Instead of longer trains with accompanying upgrades at stations, an option is to look at bi-level train cars. The French have their bi-level TGV Duplex and bi-level train cars and MUs are in use all over Europe for local, regional and some long-distance trains.
NJT is of course already using bi-levels on some of their trains.
schlimm The only way to increase the passenger capacity of the NEC without enormous infrastructure costs is to increase train speeds, thus allowing more trains to run per hour.with the same distance between them for safety. As time goes by and the new, faster Acela trains come online, the regional trains will likely need to be cut back because of those capacity restraints.
The only way to increase the passenger capacity of the NEC without enormous infrastructure costs is to increase train speeds, thus allowing more trains to run per hour.with the same distance between them for safety. As time goes by and the new, faster Acela trains come online, the regional trains will likely need to be cut back because of those capacity restraints.
There also needs be some infrastructure upgrades. Not the $40B+ that will speed up the NEC to the planned- 160 MPH but funds to lengthen trains to 14 cars. That will take some station's platforms to get longer. Trenton, Wilmington, Baltimore, and some Washington platforms. NYP does have only a few track platforms that can take 14 but maybe very precise scheduling can be implemented. Ultimately the above stations can be lengthened to handle 18 cars + 2 motors. NYP can only lengthen when the Gateway project is completed. That cost may be as much as $10B.
14 car regional trains will require a lot more coaches & business class cars. 14 lengths will also allow Acela-1s to be coupled together for higher capacity once Acela-2s are built to cover more slots..
Exactly how 14 cars will fit NYP -- BOS is unknown by me.
Thanks, CJtrainguy. I am not sure how I missed it, but, miss it I did.
Johnny
Official outline of the Gateway Project here:
Gateway Project pdf
CJtrainguy I never did like the separate station next to New York Penn for ARC, because inherently the flexibility of bringing trains in on any track is a good thing. So in that respect, the Gateway Project is an improvement. The negative in killing ARC is that everything was kicked back to the planning and talking about stage, rather than building something. At least there is some very preliminary protective building activity for the Gateway Project taking place on Manhattan now. Obviously additional tunnels will be built eventually. I'd like to see that be sooner rather than later though. And at some point we're going to have to deal with the fact that the current North River tunnels are now over 100 years old…
I never did like the separate station next to New York Penn for ARC, because inherently the flexibility of bringing trains in on any track is a good thing. So in that respect, the Gateway Project is an improvement.
The negative in killing ARC is that everything was kicked back to the planning and talking about stage, rather than building something.
At least there is some very preliminary protective building activity for the Gateway Project taking place on Manhattan now.
Obviously additional tunnels will be built eventually. I'd like to see that be sooner rather than later though.
And at some point we're going to have to deal with the fact that the current North River tunnels are now over 100 years old…
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Thanks, Henry.
Gateway is use of present NYP and adding tracks from another tunnel project basically. Includes Amtrak and NJT. And LIRR to a lesser extent. Gets money from Amtrak and not all on the shoulders of NJ or NJT. Also calls for revamping all of NYP structure wise.
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.
I thought I was keeping up with what is going on in the NYC-NJ area, but I must confess that I do not recall anything about a Gateway project. Can one of you fill me in on this?
Thanks,
Right on all matters....but if Christie didn't put the brakes on ARC, millions would have been spent in waste. I'd like to see a downtown set of tunnels....from the old Erie alignment perhaps, under the Hudson and Manhattan to Brooklyn or Queens perhaps tying into the LIRR or other existing tracks for yarding or through services to LIRR or even New England or loop back to NYP....lots of need for lots of upcoming transit, commuter, and regional needs.
CJtrainguy schlimm Amtrak needs separate, dedicated tracks, not shared with commuter trains (or freight, for that matter) in the NEC. I suppose the bottleneck is the Hudson tunnel. How many tracks is it? Is that why there was a proposed new tunnel that was rejected by Christie? The Hudson tunnels (aka North River Tunnels) consist of 2 tubes with one track each. So you have a double track line connecting New York Penn to anything south. Additional tracks are sorely needed for more capacity. Which was what ARC that Christie killed was supposed to bring in its way. And what Amtrak is exploring adding with its Gateway Program.
schlimm Amtrak needs separate, dedicated tracks, not shared with commuter trains (or freight, for that matter) in the NEC. I suppose the bottleneck is the Hudson tunnel. How many tracks is it? Is that why there was a proposed new tunnel that was rejected by Christie?
Amtrak needs separate, dedicated tracks, not shared with commuter trains (or freight, for that matter) in the NEC. I suppose the bottleneck is the Hudson tunnel. How many tracks is it? Is that why there was a proposed new tunnel that was rejected by Christie?
The Hudson tunnels (aka North River Tunnels) consist of 2 tubes with one track each. So you have a double track line connecting New York Penn to anything south.
Additional tracks are sorely needed for more capacity. Which was what ARC that Christie killed was supposed to bring in its way. And what Amtrak is exploring adding with its Gateway Program.
Actually ARC would have been NJT trains only, no Amtrak, and would have terminated at a stub station which would have required deadhead moves and quick turnarounds in order to keep station tracks clear. In hind sight Christie probably made a good move...there were many at the time who thought the same. It did not utilize NYP, did not integrate or interface with Amtrak, LIRR, or other NJT services....it was a quick and rash concept pushed through more by exasperation than sound judgement...but it did get adrenaline flowing and ideas being considered and adapted.; however, it is mostly still talk.
daveklepperOf course better and more reliable braking can allow higher speeds while retaining an existing block system. Possibly commuter railroads with captive consists not interchanged should consider magnetic track brakes which allow modern light rail cars to mix with traffic and operate in pedestrian zones with excellent safety. They would be used only in emergency brake applications. West Penn used them on interurban cars built in 1912. Standard on all PCC streetcars, but I do not believe they were retained on the Spam Cans (CTA 6000's). They were used on the C&LE "Red Devils" and the Indiana "High Speeds."
Track brakes for safety would be helpful for line capacity, but they'd have to be "failsafe" if you wanted them as part of your PTC system.
CJtrainguyAdditional tracks are sorely needed for more capacity. Which was what ARC that Christie killed was supposed to bring in its way. And what Amtrak is exploring adding with its Gateway Program.
ARC was a bad idea. Gateway is much better. Christie probably did the right thing killing ARC.
To get more capacity, you have to fix the bottlenecks, which are usually terminal areas in the freight train world, but are often line capacity in the transit/passenger world. Once you get to a movable block system and the best possible train braking system, the only thing left is adding tracks.
henry6but still commuter roads find getting another train in an hour by speeding things up works.
Wow, you just won't give it up....
Just saying it doesn't make it true. Which one? Where? When? What was MAS before and after?
Phoebe VetIf you measure headways in signal blocks or miles you will get a different result. The faster a train clears a block, the sooner the block is available for the next train.
Nope. Because faster trains need longer blocks - or more blocks - to keep safe separation.
But track and platform capacity in Penn Station itself is also an issue. And Metro North wants Penn Station access!
Of course better and more reliable braking can allow higher speeds while retaining an existing block system. Possibly commuter railroads with captive consists not interchanged should consider magnetic track brakes which allow modern light rail cars to mix with traffic and operate in pedestrian zones with excellent safety. They would be used only in emergency brake applications. West Penn used them on interurban cars built in 1912. Standard on all PCC streetcars, but I do not believe they were retained on the Spam Cans (CTA 6000's). They were used on the C&LE "Red Devils" and the Indiana "High Speeds."
Moveable blocks and cab signals are the keys to speed and capacity...but still commuter roads find getting another train in an hour by speeding things up works.
Yes Phoebe-Vet, but the faster the allowable train speed, the longer the block, so the two cancel. The only way to increase capacity is by going to moving blocks, and this comes close to doubling capacity. In other words the distance between signal spacing for the speed becomes, with a moving block system, the safety block behind the moving train. Whereas, with fixed blocks, the train behind sees a red signal, until the train ahead is actually two blocks ahead.
One side of this argument is measuring headways in minutes and in that frame of reference it is valid.
If you measure headways in signal blocks or miles you will get a different result. The faster a train clears a block, the sooner the block is available for the next train.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
daveklepper A moving-block signal system can increase capacity over a fixed signal system. Moving block systems without wayside signal and only cab signals and automatic preempting safety train control could do the job and are possible within today's technology.
A moving-block signal system can increase capacity over a fixed signal system. Moving block systems without wayside signal and only cab signals and automatic preempting safety train control could do the job and are possible within today's technology.
A moving block signal system will maximize your capacity, regardless of train speed. Flow rate will be virtually the same for any speed.
schlimm In a way, both POV's have merit. Let us assume that point NYP to point DC is 200 miles. In a 4 hour period, we can have trains depart one way every 30 minutes. If they average 50 mph, we can only get one train from point to point. If 100 mph, twice as many. That ratio lowers obviously over a 10-15 hour day, but the equipment utilization advantage of higher speeds also kicks in.
In a way, both POV's have merit. Let us assume that point NYP to point DC is 200 miles. In a 4 hour period, we can have trains depart one way every 30 minutes. If they average 50 mph, we can only get one train from point to point. If 100 mph, twice as many. That ratio lowers obviously over a 10-15 hour day, but the equipment utilization advantage of higher speeds also kicks in.
If you depart one train every 30 minutes, the flow past any point in the system is the same regardless of speed.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity.
It's only reasonable if it's true....
Higher speed means you need less equipment because you can turn it more often and it means faster trip times, but it doesn't change capacity one iota.
henry6 But you design the whole system to increase capacity: increased speed is the result of track, signal, and locomotion...all three can be designed for braking distances, headways, size of trains, speeds, etc. You cannot go 100 miles an hour with a bicycle or on poor track, or with a manual flag system. It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity...on that 100 mi stretch at 50 MPH it would take a train two hours to go end to end but only one train can run at a time. So at 75 mph it would take 1 hr 20 minutes and at 100 mph one hour. At 75 MPH, therefore, can run a train every 80 minutes and at 100 mph you can run a train every 60 minutes...you have increased capacity with increased speed.
But you design the whole system to increase capacity: increased speed is the result of track, signal, and locomotion...all three can be designed for braking distances, headways, size of trains, speeds, etc. You cannot go 100 miles an hour with a bicycle or on poor track, or with a manual flag system. It stands to reason that if you increase speeds you can increase capacity...on that 100 mi stretch at 50 MPH it would take a train two hours to go end to end but only one train can run at a time. So at 75 mph it would take 1 hr 20 minutes and at 100 mph one hour. At 75 MPH, therefore, can run a train every 80 minutes and at 100 mph you can run a train every 60 minutes...you have increased capacity with increased speed.
You are still confusing speed and capacity.
A train every 4 minutes is a train every 4 minutes, whether it's going 5 mph or 200 mph. Same capacity.
A train of 500 people arrives every 4 minutes. How many people arrive in a hour? That's the capacity.
henry6But if you redesign your signals and tracks to allow for higher speed, the headways can be shortened. And if you can then send trains with 10 or 12 minute headways, you've increased capacity. Allowable speed can come about only by improved track and signals and not just saying "go faster".
You are correct when you say that increasing train frequency increases capacity. This has nothing to do with speed. Increasing speed does not increase frequency.
The limit is safe (and for passenger trains - comfortable) braking rate - which is simple physics.
If you have a line that is at capacity, with signalling optimized for the current speeds, there is nothing you can do to increase capacity, no matter what you do to the signaling.
You have to have braking distance between trains. Braking rate is constant. Distance increases proportional to speed.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.