Excellent post.
I wouold only comment that I wasn't thinking of making the 7 line go to LGA, only having a spur that would access the airport loop. Only the trains representing the one-seat ride would need to use this, which in turn would allow FRA-compliant stock (for the tunnel and co-located access to Secaucus and south,, etc. to be used most effectively). As noted before, there re advantages to the 7 line clearances being such that the equipment is comparable to the PA-5s.
(For some ungodly reason, I remember the 7 line being one level different from the Q, or something like that. over on the Queens side. Has there been rebuilding or improvement, or am I just having a senior moment?)
The LI bound trains are side by side on the upper level and the Manhattan bound trains side by side on the lower level.
Remember when going to an airport with baggage, luggage, brief cases, etc. one seeks a one train ride and not have to change and trek if at all possible.
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.
Remember also that many of the people transiting between airports are not familiar with the local subway system. They may even be foreign nationals making connection from an international flight to a domestic flight. A one-seat ride where you don't have to find and navigate thru transfer stations is a big consideration when trying to make a connecting flight.
I have to remind that IRT No. 7 line equipment and PATH equipment are not interchangeable . The IRT cars are a bit too long to get around PATH's tunnel curves, and the bulge at the waist of the PATH equipment would have them hitting signals along any IRT line.
Obviously both types would have no problem on B Division or LIRR trackage, except for the gap between door thresholds and station platforms. And of course ATS-cab signal issues.
Well the 7 would certainly be viable in that regard only. That would be a mighty slow ride. Even if it was dedicated service from Newark to LGA, that would still have to operate within the established spacing of already existing service. Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? I think it would be much more useful to connect LGA with the transit system (trains) than any other benefit. There is already bus service (M60) from the A,B,C,D,1,2,3,4,5,&6 trains (depending on where you catch it) so it isn't totally isolated from transit. Just not very convenient.
daveklepperI have to remind that IRT No. 7 line equipment and PATH equipment are not interchangeable .
This is a general comment and not directed at you, Dave.
One of the interesting things about New York Subways including the PATH trains is that they were built by individual private companies. As a result each has its own quirks and a different personality. It would make no sense to reconstruct everything today to some kind of rational uniform standards. In the New York area our transit system is like an eccentric and sometimes difficult old aunt who has always been there and who we all love.
John WROne of the interesting things about New York Subways including the PATH trains is that they were built by individual private companies.
And you are including the IND in this?
If I remember correctly, the Q10 is considerably more direct.
The critical stated issue for the PA appears to be one-seat ride, not speed.
And the great advantage of the 7 line is not so much that it goes from EWR to LGA as that it passes within spitting distance of NYP, and under GCT, as it goes. Easier to build the LGA connector either from 7 or Q extension if it's part of a greater coherent scheme...
Dave, if this is so, why is there all this discussion on the Web and technical transit discussion groups about how the PA-5 and R142a are basically the same design? We're not talking about using any older equipment (unless it's somehow cheaper to rip interiors out of something like an R62 and rebuild it expen$ively to have CBTC -- which isn't particularly sensible).
I have answers for the gap filler issue, and ACSES is (relatively) easy to provide (in a module the motorman carries, not equipment on every *** car), and CBTC standards are the same between PATH and the 7 line. What is this "ATS" that you are mentioning?
RME
No, I'm not including the IND.
Yes, each subway line was built different specs so that there in no real interchangeability between lines, including the IND which was city built. PATH and SIRR cars I always was led to believe to be the closest cousins but I now don't think so.
So, again, there are no engineering plans or even official unofficial plans of any kind...what has been discussed here has been born and hatched and embellished here. No lines, no end points, no cars. So it is all up for conjecture as we have done. And all up for grabs and planning by those who want to do it or those who want to have the other guy or agency or state or ... do it.
art11758 ... Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? ...
... Plus, I have to ask, why would you be transferring from Newark to LGA? Don't both airports serve the same basic carriers? ...
Newark is an international airport whereas LaGuardia is domestic so there could be connections. Maybe PA is looking at more specialization at the different airports.
Just rechecked the AMTRAK vision report. They do envision another set of tunnels in addition to the GATEWAY tunnel set at a time frame some time after 2040. Of course who can make a reliable prediction of what will be needed in 2040 ? Another item is anticipation of expanding NEWARK station as well either to the east or on top of the present station ?
SIRR, BMT, and IND, same specifications. Completely interchangeable, as today's B Division is both BMT and IND. And R44's operate on SIRR (and so did LIRR MP-54's at one time, as a temporary fix!) SIRR cars operated on the Culver after WWII. BMT elevateds are another matter. The 5th Avenue, Myrtle and Lesington Avenue elevateds were built to pretty much the same standards as the Manhattan-Bronx systems absorbed by the IRT. But the Brookliyn Bridge original cable line and the Fulton Street and Broadway-Brooklyn-Jamaica lines were built to take wider cars, even though operated by much of the same elevated equipment as the narrower clearance lines. And of course BMT service north and east of Quennsboro Plaza had IRT clarances..
PATH is common with CTA!!! Nobody else.
MIami, Cleveland Red Line, Boston Red Line, LA Red Line, Broad Street Phila, PATCO. all same as BMT-IND. Toronto too except for track gauge.
Washington DC, lower roof line. BART : lower roof line, slightly wider, different track gauge.
The original H&M black cars COULD operate on the IRT, and did in test service on the 2nd Avenue elevated in 1904. But from PA-1 on we got the bulge in the waist.
In Brooklyn, the 4th Avenue subway has higher roof clearances than the rest of the IND-BMT system to allow use by the then standard 40-fot box cars, since South Brooklyn was authorized to route trains through that subway. .
.
Tain't simple now are it?
daveklepper SIRR, BMT, and IND, same specifications. Completely interchangeable, as today's B Division is both BMT and IND. And R44's operate on SIRR (and so did LIRR MP-54's at one time, as a temporary fix!) SIRR cars operated on the Culver after WWII. BMT elevateds are another matter. The 5th Avenue, Myrtle and Lesington Avenue elevateds were built to pretty much the same standards as the Manhattan-Bronx systems absorbed by the IRT. But the Brookliyn Bridge original cable line and the Fulton Street and Broadway-Brooklyn-Jamaica lines were built to take wider cars, even though operated by much of the same elevated equipment as the narrower clearance lines. And of course BMT service north and east of Quennsboro Plaza had IRT clarances..
Now we have the new 2nd ave subway under construction. What cars will run on it and what clearance guage is it being built ? These can be different.
daveklepperIn Brooklyn, the 4th Avenue subway has higher roof clearances than the rest of the IND-BMT system to allow use by the then standard 40-fot box cars, since South Brooklyn was authorized to route trains through that subway. .
Dave, was the higher clearance preserved in things like the stations built on grade-crossing elimination?
You are referring to the Sea Beach and Brighton Lines. I can say definitely yes for Sea Beach, since freight was handled on it even after WWII. Even after WWII there were two freight sidings on the north side of 4-track line connected to the city-bound local track equipped with trolley wire. But there probably was not any reason to do this on the Brighton Line. The old tunnel that links the 4th Avenue subway with the 9th Avenue station of the West End Line, and formerly the Culver as well, has a high roof.
henry6Remember when going to an airport with baggage, luggage, brief cases, etc. one seeks a one train ride and not have to change and trek if at all possible.
Well Henry, if you were flying out of JFK you might be able to take the train from Port Jervis and change at Seacaucus to the No. 7 line. You might have to make another change but it could still be an inexpensive and convenient way to get to the airport.
You already have a connection a Seacaucus to Penn Station, where you can go LIRR to Jamaica and then AirTrain to your airline terminal or E train to Jamaica and Airtrain or A Train to Howard Beach and Airtrain.
Estimated time from Seacaucus. the first 60 minutes, the second 90 minutes, and the third two hours. Unless there is a long line at the LIRR ticket machines!
My take on the 7 train or any MTA line into NJ and/or expansion of PATH lines is part planning for the future, part having to manipulate or persuade people into using the service(s), and part field of drams. No market and traffic studies have been done, no clear cut reasoning, purpose or planning has been done or made public, so no engineering or other legitimate proposals have been presented.
henry6My take on the 7 train or any MTA line into NJ and/or expansion of PATH lines is part planning for the future, part having to manipulate or persuade people into using the service(s), and part field of drams.
Interesting Freudian slip. Does 'drams' imply this is a "7-line-per-cent solution?"
But Henry,
Can you imagine what a No. 7 train to New Jersey would do for bus commuters with the Port Authority Terminal moved to the Meadowlands? No more getting stuck in traffic at the Lincoln Tunnel, on the Helix or on Route 3 in Weehawken.
But John,
Can you imagine what moving the Port Authority bus terminal TO the Meadowlands would cost? The counterflow bus lanes handle the trip over the Helix just fine; what's needed is a dedicated bus lane through the tunnel and some more route separation for buses only at the other end.
If you look back in the thread, I cheerfully concur that the 7 line should tap the PA park-n-ride lots, and perhaps establish some direct transfer from some of the inbound bus traffic, perhaps also with 'wing' platforms off Rt. 3 for the bus lane and regular lane for quick transfer, functionally like the arrangement right before the toll plaza with the bus traffic going over the GWB.
You COULD put a satellite lot somewhere between 3 and Lautenberg, but it would have to be close to the logical routes there, and none of those little cross streets have any ease in linking to either Rt. 1 or the Turnpike. So even there you have a massive infrastructure problem and bus-traffic issues. Might as well just establish a couple of multiple angle-park spaces for 'through' or looping bus access at the lot for Lautenberg and call it a day...
Yet the bus terminal in NJ idea is actually what sells a subway train from NYC! And you don't have to have a terminal or bus storage yard on taxpayer's property or expense. A parking lot for cars and arrival and departure platforms are all that is needed...let the bus companies go home or buy their own lot. In fact it may be cheaper for them to do that than the extra trip time, toll costs. and slot costs at the PA! Transfer doesn't need full building but only shelters and small waiting rooms with the idea that people will be making quick transfers rather than long waits.
Typed my last post wrong. Have corrected it.
The idea would be to have rapid-access angle parking FOR BUSES in a loop at an otherwise park 'n ride or kiss 'n ride facility.
The big issue is how you get the buses to and from such a loop. You would need new ramps and perhaps a dedicated 'outside' access land all the way back past the Turnpike to give 'true' fast rush-hour access to the Park 'n Ride at that location; I have never taken the service or driven the route going in the other direction but would assume it would only entail widening the existing entrance by one lane. Dedicate these as HOV-4 during the appropriate rush periods, and the job (it seems to me) is done. At MUCH less cost, and much more use, than some new bus terminal out in the Meadowlands where all the arriving traffic would funnel into one line, one track of transit. The existing facility at 40th Street has FAR more direct access to various Manhattan transit lines than you could possibly get with the same capacity run serially, even with CBTC running at full efficiency...
Whatever is built for buses, it would be less than a full size terminal like in NYC. Plus bus companies would not have to pay for drivers to layover, have the cost of tolls for regular runs and dead head moves, drivers and buses could more easily and cheaply return home rather than be stranded in the city, time and fuel consumption would be less. Virtually anything bus companies could do without going into the city would be a financial easement for them in many ways. Again we are speaking hypothetically because no agency or entity has suggested, planned, engineered or mentioned anything at this point.
But you can bet your bippy that NJT would love not having to run some of its current service across the state line into NYC! As you point out, equipment utilization on many of the lines especially to points south of Rt 3 would be very well served, by (1) reducing the effective trip time, (2) cutting down on the stress and risk of incident of running in a counterflow lane, and (3) possibly allowing more service, or later service, to some destinations thanks to the better equipment utilization and quicker trip completion time. All those in addition to the money savings, and effective terminal-capacity expansion with fewer NJT buses going into 40th St.
henry6Again we are speaking hypothetically because no agency or entity has suggested, planned, engineered or mentioned anything at this point.
I agree with you, Henry. And given Governor Christie's history I doubt any agency would be inclined to do much of anything as long as he is in office.
However, and speaking hypothetically, I can see a lot of benefits of bringing the No. 7 line to the Meadowlands and moving most of the Port Authority Bus Terminal there.
NJT wants to provide service and that is allowing people to detrain inside NYC. Thinking otherwise does not make sense and is not what NJT does, wants to do, and has to do.
As I've said, any MTA or PATH service under the North River makes sense for bus services only. NJT into Manhattan via Corridor or new tunnels is separate service.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.