We had this discussion a while back about bypassing NY, but it was pointed out in a Trains article on the NEC, that about 90% of passengers on a train thru NYP will exit at Penn Station. Hard to justify a bypass with those numbers.
If the present tunnels are only good for 20 more years, then they better start building new tunnels now, based on the length of time it's taking to build the East Side Access.
I didn't directly suggest the Elmira route...in fact I didn't suggest it at all but did suggest Binghamton or Maybrook in order to use existing rights of way and railroads. If your purpose is to avoid Manhattan, then any route idea is game. And it would have to be high speed with very limited stops, too. So a freight railroad cannot say a train leaving Boston stopping say, Springfield, MA; , Albany, NY; Binghamton, NY; Scranton and Harrisburg, PA; and Baltimore, MD to Washington, DC. Off the top of my head I came up with about 700 miles. Even at 125 the average speed will be down around 90 to 100 MPH and Boston to D.C. could be around 7 hours. But how many would really want that? The train needs people to and from locations enroute thus the Shore LIne into Manhattan puts people in the seats and pays the cost of the train. As grande as skipping Manhattan sounds, the sound of Ca Ching is missing unless market research can prove otherwise on another route. And the number of those going all the way Boston to D.C. might fill one train daily anyway, so why not just run it through Penn Station and be done with it. Yeah, change crews at Sunnyside instead.
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.
As Dave said, some trains would still run through NYP. And as I said, on the 2nd route folks could shuttle in from Newark or someplace like Rye or western CT. No one suggested the old Maybrook line or the Elmira route. And trains would be averaging at least 125 on the new line, not stuck in the past century at 50.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Am I reading this thread right?
Are some contributors here suggesting that a possible solution to Penn Station's worn out tunnels is to bypass Manhattan??
At least when I suggested earlier that a small part of the river be lowered I was being obviously ridiculous. To now put forth seriously the idea of changing trains to get into Manhattan on Amtrak is absurd. Try to sell that idea to the paying public and not just a few railfans; I bet it doesn't get any traction, as it were.
Now can we get back to replacing the tunnels?
Interesting. And the Maybrook line would be the most likely thought of Manhattan by pass route...kind of like recreating the old Federal...Shore Line from Boston to Devon to Danbury to Poughkeepsie to Maybrook to Belvedere, Philipsburg, and either Trenton or West Trenton.
However, the first question is why? Why do it? Is there enough need to do it? Maybe using some short cuts across CT instead of the Shore LIne would help...even if only to New Haven or Devon...to enter NYC. Or maybe the Hell Gate route to southwest Brooklyn then tunnel under the Bay or is there room on the Verrazano Bridge for one or two tracks?
Another note: D.C. is directly south of Elmira, NY. So Boston to Albany then the former D&H to Binghamton and south through Harrisburg to Havre de Grace MD? This longer route would really be a showcase for high speed rail over about a 700 mile route with plenty of opportunity to hit the limits on the long valley stretches and get pushed up the hills by the momentum At 50 mph average that is over 14 hours...but with higher speeds averaging 80 could be less than 9 hours and 100 would be 7 hours.
But again, would it really pay to cut out Manhattan? And if so, at what price?
What Schhlimm is proposing is something I have been advocating for years to speed up connections between New Haven and all points north to and from Philadelphia and all points south, to make Boston - Washington more competitive with both driving and air travel. There would still be plenty of NY -Washington trains running via the existing route, but a rebuilt Maybrook line, Poughkeepsie Bridge, and the L&NE or L&HR rebuilt to connect with the Jersey Central (CSX) line to Bound Brook, and Trenton, the Reading line (CSX) to where it goes under the NEC, and a flyover Junction at North Philadelphia, or perhaps use the whole B&O route to Washington as well, although there are other points that could be logically tied back into the NEC. IN addition, and not replacing current Acela and NERegionals, there would be high speed trains Boston - Proivdence - (New London) - New Haven - (West Trenton) - Philadlephia - Baltimore - Washington. Some trains would bypass the stations in parrenthasis, and there might be Boston - Washignton nonstops as well. It is the Metro North commuter zone that really h hampers high speed service in the corridor, with the NJT zone a second issue.
henry6 In and around Manhattan Island you do not have rivers as in normal flows but rather tidal waters with ebb and flow. In fact the East River is really not a river at all but a sound or extension of a sound and is totally tidal. The Hudson River is often considered to start at Spuyten Devil and it is the North RIver below that. Salt water can be found as far north as the Bear Mt. Bridge and tidal effects are felt beyond Albany. Most all new build and heavily used stations on MNRR and LIRR lines are high platform to Ronkonkoma and Babylon and a few east of there. NJT is rebuilding stations for high platforms especially along the Corridor at locations where there aren't any; several on the NJCoast line have been added Long Branch and north and a few on the Raritan River LIne. Morristown line has high platforms now at Newark, Summit, and Dover as well as Montclair University. Pascack Valley and Main/Bergen and Southern Tier lines are low platforms. As for Hoboken...I think the problem of installing high platforms is that they would have to be extended west for needed lengths because steps or ramps would take up almost a car length at the bumper blocks. What might be smart is to put an underground tunnel about midway connecting all platforms to PATH with escalator entrances.
In and around Manhattan Island you do not have rivers as in normal flows but rather tidal waters with ebb and flow. In fact the East River is really not a river at all but a sound or extension of a sound and is totally tidal. The Hudson River is often considered to start at Spuyten Devil and it is the North RIver below that. Salt water can be found as far north as the Bear Mt. Bridge and tidal effects are felt beyond Albany.
Most all new build and heavily used stations on MNRR and LIRR lines are high platform to Ronkonkoma and Babylon and a few east of there. NJT is rebuilding stations for high platforms especially along the Corridor at locations where there aren't any; several on the NJCoast line have been added Long Branch and north and a few on the Raritan River LIne. Morristown line has high platforms now at Newark, Summit, and Dover as well as Montclair University. Pascack Valley and Main/Bergen and Southern Tier lines are low platforms. As for Hoboken...I think the problem of installing high platforms is that they would have to be extended west for needed lengths because steps or ramps would take up almost a car length at the bumper blocks. What might be smart is to put an underground tunnel about midway connecting all platforms to PATH with escalator entrances.
Or just build a damn at Yonkers and redirect the Hudson across land in a newly dredged channel towards the Atlantic there. Then use fill from the dredged land to cross what would be an empty swamp West of Manhattan or just fill it all in and allow that part of NY to connect to NJ. Would probably require a damn just above the East River as well.
Costly but not impossible.
Again, I think the best approach is to construct two new tunnels and use an inovative and cost-effective way to preserve the existing two tunnels. At the same time, regarding Hoboken, high platforms would increasse its capacity by shortening loading and unloading times, and both Metro North and LIRR found value in going to all-high-platform passenger railroading for electrified lines. (I do not know the platform conditions on lines beyond electrification on these two railroad, but I believe they are currently a mixture.) Doing this at Hoboken may best involve lowering the track levels by four feet, but of course this involves additional protection against flooding.
There is no room to dredge. Two Amtrak tunnels, 4 PATH tubes, 3 Lincoln Tunnel tubes and I believe 3 Holland Tunnel tubes aren't that far below the surface....in fact the :PATH tubes theoretically rest on the floor of the River though quite covered with silt and garbage. Would have to redesign and rebuild them anyway. But the problem is not the river but Manhattan Island itself. As suggested, a 1.5 mile approach would reach all the way across the Island to the East River! Yes, subways do it over the Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges across the East River, but rapid transit subways are much different than heavy standard railroads. No. Bridge is out of the question for railroad trains at this point in time.
To the fine analysis of the difficulties and expenses of building a bridge or another tunnel to Penn Station, let me make a modest proposal:
Could not the North River (aka the Hudson) be lowered sufficiently to allow passage of vessels underneath? I think if the river were lowered just under the new bridge it wouldn't disrupt things too much or require a high bridge and its approaches.
Or we (Feds, states, Amtrak, etc) could just get real and invest in some new tunnels and start work before another 100 years pass.
CMStPnP Why not just think outside the box and replace the tunnel with a bridge here. The Hudson has been bridged several times in the past. So take 23rd street out of service in Weehawken and convert it to a double track ROW, it goes almost right to the riverbank, on the other side you have Hudson Yards. What take maybe 4-5 tracks out of Hudson Yard and you have an elevated approach to the River that can land on the former 23rd street and proceed to where the tunnel portal is on the New Jersey side. How much would this cost vs a tunnel AND wouldn't it eliminate the potential for flooding in the future more than another tunnel would?
Why not just think outside the box and replace the tunnel with a bridge here.
The Hudson has been bridged several times in the past.
So take 23rd street out of service in Weehawken and convert it to a double track ROW, it goes almost right to the riverbank, on the other side you have Hudson Yards. What take maybe 4-5 tracks out of Hudson Yard and you have an elevated approach to the River that can land on the former 23rd street and proceed to where the tunnel portal is on the New Jersey side. How much would this cost vs a tunnel AND wouldn't it eliminate the potential for flooding in the future more than another tunnel would?
MILW
There are some practical problems with a bridge. The first and most significant is how high does it have to be? From Google Earth it looks like the top deck of the George Washington is about 150 feet above the water. Lets assume 4 tracks two up and two down. Is the 150 feet a good number? I do not know since the site you propose is downstream from the GW. That is up to Army Corps of Engineers. Lets take 150 feet for talking purposes.
What ruling grade will we tollerate? Steeper grade means shorter approach structure, most of which would probably be viaduct. If we take 2%, a typical freight maximum, that is 100 feet per mile in round numbers, so we need 1.5 mile approach grade to attain that elevation. Also need room for vertical curves so lets make it simple and say 1.5 mile approach on each side of main foundation piers which will be about 6,000 feet apart.
Wait, you say we are talking about passenger trains we don't need no stinking freight standards. That is true, but how quickly do you think you can stop a downhill train on a 4% grade in the rain? Restated, how much of a speed restriction are you willing to tollerate?
Taking your landing point at the train yard we will be at least 120 feet above the sea level, maybe 100 feet above the street and will touch ground in about 1.25 miles, with vertical curve at the bottom.
Especially in NYC you are dealing with VERY expensive real estate. Two tracks will require at least 50' right of way. That is roughly 6 acres per mile, or 7.5 acres minimum assuming we keep tracks stacked. In addition will have to pay damages for probably a quarter of a mile on each side due to noise pollution. Big bucks there. Oh by the way IIRC, ATK sold air rights over the train yard in NYC you figure to pass over. Have to buy them back AND pay damages to the developer.
The point is that a bridge has issues too.
Mac
CMStPnP Why not just think outside the box and replace the tunnel with a bridge here. That's the problem I have with Boardman's comments as well as this whole tunnel box thingy. I would be curious how much time the current tunnels save over other alternatives............say maybe exiting Manhattan using a bridge versus a tunnel. The Hudson has been bridged several times in the past. So take 23rd street out of service in Weehawken and convert it to a double track ROW, it goes almost right to the riverbank, on the other side you have Hudson Yards. What take maybe 4-5 tracks out of Hudson Yard and you have an elevated approach to the River that can land on the former 23rd street and proceed to where the tunnel portal is on the New Jersey side. How much would this cost vs a tunnel AND wouldn't it eliminate the potential for flooding in the future more than another tunnel would?
That's the problem I have with Boardman's comments as well as this whole tunnel box thingy. I would be curious how much time the current tunnels save over other alternatives............say maybe exiting Manhattan using a bridge versus a tunnel. The Hudson has been bridged several times in the past.
What height would the bridge have to clear for current and prospective vessel traffic? 100 Feet, 150 feet, 200 feet - what sort of grade would a train be able to negotiate to get to the bridge height?
A drawbridge would not work as there is too much train traffic and too much water traffic, as well as I would expect the Coast Guard to have serious objections for creating an additional choke point on a heavily used navigable waterway.
V- Titanic and a current Cruise ship
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
CMStPnPWhy not just think outside the box and replace the tunnel with a bridge here.
That's actually ironic. The tunnels replaced a plan to build a bridge. What made the tunnels possible was electrification. Ultimately, the tunnels were a huge risk but saved about 1/2 the cost of the bridge.
That said, trying to find space for a bridge and approach would an expensive nightmare. The tunnels really solved a myriad of issues the original bridge design had.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Several reasons come to mind concerning a bridge for trains to and from NJ. One the the lack of land needed for the approaches, etc.in both NJ and NYC. Second, simply, it all would have to go underground once in the city. Therefore probably costs would be easier to control with tunnels, grades up and down for a bridge would probably be a problem. SO yea, the tunnel idea would probably work best in so many ways.
As to automatic or even cab controlled voltage change on MU's. SEPTA wisely chose all of them back when. Plus, today the NJT MU's are nearing replacement age so that is why no one will go along with the change. Beyond that, we are not sure NJT is over the push-pull mentality yet. It would do well for them to do so.
I really don't think high platforms would be that cost effective for Hoboken because of the present perfect platform to bottom step match. Cost and use of stairs at the concourse end of the platforms would negate the advantage and ramps might be too steep or sharp. Overall, it works well and has for over a century, so why change or fix what ain't broke ?
I have some familiarity with Hoboken Terminal and believe high platforms can be installed. The MJU cars can and should be modified for automatic voltage change. It is not rocket science. Yes, new flyovers are necessary but there is space for them without much change to existing track arrangements.
The arrangement and plans curtailed by Christie would have helped Amtrak by removing mos NJT trains from Amtrak platforms and tunnels, thus giving Amtrak greater capaciti.
Working backwards...the issue of platform height at Hoboken is minimal in my estimation: the bottom step of each car is level and less than an inch with the platforms...no high steps or gap leaps. Not high level, but just as good if not better from my use and perspective.
The connection from the Morristown Line to the Corridor to get to Newark Penn station is a problem and cannot be confused witht he MidTown Direct connection further west on the Morristown Line and in a different direction. For westbound moves to Newark Penn, trains must cross over in front of eastbound traffic causing a bottleneck of sorts as trains in both directions for the most part are slowed down. The line itself is between two divisions and through yard limits. A lot of reworking and re-philosophising has to be...and should be...done to accomplish a better operation. And, if electric trains, there is a voltage adjustment which requires a higher speed than can be offered now. BUT any and all diesel routes can be handled for Raritan Valley, North Jersey Coast, and even Trenton (in fact there used to be a westbound Trenton Direct from Hoboken during evening rush hours).
Maintenance of anything is not 'star material' for those involved. It is hard, dirty work without being able to shout to the world 'I built something new'!
As a society we denigrate the maintenance of anything that currently exists - software, hardware, roadway, bridges, tunnels - you name it - keeping what exists working doesn't get all the accolades and promotions.
When I was working in my company's technology department, people that go assigned to maintaining legacy software thought they had been banished to Siberia. This mentality is pervasive throughout our society.
Nothing lasts forever!
schlimm Major roads (perhaps all) should rely on user fees, higher for commercial enterprises, much lower rates for individuals. The railroads should pay user fees to support the lines.
Major roads (perhaps all) should rely on user fees, higher for commercial enterprises, much lower rates for individuals. The railroads should pay user fees to support the lines.
Schlimm,
That last sentance puts you at the head of the pack of economic idiots. The railroads own, maintain, and pay taxes on their infrastructure. The freight carriers, thanks to the partial deregulation of the Staggers Act of 1980, are finally able to earn a reasonable return on their investment and are pouring billions per year into capacity improvements despite having to absorb the burden of PTC. The "Grow America Act" you referred to on another thread proposes to transfer $150 billion from the general taxpayers to the highway trust fund, a huge subsidy to the truckers who are already paying far less than their fair share of highway costs which has the practical effect to shifting traffic to the roads from the railroads.
In the face of all that you say the railroads should pay user fees!!! That is as stupid as saying that a homeowner should pay rent on his own home. What do you think will happen to the rail's user fees? I would be willing to bet they would go in large part to further subsidize the truckers.
Mac McCulloch
First, I want to repeat what I've said about Boardman in the past: he is probably the most politically savvy Amtrak President of all. He started as a political appointee to several municipal transportation agencies before moving up to NYS DOT Chair followed by heading the FRA for George W. Bush.
Second. I f you haven't read the book CONQUERING GOTHAM by Jonnes, do so. It reveals the trials and political tribulations of building the tunnels and Pennsylvania Station in the first place.
Third. The New York and New Jersey Port of Authority, the states of NY and NJ and their political entourages from governors to the local ward healers all want to play digging in the dirt and sand in their own ways and and power grabs.
Fourth, what NJ Governor Christie did by stopping the tunnel project was good in the long run because of its shortcomings. I didn't think so then, but in hindsight, am in agreement.
The mixing together of national politics and regional needs is the problem as power fiefdoms arm wrestle while Rome burns. NJT needs the tunnels as much as Amtrak. NYC needs the tunnels as much as NJ and Amtrak. We need the tunnels...new ones and old ones...so we've got to stop the national political game played by Congress of money and parochialism as well as the one upmanship game many play between NY and NJ. Amtrak through its President (Joe Boardman at present) has to take control, as owner of the property, and forge alliances and agreements amongst all parties to make it happen.
dakotafredMost railroads of 40-50 years ago had no choice about that deferred maintenance. There was no money for maintenance. It was defer -- and stop running trains someday -- or stop running trains right now.
And that is the problem. Since they must attempt to be a profitable or at least minimal loss enterprise, they not only deferred maintenance, but greatly reduced their plant (tracks, facilities) to further cut costs. Short-sighted, but necessary. Now they are straining capacity and having to add track and turn away potentially profitable business.
With a national infrastructure properly funded (I will stay away from sources of revenue here), rail lines would be well-maintained, updated, upgraded, including much wider use of electrification on heavily used lines.
NKP guy The fate of these Hudson Tunnels will tell us a lot about the future of America.
The fate of these Hudson Tunnels will tell us a lot about the future of America.
Strange that no one has so far mentioned that the new tunnels might be 2 years closer to reality if the Governor of New Jersey (famous for his interest in bridges) had not vetoed the project. So let's lay the blame where it belongs. Oh, and also on the Port Authority which since 2001 has shown far more interested in real estate development in Manhattan than in infrastructure for transit.
As to 40-50 years ago, I believe it was Hurricane Agnes that delivered the coup de grace to the Erie Lackawanna; they couldn't replace all those bridges at once, especially in a declining industrial area.
If we really want to put Americans back to work and re-build our country we're going to have to learn not to scorn ideas like the Stimulus Bill just because we don't like the party proposing it or have an aversion to government spending.
daveklepper There may be ways to extend the lives of the two tunnels without shutting them down more than one at a time for a number of weekends. Possibilties might inlcude prefabricated thin high-streingth rust-preventive steel liners inserted within the existing tunnels, or a sprayed high-strength concrete-type lining.
There may be ways to extend the lives of the two tunnels without shutting them down more than one at a time for a number of weekends. Possibilties might inlcude prefabricated thin high-streingth rust-preventive steel liners inserted within the existing tunnels, or a sprayed high-strength concrete-type lining.
schlimm It is a tell-tale sign of a nation in decline that lets existing infrastructure decay and is not building new for the future. All part of a self-destructive theme of wringing out profits today and giving the finger to the future. Recall "deferred maintenance" on most railroads 40-50 years ago?
It is a tell-tale sign of a nation in decline that lets existing infrastructure decay and is not building new for the future. All part of a self-destructive theme of wringing out profits today and giving the finger to the future.
Recall "deferred maintenance" on most railroads 40-50 years ago?
Half of the problem with the infrastructure is that the government hasn't been doing maintance like they should have been doing. The infrastructure slowly breaks down overtime without maintance. Now it is to the point that many things need to be replaced. One of the biggest things is bridges with around 50% failing.
The other part of the problem is the government shot itself in the foot by requiring car manufacture to improve fuel economy. The way the government makes money to pay for the roads is through gas taxes, but more efficient cars means less gas used which is less gas bought which means less budget for roads. Honestly, you have to wonder if anyone thinks anymore.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.