of 2 abd 2 seating instead of 3 and 2.  Possibly all future coach purchases by Amtrak will take advantage of the already-designed shell of the LIRR and NJT coaches for a double deck car that can run anywhere on the Amtrak system.   Possibly the next step witll be a diner-lounge with kitchen downstairs, but the difficult part will be sleepers, because people spending money for first class do expect some decent heardroom.  But the Pennsy duplex roomettes and the slumbercoaches might suggest some good solutions.

[JT22CW]

Clearances do not need to be raised on the Northeast Corridor.  There are already operational bilevel cars that fit under the Northeast Corridor's clearances, besides; these are operated by New Jersey Transit, and unless Amtrak is able to commission an intercity version, we won't see such operation in the Northeast.  (It wouldn't be called the Superliner, evidently; Amtrak operated gallery cars in the past which never were called by the Superliner name, and of course, the Superliner-derived California Cars are worthy of their own nomenclature.)

We already had a railcar design for intercity, that ran for over a century and still runs.  It's called the single-level car.  A time-honored device known as the coupler allows attachment of more of these cars as necessary.  At a maximum height of 12 feet 8 inches, it fits under all the classic vertical heights.

Once more, there is not going to be any "new tunnel to NYP".  There is supposed to be a new tunnel to 34th Street Station (Manhattan, deep-level), which is not going any further east than that location.  No access to any of NY Penn's tracks/platforms will be available from this new tunnel.  As for clearances in Washington DC, they can already fit Superliners, so that ought to be more than sufficient for off-corridor trains.

[blue streak 1]

All this talk shows how much needs to be done to the NEC. If a long range plan was implemented to raise clearances starting in washington and proceeding north a new SUPERLINER IV could be designed for both low and high platforms and run 1st to BAL then Wiilmington, Philidelphia, Trenton, Newark, and through the new tunnel to NYP and eventually on to Boston. A long range plan? you bet your life. Geometry changes Catneary etc. We need long rang planning. This could provide the USA with a single design for intercity and the NEC.

[JT22CW]

Actually that idea has been studied:

A.6 Access to the Region's Core MIS, Alternative "AA"

Freight Component

The Access to the Region's Core (ARC) MIS is an ongoing study of strategic investments to facilitate improved rail transportation in the heart of the New York City region. This study is sponsored by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), New Jersey Transit, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority). The focus of the study is on passenger movements; however, ARC alternative "AA" includes potential investments to enhance freight movement. In 1998, members of the Steering Committee suggested that the freight component of the ARC alternative be assessed in the Cross Harbor Freight Movement MIS. The alternative includes a proposed new rail tunnel under the Hudson River from Hoboken to Manhattan, and continuing into Penn Station, NY. The freight portion of this alternative would include a new track connection diverging from the proposed North River tunnel and connecting to Amtrak's West Side Line. If implemented, the ARC AA alternative would provide a permanent freight connection between major West of Hudson rail lines, and Oak Point Yard in the Bronx.

You're citing an unrelated study that is close to eight years out of date. The New York MTA gave up involvement in Access to the Region's Core back in 2003. There was never, at any time, any proposal to build a tunnel from Hoboken to Midtown Manhattan (so that was misreported); if you noticed, the intent was to connect New Jersey (not Penn Station) with Oak Point Yard in the Bronx.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the impossible (and, frankly, unwanted) task of getting Superliners into NY Penn, and certainly nothing to do with the current (mutated) version of Alternative AA, which will be unreachable from the West Side Line as usual.

The Port Authority of New York (and New Jersey) has it in its original mandate to build a rail freight tunnel that crosses New York Harbor and connects New Jersey with Long Island and the Bronx. They continue to leave this mandate unfulfilled, with impunity.  (But of course, we could start another thread on that, outside of the passenger rail forum.)

[timz]

Coming from New Jersey and the High Line, how would Superliners fit through the other low clearances, never mind any of the tunnels?

The PRR High Line thru Secaucus, you mean? Yeah, I suspect Newark Penn would be a tight fit for a Superliner. Maybe Portal Draw too, for all we know. Anyplace else?

[BostonTrainGuy]

Actually that idea has been studied:

A.6 Access to the Region's Core MIS, Alternative "AA"

Freight Component

The Access to the Region's Core (ARC) MIS is an ongoing study of

strategic investments to facilitate improved rail transportation in the

heart of the New York City region. This study is sponsored by the

New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), New Jersey

Transit, and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port

Authority). The focus of the study is on passenger movements; however,

ARC alternative "AA" includes potential investments to enhance

freight movement. In 1998, members of the Steering Committee

suggested that the freight component of the ARC alternative be

assessed in the Cross Harbor Freight Movement MIS. The alternative

includes a proposed new rail tunnel under the Hudson River from

Hoboken to Manhattan, and continuing into Penn Station, NY. The

freight portion of this alternative would include a new track connection

diverging from the proposed North River tunnel and connecting

to Amtrak's West Side Line. If implemented, the ARC AA alternative

would provide a permanent freight connection between major West

of Hudson rail lines, and Oak Point Yard in the Bronx.

[JT22CW]

You expecting NJ Transit to allow Amtrak into 34th Street Station?  Think again.  That station is solely for NJ Transit's use.  If it's ever built, that is—and if so, NJT's building high platforms.  And since we're talking about the LSL, there will be no access to 34th Street Station from the West Side Connector.  Coming from New Jersey and the High Line, how would Superliners fit through the other low clearances, never mind any of the tunnels?

Forget the notion.  Superliners are the mistake, not the solution.  There will certainly never be a Boston-Chicago train with Superliners nowadays, either; never mind the high platforms, because now South Station's got overhead electrification as well.  MBTA's Kawasaki bi-level cars are 15' 6" above rail, and look at the clearance under the wire (F40PH-2s are two inches taller than these cars).

[blue streak 1]

Why not build THE tunnell to NYP to superliner clearances and bring the track into the lower level of NYP?

[daveklepper]

The historic CN main line between Detroit and Niagra Falls was via Durand, the long way around, mostly on the Chicago - Toronto main line, but I think they and CP are now partners on the the direct line through Windsor, using in part some of the old Canada Southern of the Michigan Central - New York Central System.   Until just about now, NS had trackage rights, but I think they are dropping them now.   There is reasonably heavy freight traffic, but some funds will be needed to get into high speed passenger shape, with some additional track needed.

[BostonTrainGuy]

Superliners at Albany, NY

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

If the Lakeshore were to continue, then of course the new train should run via Detroit.   And possibly it should be a through train to Emeryville or LA and be called the California Zephyr or the Southwest Chief.

What is the current condition of the line through Ontario between Windsor and Ft. Erie and who owns it?

[daveklepper]

If the Lakeshore were to continue, then of course the new train should run via Detroit.   And possibly it should be a through train to Emeryville or LA and be called the California Zephyr or the Southwest Chief.

[BostonTrainGuy]

RE: My dream for the future: . . . a Superliner train Boston - Chicago.

I like this idea too but what do you think of this train going via Canada between Buffalo and Detroit?  Gets it out of the congestion around Cleveland and Toledo and creates new service Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Detroit-Chicago.  With Albany-Buffalo and Chicago-Detroit becoming future high-speed corridors, this could become a reliable and speedier ovenight service.

RE: There are travelers who have the time and prefer the Cardinal and the Capitol between NY and Chicago.   Using Acela to and from Washington to connect.   If I had the time, that would be my own preference.  Would it not be yours too?

I have done that on the Capitol myself because of a several reasons . . . the LSL sleeping accommodations were often sold out, I prefer the Superliner dining and lounge equipment over the older overcrowded low-level equivalent, and I often traveled with my childern and there is no family bedroom on single-level equipment (and no I am not paying for a bedroom suite).

[daveklepper]

You both have a point.   But I remarked earlier that the West Side line itself was covered over in the 30's with typical clearances.   Double stacks never went down the West Side Line.   My dream for the future:   High-speed service Penn Station - Albany, electrified, with Acela type service, and a Superliner train Boston - Chicago.

There are travelers who have the time and prefer the Cardinal and the Capitol between NY and Chicago.   Using Acela to and from Washington to connect.   If I had the time, that would be my own preference.  Would it not be yours too?

[BostonTrainGuy]

RE: Superliners "more efficient" than Amfleets or Viewliners? Think again. Superliners do not have significantly higher passenger capacity

I have to strongly disagree with that statement.  Here's an example:

Accommodation    Viewliner     Superliner 

Bedrooms              2 (4)          5 (10)

Roomettes            12 (24)       14 (28)

Accessible             1 (2)           1 (2)

Family Room           0 (0)           1 (4)

Total Capacity        (30)            (44)

That's a huge difference and the same holds true for the coaches (with long distance seat spacing), diners, and lounges.  I've been on the Lake Shore Limited and the old "Heritage Diner" was not capable of serving the needs of it's passengers.

The Colorado Railcar full-length double-deck cars are the most efficent rail car design out there, but the bi-level concept is a close second.

[JT22CW]

I can certainly say that Superliners will never reach NYP via the former NYC West Side Line, because it's not going to happen, ever. The only bilevels that can go into NYP have to be 14 feet 6 inches tall, maximum (as far as locomotives go, the maximum height is 14' 11" with pantograph locked down). Superliners are way taller than that, at 16 feet 2 inches tall. No low platform will ever be built in NYP for any purpose whatsoever, especially with the extant third-rail for the LIRR's purpose, and not for a dedicated fleet of cars with low utility.

Comparing WAS to NYP is comparing apples to oranges, as is comparing Superliners with dome cars. As far as dome cars go, I recall that the B&O evacuated people from the domes before they reached the electrified territory for fear of possible electrocution from current arc, something that there would be (I presume) less danger of with a full roof overhead versus glass dome.

I have heard about Amtrak putting Superliners on the LSL; only in the event of a car shortage. They never brought them all the way to either New York or Boston, however.

Superliners "more efficient" than Amfleets or Viewliners? Think again. Superliners do not have significantly higher passenger capacity (compare 74 seats on two levels with 84 seats in the Amfleet I car and 60 seats in most Amfleet IIs). Superliners will never be able to travel as fast as an Amfleet. Superliners are far more dangerous in a derailment than an Amfleet, since their center of gravity is compromised and they fall over on their sides. Frankly, one of Amtrak's greatest errors was going away from a fleet of cars that could not be used all over the United States regardless of clearances and platform height.

Are (Superliners) more than 10 (feet) wide?

Per a badly-written Wikipedia article, they are 10 feet 2 inches wide.  Hopefully, the single source cited (which appears sound) has not been misquoted.

[BostonTrainGuy]

The Superliners would not have to be rebuilt for high-level platform use.  Amtrak has used Superliners on the Lake Shore Limited between Chicago and Albany before.  Many stations have leftover low-level platforms projecting out from more recently constructed high-level platforms which tend to be shorter.  Albany has low level platforms north of the newer high-level platforms at the older station location.

The question is money of course.  What is the cost of constructing one low-level platform somewhere in NYP (or even on the West Side Connection track with a new connecting walkway - maybe while reconstructing the Post Office building) vs. new low-level coaches, sleepers, dining cars, and lounges which still would not be as efficient and as revenue-generating as double-deck Superliner consists.   You can't say Superliners will never reach NYP via the West Side Connection.  I remember the thoughts that domes would never get into Washington D.C. due to the catenary until they tried it.  Now Superliners get in there daily.

[daveklepper]

You are correct about the superliners.

 

The Conrail Hudson Division had overpasses and signal bridges raised about 15 years ago so double-stack trains could make it south to Oak Point yard, so clearance for superliners does exist south to Spuyten Dyvil.   Also there was a GM assmebly plant in Tarrytown and frieght service was provided by autocarriers.   I doubt whether this is true on the West Side line, which was covered over in in Manhattan in the 30's with clearances typical of the period.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Some major structural changes would need to be made to the Superliners to allow them to use high-level platforms.  The doors are located for ground-level platforms only and do not have extra height built into them like the 1971 suburban coaches for NJ Transit.  The Superliners would have to have the doors and lower-level floors raised to allow for the installation of steps and traps.  Other modifications may be needed of which I'm not aware.

In a similar vein, the South Shore leased two diesel-powered sets of gallery coaches from Metra during the late 1970's and early 1980's.  A low-level platform to handle them was installed at Randolph Street and the trains did not stop at any of the stations on the IC from Van Buren to 115th Street.

[timz]

Don't even think of them operating into Manhattan at all

Okay, we won't. But the only thing we're sure of is they won't fit thru the PRR tunnels, and we're pretty sure they won't fit in Penn Station itself. We have no idea whether they can make it down the West Side and into the daylight at 9th Ave.

they may be a bit too wide to even pass some of these high platforms without striking them...

Are they more than 10 ft wide? If not, no problem.

[daveklepper]

That would have been a wonderful idea, allowing Hudson Line commuters to go to within easy walking distances of their Wall Street offices.   But I think the removal of the southern part of the High LIne and the conversion of the St. John'd building to other uses occured before Metro North took over commuter operations from Conrail; indeed I think this occured in the New York Central or Penn Central days.   I don't think there is actually a problem about superliner equipment clearing east coast high platforms.    Gauntlet track is rare.   Box cars of all descriptions with outside hung doors pass by Metro North and Long Island Railroad platforms regularly without any problem.  The suburban stop for Washington (New Carrolton or Carroltown) may have gauntlet track, but that may be in deference to the extremely high speed of some passenger trains passing through.  You are right that superliners cannot load and unload from high platforms, of course, but that requires just some modification, like plate bridge carried on the car.

The Purple Line in Boston has received lozenge-like double-deckers, including cab cars, and is happy with them.   They can load from high and low platforms.    Ditto the NJT double-deckers.

[JT22CW]

What about a dedicated Chicago - Boston train? Two routes are available east of Albany, one via the present Amtrak route through Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcestor, and Framingham, the other via Guilford/Pan American/B&M through Northamton, Lowell, and Ayer, with a connection directly to Portland and Bangor? Yeh, I know Guilford would demand billions for upgrading for the second option, but I think the clearances are there, and there aren't any high station platforms

Might have been doable before Boston rebuilt South Station with high platforms.  Nowadays, even Albany-Rensselaer has high platforms, which is a recent upgrade for the purposes of the Empire Corridor trains; Syracuse also has a high platform.

(Was North Station rebuilt with high platforms by the MBTA, or did the B&M install them? The platforms looked rather new to me, during my one brief visit to North Station in the 90s. If all the high platforms for Boston's commuter rail were built by the MBTA, then they really messed things up for themselves; would have been better to get gallery cars instead of the Messerschmitt and Pullman-Standard single-levels.)

That reminds me: The NYC West Side freight line was, of course, not for the purposes of connecting to the PRR's Penn Station. Trains went not only to the yard at 30th Street, but went further south to other destinations, with the southern end of the line at St. John's Park Terminal (which still stands, but with the elevated rail line running in there long gone). IIRC, St. John's Park Terminal had high platforms too, for level loading of boxcars et cetera. Always wondered what it would be like if the MTA had the foresight of rebuilding the line to St. John's Park Terminal and converting the station for passenger use... 

[daveklepper]

What about a dedicated Chicago - Boston train?   Two routes are available east of Albany, one via the present Amtrak route through Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcestor, and Framingham, the other via Guilford/Pan American/B&M through Northamton, Lowell, and Ayer, with a connection directly to Portland and Bangor?   Yeh, I know Guilford would demand billions for upgrading for the second option, but I think the clearances are there, and there aren't any high station platforms.

You are correct about superliners to Manhattan.   Possibly some day Amtrak will get the money to build east coast superliners using the NJT/LIRR body shell design.

The eastern part of the present Amtrak route is of course, the old New England State Limited route, which replaced the Boston connection of the 20th Century when that was streamlined.   And the Wolverine, Sohtwestern Limited, Empire State Express, and others had Boston cars or a connecting train (Budd cars for some for some time).   But the B&M had the Minute Man as a through train to Chicago via Troy.

[JT22CW]

The B&O also operated into the CRRNJ Terminal in Jersey City NJ. This meant that the Erie, if it had the money, could have had dome cars on their trains...

Superliners will never, ever operate anywhere in the Northeast. At their vertical height of about 16 feet, they are way too tall for most clearances apart from the double-stack routes (Lehigh Line, River Subdivision); and the only terminal with low platforms that is open is Hoboken Terminal, and they're too tall for the clearances going in there, both via the Bergen Hill Tunnels and under the wires, so your only hope would be to brave the environmentalists and get a lot of money spent to get the aforementioned CRRNJ Terminal reopened for passenger trains and reroute the LSL via the River Subdivision (former New York, West Shore & Buffalo RR) or via the Lehigh Line and former B&O coming from the east and south. Don't even think of them operating into Manhattan at all; although NJ Transit and Long Island RR themselves operate multi-level cars, their maximum height above rail is 14 feet 6 inches. AFAICS, besides the fact that they cannot stop at high platforms, they may be a bit too wide to even pass some of these high platforms without striking them...

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The Superliners may fit on the West Side line but they definitely will not fit in either Grand Central Terminal or Pennsylvania Station.  That's why the B&O could advertise the only domes east of Chicago for a long time.

[BostonTrainGuy]

I came across this statement today regarding the West Side Connection in New York City:

"The line had to reach surface for the 30th Street yard -- a major Team facility . . . All their office furniture shipments came via high boxcars from Grand Rapids Michigan . . . The Put could handle "anything" in the way of high/wide shipments in those days, and had daily through freights to the West Side."

So my question is could Amtrak operate Superliners via the West Side Connection for the Lake Shore Limited?  I know there would be questions about platform accessability and servicing in NYP (maybe a special platform/service facility could be built somewhere), but the question I'm asking is could a Superliner physically traverse the West Side Connection?  With necessary alterations could the Lake Shore Limited be converted to Superliner equipment?

It has already traveled between Chicago and Albany as a Superliiner and it would seem logical if it could go all the way into NYP.  The benefits should be obvious.