Nope. Because faster trains need longer blocks - or more blocks - to keep safe separation.
Wow, you just won’t give it up… [:)]
Just saying it doesn’t make it true. Which one? Where? When? What was MAS before and after?
ARC was a bad idea. Gateway is much better. Christie probably did the right thing killing ARC.
To get more capacity, you have to fix the bottlenecks, which are usually terminal areas in the freight train world, but are often line capacity in the transit/passenger world. Once you get to a movable block system and the best possible train braking system, the only thing left is adding tracks.
Track brakes for safety would be helpful for line capacity, but they’d have to be “failsafe” if you wanted them as part of your PTC system.
Actually ARC would have been NJT trains only, no Amtrak, and would have terminated at a stub station which would have required deadhead moves and quick turnarounds in order to keep station tracks clear. In hind sight Christie probably made a good move…there were many at the time who thought the same. It did not utilize NYP, did not integrate or interface with Amtrak, LIRR, or other NJT services…it was a quick and rash concept pushed through more by exasperation than sound judgement…but it did get adrenaline flowing and ideas being considered and adapted.; however, it is mostly still talk.
I never did like the separate station next to New York Penn for ARC, because inherently the flexibility of bringing trains in on any track is a good thing. So in that respect, the Gateway Project is an improvement.
The negative in killing ARC is that everything was kicked back to the planning and talking about stage, rather than building something.
At least there is some very preliminary protective building activity for the Gateway Project taking place on Manhattan now.
Obviously additional tunnels will be built eventually. I’d like to see that be sooner rather than later though.
And at some point we’re going to have to deal with the fact that the current North River tunnels are now over 100 years old…
Right on all matters…but if Christie didn’t put the brakes on ARC, millions would have been spent in waste. I’d like to see a downtown set of tunnels…from the old Erie alignment perhaps, under the Hudson and Manhattan to Brooklyn or Queens perhaps tying into the LIRR or other existing tracks for yarding or through services to LIRR or even New England or loop back to NYP…lots of need for lots of upcoming transit, commuter, and regional needs.
I thought I was keeping up with what is going on in the NYC-NJ area, but I must confess that I do not recall anything about a Gateway project. Can one of you fill me in on this?
Thanks,
Gateway is use of present NYP and adding tracks from another tunnel project basically. Includes Amtrak and NJT. And LIRR to a lesser extent. Gets money from Amtrak and not all on the shoulders of NJ or NJT. Also calls for revamping all of NYP structure wise.
Thanks, Henry.
I think the stars are starting to align on this. Amtrak has done two things in the past couple years that are a big help. One is they have put forth a long term NEC plan, the first stages of which upgrade the existing corridor. Is it perfect? No. But, it does put a stake in the ground and lay out the case - which was sorely lacking before. ARC was NJT’s attempt to fill the void left by the lack of an Amtrak plan. The second thing is Amtrak’s drawing a sharper line between corridor services and the LD trains. It makes investment in the NEC easier for politicians to swallow because there is no operating deficit to defend. Even guys like Mica are for NEC investment - even as they are anti-Amtrak. Amtrak gives guys like this cover by being able to ask “which Amtrak are you talking about?”
Official outline of the Gateway Project here:
Thanks, CJtrainguy. I am not sure how I missed it, but, miss it I did.
There also needs be some infrastructure upgrades. Not the $40B+ that will speed up the NEC to the planned- 160 MPH but funds to lengthen trains to 14 cars. That will take some station’s platforms to get longer. Trenton, Wilmington, Baltimore, and some Washington platforms. NYP does have only a few track platforms that can take 14 but maybe very precise scheduling can be implemented. Ultimately the above stations can be lengthened to handle 18 cars + 2 motors. NYP can only lengthen when the Gateway project is completed. That cost may be as much as $10B.
14 car regional trains will require a lot more coaches & business class cars. 14 lengths will also allow Acela-1s to be coupled together for higher capacity once Acela-2s are built to cover more slots…
Exactly how 14 cars will fit NYP – BOS is unknown by me.
Instead of longer trains with accompanying upgrades at stations, an option is to look at bi-level train cars. The French have their bi-level TGV Duplex and bi-level train cars and MUs are in use all over Europe for local, regional and some long-distance trains.
NJT is of course already using bi-levels on some of their trains.
The NEC cannot handle bi-levels without changes in vertical clearances. And unless the new tunnels are built…
Somebody needs to tell NJT that… 
These things run into NYP everyday! I’ve even ridden them in and out of there a few times. Nothing terrible happened…[;)]
So, the big question is “why aren’t cars like these in Amtrak’s plans?” …at least for NYP to WAS service. It would buy some time for infrastructure changes to accommodate longer trains.
FWIW, several of these were fitted with nice reclining leather seats and lounge areas for use in the short-lived Atlantic City Express Service (ACES - clever, huh?) that ran NYP to Atlantic City (with an electric locomotive on one end and a diesel on the other.
It is entirely correct that NEC and specifically the North River Tunnels can’t handle Superliners. And if I understand correctly, if Superliners get to New York Penn Station, since the platforms are high level and the Superliners have doors designed for low platforms, you can’t get on/off anyway.
But bi-levels that are built to fit the loading gauge of the NEC are perfectly fine, as NJT demonstrates every day.
Bi Levels are lower than Superliners. As for price being too high…enough people pay the price to the point that trains are often sold out…so as long as people buy and trains are full, the price can’t be too high. It is when the trains are empty that the price is too high.
I agree. I think these bilevels modified with reclining seats would make great NE Regional Direct cars for NY-Boston service (and Portland, ME - Newport News, Norfolk, and Caronlina service for that matter once the essential Boston tunnel gets built). I also think that LIRR should buy bilevel mu cars. Perfectly practical, more comfortable than 3-2 seating in M-9’s or M-7’sm and more capacity.