New York City Stations/ West Side line ?

[daveklepper]

Again, technical arguments against through service simply don't hold up.  Both LIRR and Metro North are part of the MTA, and for a long time some consultants have advised that the two plus the subway system be combined under MTA Rail Operations with MTA bus operations being the other organization (and the two coordinating).   OIbviously there is cultural war, not a technical problem, with this idea.  But the existing Amtrak type dual modes could provide the service by using LIRR third rail in Penn Station and in all tunnels and diesel elsewhere.  And the FL-9 dual sprung shoes were not a problem until maintenace, mostly of the third rail, particularly at breaks in the Park Ave Tunnel and GCT approaches, fell down.  

The 49% to and from GCT refers to Metro North commuter tickets sold, and people traveling on  by subway (or bus or taxi) are included in that figure.   I meant final destination on Metro North, not on the total commute, sorry for the misunderstanding.

There is a technical paper on how such through service drastically improved commuter train usage in Glascow, but I don't have my finger on it.

 Equally important is the direct one-seat, and same platform transfer, rides for LIRR and Hudson Div. riders to the GWBridge buses, Columbia University Complex, and Lincoln Center and adjacent areas.

A fleet of dual-third rail or dual-mode LIRR-Metro-North locomotives (or mu cars) would also be useful for special event traffic surges on both railroads.   And except for the type of third rail and easily bridged cab signal automatic train control differences (Amtrak equipment can handle both), there aren't other technical problems.  Voltage of both systems is the same (Hudson Div and LIRR) and both are DC.

 

The new 3-voltage New Haven Line cars could easily run over New Jersey Transit without problems.

[GP40]

In response to JT22CW comments: 

How do get the that I am blaming the PA for the demise of American mainline railroading?? I just wanted to make the point the PA was created in response to long range need that is still exist even to today and that the players at the did not percieve it and the tables were turned on those players within a generation by such factors as the Interstate Highway System etc.

Cooperative efforts such as the NY&LB and PRSL were the exceptions to the rule not the rule.

You know I forgot about the the Suzie Q, God bless them. Always kind of under the radar screen but still in find a way to survive even thrive.   

Giuliani did have the power. Both LGA and JFK are still owned by the City of New York.The lease of JFK was at the time was about to expire and the Mayor's office and others had proven that JFK had been short changed in the way of services and capital expenditures as compared to Newark Airport.  If Giuliani were allowed to run and win for a third term the PA probably would have lost their lease of JFK and another operator would have been selected.

One man's favor is a another man's compromise. Yes it was a condition for the WTC. Yes the PA is pretty autonomous but it is foremost politcal and has to answer to its political masters the two governers of NY and NJ. The Twin Towers were at first to built one in lower Manhattan and the other just across the Hudson River in Jersey City. so yes the H&M purchase and refurbishment with the PA series of cars and other long overdue upgrades was a condition of the building of the WTC as it was built. And NO I don't blame the PA for bankruptcy of the H&M. Where did get that idea? 

You prove my point NYC is a big commuter destination like the cities I mentioned. That is why cross city communter rail tunnels work those cities sorry to say not so much in Philadelphia.

What you say is true what I am saying that existance of the FL9's left the idea in the MTA's brain trust that dual mode locos are not some fantasy like wrap drive but a very viable and desirable reality. Give them credit they tried once in replacing the FL9 in kind with new technology before getting the P32AC-DM's, the never to mentioned again FL9AC "Starships" .If  gave the college try twice it means that they had faith in the concept.  Now NJ Transit, Caltrans and the agency tha runs Montreal's commuter rail operations are giving dualmode locos a more than serious look. 

MNRR can indeed initiate service to Rhinecliff it is within the MTA tax base catchment area (Dutchess County). It just that operationaling it is problematic the only space for a storage yard is north of there and out of the MTA catchment area. BTW Wassaic is 82 miles from NYC but the terminal and yard falls within the the MTA catchment area.  

I just reconfirmed with my MNRR source the M8's will indeed have 3 voltage capability and ACSES. Not in order to run to Boston but to run to New London when they take over the service form SLE and to run to Penn Sta. from New Rochelle.  

 

[daveklepper]

Minor correction to a good and thorough analysis:

The New York Westchester and Boston's Southern Terminal, up to 1931 shared with the New Haven Railroad's New Rochelle - Harlem River Shuttle, was on East 133rd Street, not East 108th.   (No E. 108 in The Bronx!), actually on E.132nd.   Yes, at one time there was a water ferryboat connection to Manhattan there.   In fact at one time the sleepers of the Federal Express were handled on a car ferry from there to the Pennsy's Greenville New Jersey piers, then came the Poughkeepsie River Bridge, and then the Hell Gate.   Most people arriving at the NYW&B terminal continued south via the 3rd Avenue El, possibly the 2nd Avenue as well, since the station was served by both lines.   But many had gotton off at East 180th Street and changed to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line (now the 5 Train) at that point.

There was a direct across the platform transfer from the 11000V AC catenary track used by both the Harlem River Shuttle and the NYW&B and the third rail 600V DC track used by the  "Westchester Connection" shuttle of the 3rd Avenue El.   This ran south to the 129th Steet station, served by 2nd Avenue and 3rd Avenue Locals, but not rush hour expresses!  So many people just hiked the one block walk over to the 133rd Street 2-tracks-on-2-levels station and boarded a southbound 3rd Avenue or 2nd Avenue Express at that station.     Around 1935 the across-the-platform transfer was discontinued, and a covered walkway built between the NYW&B terminal and the 133rd Street El Station, used for the very few remaining years of the NYW&B.   The track was left in and used until well into the postwar period for delivering new IRT subway cars.   I rode a fan trip on the track around 1950.    I think the track connection survived until the demise of the 3rd Avenue El sourth of 149th Street, about 1963.

[JT22CW]

The PANYNJ doesn't have a "virulent anti-rail bias", otherwise they never would have built the Airtrains at EWR and JFK, nor funded NJ Transit's Waterfront Connection (among other projects), nor even taken on the operation of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad.  What the PANYNJ are, to be more accurate, would be territorial especially when it comes to their port facilities; and if the state governments didn't permit it to have the excess of autonomy it has, then they would have been able to implement practical rail projects like having the NYCTA and LIRR enter JFK and the H&M enter EWR.  "PATH to Plainfield", however, is without the realm of practicality.

JT22CW, obviously you have never attended any PANYNJ pulbic hearings RE: rail or talked to any objective observer who has watch the doings of the Port for the past 50 years or PA planners and engineers (of the record of course) on the real attitude the PA has towards rail and mass transit in particular.

1. This "virulent anti-rail bias" started back in the 1920's when the PANY just started and they tried to fullfill thier original mission of building a Cross Harbor Freight Railroad Tunnel. Sounds familiar ??? All the Class 1's that operated in and around the harbor at the time rebuffed them big time and wanted no parts of it. Because RR's being RR's at that time (to some extent even now) wanted to maintain total and absolute control over thier franchises and facilities and not share anything if they can help it. They thought that they would be the only viable means of land transportation forever so why cooperate. Meaning maintaining the expensive, labor intensive and numerous systems of car ferrys and lcl lighter barges. All the RR's that rebuffed the Port went bankrupted within a generation

Absurd, with all due respect.  You've just blamed all of the railroads' woes across the entire USA on the Port Authority.  Was the PA responsible for all of the abandonments and relinquishing of passenger service as well?  Was Amtrak a side-effect of the PA being tough on the railroads?  Was the PA at fault for the NYC takeover of the IRT and BMT?  Was the NYSW the only railroad that didn't "rebuff" the Port Authority, leading to its survival today?  (Was the bankruptcy of the Chicago, North Shore & Milwaukee due to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey?)

Railroads were not so intransigent; they were highly competitive, but they didn't go so far as to exclude every other road from their facilities.  If that were so, then the PRR and CNJ would never have shared the New York & Long Branch RR; the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines would never have come into existence; and there would never have been "Union Stations" in places like New Haven CT and Washington DC.  The Port Authority never wanted to build that freight tunnel, otherwise they would not have weaseled out of it, even to this day.

2. The only reason and I do mean the only reason that the Airtrains at EWR and JFK wrere built was that the airlines were complaining to the FAA and threatening lawsuits (which they would of won,) was that the PA wasn't doing a darn thing with the fees they had collected from FAA mandated "Airport Improvement Surcharge" on every ticket on every flight from those airports. They had to build something and their leases at those airports were about to expire at the time. Even Rudy Guiliani made a very credible threat to bring in another airport operator to JFK when that lease was set to expire. If they they were not as anti-rail as you claim then they would built extensions for either the LIRR or NYCTA or both directly into the JFKTerminals. And either a branch of the NEC or Path extension directly into the EWR terminal. Something that every major world city now has or is being built. Even Paris has a TGV station in the heart of Charles DeGuille (sic) Airport. Chicago and San Francisco has one rapid transit links into their airport. It is a matter of fact that the Newark Airport PATH extension was already laid out.

Not correct either.  FAA Airport Improvement Program funds must be competed for; they are not earmarked.  The airlines could never force the Port Authority to spend such funds on a rail link; in fact, the Port Authority would have to have been the entity to make the first move to apply for the use of such funds to build such rail systems.

Giuliani doesn't have the power to evict the PA from the airports within NYC.  If he wanted to make a move in that direction, he would have had to get Albany and Trenton involved.

Bloomberg tried to wheedle the Port Authority into extending the Airtrain into Lower Manhattan, even offering the LIRR's Atlantic Avenue branch and one of the subway tunnels under the East River as a sacrificial right of way. 

FTR, the TGV stop at Charles de Gaulle Airport is a RER stop (commuter rail).

3. The only reason and again I do mean the only reason that the PA bought the H&M RR was that was one of the conditions that New Jersey board members(read the Governer of NJ) would go along with the building of the World Trade Center. Remember it was built on the site of the old Lower Manhattan H&M terminal

Not necessarily.  The PA is pretty autonomous, and they could have chosen another site for the WTC quite readily.  The H&M takeover was most likely a favor instead of a compromise.  (Was the PA responsible for the H&M's bankruptcy too?)

There is only one thing wrong with your Philadelphia argument RE; Cross city rail tunnels. Philadelphia! It is not New York, London, Tokyo, Berlin or Paris

That's a poor rebuttal. Cities share one key element—they are the destination of commuter rail passengers. Longer-distance trains are the only ones that ought to have the focus of "through service", if any.

Pari

[GP40]

What I would do is run a third-rail PATH-type electrification out to High Bridge, extending PATH's service to replace the diesel NJT Raritan Valley diesel service

Nobody would ride PATH equipment for that distance (over 55 miles).  Not to mention, you've cut off the Lehigh Valley from passenger service permanently.  (Would you think that Conrail Shared Assets would permit PATH operation on the Lehigh Line through Hillside, Union and Roselle Park in New Jersey?)

Like I already noted, the state commuter agencies are operating commuter rail patterns established by the private railroads.  (This is why you have NJ Transit operating to Port Jervis NY via the Erie's former main line, and Metro-North operating deep into Connecticut out of Grand Central Terminal.)  Nobody's going to fix what isn't broken, at this point.

JT22CW,

You are forgetting that in the late 70s and early 80s there was a very serious and almost implemented plan to extend the PATH to Plainfield NJ. The route was that it would have proceeded south from its current terminal in Newark Penn Sta. follow along the westside of the NEC then make a right turn west unto the old CNJ alignment at Elizabeth NJ. then onto Plainfield. See no interference with the freight traffic on the LV main in fact it would have  eliminated all interference with the freights altogether (from Aldene to NK tower) but it also would have been a death-knell for passenger service at Roselle.

But the PANYNJ being the PANYNJ killed the plan through their virulent antirail bias like extending the PATH into Newark Airport and letting MTA extend first the LIRR (or the NYCTA subways) into JFK airport

I'm not unaware of "PATH to Plainfield".  It was anything but a "very serious and almost implemented plan".  You say it would have been a death-knell for passenger service at Roselle?—(actually, it would have restored service to Roselle, but that's not the main issue)—in fact, it would have killed all service between Plainfield and Raritan, if I understand correctly, never mind between Plainfield and Phillipsburg or Plainfield and West Trenton/Reading Terminal.  It also would have been quite vulnerable during winter storms—note the problems that LIRR and Metro-North experience during the winter, with their third-rail systems (LIRR's system is identical to PATH's).

The PANYNJ doesn't have a "virulent anti-rail bias", otherwise they never would have built the Airtrains at EWR and JFK, nor funded NJ Transit's Waterfront Connection (among other projects), nor even taken on the operation of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad.  What the PANYNJ are, to be more accurate, would be territorial especially when it comes to their port facilities; and if the state governments didn't permit it to have the excess of autonomy it has, then they would have been able to implement practical rail projects like having the NYCTA and LIRR enter JFK and the H&M enter EWR.  "PATH to Plainfield", however, is without the realm of practicality.

Regarding to just sticking to the (over a century old) patterns set by the private RR's because they kind of work. Well there is a new thinking that is emerging in people how have real power (just the pie in the sky planners and dreamers) that through service through the city center is essential for the region to compete not just nationally but globally in order to remain viable as a financial center. For instance not only is the new exec. dir. of the MTA Mr. Sander talking about running football game specials from New Haven, Conn. to the Meadowlands, Metro-North combined with NJ Transit) in NJ but he is also talking about combined Metro North and LIRR service through Penn Sta. Riverdale to Port Washington.  

A new era requires new thinking

That's not "new thinking".  That's pie-in-the-sky nonsense.  If France had to rely on such thinking, they never would have been able to implement their TGV network as quickly.

Through service via a city center does not make the city center any more viable.  Phiadelphia has had it since the early 80s, and that city is declining.  Philly was better off when the PRR and Reading divisions were separate; the regional rail had more trains, more lines, and didn't need to rely on electrification to start up new service.  I already noted this.

Through-running Metro-North's Hudson Line and LIRR is impossible.  Utterly impossible, without a massive reinvestment in conversion of electrification systems.  The money for that is not there.  The West Side Line belongs to Amtrak, and the MTA would have to pay Amtrak for its use, as well as figuring out what kind of electrification system to use (currently, it has no electrification at all—it's all-diesel from just outside Penn Station to the bridge over the Harlem River).  Can't use dual-mode, because that means that Metro-North would need to invest in retractable and reversible third-rail contact shoes for its P32AC-DMs—even more money—and it's possible that the Manhasset Viaduct would not be able to take the weight of those dual-mode locos.

I'm well aware of the proposal (for that's all it is) regarding special trains from the New Haven Line to the Meadowlands.  That's contingent upon the new spur into the Meadowlands being built, which it is (but this spur was supposed to have originally been part of a larger project, that being restoration of commuter rail on the former NY Central West Shore Line, up to West Haverstraw at least, the spur thereof connecting that line to Hoboken via Secaucus Junction).  This would create havoc with the High Line, since Secaucus was never meant to be a permanent location to turn trains.  This also would require NJT or Amtrak equipment to be used, unless the new M8 were to be built with 25 Hz capacity (and that might result in that MU weighing more than the old MP54).

Don't throw out catchphrases like "compete globally" unless you know what that means.  The only way we can do that now is to bring all of our heavy industry and manufacturing back to US shores and eschew all imports.  Being a "financial center" is meaningless unless you have the means to create wealth.  (But this is a separate matter.)

1. There is only one thing wrong with your Philadelphia argument RE; Cross city rail tunnels. Philadelphia! It is not New York, London

[GP40]

JT22CW wrote:  "The PANYNJ doesn't have a "virulent anti-rail bias", otherwise they never would have built the Airtrains at EWR and JFK, nor funded NJ Transit's Waterfront Connection (among other projects), nor even taken on the operation of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad.  What the PANYNJ are, to be more accurate, would be territorial especially when it comes to their port facilities; and if the state governments didn't permit it to have the excess of autonomy it has, then they would have been able to implement practical rail projects like having the NYCTA and LIRR enter JFK and the H&M enter EWR.  "PATH to Plainfield", however, is without the realm of practicality."

JT22CW, obviously you have never attended any PANYNJ pulbic hearings RE: rail or talked to any objective observer who has watch the doings of the Port for the past 50 years or PA planners and engineers (of the record of course) on the real attitude the PA has towards rail and mass transit in particular.

1. This "virulent anti-rail bias" started back in the 1920's when the PANY just started and they tried to fullfill thier original mission of building a Cross Harbor Freight Railroad Tunnel. Sounds familiar ??? All the Class 1's that operated in and around the harbor at the time rebuffed them big time and wanted no parts of it. Because RR's being RR's at that time (to some extent even now) wanted to maintain total and absolute control over thier franchises and facilities and not share anything if they can help it. They thought that they would be the only viable means of land transportation forever so why cooperate. Meaning maintaining the expensive, labor intensive and numerous systems of car ferrys and lcl lighter barges. All the RR's that rebuffed the Port went bankrupted within a generation.   

2. The only reason and I do mean the only reason that the Airtrains at EWR and JFK wrere built was that the airlines were complaining to the FAA and threatening lawsuits (which they would of won,) was that the PA wasn't doing a darn thing with the fees they had collected from FAA mandated "Airport Improvement Surcharge" on every ticket on every flight from those airports. They had to build something and their leases at those airports were about to expire at the time. Even Rudy Guiliani made a very credible threat to bring in another airport operator to JFK when that lease was set to expire. If they they were not as anti-rail as you claim then they would built extensions for either the LIRR or NYCTA or both directly into the JFKTerminals. And either a branch of the NEC or Path extension directly into the EWR terminal. Something that every major world city now has or is being built. Even Paris has a TGV station in the heart of Charles DeGuille Airport.Chicago and San Francisco has one rapid transit links into their airport. It is a matter of fact that the Newark Airport PATH extension was already laid out.

3. The only reason and again I do mean the only reason that the PA bought the H&M RR was that was one of the conditions that New Jersey board members(read the Governer of NJ) would go along with the building of the World Trade Center. Remember it was built on the site of the old Lower Manhattan H&M terminal.

[JT22CW]

A question that hasn't been answered is how do you pick which routes are going to be through-routed through the downtown stations?  You would still have a fair number of riders who would need to change trains somewhere.  Also, is through-routing cost-effective and how would you re-negotiate labor contracts and seniority districts?  After all, Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit probably all are separate crew districts.

One thing at a time.  We have to focus upon disparate electrification systems and infrastructure first.  Then, it's necessary to forge new interstate compacts for such service—which raises the question as to where the federal government is, an entity that was created to handle such things.  (Remember, the PRR never did this when they owned the LIRR, nor did they expand on it when the New Haven RR was part of the Pennsylvania Group.  Penn Central certainly never pushed any such initiatives forward; in spite of their poor fiscal state, if there were any merit, they would have done so, correct?)

Question:  How many of the passengers who say that GCT is not their final station are only taking the subway to lower Manhattan?

Can't be very many, if the new place for jobs is on the east side.  Funny thing is, even when Lower Manhattan was far busier, there was no call for converting the West Side Line, which extended as far south as St. John's Park Terminal (southern edge at Spring Street), from freight to passenger.

[JT22CW]

What I would do is run a third-rail PATH-type electrification out to High Bridge, extending PATH's service to replace the diesel NJT Raritan Valley diesel service

Nobody would ride PATH equipment for that distance (over 55 miles).  Not to mention, you've cut off the Lehigh Valley from passenger service permanently.  (Would you think that Conrail Shared Assets would permit PATH operation on the Lehigh Line through Hillside, Union and Roselle Park in New Jersey?)

Like I already noted, the state commuter agencies are operating commuter rail patterns established by the private railroads.  (This is why you have NJ Transit operating to Port Jervis NY via the Erie's former main line, and Metro-North operating deep into Connecticut out of Grand Central Terminal.)  Nobody's going to fix what isn't broken, at this point.

JT22CW,

You are forgetting that in the late 70s and early 80s there was a very serious and almost implemented plan to extend the PATH to Plainfield NJ. The route was that it would have proceeded south from its current terminal in Newark Penn Sta. follow along the westside of the NEC then make a right turn west unto the old CNJ alignment at Elizabeth NJ. then onto Plainfield. See no interference with the freight traffic on the LV main in fact it would have  eliminated all interference with the freights altogether (from Aldene to NK tower) but it also would have been a death-knell for passenger service at Roselle.

But the PANYNJ being the PANYNJ killed the plan through their virulent antirail bias like extending the PATH into Newark Airport and letting MTA extend first the LIRR (or the NYCTA subways) into JFK airport

I'm not unaware of "PATH to Plainfield".  It was anything but a "very serious and almost implemented plan".  You say it would have been a death-knell for passenger service at Roselle?—(actually, it would have restored service to Roselle, but that's not the main issue)—in fact, it would have killed all service between Plainfield and Raritan, if I understand correctly, never mind between Plainfield and Phillipsburg or Plainfield and West Trenton/Reading Terminal.  It also would have been quite vulnerable during winter storms—note the problems that LIRR and Metro-North experience during the winter, with their third-rail systems (LIRR's system is identical to PATH's).

The PANYNJ doesn't have a "virulent anti-rail bias", otherwise they never would have built the Airtrains at EWR and JFK, nor funded NJ Transit's Waterfront Connection (among other projects), nor even taken on the operation of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad.  What the PANYNJ are, to be more accurate, would be territorial especially when it comes to their port facilities; and if the state governments didn't permit it to have the excess of autonomy it has, then they would have been able to implement practical rail projects like having the NYCTA and LIRR enter JFK and the H&M enter EWR.  "PATH to Plainfield", however, is without the realm of practicality.

Regarding to just sticking to the (over a century old) patterns set by the private RR's because they kind of work. Well there is a new thinking that is emerging in people how have real power (just the pie in the sky planners and dreamers) that through service through the city center is essential for the region to compete not just nationally but globally in order to remain viable as a financial center. For instance not only is the new exec. dir. of the MTA Mr. Sander talking about running football game specials from New Haven, Conn. to the Meadowlands, Metro-North combined with NJ Transit) in NJ but he is also talking about combined Metro North and LIRR service through Penn Sta. Riverdale to Port Washington.  

A new era requires new thinking

That's not "new thinking".  That's pie-in-the-sky nonsense.  If France had to rely on such thinking, they never would have been able to implement their TGV network as quickly.

Through service via a city center does not make the city center any more viable.  Phiadelphia has had it since the early 80s, and that city is declining.  Philly was better off when the PRR and Reading divisions were separate; the regional rail had more trains, more lines, and didn't need to rely on electrification to start up new service.  I already noted this.

Through-running Metro-North's Hudson Line and LIRR is impossible.  Utterly impossible, without a massive reinvestment in conversion of electrification systems.  The money for that is not there.  The West Side Line belongs to Amtrak, and the MTA would have to pay Amtrak for its use, as well as figuring out what kind of electrification system to use (currently, it has no electrification at all—it's all-diesel from just outside Penn Station to the bridge over the Harlem River).  Can't use dual-mode, because that means that Metro-North would need to invest in retractable and reversible third-rail contact shoes for its P32AC-DMs—even more money—and it's possible that the Manhasset Viaduct would not be able to take the weight of those dual-mode locos.

I'm well aware of the proposal (for that's all it is) regarding special trains from the New Haven Line to the Meadowlands.  That's contingent upon the new spur into the Meadowlands being built, which it is (but this spur was supposed to have originally been part of a larger project, that being restoration of commuter rail on the former NY Central West Shore Line, up to West Haverstraw at least, the spur thereof connecting that line to Hoboken via Secaucus Junction).  This would create havoc with the High Line, since Secaucus was never meant to be a permanent location to turn trains.  This also would require NJT or Amtrak equipment to be used, unless the new M8 were to be built with 25 Hz capacity (and that might result in that MU weighing more than the old MP54).

Don't throw out catchphrases like "compete globally" unless you know what that means.  The only way we can do that now is to bring all of our heavy industry and manufacturing back to US shores and eschew all imports.  Being a "financial center" is meaningless unless you have the means to create wealth.  (But this is a separate matter.)

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

A question that hasn't been answered is how do you pick which routes are going to be through-routed through the downtown stations?  You would still have a fair number of riders who would need to change trains somewhere.  Also, is through-routing cost-effective and how would you re-negotiate labor contracts and seniority districts?  After all, Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit probably all are separate crew districts.

Question:  How many of the passengers who say that GCT is not their final station are only taking the subway to lower Manhattan?

[daveklepper]

GP40 says it well!

[GP40]

What I would do is run a third-rail PATH-type electrification out to High Bridge, extending PATH's service to replace the diesel NJT Raritan Valley diesel service

Nobody would ride PATH equipment for that distance (over 55 miles).  Not to mention, you've cut off the Lehigh Valley from passenger service permanently.  (Would you think that Conrail Shared Assets would permit PATH operation on the Lehigh Line through Hillside, Union and Roselle Park in New Jersey?)

Like I already noted, the state commuter agencies are operating commuter rail patterns established by the private railroads.  (This is why you have NJ Transit operating to Port Jervis NY via the Erie's former main line, and Metro-North operating deep into Connecticut out of Grand Central Terminal.)  Nobody's going to fix what isn't broken, at this point.

JT22CW,

You are forgetting that in the late 70's and early 80's there was a very serious and almost implemented plan to extend the PATH to Plainfield NJ. The route was that it would have proceeded south from its current terminal in Newark Penn Sta. follow along the westside of the NEC then make a right turn west unto the old CNJ alignment at Elizabeth NJ. then onto Plainfield. See no interference with the freight traffic on the LV main in fact it would have  eliminated all interference with the freights altogether (from Aldene to NK tower) but it also would have been a deathnell for passenger service at Roselle.

But the PANYNJ being the PANYNJ killed the plan through their virulent antirail bias like extending the PATH into Newark Airport and letting MTA extend first the LIRR (or the NYCTA subways) into JFK airport.

Regarding to just sticking to the (over a century old)patterns set by the private RR's because they kind of work. Well there is a new thinking that is emerging  in people how have real power (just the pie in the sky planners and dreamers) that through service through the city center is essential for the region to compete not just nationally but globally in order to remain viable as a financial center. For instance not only is the new exec. dir. of the MTA Mr. Sander talking about running football game specials from New Haven, Conn. to the MeadowlandsMetro-North combined with NJ Transit) in NJ but he is also talking about combined Netro North and LIRR service through Penn Sta. Riverdale to Port Washington.  

A new era requires new thinking.

 

[daveklepper]

I do not have the figures on SEPTA, but the interesting fact is that only 49% of Metro North rush hour passengers have Grand Central Terminal as their end destination in the morning and their starting station in the evening.   This fact may surprise you, but it is a fact, and you can check with Metro North.   I suspect a previous post really underestimates the amount of suburb-to-suburb commuting iin Phily.   For NY, I can tell you that I was a reverse commuter on Metro North from July 1971 through March 1996, living in Manhattan and working in White Plains near the North White Plains Station.

 The technical problem is easily solved if maintenance is good.   Until maintenace dropped, FL-9's operate well on third-rail power both into Penn Station and into GCT using double-sprung third rail shoes that operated equally well on both types of third rail.

Or the through service can be provided using diesel on Metro North like Amtrak's dual-service locomotives do.

I am certain there are a sizeable number of people who work at the Philadelphia Airport who ride through Center City on their daily commute.   Similarly people who work at Bryn Mawr College.  And note that nearl all those that must change trains stay on the same platform at either Market East or 30th Street Upper Level.

 

Another proof of what I am saying is the push to get a circular belt commuter operation around the Chicago suburbs.   In Chicago, of course, the obstacles to through service in the downtown area are tremendous, including the layout of Union Station and the seperation from the Northwest Transportation Center, so the circular belt is the only solution. 

[JT22CW]

Much of the rush hour car traffic in the NY area is suburb to suburb commuting, and one seat rides are one way to get this traffic onto public transit. This was the main argument for the Center-City Philadelphia tunnel where nearly all trains are through routed

Referring to the CCCT, that argument has fallen through.  The vast majority of passengers there get off in Center City, as though there were no CCCT.

And let me remind the board that Penn Station in Manhattan was originally supposed to be a stub-end terminal, not a through station.  The PRR originally did not wish to burrow under Bergen Hill and the Hudson River; they had a plan to branch off the New Jersey Railroad at Rahway NJ and build a line through Staten Island, over the Narrows, and through Brooklyn and Queens, entering through the East River Tunnels along with the LIRR.  None of these "through-running" dreams would exist had the PRR gone with that plan.

Perhaps what I should have asked is Poughkeepsie-Patchogue/Ronkonkoma, How?  While both lines are third-rail electric, keep in mind that Metro North operates with an underrunning third rail while LIRR operates with an overrunning third rail.  Also, for suburb-to-suburb operation through a CBD, you would have to operate hub-and-spokes which would mean that most passengers would still have to change trains (see Jamaica at rush hour), so why go through the expense of through trains?

Amtrak runs into Penn Station using the P32AC-DM Genesis (and the FL9s before that) via the West Side Connector (this line is not electrified between the tunnel in Hell's Kitchen and north of the bridge over the Harlem River, in Spuyten Duyvil).  The third-rail contact shoe for those Amtrak locomotives is/was set up to run on LIRR's over-running third rail, operating in full diesel mode while on Metro-North's Hudson Line (third rail contact shoe is retracted so as not to strike the under-running third rail and break off).  So it's physically possible for Amtrak dual-modes (at least) to run from the Hudson Line onto the LIRR's main line or to any rail destination within Long Island.  But through-running will not happen any time soon either with modified LIRR dual-modes nor modified Metro-North dual-modes.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Perhaps what I should have asked is Poughkeepsie-Patchogue/Ronkonkoma, How?  While both lines are third-rail electric, keep in mind that Metro North operates with an underrunning third rail while LIRR operates with an overrunning third rail.  Also, for suburb-to-suburb operation through a CBD, you would have to operate hub-and-spokes which would mean that most passengers would still have to change trains (see Jamaica at rush hour), so why go through the expense of through trains?

[daveklepper]

Sorry,  Wrong.   The New York area has plenty of jobs in the suburbs, and look at the growth of Metro North and LIRR reverse commuting for the facts.   That is why Shore Line East extended first to Bridgeport and then to Stamford.   Much of the rush hour car traffic in the NY area is suburb to suburb commuting, and one seat rides are one way to get this traffic onto public  transit.   This was the main argument for the Center-City Philadelphia tunnel where nearly all trains are through routed.   New York has lots of experience with suburb to suburb operaiton, because that is the way the entire subway system is run except for:  1, 6, 7, C, Q, W.   In a sense 1, is sort of suburb to suburb because most of the traffic at South Ferry is off the boat from Staten Island.   Glasgow, Scottland was another case, and so is Paris' Reigonal Express System.   Both switched from stub-end commuting to through and gained riders as a result.

Suburb to suburb rail also opens up new employment possibilities for people and thus strenthens the overall economy.

A commuter operation from Poughkeepsie to Patchogue and Ronkonkoma would also give Hudson riders West-Side access and allow construction of three stations convenient to Lincoln Center, Columbia University-Union Theological Seminatry-Jewish Theological Seminary, and the GWBridge, with extension of IND Washington Heights subway service over GW Bridge and relocation of the bus terminal in Edgewood a logical next step.    Lincoln Center patrons could go directly to their suburban train after a concert, opera, or play.    Columbia U. anad its two nearby religious schools would generate the same kind of commuter traffic that the New Haven and Harlem lines get from Fordham University, and it is considerable.   West side access for Hudson commuters is best served by through service because through service reduces platform requirements at Penn.   One train with slilghtly longer dwell time replacing two.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

New Haven - Trenton - Philadelphia      Conn Dot-Metro NOrth, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA

Poughkeepsie (or Albany) - Ronkonkama and Patchogue, L. I.     Metro North, Amtrak, LIRR

Through New Haven-Trenton-Philadelphia service is already provided by Amtrak.

Through Poughkeepsie-Ronkonkoma/Patchogue.  Why???

One-seat service to a Central Business District by eliminating a transfer point will generate additional passengers.  One-seat service through a Central Business District is a waste of time and money.

[JT22CW]

What I would do is run a third-rail PATH-type electrification out to High Bridge, extending PATH's service to replace the diesel NJT Raritan Valley diesel service

Nobody would ride PATH equipment for that distance (over 55 miles).  Not to mention, you've cut off the Lehigh Valley from passenger service permanently.  (Would you think that Conrail Shared Assets would permit PATH operation on the Lehigh Line through Hillside, Union and Roselle Park in New Jersey?)

BTW, PATH railcars are slightly longer and slightly narrower than Boston Blue Line cars.  Low-voltage third rail necessitates a substation every two miles, which is why it is not being used on surface new-build electrification.

Like I already noted, the state commuter agencies are operating commuter rail patterns established by the private railroads.  (This is why you have NJ Transit operating to Port Jervis NY via the Erie's former main line, and Metro-North operating deep into Connecticut out of Grand Central Terminal.)  Nobody's going to fix what isn't broken, at this point.

[daveklepper]

You are absolutely correct.   It is politics, unwillingness to share, mind your own business, and I want exclusive rights to what I have ---thinking that prevent the technologically possible through services:

 New Haven - Trenton - Philadelphia      Conn Dot-Metro NOrth, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA

Poughkeepsie (or Albany) - Ronkonkama and Patchogue, L. I.     Metro North, Amtrak, LIRR

 

Amtrak or New Jersey Tranist through service to lower Manhattan, the World Trade Center, on Hudson Manhattan - PATH tracks is impossible because the old H&M/PATH line has platforms for nine-foot wide cars, sharp curves, and too low overhead clearance for anything like standard railroad equipment.   Even North Shore interurban equipment wouldn't fit.   The only other rapid transit line in the USA with similar equipment is Boston's "Blue Line".    What I would do is run a third-rail PATH-type electrification out to High Bridge, extending PATH's service to replace the diesel NJT Raritan Valley diesel service.

 Most inbound NJT NE Corridor trains and all inbound A,trak trains have across the platform (through fare gates) transfer at Newark.

 

The best way to transfer from Grand Central Terminal to the Long Island Railroad today is to take the "7" train from GCT to Woodside.   Done that often.

[JT22CW]

Ah yes, the  defunct (since September 2003) Alternative G part of "Access to the Region's Core" (which I regard as a misnomer, since it implies lessened importance to Lower Manhattan).

Through service is overrated, since all passengers disembark at Manhattan anyhow.  SEPTA's CCCT (in Philadelphia) is a prime example of trying to fix what was not broken (virtually all passengers disembark at Center City, but they had to build a tunnel to run trains through which cannot permit diesel operation, close the 13-track Reading Terminal and replace it with the four-track Market East station, and cut commuter rail back to the electric territory only to try to restart the diesel services two decades later). 

All tracks at NY Penn apart from Tracks 1 through 4 have a through-station configuration.  Given the interstate nature of commuter rail that serves NY Penn, trying to establish unorthodox train operation would not be worth it to serve a bare minority of passengers.  The PRR certainly saw no value in it when they owned the LIRR, otherwise they would have changed that railroad's electrification from third rail to overhead wires and operated MP54s and GG1s in through service (the PRR, however, did operate through service with the New Haven RR via the Hell Gate Bridge, a pattern that Amtrak retains).

As for the dual-electrification thingy, yes, the New Haven RR operated both locomotives and MUs for years in and out of GCT, and Metro-North operates Cosmopolitans in that manner today; but that increases maintenance costs.  If the NHRR had their druthers, I suspect they would have built overhead wires all the way into GCT; and I suspect that there still is a way to do that.  (If that's done, though, would Amtrak try to switch Boston-Washington service off the Hell Gate line?)

[martin.knoepfel]

I looked at the project for the new Trans Hudson Express (THE) line. They plan another stub-end-terminal adjacent to Penn Station. Wouldn't it make more sense to continue tunnels turning north into the lower lever of Grand Central. This would make it possible to offer through seamless service for commuters. To build equipment that is able to run under catenary and with third rail is quite easy today, even with different voltages.

Another possibility would be to transform the LIRR-tracks at Penn Station into a through-terminal with the possibility to allow Long-Island-New-Jersey thrains for communters. Why force people to change trains if there is not need to do so.

[JT22CW]

While there have been plans for sending Amtrak trains to both GCT and Penn Station, I'd like to see Amtrak start sending trains to the brand new station being built in Lower Manhattan. And it's not just an idea; construction has already started.

http://mta.info/capconstr/fstc/index.html

That is not a train station.  Read the link again; it is a transit center (i.e. bus transfer) that will incorporate six existing subway stations.

There are no plans to send Amtrak back into GCT.  Amtrak operated out of GCT for twenty years, and left in 1991 for good.

Back on topic:  Hoboken Terminal used to be the main station for trains coming from upstate New York.  Trains operated out of Hoboken bound for Binghamton, Ithaca, Elmira and elsewhere.  If those areas were to again be served by train, it would be purely logical to send them back into Hoboken again, which would assure rapid startup insofar as railway equipment (i.e. all-diesel operation, with no complications like dual-mode or engine changes from diesel to electric and vice-versa).

Anyway, may as well list some of the old NYC waterfront stations, to illustrate what was lost:

• CRRNJ Terminal (CNJ, LV, RDG, B&O); still standing, but no tracks.
• Exchange Place Terminal (original was New Jersey RR; PRR took over later.  Hosted CNJ and LV trains, as well as some Erie and NYSW at one time.)
• Erie Terminal (Jersey City, Pavonia); NYSW operated into this terminal also.  Current location has Newport Mall built on the approaches to the former station.
• West Shore Terminal (original RR was called the New York, West Shore and Buffalo, backed by the Pennsy; NY Central got it in a deal after complaining about too much competition).  NY Central, New York, Ontario & Western.  "Port Imperial" ferryboat terminal for NYC Waterway built on location.
• East 108th Street, Bronx.  New York, Westchester & Boston (which only made it as far as White Plains).

There are but two active waterfront terminals left, those being Hoboken (NJ Transit now) and Long Island City (LIRR diesel services).

Is there any info to report on proposed "station" change from the "old Pennsylvaina" unit over to the Post Office building....?

Dead for now. Politics. Need I say more?

A lot more needs to be said.

• This was not a "station change" but a concourse change, in spite of the misnomer "Moynihan Station".
• Amtrak now has the main NYP concourse on the upper level to themselves since NJ Transit moved into their new concourse just above and to the south of the LIRR concourse.
• Amtrak was not actively involved in this at any time; George D. Warrington flirted with the idea, and David Gunn backed away from it. Warrington, after going to NJ Transit, was courted by the concourse proponents in an attempt to make it a NJT concourse (which would have made two for NJT, which they cannot afford).
• The chief political opponent of this project is Sheldon Silver, but for his own reasons.
• The place would serve better in its original function (a post office); and besides, there are plans in place to move MSG (yet again), so if enough people lobbied for it, a replica of the original NYP building could be built. (As for converting a post office into a RR concourse, imagine them converting the post office on Market Street in Philly into a new concourse for 30th Street Station. Wouldn't work out too well, would it?)

[Anonymous]

Well, as you, as such an expert should know, the PATH WTC station is seperate from the future Fulton St. Transit Center. It would probably route near the WTC area because it's just an open lot, for the most part. There will always be objections for mourners of 9-11, but if we could route Amtrak trains from upstate down to Downtown, then the massive crowding at Penn could be slowed down. And think of it this way:

Penn to GCT: S shuttle transfer to 1,2,3,A,C,E (I'm not listing all of the scenarios, but there is no direct route to Penn)

Penn to WTC: 1,2,3,A,C,E,R,W direct route (NO TRANSFER) 

[Anonymous]

Lower Manhattan? Do you mean the WTC, or Fulton St? I don't think it would work though. With the size of the centers the MTA is planning, a large scale station might not be possible, especially under the WTC. And what with the financial distric and tourist attractions being where they are, a large scale station would be necessary...

[Anonymous]

While there have been plans for sending Amtrak trains to both GCT and Penn Station, I'd like to see Amtrak start sending trains to the brand new station being built in Lower Manhattan. And it's not just an idea; construction has already started.

http://mta.info/capconstr/fstc/index.html

[espeefoamer]

One can transfer from Amrtrak's NYP Boston line to Conn Dot trains to GCT at Stamford or New Haven Conn.

[PBenham]

.....To Long Island destinations from Penn Station:  That's the way it used to be but I can't speak for now.....

It can be done- with the usual warnings that good old MTA might get it into their peabrains to mess things up!

[Modelcar]

.....To Long Island destinations from Penn Station:  That's the way it used to be but I can't speak for now.....

[oltmannd]

To get to GCT from an Amtrak train from Albany-Rensselaer, you merely have change to a Metro North train at Croton-Harmon.  Looks like you need to puchase an MN ticket for this portion of the trip.  I think that when Amtrak first moved over to Penn Sta, that MN would honor your Amtrak ticket stub for Croton to GCT, but I can't find anything about that in the  latest timetable.

[jclass]

You can also get to Long Island destinations through Penn, can't you?

[daveklepper]

Except that PATH does not run north of 32nd Street, nor to any borough other than Manhattan, so most would have to take the subway in addition anyway.   Here are some suggestions:

Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts:   Penn  -   IRT train 1 north direct

Central Park   Penn  -  C train north direct

Carnegie Hall     Penn    Either of above and 1 block walk east from 57th St. exit of Columbus Circle Station

Empire State Building       GCT    walk south

UN     CGT   walk east (or 42nd st crosstown bus)

City Hall       GCT    4, 5, 6 train south

If you come into NY on Empire Service or the Lake Shore and want to arrived at GCT, easy to make a connection at Croton Harmon, and Metro North service is very frequent, with almost streetcar-subway train headways during rush hours.