Schedules for the following Empire Service trains will be adjusted, effective April 7, 2013 to accommodate changes made to Metro-North Railroad schedules.
Trains 281, 283, 235, will depart New York (5) minutes later.
Train 49, 259, and 245 will depart New York (5) minutes earlier.
Train 261 will depart New York (15) minutes earlier.
Train 233 will depart New York (25) minutes earlier.
Train 230 will depart Albany-Rensselaer (5) minutes earlier.
Train 68 will depart Schenectady (5) minutes earlier and Albany-Rensselaer (20) minutes earlier. On Saturdays and Sundays, Train 68 will arrive in New York 15 minutes later.
Train 232 will depart Albany-Rensselaer (10) minutes earlier.
Trains 244 and 64 will depart Albany-Rensselaer (5) minutes later.
Train 288 will depart Albany-Rensselaer (10) minutes later.
It this an emergency timetable change? Or just the new Spring table? I think the latter and that there is no need for alarm or question. It does reflect track work being done by MNRR, however, and has been planned well in advance so that these schedules could be drawn up.
Sputen Devil is a devil of a place for many reasons…that bridge has to be replaced for one thing…then, yes, the junction/interlocking could use a little sprucing up. A “fly over” is interesting as it conjures up the concept that could be accomplished easily if the bridge is heightened over the Spuyten Devil too!
MNRR to NYP is not in this picture at this time. And the cat work on the Shore Line, the new signals on the Port Jervis line, along with the track and station work here, are all important improvements MNRR has undertaken for its constituents. The slower speeds and delays will be only temporary until the work is done, then…keep clear of all tracks…
Metro North announced last July that they were to “add 230 new trains a week over the next year, mainly on weekends and in the off-peak periods.” This should not have come as a surprise to Amtrak.
I am not sure that count included West of Hudson Services or not, but it actually, in many respects, returning to older schedules before financial cutbacks about 5 or so years ago. Similarly LI has returned some services that were cut., too.
Sorry Henry not quite the case. Not an emergency change but spring change adding service. Suggest you read the above MNRR bulletin. They are adding 85 weekday trips,or 17 a day; & 22 per weekend or 11/ day. More importantly they are adding 3 additional stops near Sputen to 22+ trains a day. Explains the AMTRAK schedule changes. Don’t expect slower speeds to be changed ? ?
A raised bridge at Sputen would eliminate the circle line openings ? Does AMTRAK have enough room to park between the bridge and MNRR when delayed by either bridge or MNRR ? ? Wonder what will happen at the next service increaseoo
My point was just that…it is merely a planned change when timetables change…MNRR includes west of Hudson in the number of new trains…the idea of a raised bridge would have to be considered but the idea of a new bridge has to be considered as it is a very old bridge and has given everyone a problem or two from time to time. But raising the height at channel would be some enterprise…the whole line there is at virtual sea level so to raise it would take several miles of incline to be efficient…but would work toward doing a fly over for at least one track but it might have to run further north before there is room to bring it down and into traffic. I would assume that if a train is held off MNRR north, it would be held south of the bridge if it cannot fit between the interlocking and the clearing point of the bridge.
Henry re read the announcement twice and found no mention of additional Port Jervis. Maybe will be announced along with NJT ?
The raising of the bridge to a no draw may not be possible. Anyone have the clearance numbers from the coast guard ? Do not remember if there are any fixed bridges between Manhatten and Bronx.on Harlem river ?
Going from south to north on the west side connector could Amtrak —
Using a short double track start a double track incline (slopeed for track speed ) to cross the river; then pass over the 2 western tracks along a widened 6 track ROW.then slope down between the 2 middle tracks to a CP for complete access to any track. That would allow north bound AMTRAK trains to get on the express track without delay. esp in the morning. j
The clearance number I have is 55’. Note that this is higher than the spec for the Portal Bridge project. That amount of rise in ROW grade to get a clear span over the full width of the channel is of course larger than this, possibly much larger if the 55’ minimum extends across a greater portion of the river’s width than is made clear by opening the existing span. I would think this might easily be 70’ at top-of-rail, which would translate into longer ramps – depending on permissible grade. Reduction of grade right down to ‘minimum’ railroad clearance can be made on the north side of the channel crossing, which may reduce some issues with the actual flyover framing or span construction.d
I see nothing in this that is not do-able, but I think the cost would sure be higher than a bridge replacement and some careful movable-frog switches, especially if some flavor of CBTC allows very short time between a switch move and regular traffic.
I would definitely suspect (with Portal Bridge again being the specific exemplar) that if large sums of money would be put into a flyover AND a new bridge, the bridge would have to be made ‘noninterruptable’. So yes, I’d think if the bridge replacement and flyover were combined, the answer would be a higher-level bridge, with the ‘rise’ being used to enhance the height of the flyover at the north end of the new structure.
I would think that full “track speed” can easily be reduced for the relatively short distance that would be required for the ramps and structure at Spuyten Duyvil (about 2 1/2 miles total ‘restricted’ route length for a 1% max approach gradient on both sides, I think). Consider also the present very sharp curve north/west of Marble Hill, which is the area where the flyove
Overmod; Great analysis as it has been way too many years since I have seen that area. One reason that I proposed the solution I did was a modification of the original flyover proposal at New Rochelle.
The north end of the bridge to the MNRR four track line is less than a mile…therefore an new leap over the Harlem River at that point, especially of the clearance has to be 55 ft at high tide, means longer approaches at both ends than one would think, depending on speed factors. Probably a single track bridge is practical with single track for about 2 miles minimum in both directions.
Using Google Earth, I measured the distance from MNRR to the Spuyten Duyvil swing span at 2/10 of a mile. For a 1% grade there is a 53’ rise per mile. I believe this is comparable to the West Albany Hill.
The bridge must be double track to accomodate future commuter service to Penn Stat, whether by extenision of LIRR to Riiverdale, which makes sence to me, or by MN to Penn.
Why extension of LIRR to Riverdale and connection to MN there? To keep dispatching problems at Penn to a minimum, since there already are three players there and a fourth would complicate things more.
The right-of-way north SF is six-tracks wide. To Riverdale.
LIRR into Penn is so crowded that they’re spending billions on the East Side Access to run into… GCT. So here you come saying let’s add still more trains to Penn in addition to what Amtrak runs over the Empire Corridor. Maybe after the Gateway project is complete there would be enough space at Penn for this to happen, but frankly I see little point in expanding service to where a full double-track Empire Corridor would be required, or justified, by traffic density (here, peak traffic density).
LIRR to Riverdale is something of a mystery to me. Where would you route it? And even if you did, why would be the point? To take the bus service up the hill? To enable Long Islanders to take a less congested trip upstate or to Wassaic than they’d get via the East Side Access? I’m not seeing it.
I also do not see any point in going from the East Side Access project all the way up to Riverdale on the Hudson Line just to turn around and come back to (overcrowded) Penn.
And please explain what the last line means:
Seems to me six tracks of anything to Riverdale is SF indeed!
Be interesting to fit the six tracks of the flyover-enabled Penn connector into the existing space between the curve west of Marble Hill and the Riverdale station, yes. But that has nothing to do with LIRR that I can possibly imagine.
There is always the spaghetti approach of restoring the ‘original’ double track across the Harlem at Spuyten Duyvil, run for a while entirely west of the existing Hudson Line main, letting the SB traffic come off the local (outside) track, and putting in a single-track flyover to the NB side somewhere north where it could be shoehorned in. This would facilitate SB service from Riverdale to Penn… but there’s going to be
Overmod, by opening the East Side access to GCT will remove quite a number of trains to NYP thus opening up an opportunity to refill those gaps either with LIRR or MNRR/CONDOT via Hell Gate. Whether or not any MNRR or LIRR service runs through NYP in either direction is all a matter of conjecture here.
But this discussion opens up again my contention of a Regional Railroad from the domain of SEPTA to the ends of all LIRR, MNRR, LIRR, and NJT service routes with one ticket rides, maximum use of equipment, one seat rides, close (5 minutes or less) and maintained connections, marketing, etc.
I hate to rain on your parade, Henry. But I see a problem.
The states of Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania would have to create a 4 state authority to operate their railroads. On the plus side replacing 4 bureaucracies with one would no doubt save money and allow for a more efficient use of track and storage facilities. But each state would loose control over its own rail transit. Would the states agree to that?
Also, would this create unintended consequences? For example, would a Member of Congress who agrees with John Mica pursue pulling Federal funds from Amtrak trains that run in Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania and dump those costs on the new 4 state authority?
Doesn’t matter how it is done, John, and and “authority” may not be the way. It could an outcome of or extension of Amtrak, it could be a consortium of the agencies existing, or it could be a simple cooperative effort by them. A New Haven to Philadelphia, Wilmington or anyplace on SEPTA would work…one seat ride, one ticket, tight connections at Trenton, Newark, Secaucus Jct., NYP, Stamford, South Norwalk, Bridgeport, and NH. Or to Montauk or to Poughkeepsie, or Scranton or Port Jervis…depends on the marketing and the studies. It might relieve Amtrak of some of its burdens and allow Amtrak to improve its own services. It could just be a better use of equipment so that it doesn’t have to be shuffled around in dead head moves or lay idle all day in a yard. Crews might be able to get an 8 hour day in without sitting around for four or five hours “rest” between schedules…so many savings and efficiencies might arise if it were studied and intelligently implemented. Perhaps a Scranton to New Haven train or to Albany. With the new concepts of dual mode locomotives, etc, so much is possible if minds are put to sensible planning…
I agree with Henry on the logistics side of what he’s proposing. Some is more difficult
Even if conducted only in an ‘advisory’ capacity, harmonization of schedules and arrangement of connections (and of connection policy – when and how trains can be held when riders need to make a particular connection) can be arranged outside a formal agency.
The issue of one-seat fares, or discounted transfers, would indeed require a larger agency, or more rigorous four-state cooperation. Whether or not this could be handled by a small committee of governor’s representatives, with confirmation as needed via the Legislatures or whatever, is an open question until actually tried – I suspect it could be done on that level to the extent it’s Pareto-optimal politically.
I see Metro-North already has a comparative system in place to display fares to common points via different routes (Greenwich being the one I saw). and it would not be difficult – technically – to have other fare tables or ‘splits’ display in this manner. The immediate concern I foresee is the old Sabre problem: whose fares get ‘first billing’, and how is the split made when multiple entities have some shared link of the origin-destination routing the rider chooses…
I leave the farecard issue open. Personally I’d want the physical card, or an account tied to it, to be common across multiple carriers, including those using MetroCard, but I can also see the problems and NIH involved in that sort of effort. ‘Automatic’ billing of fares from a card or RF device is fraught with its own set of issues… especially when the billing is automagically split between state agencies.
I had thought MNCR and ConnDOT already had some agreement machinery in place, and I know MNCR and NJT have some agreement machinery, and NJT and SEPTA have something in place. While there isn’t going to be ‘one lead dog’ in the current organi
I would also note, in passing, that the recent FRA/NECIP threads contain another valuable source of ‘impartial’ regional transportation planning; indeed, much of the existing commuter rail services have been considered as ‘feeders’ to the NEC proper and therefore included in the scope. Perhaps a formalization of ‘recommendations’ from an FRA-led body could be taken as a basis for ‘harmonized’ implementation and some planning, even in the absence of politically-linked regional transportation authorities.
(Cost for the Federal end would increase, of course, but not by that much even if there is some bureaucratic padding and ‘where you stand is where you sit’ action… and the economies of combined planning might offset some of the additional expenses)
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…
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…