Cuomo thinks trump can transfer NYPS to someone else. Appears to desire it to be the state ?
In our humble opinion this has problems and previous neglect in so many levels ?
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/cuomo-asks-trump-emergency-assistance-penn-station-article-1.3183796
MTA is going to be shutting down part of a subway line for months for rebuilding. Why does Gov. Cuomo think some one besides Amtrak is going to do something better at NYP?
Political noise by an idiot.
NY Times taking shot at Cuomo about the subway situation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/new-york-subway-andrew-cuomo.html
Cuomo yesterday effectively endorsed Bloomberg’s push to limit the selling of sweetened drinks larger than 16 ounces, likely dooming any chances of overriding the proposal at the state level.
“Obesity is a major problem that we desperately need to address,” Cuomo said on former Gov. David Paterson’s WOR-AM radio show. “So I don’t see that this can do any harm.”
http://nypost.com/2012/06/02/govs-a-drinkin-buddy/
Gov. Cumo's great concern in 2012. If it ain't broke yet, don't worry about it.
Once it is broke, avoid making a hard choice on priorities. Cry for more money from the feds. There is always something else you have not taxed. Demonize, blame and demand a tax thereon to solve the problem.
In this case, obese passengers are putting an extra strain on the tracks. Implement a new tax on all high sugar foods and claim the proceeds will go to fix the problem.
Yet the derailment near RYE is still causing delays but the POLs disreguard.
Now might be a good time to establish a little quid pro quo to help out with a PRIIA concern: in return for access to some Federal assistance, Cuomo and di Blasio take care of shepherding enactment of a full waiver allowing modern PRIIA diesel locomotives full access to and through Manhattan...
RMEallowing modern PRIIA diesel locomotives full access to and through Manhattan...
Are you suggesting that diesel locomotives operate through the Hudson River, East River and Park Ave tunnels under diesel power and not 3rd rail or catenary power. That makes no sense as the concentation of exhaust would prove deadly. Trains using the Cascade and Moffett tunnels have to wait over fifteen minutes for the fumes to be exhausted by blowers before another train can use them. The Amtrak Empire service and Metro North use locomotives that can use 3rd rail power into Penn and Grand Central Station.
I would like to know more specifics on what your proposal is suggesting.
Electroliner 1935Are you suggesting that diesel locomotives operate through the Hudson River, East River and Park Ave tunnels under diesel power and not 3rd rail or catenary power.
Sure wasn't deadly all those times FL9s ran into GCT in the PC years, and those engines put out a hell of a lot more 'clag' than a QSK95.
You are probably also unaware that the first train through the Hudson River Tunnels was pulled by a steam locomotive, something likelier to give a 'deadly' result than a diesel.
I doubt the PRIIA people are talking about extensive use of diesels, or high speed use in the bores (the Park Avenue viaduct and tunnels always having had a downright primitive speed limit anyway.
Personally I think proper dual-modes (using the electric power to supply the DC link of a synthesized AC drive, like the '80s Conrail idea, not the overblown cash hog design of an ALP45) represent the 'right' way to get the 125mph Amtrak power through either set of tunnels. But the argument establishing that 125mph-capable diesel power was cost-effective at all was only made (according to the PRIIA documents) in 2011, and apparently the law, not the practice, was seen as the problem with extending the high-speed power's use into many services north and east of New York.
RME Electroliner 1935 Are you suggesting that diesel locomotives operate through the Hudson River, East River and Park Ave tunnels under diesel power and not 3rd rail or catenary power. Sure wasn't deadly all those times FL9s ran into GCT in the PC years, and those engines put out a hell of a lot more 'clag' than a QSK95. You are probably also unaware that the first train through the Hudson River Tunnels was pulled by a steam locomotive, something likelier to give a 'deadly' result than a diesel. I doubt the PRIIA people are talking about extensive use of diesels, or high speed use in the bores (the Park Avenue viaduct and tunnels always having had a downright primitive speed limit anyway. Personally I think proper dual-modes (using the electric power to supply the DC link of a synthesized AC drive, like the '80s Conrail idea, not the overblown cash hog design of an ALP45) represent the 'right' way to get the 125mph Amtrak power through either set of tunnels. But the argument establishing that 125mph-capable diesel power was cost-effective at all was only made (according to the PRIIA documents) in 2011, and apparently the law, not the practice, was seen as the problem with extending the high-speed power's use into many services north and east of New York.
Electroliner 1935 Are you suggesting that diesel locomotives operate through the Hudson River, East River and Park Ave tunnels under diesel power and not 3rd rail or catenary power.
PC era engineers said that the FL9's were run into GCT on electric with the diesels idling, as they were afraid the diesel would not restart with the aging batteries. As I remember, there was extensive grating in the Park Avenue median above the tunnels which would allow some venting.
While Middleton's book "When the Steam Railroads Electrified" has a photo of a small steam loco during the construction of Penn Station, the passenger trains were first operated to Manhattan Transfer with DD1 electrics, although with their jackshafts, side rods and the equivalent of a 4-4-0 wheel arrangement, they were somewhat reminiscent of a steam dummy.
I have no problem with proper dual-modes, like the ones that bring the Empire service into Penn Station, but I am not sure what point you are making for their expanded use. Are you saying they should not bother updating the NEC cat, and just go to diesels?
MidlandMike Are you saying they should not bother updating the NEC cat, and just go to diesels?
No, I am saying the PRRIIA section 305 committee noted that one of their difficulties with expanding 125mph service was the legal issue with operating diesel locomotives through Manhattan. And that it might be a reasonable idea to relieve that legal concern as a quid pro quo for hurry-up national funding to benefit mainly local commuters.
The work on suitable dual-mode locomotives (present work, I think, is all 3rd-rail capable designs) is a different issue. One problem, I think, is that designing all 125mph power to be 'dual-mode ready' may raise the expense or present packaging difficulties or design compromises out of proportion to the operating advantages or greater compatibility. As I noted, I think what is involved with DC-to-DC conversion with overcurrent/overvoltage isolation and then DC-link energization is not a substantial problem for electrical engineers to manage -- the issue is mainly cost-benefit in an age Amtrak may be expected to cut back even on promising new technologies.
Both the US and UK electrification engineers believe 3rd rail speeds greater than 110 MPH not feasible. As someone who has experienced flash overs on the relative low amp NY City subway car cannot imagine the Amps flash of a third rail 4000 HP loco.
http://www.transportchicago.org/uploads/5/7/2/0/5720074/electric_power_supply_for_commuter_rail_-_transport_chicago_2011_version.pdf
http://www.gotransit.com/electrification/en/project_history/Appendix%20Files/Appendix%207.pdf
http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sitedocuments/Planning-and-Building-Control/Planning/nr_a_guide_to_overhead_electrification.pdf
blue streak 1Both the US and UK electrification engineers believe 3rd rail speeds greater than 110 MPH not feasible.
To be clear, nobody at PRIIA is suggesting that the dual-mode version of the 125mph locomotive will operate on third rail anywhere near 125mph, just as no current dual-mode Genesis goes anywhere near 79, let alone 110, on that power.
On the other hand, it's perfectly possible to design third-rail power that runs at extremely high speed -- you use what is essentially a wire-guided vehicle for the pickup itself, not just a dumb or servomotored shoe -- the problem is that the amp draw at the highest practical third-rail voltage becomes intolerable even with lightweight trains way too quickly. While there are some amusing ways to package somewhat higher HVAC contact "wire" inside an insulating rail 'channel' in third-rail form factor, that is fitted with 'conventional' sliding contact surfaces that can be selectively energized with DC for compatibility, there isn't much point in doing a retrofit, line and surface etc. instead of designing sensible constant-tension overhead at modern (25 to 50kV or better) transmission voltage.
RME MidlandMike Are you saying they should not bother updating the NEC cat, and just go to diesels? No, I am saying the PRRIIA section 305 committee noted that one of their difficulties with expanding 125mph service was the legal issue with operating diesel locomotives through Manhattan. And that it might be a reasonable idea to relieve that legal concern as a quid pro quo for hurry-up national funding to benefit mainly local commuters. The work on suitable dual-mode locomotives (present work, I think, is all 3rd-rail capable designs) is a different issue. One problem, I think, is that designing all 125mph power to be 'dual-mode ready' may raise the expense or present packaging difficulties or design compromises out of proportion to the operating advantages or greater compatibility. As I noted, I think what is involved with DC-to-DC conversion with overcurrent/overvoltage isolation and then DC-link energization is not a substantial problem for electrical engineers to manage -- the issue is mainly cost-benefit in an age Amtrak may be expected to cut back even on promising new technologies.
So they had a concern for the legal issue of diesels thru the tunnels and NYP. Did they have any environmental/public health concerns with running the diesels thru there. What about the expense of installing and maintaining needed ventilation? Even that ventilation exaust would still add to lower air quality for NY City. This does not seem like a good trade-off for cheaper rail operation, or even a way to save money.
MidlandMikeDid they have any environmental/public health concerns with running the diesels thru there. What about the expense of installing and maintaining needed ventilation?
It seemed clear to me that they were talking more about 'ferry moves' of equipment destined for subsequent running on unelectrified routes than actual revenue service loaded into Penn Station as part of a through route -- perhaps the best example of the latter being a high-speed train over a HSR-rebuilt Lackawanna Cutoff running "midtown direct" into Penn Station. The actual dwell time in Manhattan would be measured in minutes either way, and the incremental exhaust from one or two QSKs lifting the train up the approach grade out of the tubes (which is certainly substantial) at 'approach' speed would be largely ejected by the 'air piston' effect of the next following train. Now, when the Hudson Yards deck closes off the open space at the east portals, the effect of exhaust would be more extreme, but even then I suspect that the 20mph or less permitted through the approach trackage might not involve all that much actual nastiness.
In any case it wouldn't be my argument to run unmodified trains through the bores; this was a stated PRIIA issue and I can't speak from experience on what they would advocate if the 'legal' proscription they cited were relieved -- I do think it would be worth waiving it to see what revisions the 305 committee might make in the locomotive spec or initial planned uses.
The "trade-off" and "savings" have nothing to do with objective things like MARC's decision to use only diesels even on the Penn LIne going forward. I doubt anyone is advocating regular service with non-dual-mode power through either the present or prospective tunnels. Perhaps someone here is familiar with this part of the next-generation effort and can clarify the reasoning.
And Cuomo expects to get funds to repair NYPS. Oh how politicians like to ----------------------
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-braces-5b-debt-load-fund-cuomo-championed-repairs-article-1.3197949
RME, thanks for your elaborations on the diesel-in NYP proposals. I believe I am now understanding what you are saying. I think a starting point would be some experiments to run some of the newest diesels with empty trains in odd hours, and measure air quality effects, to see if there is a basis for relaxing laws on diesel exclusions in Manhattan.
MidlandMikeI think a starting point would be some experiments to run some of the newest diesels with empty trains in odd hours, and measure air quality effects, to see if there is a basis for relaxing laws on diesel exclusions in Manhattan.
I agree, with the very slight codicil that there has to be legal permission to operate the diesels into Manhattan before the 'tests' are actually undertaken. (I am all for the oops! it just slipped in there! school of nominally plausible denial in a case like this, but I don't think it is an advisable way to proceed with all these NY politicians getting wedgies from real life over this.)
The thing is, of course few New York politicians are going to even go on record as allowing tests, as there is virtually 100% downside risk for Manhattanites -- same argument as that lady had for the Cross Harbor Tunnel, and much as back in the '50s for the Trans-Manhattan Expressway via the bridge around 125th St. That is why I think there would need to be a quid pro quo while Amtrak has something with effective leverage. Not that I like using leverage... but in this case I don't see much alternative.
I would call the 'final decision' very close to what you see: permission to 'transit' Manhattan with empty 125mph consists using 'straight' power on their way to other regions or servicing. I think that would satisfy what the section 305 committee is actually saying the problem with legality is; they wouldn't be pushing otherwise for the dual-mode version of the 125mph locomotive [which, again, will NOT be running anywhere near that speed on third-rail power, and perhaps not on catenary] which could probably easily be used to tow whole consists (idling or shut down) through the restricted zone legally, more or less the way GG1s handled the Aerotrain. Older electrics could be used for the same service, of course, with less capitalization...
RME... the dual-mode version of the 125mph locomotive [which, again, will NOT be running anywhere near that speed on third-rail power, and perhaps not on catenary]...
Of course, right after I type this, I go back to check the actual PRIIA discussion of 110 vs 125mph locomotives and I find out I'm being sung to by the Castaways again.
They note "Alternative 125 would also add a new electrified (with overhead catenary), two-track, grade-separated high-speed rail corridor of 283 miles between Albany/Rensselaer Station and a new Buffalo station [Tier I Draft EIS, Page ES-14]" and that this calls for "a diesel/AC overhead contact wire dual mode capability. [Tier I Draft EIS, Page 3-59]"
Almost immediately they note "The locomotive to which the DEIS refers for operation under the AC Catenary is clearly the Bombardier ALP-45DP, which can operate at 125 MPH in AC Catenary electric mode (although only at 100 MPH in diesel mode)" and then very shortly conclude ... one shoe falling, and then the other ...
"Therefore, as per the Empire Corridor Tier I EIS, for which FRA is the Lead Agency, there are no plans to operate locomotives in diesel mode at 125 MPH in the State of New York. Accordingly, New York State and the PRIIA Locomotive Working Group recommends to the PRIIA NGEC Technical Subcommittee that ipet concurs with the 110 MPH maximum sustained speed in Diesel Mode for the PRIIA Dual mode (DC 3rd Rail) Locomotive Requirements Document.
Accordingly, New York State and the PRIIA Locomotive Working Group recommends to the PRIIA NGEC Technical Subcommittee that ipet concurs with the 110 MPH maximum sustained speed in Diesel Mode for the PRIIA Dual mode (DC 3rd Rail) Locomotive Requirements Document.
So as of the end of November, 2014, there would apparently be no prospective use of the Charger/Spirit-type power anywhere on the ex=New York Central lines (which almost defies belief, the budget for Gateway being what it is ... but who're you going to believe, common sense or your lyin' readin' eyes) but the use of dual-mode locomotives that go not much faster than the 90mph alternative A speed proposed for the whole Hudson Line south of Albany on diesel, but a full 125mph on catenary power. And consequently any new dual-mode development by the relevant 305 groups will concentrate on 3rd-rail-capable locomotives of no more than 110mph capability, which may or may not turn out to involve the lightweight high-speed-prime-mover designs that are 'standardized' for 125mph straight diesel operation.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.