Broader and deeper than a Keystone service. More like the San Diego service probably...broader because there are more routes and lines and people. It is a virtual single area where the transportation system has to be tamed, brought under control, rationalized, integrated but segregated at the same time. Each doing its own thing without coordinating, complimenting, supplementing, augmenting will lead to real problems in the future and if not addressed could stymie growth in the east.
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.
People have been commuting from the Jersey suburbs into Manhattan for a good many years now. The same kind of people go there at about the same time for the same reasons as did a century ago. It would seem on the face of it that the needs are pretty much the same.
New Jersey Transit did make one very important change when it introduced the Secaucus transfer so you can now either take the DL&W lines into new York (perhaps with a change at Broad Street) or take the old Erie lines to Secaucus and change there. That is a real improvement and something the private railroads denied train riders for many many years.
henry6 ... Remember, Amtrak is an intercity service...trains between major cities and not local and regional station hopping. A regional service could eliminate some of the Amtrak service existing allowing Amtrak to concentrate on its intercity services while the regional would take care of the local stations. I.E. Amtrak New Haven-Stamford-NYP-Newark-Airport-Metro Park-Trenton-Philadelphia; Regional: New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-NYP-Sec. Jct-Newark, airport- Metro Park-New Brunswick-Princeton Jct.-Trenton-No. Philadelphia-Philadelphia: MNRR: all stops NH to GCT, NJT all stops NYP to Trenton, SEPTA all stops Trenton to Philadelphia. Study, market, provide service with integrity.
... Remember, Amtrak is an intercity service...trains between major cities and not local and regional station hopping. A regional service could eliminate some of the Amtrak service existing allowing Amtrak to concentrate on its intercity services while the regional would take care of the local stations. I.E. Amtrak New Haven-Stamford-NYP-Newark-Airport-Metro Park-Trenton-Philadelphia; Regional: New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-NYP-Sec. Jct-Newark, airport- Metro Park-New Brunswick-Princeton Jct.-Trenton-No. Philadelphia-Philadelphia: MNRR: all stops NH to GCT, NJT all stops NYP to Trenton, SEPTA all stops Trenton to Philadelphia. Study, market, provide service with integrity.
You seem to have clarified your proposed service as a "regional service". To me this means something like the Keystone service between NY and Harrisburg. IIRC this is an ATK service with extra support from PA. But then in a later post you indicate you want to eliminate the distinction between Amtrak and commuter rail. Legal distinctions have evolved for political and funding reasons, and are not likely to be eliminated. Besides, with state supported regional services, you can work within the present framework.
The whole operating model, marketing model, concept of travel within the region, has to be redone to meet the needs of the population. A traffic study will be a start followed by an equipment utilization study...what we know today has to be scrapped and something new invented or built up from..
But why not just ride Amtrak from Kingston or Westerly to New Brunswick. Does Amtrak stop in Towson, MD?
As I said, the riders are only part of the equation...new riders, are part of it, yes...but so is utilization of equipment, marketing, providing a service that is usable and will be used, finding prices that will sell, doing it with integrity and consistency. It is nothing that exists in this country now, it is part reinventing the wheel that exists, part renovating the property, part thinking outside the box then coming in and rearranging the furniture.
Through riders would not be those now using Amtrak, but those using low-cost buses. Amtrak can compete with higher fares because of more comfortable less-dense seating, snack and drink service, and faster running time. In addition to pulling in some bus passengers, it may also pull some drivers off the roqd, who now find it inconvenient to do anything but drive, say from Kinstorn or Westerly to Towson or New Brunswick.
PS. I just checked Megabus. You can ride from New Haven to New York and New Brunswick to New York. But you cannot get a Megabus from any place north of New York to any place south of New York as far as I can figure out.
As far as equipment goes all three commuter railroads use the same overhead catenaries Amtrak now use. There is a short distance that they would have to be adapted to but that could be done.
But the real issue I would raise is passengers, I just don't see may people from Connecticut commuting to work in New Jersey or vice versa. Is there any reason to believe there would be such people?
I don't mean to blur the distinction between Amtrak and Commuter lines I meant to erase it with a workable operation. Some of it has to do with the passenger, some has to do with equipment usage, some has to do with marketing, all has to do with service.
henry6The easiest, most simple, most apparent implementing of such service would be SEPTA from inner city Philadelphia to Trenton, NJT to NYP, MNRR to New Haven.
Henry,
It seems to me you propose to blur the distinction between commuter service and Northeast Regional service to provide low cost commuter style service between Philadelphia and New Haven.
Certainly it can be done. In fact Amtrak does it but with a higher fare. The real issue is a policy decision: Do our commuter railroads want to get into this kind of service?
It seems to me that right now they don't. For example, if you want to travel from New York to Philadelphia on commuter trains you have to change trains at Trenton. It is an easy change on the same platform but it is still a change. If SEPTA and NJT had any interest in doing more than they are now doing surely they would be providing a one seat commuter ride from New York Penn Station to 30th Street Station. But they are not.
Is there any reason they might change their current policy? And might Amtrak be opposed to the new service?
John
MidlandMike henry6 The easiest, most simple, most apparent implementing of such service would be SEPTA from inner city Philadelphia to Trenton, NJT to NYP, MNRR to New Haven. What an easy trial!...one or two trainsets which are already route compatible could be run to to test the equipment and usage. Second a one trainset schedule all the way. Three different crews are acceptable for the trial. Trains should make more stops than present Amtrakers but fewer stops than current SEPTA-NJT-MNRR (forget for the moment MNRR is not running from NYP). From Market St or Suburban to 30th St.,, North Philadelphia, another stop or two, Trenton; change crews; Hamilton, Princeton, New Brunswick, Metro Pk, Newark Airport, Newark, Sec. Jct (maybe), NYP; change crews; New Rochelle, Stamford, junction stations for Danbury and Waterbury anyway and maybe one or two others if needed, arrive New Haven. Probably about 4 hours each way, one set of equipment. One, two or three, round trips a day for testing...7AM from each end, 11AM, and 5PM for instance but change and alter if not working....either start earlier or later at either or both ends....no more than 2 minutes dwell at any station except maybe 5 at NYP. Don't look for Philadelphia to New Haven ridership but look at all the combinations in between! as well as off line passengers...Waterbury, Danbury, New Canaan, Wassaic, Poughkeepsie, Spring Valley, Port Jervis, Dover-Hackettstown-Gladstone, Raritan HIgh Bridge, any and all LIRR points using one thorugh line ticket. (easier today since I think everyone is using a zone fare system rather than a mileage system which can be fed into computer systems, i.e. NJT Z6 to SEPTA Z1 or MNRR Z 3 or LIRR Z 5, etc.). But start with equipment useage then move on to through scheduling and tickets....then..... Why not expand the south endpoint to SEPTA's Delaware terminal,or maybe even jump the short gap to MARC and all the way to DC? And push the north endpoint along the existing commuter line to New London? I remember in another thread that people take NJT from NY to Trenton, then change to SEPTA for Phily. I don't mind if people are willing to change trains with dense commuter seating for a cheaper ride. However, I don't want to institutionalize subsidizing duplicate money-losing ATK service with even greater money-losing commuter service. I don't believe commuter districts should cross metro area boundaries, however, I do think that operations within a metro area should be integrated, such as NJT, MNRR & LIRR should all work toward NYP run-thru's.
henry6 The easiest, most simple, most apparent implementing of such service would be SEPTA from inner city Philadelphia to Trenton, NJT to NYP, MNRR to New Haven. What an easy trial!...one or two trainsets which are already route compatible could be run to to test the equipment and usage. Second a one trainset schedule all the way. Three different crews are acceptable for the trial. Trains should make more stops than present Amtrakers but fewer stops than current SEPTA-NJT-MNRR (forget for the moment MNRR is not running from NYP). From Market St or Suburban to 30th St.,, North Philadelphia, another stop or two, Trenton; change crews; Hamilton, Princeton, New Brunswick, Metro Pk, Newark Airport, Newark, Sec. Jct (maybe), NYP; change crews; New Rochelle, Stamford, junction stations for Danbury and Waterbury anyway and maybe one or two others if needed, arrive New Haven. Probably about 4 hours each way, one set of equipment. One, two or three, round trips a day for testing...7AM from each end, 11AM, and 5PM for instance but change and alter if not working....either start earlier or later at either or both ends....no more than 2 minutes dwell at any station except maybe 5 at NYP. Don't look for Philadelphia to New Haven ridership but look at all the combinations in between! as well as off line passengers...Waterbury, Danbury, New Canaan, Wassaic, Poughkeepsie, Spring Valley, Port Jervis, Dover-Hackettstown-Gladstone, Raritan HIgh Bridge, any and all LIRR points using one thorugh line ticket. (easier today since I think everyone is using a zone fare system rather than a mileage system which can be fed into computer systems, i.e. NJT Z6 to SEPTA Z1 or MNRR Z 3 or LIRR Z 5, etc.). But start with equipment useage then move on to through scheduling and tickets....then.....
The easiest, most simple, most apparent implementing of such service would be SEPTA from inner city Philadelphia to Trenton, NJT to NYP, MNRR to New Haven. What an easy trial!...one or two trainsets which are already route compatible could be run to to test the equipment and usage. Second a one trainset schedule all the way. Three different crews are acceptable for the trial. Trains should make more stops than present Amtrakers but fewer stops than current SEPTA-NJT-MNRR (forget for the moment MNRR is not running from NYP). From Market St or Suburban to 30th St.,, North Philadelphia, another stop or two, Trenton; change crews; Hamilton, Princeton, New Brunswick, Metro Pk, Newark Airport, Newark, Sec. Jct (maybe), NYP; change crews; New Rochelle, Stamford, junction stations for Danbury and Waterbury anyway and maybe one or two others if needed, arrive New Haven. Probably about 4 hours each way, one set of equipment. One, two or three, round trips a day for testing...7AM from each end, 11AM, and 5PM for instance but change and alter if not working....either start earlier or later at either or both ends....no more than 2 minutes dwell at any station except maybe 5 at NYP. Don't look for Philadelphia to New Haven ridership but look at all the combinations in between! as well as off line passengers...Waterbury, Danbury, New Canaan, Wassaic, Poughkeepsie, Spring Valley, Port Jervis, Dover-Hackettstown-Gladstone, Raritan HIgh Bridge, any and all LIRR points using one thorugh line ticket. (easier today since I think everyone is using a zone fare system rather than a mileage system which can be fed into computer systems, i.e. NJT Z6 to SEPTA Z1 or MNRR Z 3 or LIRR Z 5, etc.). But start with equipment useage then move on to through scheduling and tickets....then.....
Why not expand the south endpoint to SEPTA's Delaware terminal,or maybe even jump the short gap to MARC and all the way to DC? And push the north endpoint along the existing commuter line to New London? I remember in another thread that people take NJT from NY to Trenton, then change to SEPTA for Phily. I don't mind if people are willing to change trains with dense commuter seating for a cheaper ride. However, I don't want to institutionalize subsidizing duplicate money-losing ATK service with even greater money-losing commuter service. I don't believe commuter districts should cross metro area boundaries, however, I do think that operations within a metro area should be integrated, such as NJT, MNRR & LIRR should all work toward NYP run-thru's.
South of Philly...maybe. Inner City Philadelphia would be a good judgement call for the start of service, then extending it to wherever there might be a market. Defining the region would be the key factor. Could the market really provide hourly local service all the way from New Haven to D.C. with specific, not intercity, local stops? Right now I am inclined to define "region" as New Haven and Poughkeepsie, Port Jervis, maybe Scranton (if service gets started), Allentown-Bethlehem (again service needed to be installed), and maybe Harrisburg. South of Philadelphia to say Richmond or Norfolk and west into Maryland and Virginia could be another effective region. Same east of New Haven to Boston and into Maine. But there is much study and marketing to be done before lines are drawn and equipment ordered. My, for lack of a better name, NYPHLNE region has got about 80% of its plant and services in place and the other 20% on the drawing boards or being talked about; it would be the easiest and quickest to put in service if it were to be tried. NJT and MNRR have locomotives which can do the interline work and SEPTA has the MU's. If anyone was serious about it, it could be implemented or tried with little effort and planning. Remember, Amtrak is an intercity service...trains between major cities and not local and regional station hopping. A regional service could eliminate some of the Amtrak service existing allowing Amtrak to concentrate on its intercity services while the regional would take care of the local stations. I.E. Amtrak New Haven-Stamford-NYP-Newark-Airport-Metro Park-Trenton-Philadelphia; Regional: New Haven-Bridgeport-Stamford-NYP-Sec. Jct-Newark, airport- Metro Park-New Brunswick-Princeton Jct.-Trenton-No. Philadelphia-Philadelphia: MNRR: all stops NH to GCT, NJT all stops NYP to Trenton, SEPTA all stops Trenton to Philadelphia. Study, market, provide service with integrity.
The Voltage/Frequency break is between cat poles C-66 and C-70, near Gate interlocking. There is a power break in the 12.5KV/60Hz close to New Rochelle, where MNRR power begins. The 60Hz segment of the line must be powered from the substation near Pelham.
blue streak 1 rcdrye: This information of 12.5 Kv 60 Hz Helll Gate has been soomething I have not been able to find documentation. So from east of Gate crossover -- New Rochelle is now 12.5 Kv 60 Hz ? Was that part of the CAT up grade on that section ? Is Sunnyside Jct now 60 Hz? . Do you know where the freq break is located ? . Are you saying that a new 60 Hz substation is needed for west of gate ? Would that also include +-Sunnyside yard ? a definite big power consumer ?
Sunnyside is still AFAIK 25 hz. There is a break and voltage/frequency change with a dead catenary section somewhere between CP216 (New Rochelle) and Gate - I think it's closer to CP216 but it's listed in the ETT I have by cat pole number, not by MP (I'll look up the cat pole numbers if you really want them - the gap is about 4 poles or roughly 1000 ft. using old NH spacing). There's no particular requirement to change the overhead type to change frequency. That would make Sunnyside Jct and yard still 25 Hz.
I'm not sure if the 60Hz section is fed from MNRR. There used to be some substation equipment near the Pelham bridge.
The flood that affected the Portal substation after Sandy suggests that Portal is part of the power equation for Penn and Sunnyside. At one point there was a plan to change the 25Hz east of Newark to 60 Hz but that does not seem to have happened.
timz MidlandMikeThere was NYC style 3rd rail the length of the West Side Freight LineThe Shaughnessy pic shows third rail on the High Line at 30th St-- did it really go all the way to Houston? But it wasn't there when the elevated line opened?
MidlandMikeThere was NYC style 3rd rail the length of the West Side Freight Line
Originally I was trying to answer another poster's question and say that the route used for today's ATK Empire connection was electrified in NYC days. However, after I sent the post, I saw that I should have been more explicit. The NYC 3rd rail only went as far South as 23rd St. South of there they use tri-power locos (diesel-electric/straight electric/battery)
Extending LIRR to Riverdale for interchange with MN there would not add to congestion at Penn, because trains now revesing at Carpenter Yard or in the station itself would run to Riverdale instead and reverse there. LIRR commuters now needing to transfer to the 1, 2, 3, A, or C subway trains would enjoy a one-seat ride to stations a very short walk from Lincoln Center and the Columbia University-Unnion Theolical-Jewish Theological-Interchurch Center, Riverside Church educational complex, possibly with a net reduction in congestion. There would certainly be less congestion than adding Metro North trains to the mix. Eventually, in my dreams, I would see a station under the GWB, A-train service over the bridge replacing the buses with the Wash. Hts bus station relocated to Fort Lee with transfer to subway there, and a station on the bridge with elevators to the Amtrak-LIRR (or MN if you insist) station below. Now politically impossible, but who knows but some day we might have a three-state authority runing all mass transportaton in the area. (C trains would take over the run to 207th, and there would be a good balance of traffic.)
Through MN-NJT service is a different matter. But to simplify operations, I would make the crew-change at New Rochelle, not Penn, so that the number of players at Penn is kept to three. Amtrak is responsible for dispatching on the Hell Gate Bridge route anyway.
OVERMOD, you asked:
"Surely there is third rail on the Empire Corridor already! Law says there would have to be...doesn't it?"
There was NYC style 3rd rail the length of the West Side Freight Line, but it was deactivated in 1959 as the line was Dieselized by then. The law prohibited steam engines in Manhattan after 1908, however that may have just applied to passenger trains,as the west side freight line used steam into the '30s.
rcdrye . CDOT equipment with retractable shoes could operate to Penn if the Amtrak main line gets new substations for 60Hz (present voltage/frequency change is a little east of Gate interlocking on the Hell Gate approach.) NJT equipment can operate on Amtrak/CDOT 12.5 KV 60 Hz with no difficulty. There is a gap of about a mile and a half between the 60Hz overhead sections on the Hell Gate line and the beginning of the LIRR third rail.
. CDOT equipment with retractable shoes could operate to Penn if the Amtrak main line gets new substations for 60Hz (present voltage/frequency change is a little east of Gate interlocking on the Hell Gate approach.) NJT equipment can operate on Amtrak/CDOT 12.5 KV 60 Hz with no difficulty. There is a gap of about a mile and a half between the 60Hz overhead sections on the Hell Gate line and the beginning of the LIRR third rail.
Just a couple of things.
1. In the deep dark past there was a wye track (looks like about 15 degrees) from the bridge to the SB local track. While certainly not "high speed" it might be short enough to be worthwhile.
2. The Empire Connection is double track except for the MNRR connecting track, the bridge itself and the last mile into Penn Station south of Empire interlocking. The tracks are signalled in both directions, but there are no crossovers north of CP Jervis (1.5 miles from Penn Station). LIRR style overrunning third rail starts 235 feet north of Empire interlocking on both tracks.
3. Dual mode engines with retractable shoes are used now on Empire line trains, with the shoes retracted on MNRR track equipped with underrunning third rail. CDOT equipment with retractable shoes could operate to Penn if the Amtrak main line gets new substations for 60Hz (present voltage/frequency change is a little east of Gate interlocking on the Hell Gate approach.) NJT equipment can operate on Amtrak/CDOT 12.5 KV 60 Hz with no difficulty. There is a gap of about a mile and a half between the 60Hz overhead sections on the Hell Gate line and the beginning of the LIRR third rail.
blue streak 1 As usual I find jumping on a new thread something often calls for corrections and also comments about other posts. complete timetables changed my mind ! !! Probably will edit the title of this thread. 1. AMTRAK is actually speeding up some trains so most are scheduled for 2:30 NYP --- ALB --- NYP much of the tightening is from Croton - NYP but not all. Departures are not "memory" schedules but close. Ethan Allen Express (?) southbound actually waits longer in ALB even though its starting timekeeping is much better but this may be because of CP delays that are occurring.
As usual I find jumping on a new thread something often calls for corrections and also comments about other posts. complete timetables changed my mind ! !! Probably will edit the title of this thread.
1. AMTRAK is actually speeding up some trains so most are scheduled for 2:30 NYP --- ALB --- NYP much of the tightening is from Croton - NYP but not all. Departures are not "memory" schedules but close. Ethan Allen Express (?) southbound actually waits longer in ALB even though its starting timekeeping is much better but this may be because of CP delays that are occurring.
Yes, I do think most of the 'delays' you reported are tied to maintenance and improvement things. Someone here might even be able to find out specifically what they would be (for example, a particular length of time required to finish up to re-open track clearance after actual work has stopped).
Something I would mention pre-emptively is that I was not talking about absolute schedule-time reduction in my remarks about single-track flyover. The issue is more of a 'kanban' problem, of ensuring that two trains won't need to be on that bridge at the same time. I doubt there are many times when traffic flow inbound to NYP and outbound past Riverdale will be significantly heavy at the same time, and perhaps even that rapid turnaround and redispatch of the MNCR trains from Penn is expected on an immediate basis. Again: I would almost insist on the bridge being a full double-track, high-speed-switch-equipped connector to the express tracks, with a fixed bridge that does not have critical structure in the ship channel if at all practical. But if the choice is between one track and no tracks, I think one track can be made to work significantly well. (It also, in a sense, makes a reverse move, from the Empire connector back toward GCT and the junction with the Harlem line, more immediate and practical, as the SB-to-flyouver connector goes directly to the SB main...
2. The east side access to GCT will feed an 8 track station. LIRR plans to divert some trains from Jamaica & Flushing line to GCT. Those diversions will open slots at NYP that appear cannot readily be filled from Jamaica due to its congestion. MTA thru MNRR indicates they want to send some trains from NH line and Hudson line to NYP to use these slots ? There has been much discussion about MNRR M-8s going to NYP with the 4th track that CR (?) removed from hell gate bridge being restored for MNRR use.
But these are two very different things. The 'tap' at New Rochelle is above the Hell Gate Bridge, so any M-8s coming from Connecticut will be committed to Penn whether or not someone wants to set them up for LIRR third rail. The 'other thing', though, makes sense... if the additional 'gate slots' at Penn aren't snapped up with more likely things than MNCR Hudson/New Haven traffic 'diverted' from GCT... any of those New Jersey services currently terminating in Secaucus that ought to go through to NYP...
What I see as being the issue with Hudson Line commuter service to Penn is that you'll have the risk of passengers wanting, and expecting, to go where they've always gone suddenly discovering they're sliding down the West Side... with no particularly easy place to turn around and go back quickly. If MNCR were to do this, they would be well-advised to use special consists or equipment, possibly resembling the existing Amtrak trains (with Genesis dual power or 'newer' equivalents') to avoid confusion. Perhaps to the extent there is 'special express' service, the quick trip to NYP via Spuyten Duyvil compared to the great way round and then slow orders down Park Avenue might make a meaningful difference in Hudson Line 'express' timing.
3. As well the discussion has been to add ( restore ) a second track from the Hudson line to NYP. That would allow Hudson line trains when there is installation of third rail to provide service to NYP. AMTRAK would certainly require the extra tracks on both Hell Gate and West side line to maintain fluidity,
I had thought (not having been in NYC for any length of time for a decade) that most of the Empire Corridor WAS already double-tracked. Even the 'single-track flyover' idea hinges on double track up to the point where the new construction starts to ramp up... and possibly beyond, using the ascending grade as cheap 'braking' to slow trains down going NB as they're timed just to clear SB traffic.
But yes: if it's not double-tracked, fix that ASAP. (I'd be tempted to lay the replacement with that Class 9 slab track under investigation in Pueblo...just a test, you understand... ;-} )
Surely there is third rail on the Empire Corridor already! Law says there would have to be...doesn't it?
4. A high bridge over the Harlem (?) river would almost be required to provide reliable service.
I would consider it utterly necessary, even before extra traffic is provided. We are not talking amazing rise like the existing high-level bridges (which, as noted, are high because the valley walls are steep). This is to get from the existing 'water level' up to clear the 55' over the ship channel and then down. Also as noted: a certain amount of heavy grade is possible here -- perhaps using the grade in the North River Tunnels (as liberated by Gateway to be nearly or wholly regional) as a working maximum for future designs of 'optimized to go anywhere' stock.
5. Tri-Rail when it built their double track bridge over the New river near Ft. Lauderdale was built for commuter trains and AMTRAK although freights can use it. ... I believe that the bridge slope is 1.5 - 1.8 %.
That's right at what the ruling grade in the North River Tunnels is. So yes.
I wouldn't bother designing for freight, as anything coming down the Hudson Line is better sent to Mott Haven or the like. I see little reason to run Hudson Line -- Empire Corridor -- through Penn Station -- under the East River just to make a connection with the NY&A, and if you did it would probably be low-profile intermodal stock (with accompanying low tare weight) so grade would be of little significance.
This bridge was built for a 65' over mean high water. It only cost about ~~$65M to build a few years ago. None of the Passenger trains have any loss of speed going over the bridge.
Seems to me that part of the 'no loss of speed' involves what is on either side of the bridge proper. I have been working under the impression that yes, there will be no 'fixed' reason to slow from track speed either on the approach or, after the flyover comes down, 'merging' onto the existing Hudson Line inside mains. I confess I was thinking of something more than 79mph for planned express track speed...
6. Wouldn't the flyover need to meet CSX's freight train clearances?
Freights won't be on those center tracks. Those are where the descending 'clearance' might be critical, as what would be happening is that an 'island' opens up (with whatever divergent 'curvature' and superelevation safely matches track speed) and the flyover can be 'shortest' if its clearance JUST exceeds whatever is present over the little bit of 'corner' between the understructure and the diverging mains. If the divergence is complete before the flyover descends, of course, there would be ample clearance, up to what's already incorporated into things like station overhead crosswalks.
7. Does anyone know if track arrangements for Harlem line access to NYP could be done with a dual mode locomotive?
You could answer this yourself: what famous type of F unit was used on the Harlem Division before the third rail was extended?
The issue with Harlem Line to NYP is more complicated than that, however, because the cost of the flyover project goes up DRAMATICALLY if it has to include a NB ramp to turn SB. Not only is there no room for the ramp, there's no room for the curve, and like the famous Feather River and Harper's Ferry bridges there would have to be a pair of high-speed SWITCHES right on top of the bridge structure.
Under those circumstances, I have already concluded that a whole separate bridge, rising up the valley wall once clear of the NB tracks, and a considerable amount of bridge, perhaps a whole separate bridge, including the SB 'transition' ramp to the Hudson Line would be involved. Is there really that much advantage in spending money just to save a couple of minutes in Harlem-to-NYP access (when it's already easy to go straight to GCT)?
Much more likely, in my opinion, is that the trains would proceed NB past Marble Hill to somewhere north of Riverdale, perhaps diverging to a holding track of some kind. They would then reverse (second engineman, or telepresence, if that needs to happen quickly) and operate cab-car-first down the Corridor to NYP... and beyond, as needed. This procedure would be reversed to access the Harlem and New Rochelle/New Haven connector from NYP.
Again, I have designed a bit of a 'facilitation' for full double track in both directions. If the bridge swings east as it rises, the 'tap' to the SB Hudson Line requires less elevated curvature. I still dislike the idea of active switches essentially directly above an active ship channel in known freezing/icing climate, though.
2. The east side access to GCT will feed an 8 track station. LIRR plans to divert some trains from Jamaica & Flushing line to GCT. Those diversions will open slots at NYP that appear cannot readily be filled from Jamaica due to its congestion. MTA thru MNRR indicates they want to send some trains from NH line and Hudson line to NYP to use these slots ? There has been much discussion about MNRR M-8s going to NYP with the 4th track that CR (?) removed from hell gate bridge being restored for MNRR use. But these are two very different things. The 'tap' at New Rochelle is above the Hell Gate Bridge, so any M-8s coming from Connecticut will be committed to Penn whether or not someone wants to set them up for LIRR third rail. The 'other thing', though, makes sense... if the additional 'gate slots' at Penn aren't snapped up with more likely things than MNCR Hudson/New Haven traffic 'diverted' from GCT... any of those New Jersey services currently terminating in Secaucus that ought to go through to NYP... What I see as being the issue with Hudson Line commuter service to Penn is that you'll have the risk of passengers wanting, and expecting, to go where they've always gone suddenly discovering they're sliding down the West Side... with no particularly easy place to turn around and go back quickly. If MNCR were to do this, they would be well-advised to use special consists or equipment, possibly resembling the existing Amtrak trains (with Genesis dual power or 'newer' equivalents') to avoid confusion. Perhaps to the extent there is 'special express' service, the quick trip to NYP via Spuyten Duyvil compared to the great way round and then slow orders down Park Avenue might make a meaningful difference in Hudson Line 'express' timing. 3. As well the discussion has been to add ( restore ) a second track from the Hudson line to NYP. That would allow Hudson line trains when there is installation of third rail to provide service to NYP. AMTRAK would certainly require the extra tracks on both Hell Gate and West side line to maintain fluidity, I had thought (not having been in NYC for any length of time for a decade) that most of the Empire Corridor WAS already double-tracked. Even the 'single-track flyover' idea hinges on double track up to the point where the new construction starts to ramp up... and possibly beyond, using the ascending grade as cheap 'braking' to slow trains down going NB as they're timed just to clear SB traffic. But yes: if it's not double-tracked, fix that ASAP. (I'd be tempted to lay the replacement with that Class 9 slab track under investigation in Pueblo...just a test, you understand... ;-} ) Surely there is third rail on the Empire Corridor already! Law says there would have to be...doesn't it? 4. A high bridge over the Harlem (?) river would almost be required to provide reliable service. I would consider it utterly necessary, even before extra traffic is provided. We are not talking amazing rise like the existing high-level bridges (which, as noted, are high because the valley walls are steep). This is to get from the existing 'water level' up to clear the 55' over the ship channel and then down. Also as noted: a certain amount of heavy grade is possible here -- perhaps using the grade in the North River Tunnels (as liberated by Gateway to be nearly or wholly regional) as a working maximum for future designs of 'optimized to go anywhere' stock. 5. Tri-Rail when it built their double track bridge over the New river near Ft. Lauderdale was built for commuter trains and AMTRAK although freights can use it. ... I believe that the bridge slope is 1.5 - 1.8 %. That's right at what the ruling grade in the North River Tunnels is. So yes. I wouldn't bother designing for freight, as anything coming down the Hudson Line is better sent to Mott Haven or the like. I see little reason to run Hudson Line -- Empire Corridor -- through Penn Station -- under the East River just to make a connection with the NY&A, and if you did it would probably be low-profile intermodal stock (with accompanying low tare weight) so grade would be of little significance. This bridge was built for a 65' over mean high water. It only cost about ~~$65M to build a few years ago. None of the Passenger trains have any loss of speed going over the bridge. Seems to me that part of the 'no loss of speed' involves what is on either side of the bridge proper. I have been working under the impression that yes, there will be no 'fixed' reason to slow from track speed either on the approach or, after the flyover comes down, 'merging' onto the existing Hudson Line inside mains. I confess I was thinking of something more than 79mph for planned express track speed... 6. Wouldn't the flyover need to meet CSX's freight train clearances? Freights won't be on those center tracks. Those are where the descending 'clearance' might be critical, as what would be happening is that an 'island' opens up (with whatever divergent 'curvature' and superelevation safely matches track speed) and the flyover can be 'shortest' if its clearance JUST exceeds whatever is present over the little bit of 'corner' between the understructure and the diverging mains. If the divergence is complete before the flyover descends, of course, there would be ample clearance, up to what's already incorporated into things like station overhead crosswalks. 7. Does anyone know if track arrangements for Harlem line access to NYP could be done with a dual mode locomotive?
But these are two very different things. The 'tap' at New Rochelle is above the Hell Gate Bridge, so any M-8s coming from Connecticut will be committed to Penn whether or not someone wants to set them up for LIRR third rail. The 'other thing', though, makes sense... if the additional 'gate slots' at Penn aren't snapped up with more likely things than MNCR Hudson/New Haven traffic 'diverted' from GCT... any of those New Jersey services currently terminating in Secaucus that ought to go through to NYP... What I see as being the issue with Hudson Line commuter service to Penn is that you'll have the risk of passengers wanting, and expecting, to go where they've always gone suddenly discovering they're sliding down the West Side... with no particularly easy place to turn around and go back quickly. If MNCR were to do this, they would be well-advised to use special consists or equipment, possibly resembling the existing Amtrak trains (with Genesis dual power or 'newer' equivalents') to avoid confusion. Perhaps to the extent there is 'special express' service, the quick trip to NYP via Spuyten Duyvil compared to the great way round and then slow orders down Park Avenue might make a meaningful difference in Hudson Line 'express' timing. 3. As well the discussion has been to add ( restore ) a second track from the Hudson line to NYP. That would allow Hudson line trains when there is installation of third rail to provide service to NYP. AMTRAK would certainly require the extra tracks on both Hell Gate and West side line to maintain fluidity, I had thought (not having been in NYC for any length of time for a decade) that most of the Empire Corridor WAS already double-tracked. Even the 'single-track flyover' idea hinges on double track up to the point where the new construction starts to ramp up... and possibly beyond, using the ascending grade as cheap 'braking' to slow trains down going NB as they're timed just to clear SB traffic. But yes: if it's not double-tracked, fix that ASAP. (I'd be tempted to lay the replacement with that Class 9 slab track under investigation in Pueblo...just a test, you understand... ;-} ) Surely there is third rail on the Empire Corridor already! Law says there would have to be...doesn't it? 4. A high bridge over the Harlem (?) river would almost be required to provide reliable service. I would consider it utterly necessary, even before extra traffic is provided. We are not talking amazing rise like the existing high-level bridges (which, as noted, are high because the valley walls are steep). This is to get from the existing 'water level' up to clear the 55' over the ship channel and then down. Also as noted: a certain amount of heavy grade is possible here -- perhaps using the grade in the North River Tunnels (as liberated by Gateway to be nearly or wholly regional) as a working maximum for future designs of 'optimized to go anywhere' stock. 5. Tri-Rail when it built their double track bridge over the New river near Ft. Lauderdale was built for commuter trains and AMTRAK although freights can use it. ... I believe that the bridge slope is 1.5 - 1.8 %. That's right at what the ruling grade in the North River Tunnels is. So yes. I wouldn't bother designing for freight, as anything coming down the Hudson Line is better sent to Mott Haven or the like. I see little reason to run Hudson Line -- Empire Corridor -- through Penn Station -- under the East River just to make a connection with the NY&A, and if you did it would probably be low-profile intermodal stock (with accompanying low tare weight) so grade would be of little significance. This bridge was built for a 65' over mean high water. It only cost about ~~$65M to build a few years ago. None of the Passenger trains have any loss of speed going over the bridge. Seems to me that part of the 'no loss of speed' involves what is on either side of the bridge proper. I have been working under the impression that yes, there will be no 'fixed' reason to slow from track speed either on the approach or, after the flyover comes down, 'merging' onto the existing Hudson Line inside mains. I confess I was thinking of something more than 79mph for planned express track speed... 6. Wouldn't the flyover need to meet CSX's freight train clearances? Freights won't be on those center tracks. Those are where the descending 'clearance' might be critical, as what would be happening is that an 'island' opens up (with whatever divergent 'curvature' and superelevation safely matches track speed) and the flyover can be 'shortest' if its clearance JUST exceeds whatever is present over the little bit of 'corner' between the understructure and the diverging mains. If the divergence is complete before the flyover descends, of course, there would be ample clearance, up to what's already incorporated into things like station overhead crosswalks.
But the point of my "experiment" is that all is in place: the track with equipment that will work on the whole length without having to make exceptions or alterations. There are push pull's and MU's available...probably the push pulls would do better...but it is all there...NJT and MNRR/CONDOT have already done it with NJT trainsets from New Haven!
Blue Streak: as usual more is said, talked about, described, built, can't be built, will be done, will never be done, is possible, doesn't have a prayer, on these pages that what is true, is happening, or even being thought about by the railroads, planners, states, and even politicians. Although I believe the 7 train is a political action even with the so called report the other day.
henry6 Across the platform, close, and guaranteed connections are important. But don't start dismantling by what the problems are but build it based on the idea. I can name hundreds of reasons, ways, and why's it can't be done, that's easy. The secret is to find the way it can be done.
Across the platform, close, and guaranteed connections are important. But don't start dismantling by what the problems are but build it based on the idea. I can name hundreds of reasons, ways, and why's it can't be done, that's easy. The secret is to find the way it can be done.
And believe me, one guaranteed way to find 'it can be done' is to start with the inexpensive, common-sense proof of concept, so you can change the minds of the people who initially say 'no' to the full-fledged implementation. And powers that be in at least two of the agencies involved (SEPTA and NJT) have already said 'no' -- fairly categorically, if I remember correctly -- to joint-service runthroughs on a regular basis. While we're looking at that subject ... hasn't MNCR now gone so far as to buy their own locomotives as well as consists for the Port Jervis service... just to avoid commingling with NJT?
Do it this way:
Demonstrate the concept
Find as many technical ways of doing things, sample policies and procedures, etc. so that you have collateral to prove the things you want will be practical
Line up your connections ASAP so that when rainmaker time comes, you have the feet in all the doors, and when dowsing time comes you know your stick will be effective. Associated with this: don't make enemies early.
I think -- gently, preliminarily, and only for 'forum fodder', that it would NOT be wise to start something like this 'based on the idea' that only full-scale run-through service, across multiple entities with currently-unshared assets, is the place to start. In my experience, there is quite a chasm, and it's more than a semantic one in practice, between "if you build it, they will come" and "when you build it, they will come."
The first is usually something of a dream, except in baseball movies. The latter is a consequence of appropriate promotion, publicity, and other things derived from an inherently provable-before-the-fact demonstration. I would start small, without bruising toes or egos -- with something that has significant perceived advantages to the 'target markets'... including many quadrants that don't yet realize or understand they are target markets...
2. The east side access to GCT will feed an 8 track station. LIRR plans to divert some trains from Jamica & Flushing line to GCT. Those diversions will open slots at NYP that appear cannot readily be filled from Jamica due to its congestion. MTA thru MNRR indicates they wan to send some trains from NH line and Hudson line to NYP to use these slots ? There has been much discussion about MNRR M-8s going to NYP with the 4th track that CR (?) removed from hell gate bridge being restored for MNRR use.
5. Tri-Rail when it built their double track bridge over the New river near Ft. Lauredale was built for commuter trains and AMTRAK although freights can use it. Freights usually use the draw bridge that was not removed.. I believe that the bridge slope is 1.5 - 1.8 %.. This bridge was built for a 65' over mean high water. It only cost about ~~$65M to builda few years ago. None of the Passenger trains have any loss of speed going over the bridge..
7. Does anyone know if track arrangements for Harlem line access to NYP could be done with a dual mode locomotive ?
You see, I'd think equipment interusage would be one of the great sticking points.
How is the mileage and depreciation allowance allocated? What about wrecks or damage? How do you allocate the cost to turn the train in New Haven, or Philadelphia, if the standard is lower or the job less completely done/supervised at one end than the other? What about wrecks? Insurance? Allocation for wear and tear?
Now, if there can be diesel run-throughs, there can be electric run-throughs about as easily. The problem is that all the arrangements must be explicitly and contractually made ... and that requires first a formal framework, and then willing people staffing that framework.
A better 'start' would be service with covered, across-the-platform guaranteed connections between trains, with the restricted dwell time, better 'regional' timing or service, etc. applied to those connecting trains as part of the special trial.
Only a short step from there to having private vendors re-creating the old job of 'news butcher' on the trains, or supplying 'sidewalk-fair' style service from carts or stands that are set up at the times passengers will be present for the special services. A bully pulpit for appropriate-scale testing of a fairly wide range of 'regional' amenity enhancements. Or promotion of local attractions otherwise unknown to travelers. Etc...
Another thing this model of 'starting out' would provide is additional destination pairs either 'free' or with almost vanishingly slight opportunity cost. Going up the Hudson Line toward Poughkeepsie instead of to New Haven? One platform's difference... or wait for what pulls up immediately after that New Haven connection has gone...
RME
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.