Across the platform, close, and guaranteed connections are important. But don’t start dismantling by what the problems are but build it based on the idea. I can name hundreds of reasons, ways, and why’s it can’t be done, that’s easy. The secret is to find the way it can be done.
As usual I find jumping on a new thread something often calls for corrections and also comments about other posts. complete timetables changed my mind ! !! Probably will edit the title of this thread.
-
AMTRAK is actually speeding up some trains so most are scheduled for 2:30 NYP — ALB — NYP much of the tightening is from Croton - NYP but not all. Departures are not “memory” schedules but close. Ethan Allen Express (?) southbound actually waits longer in ALB even though its starting timekeeping is much better but this may be because of CP delays that are occurring.
-
The east side access to GCT will feed an 8 track station. LIRR plans to divert some trains from Jamica & Flushing line to GCT. Those diversions will open slots at NYP that appear cannot readily be filled from Jamica due to its congestion. MTA thru MNRR indicates they wan to send some trains from NH line and Hudson line to NYP to use these slots ? There has been much discussion about MNRR M-8s going to NYP with the 4th track that CR (?) removed from hell gate bridge being restored for MNRR use.
-
As well the discussion has been to add ( restore ) a second track from the Hudson line to NYP. That would allow Hudson line trains when there is installation of third rail to provide service to NYP. AMTRAK would certainly require the extra tracks on both Hell Gate and West side line to maintain fluidity,
-
A high bridge over the Harlem (?) river would almost be required to provide reliable service.
-
Tri-Rail when it built their double track bridge over the New river near Ft. Lauredale was built for commuter trains and AMTRAK although freights can use it. Freights usually use the draw bridge that was not removed… I believe that the bridge slope is 1.5 - 1.8 %… This bridge was built for a 65’ over mean high wat
And believe me, one guaranteed way to find ‘it can be done’ is to start with the inexpensive, common-sense proof of concept, so you can change the minds of the people who initially say ‘no’ to the full-fledged implementation. And powers that be in at least two of the agencies involved (SEPTA and NJT) have already said ‘no’ – fairly categorically, if I remember correctly – to joint-service runthroughs on a regular basis. While we’re looking at that subject … hasn’t MNCR now gone so far as to buy their own locomotives as well as consists for the Port Jervis service… just to avoid commingling with NJT?
Do it this way:
Demonstrate the concept
Find as many technical ways of doing things, sample policies and procedures, etc. so that you have collateral to prove the things you want will be practical
Line up your connections ASAP so that when rainmaker time comes, you have the feet in all the doors, and when dowsing time comes you know your stick will be effective. Associated with this: don’t make enemies early.
I think – gently, preliminarily, and only for ‘forum fodder’, that it would NOT be wise to start something like this ‘based on the idea’ that only full-scale run-through service, across multiple entities with currently-unshared assets, is the place to start. In my experience, there is quite a chasm, and it’s more than a semantic one in practice, between “if you build it, they will come” and “when you build it, they will come.”
The first is usually something o
Blue Streak: as usual more is said, talked about, described, built, can’t be built, will be done, will never be done, is possible, doesn’t have a prayer, on these pages that what is true, is happening, or even being thought about by the railroads, planners, states, and even politicians. Although I believe the 7 train is a political action even with the so called report the other day.
But the point of my “experiment” is that all is in place: the track with equipment that will work on the whole length without having to make exceptions or alterations. There are push pull’s and MU’s available…probably the push pulls would do better…but it is all there…NJT and MNRR/CONDOT have already done it with NJT trainsets from New Haven!
Yes, I do think most of the ‘delays’ you reported are tied to maintenance and improvement things. Someone here might even be able to find out specifically what they would be (for example, a particular length of time required to finish up to re-open track clearance after actual work has stopped).
Something I would mention pre-emptively is that I was not talking about absolute schedule-time reduction in my remarks about single-track flyover. The issue is more of a ‘kanban’ problem, of ensuring that two trains won’t need to be on that bridge at the same time. I doubt there are many times when traffic flow inbound to NYP and outbound past Riverdale will be significantly heavy at the same time, and perhaps even that rapid turnaround and redispatch of the MNCR trains from Penn is expected on an immediate basis. Again: I would almost insist on the bridge being a full double-track, high-speed-switch-equipped connector to the express tracks, with a fixed bridge that does not have critical structure in the ship channel if at all practical. But if the choice is between one track and no tracks, I think one track can be made to work significantly well. (It also, in a sense, makes a reverse move, from the Empire connector back toward GCT and the junction
Yes, I do think most of the ‘delays’ you reported are tied to maintenance and improvement things. Someone here might even be able to find out specifically what they would be (for example, a particular length of time required to finish up to re-open track clearance after actual work has stopped).
Something I would mention pre-emptively is that I was not talking about absolute schedule-time reduction in my remarks about single-track flyover. The issue is more of a ‘kanban’ problem, of ensuring that two trains won’t need to be on that bridge at the same time. I doubt there are many times when traffic flow inbound to NYP and outbound past Riverdale will be significantly heavy at the same time, and perhaps even that rapid turnaround and redispatch of the MNCR trains from Penn is expected on an immediate basis. Again: I would almost insist on the bridge being a full double-track, high-speed-switch-equipped connector to the express tracks, with a fixed bridge that does not have critical structure in the ship channel if at all practical. But if the choice is between one track and no tracks, I think one track can be made to work significantly well. (It also, in a sense, makes a reverse move, from the Empire connector back toward GCT and the junction
Just a couple of things.
-
In the deep dark past there was a wye track (looks like about 15 degrees) from the bridge to the SB local track. While certainly not “high speed” it might be short enough to be worthwhile.
-
The Empire Connection is double track except for the MNRR connecting track, the bridge itself and the last mile into Penn Station south of Empire interlocking. The tracks are signalled in both directions, but there are no crossovers north of CP Jervis (1.5 miles from Penn Station). LIRR style overrunning third rail starts 235 feet north of Empire interlocking on both tracks.
-
Dual mode engines with retractable shoes are used now on Empire line trains, with the shoes retracted on MNRR track equipped with underrunning third rail. CDOT equipment with retractable shoes could operate to Penn if the Amtrak main line gets new substations for 60Hz (present voltage/frequency change is a little east of Gate interlocking on the Hell Gate approach.) NJT equipment can operate on Amtrak/CDOT 12.5 KV 60 Hz with no difficulty. There is a gap of about a mile and a half between the 60Hz overhead sections on the Hell Gate line and the beginning of the LIRR third rail.
rcdrye: This information of 12.5 Kv 60 Hz Helll Gate has been soomething I have not been able to find documentation. So from east of Gate crossover – New Rochelle is now 12.5 Kv 60 Hz ? Was that part of the CAT up grade on that section ? Is Sunnyside Jct now 60 Hz? . Do you know where the freq break is located ? .
Are you saying that a new 60 Hz substation is needed for west of gate ? Would that also include ±Sunnyside yard ? a definite big power consumer ?
OVERMOD, you asked:
“Surely there is third rail on the Empire Corridor already! Law says there would have to be…doesn’t it?”
There was NYC style 3rd rail the length of the West Side Freight Line, but it was deactivated in 1959 as the line was Dieselized by then. The law prohibited steam engines in Manhattan after 1908, however that may have just applied to passenger trains,as the west side freight line used steam into the '30s.
Extending LIRR to Riverdale for interchange with MN there would not add to congestion at Penn, because trains now revesing at Carpenter Yard or in the station itself would run to Riverdale instead and reverse there. LIRR commuters now needing to transfer to the 1, 2, 3, A, or C subway trains would enjoy a one-seat ride to stations a very short walk from Lincoln Center and the Columbia University-Unnion Theolical-Jewish Theological-Interchurch Center, Riverside Church educational complex, possibly with a net reduction in congestion. There would certainly be less congestion than adding Metro North trains to the mix. Eventually, in my dreams, I would see a station under the GWB, A-train service over the bridge replacing the buses with the Wash. Hts bus station relocated to Fort Lee with transfer to subway there, and a station on the bridge with elevators to the Amtrak-LIRR (or MN if you insist) station below. Now politically impossible, but who knows but some day we might have a three-state authority runing all mass transportaton in the area. (C trains would take over the run to 207th, and there would be a good balance of traffic.)
Through MN-NJT service is a different matter. But to simplify operations, I would make the crew-change at New Rochelle, not Penn, so that the number of players at Penn is kept to three. Amtrak is responsible for dispatching on the Hell Gate Bridge route anyway.
The Shaughnessy pic shows third rail on the High Line at 30th St-- did it really go all the way to Houston? But it wasn’t there when the elevated line opened?
Originally I was trying to answer another poster’s question and say that the route used for today’s ATK Empire connection was electrified in NYC days. However, after I sent the post, I saw that I should have been more explicit. The NYC 3rd rail only went as far South as 23rd St. South of there they use tri-power locos (diesel-electric/straight electric/battery)
Sunnyside is still AFAIK 25 hz. There is a break and voltage/frequency change with a dead catenary section somewhere between CP216 (New Rochelle) and Gate - I think it’s closer to CP216 but it’s listed in the ETT I have by cat pole number, not by MP (I’ll look up the cat pole numbers if you really want them - the gap is about 4 poles or roughly 1000 ft. using old NH spacing). There’s no particular requirement to change the overhead type to change frequency. That would make Sunnyside Jct and yard still 25 Hz.
I’m not sure if the 60Hz section is fed from MNRR. There used to be some substation equipment near the Pelham bridge.
The flood that affected the Portal substation after Sandy suggests that Portal is part of the power equation for Penn and Sunnyside. At one point there was a plan to change the 25Hz east of Newark to 60 Hz but that does not seem to have happened.
Why not expand the south endpoint to SEPTA’s Delaware termin
The Voltage/Frequency break is between cat poles C-66 and C-70, near Gate interlocking. There is a power break in the 12.5KV/60Hz close to New Rochelle, where MNRR power begins. The 60Hz segment of the line must be powered from the substation near Pelham.
[quote user=“MidlandMike”]
Why not expand the s
Henry,
It seems to me you propose to blur the distinction between commuter service and Northeast Regional service to provide low cost commuter style service between Philadelphia and New Haven.
Certainly it can be done. In fact Amtrak does it but with a higher fare. The real issue is a policy decision: Do our commuter railroads want to get into this kind of service?
It seems to me that right now they don’t. For example, if you want to travel from New York to Philadelphia on commuter trains you have to change trains at Trenton. It is an easy change on the same platform but it is still a change. If SEPTA and NJT had any interest in doing more than they are now doing surely they would be providing a one seat commuter ride from New York Penn Station to 30th Street Station. But they are not.
Is there any reason they might change their current policy? And might Amtrak be opposed to the new service?
John
I don’t mean to blur the distinction between Amtrak and Commuter lines I meant to erase it with a workable operation. Some of it has to do with the passenger, some has to do with equipment usage, some has to do with marketing, all has to do with service.
As far as equipment goes all three commuter railroads use the same overhead catenaries Amtrak now use. There is a short distance that they would have to be adapted to but that could be done.
But the real issue I would raise is passengers, I just don’t see may people from Connecticut commuting to work in New Jersey or vice versa. Is there any reason to believe there would be such people?