# ARC project NYC



## birdy (Jan 18, 2009)

When I read that ARC project to build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson from New Jersey to Macy's was going to get $3 billion in federal money, I checked it out. The need for a new rail tunnel under the Hudson after 100 years seems fairly obvious. But why will it take until 2017 from ground-breaking in 2009 to complete the project? Tunnelling that length (by that I mean the actual boring of the hole) should take about a year. Tunneling for the terminal I guess would take about the same time. Presumably some of the above ground improvements on the New Jersey side could continue apace. So this looks like it should be maybe a five year project. What gives?

Also, when I google it up, I see vague complaints about the configuration of the Macy's station, and something about how it doesn't solve transportation issues through to New England, which I don't understand. What's that about?

So what would you East coast railheads do to improve the ARC project?


----------



## John Bredin (Jan 19, 2009)

birdy said:


> Also, when I google it up, I see vague complaints about the configuration of the Macy's station, and something about how it doesn't solve transportation issues through to New England, which I don't understand. What's that about?
> So what would you East coast railheads do to improve the ARC project?


I'm not an East coaster, :lol: but I can give a basic answer. The present plan, mostly NJ Transit's baby, is to have the new Hudson River tunnel(s) end in a *stub-end* terminal deep under the vicinity of Macy's and Penn Station. _People_ would be able to change trains to LIRR and Amtrak at Penn, but _trains_ couldn't run through.

The objectors would prefer a *through* station that connects at some point to the Amtrak/Metro North tracks on to Connecticut and beyond (hence the New England reference). They want the money spent on this to result not merely in more capacity for NJT's trains ending in New York, which is what the presently-planned dead-end terminal does, but for:

(1) More platforms and through tracks for Amtrak's Acela and other NEC trains, including sufficient capacity to have the Silver Service trains start/end in Boston, and

(2) Through-routing of commuter trains, now operated under the separate auspices of NJT, LIRR, and M-N. At first, this would be special trains for events, such as M-N and LIRR passengers having a through train to sporting events at the Meadowlands. Eventually, I would imagine, supporters of a through station envision regular through routes, looking to the example of Philadelphia with the nearly-seamless through-routing of the ex-Reading and ex-Pennsy lines with the Commuter Tunnel.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 19, 2009)

John Bredin said:


> (1) More platforms and through tracks for Amtrak's Acela and other NEC trains, including sufficient capacity to have the Silver Service trains start/end in Boston, and


I don't think this really has much to do with NYP and NYPSE. If you move some NJT services out of the existing Hudson tunnels, that does make room for more Amtrak service. You've also got capacity issues at the Connecticut River bridge and on the tracks Amtrak shares with the New Haven Line of Metro-North. I don't think that whether the two new tracks connect through under the East River has any effect on this.



John Bredin said:


> (2) Through-routing of commuter trains, now operated under the separate auspices of NJT, LIRR, and M-N. At first, this would be special trains for events, such as M-N and LIRR passengers having a through train to sporting events at the Meadowlands. Eventually, I would imagine, supporters of a through station envision regular through routes, looking to the example of Philadelphia with the nearly-seamless through-routing of the ex-Reading and ex-Pennsy lines with the Commuter Tunnel.


Part of the point of this would be that if you want to get from somewhere in LIRR land or on a line that currently terminates at Grand Central Terminal to a branch of NJT that currently terminates in Hoboken, it would be nice if you'd be able to transfer in a single place and have a two seat ride.


----------



## zoltan (Feb 3, 2009)

These complaints don't seem at all grounded in reality. NJ Transit trains make up the majority of the congestion in and out of Penn Station and the demands for platforms at Penn Station; moving the NJ Transit trains out of Penn Station would be a huge advantage for Amtrak!

This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.


----------



## PRR 60 (Feb 3, 2009)

I, too, do not agree with NARP's objection to ARC. The project will not reduce the through-train capacity at NYP. It simply opens additional capacity for NJT operations terminating in New York. If someone, some day, wishes to run a one-seat ride from New Jersey through to Long Island or Connecticut, that option is still open. I'm not holding my breath. I don't see any great demand for that service.

I should clarify that the ARC project does not result in NJT moving out of NYP or even reducing service there. NJT will retain their existing slots into Penn post-ARC. The project opens new capacity for NJT access to Manhattan, and was not intended to provide capacity for Amtrak.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

zoltan said:


> This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.


Is there anything that would prevent building a tunnel from NYPSE to ESA at a later date? (Are the elevations and distance such that a 3% track grade (or less) would work?)


----------



## AlanB (Feb 3, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> zoltan said:
> 
> 
> > This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.
> ...


There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.

IMHO if one is going to spend the money on such a project, one should be tying it into Metro North tracks at GCT, not LIRR tracks.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 3, 2009)

zoltan said:


> This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.


Let's also be clear that ESA isn't removing the LIRR from Penn Station. The LIRR fully expects to continue to operate into Penn even after ESA opens, and they predict that service overall into Penn will not be significantly reduced. They expect that overall ridership will just be increased with the opening of ESA, as people switching to trains headed for GCT will just open up more seats for people wishing to reach Penn.

That said, while I'm in agreement that the Access To The Regions Core project shouldn't be squashed without a link to Penn, I do feel that it is a major mistake to build it without such a link. The flexibility that such a link provides is enormous and cannot and should not be overlooked.


----------



## John Bredin (Feb 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> That said, while I'm in agreement that the Access To The Regions Core project shouldn't be squashed without a link to Penn, I do feel that it is a major mistake to build it without such a link. The flexibility that such a link provides is enormous and cannot and should not be overlooked.


Interesting you mention flexibility, because that leads into the (missing) third point against the present dead-end ARC plan I should have mentioned in my earlier posting.

3) Ability to get trains across the Hudson and into Penn, or _vice versa_, if the existing antique, overused two-track Hudson tunnel into Penn is for some reason -- maintenance, fire or other blockage of the tracks approaching the tunnels, or (gods forbid!) a fire or blockage of the tunnel itself -- out of service.

There are two issues here, terminal throughput and Hudson-tunnel throughput. ARC does something for the former, no doubt, but as a dead-end terminal does nothing for the latter, but with the expense as if it did!  Why spend a vast sum, from the limited few billions made available for the transit needs of the entire nation, for a long- and sorely-needed additional tunnel under the Hudson that will not add one whit of capacity for Amtrak, who after all owns Penn?!



PRR 60 said:


> The project will not reduce the through-train capacity at NYP. [snip] I should clarify that the ARC project does not result in NJT moving out of NYP or even reducing service there.


Assuming both assertions are correct, ARC will do *nothing* to increase Penn's capacity. While that may be a reasonable investment if the U.S. invested in intercity and commuter rail at the pace of other nations, it is IMHO not a reasonable investment from the limited tax dollars available to transit in recent decades.

In other words, while ARC clearly has benefits -- I don't contend that it's a positively detrimental project -- I don't see how those limited benefits justify the cost when compared to, say, a similar new tunnel under the Hudson that would lead into the existing Penn as well as a new terminal.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.
> IMHO if one is going to spend the money on such a project, one should be tying it into Metro North tracks at GCT, not LIRR tracks.


That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.

On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.

Though that still leaves me wondering about a few things:

1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?

2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 3, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.
> ...


I wouldn't deny that it would be helpful for NJT to be able to drop off passengers on the east side, just like the LIRR is trying to do with ESA.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.


I'm not sure of the exact depths involved here, but there is a good chance that the LIRR level is even lower than NYPSE. Remember GCT already has two levels now, so the LIRR will be the third level below ground.

However that's only part of the problem here. You've got a lot of infrastructure that must be avoided also. Things like utilities, the Park Avenue tunnel, and the Lexington Avenue subway as well as the #7 subway.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> 1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?


In a word, no. One would be reducing the LIRR's capacity to get people into Manhattan if one were to force every train through GCT first. ESA will have two tracks under the East River and Park Avenue, one inbound and one outbound. Currently the LIRR has access to two inbound tunnels and two outbound tunnels at Penn. So forcing all LIRR trains to Penn to go via GCT would cut service in half.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> 2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?


Well that depends on your definition of easy. However, that is one reason that people continue to float the idea of extending the LIRR tracks at Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn to lower Manhattan.


----------



## jis (Feb 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.
> ...


I agree with that. Unfortunately there is the New York City water tunnel under 6th Avenue that sits in the way of extending the tracks from the proposed NYPSE station to GCT.



> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.
> ...


NYPSE is a two level station which is about 170' below ground. Actually if I recall correctly the lower level platform is 170' below ground, the mezzanine is 155' below ground and the upper platforms are 140' below ground or something like that.



> However that's only part of the problem here. You've got a lot of infrastructure that must be avoided also. Things like utilities, the Park Avenue tunnel, and the Lexington Avenue subway as well as the #7 subway.


At those depths there is no infrastructure to be avoided (other than the water tunnel of course). The only other thing that could come partly in the way is the eastern end of the #7 tunnel, but I don't think even that is the case. That was the whole reasoning for building the stations deep. Of course NYPSE finally had to go deeper because the rock structure at the originally planned shallower level was not suitable for using hard rock TBMs for drilling the tunnels for the station cavern without disturbing stuff near the surface.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > 1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?
> ...


I was forgetting that LIRR has four tracks and not two into NYP, but if there were a two track connecting tunnel from NYP to the ESA section of GCT, it ought to be possible to run two thirds of LIRR trains via both stations and one third via only NYP and not have any fewer trains crossing the river than you would if ESA runs in isolation from LIRR NYP service (igorning the fact that Amtrak also uses the NYP tunnels, anyway).



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > 2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?
> ...


Are the Flatbush Ave tracks the ones ESA will connect to?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

jis said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


How wide and how tall is that water tunnel?



jis said:


> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> >
> >
> > > On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.
> ...


Is Manhattan completely flat? It seems like Mean Sea Level would be a more useful reference than ground level if we're trying to figure out what grade would be required to get from NYPSE to ESA, though even the definition of Mean Sea Level apparently has its problems.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 3, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


I'm not sure how you figure on getting two thirds of the trains that currently run through two tunnels that are maxed out during rush hour, through one tunnel. With only one tunnel and one track in said tunnel, you get exactly half the capacity of two tunnels, each with one track in them. Amtrak represents only a very small portion of the rush hour capacity of the East River tunnels, probably no more than two or three trains per hour during rush hour. NJT might add a few more trains in the peak direction, although many more in the other direction.

Finally, the point of ESA is to increase the LIRR's ability to get more people into Manhattan. If we start running LIRR trains from GCT on down to Penn, a Penn that can't handle any more trains than it currently has, then we haven't increased the number of trains into Manhattan and therefore haven't increased capacity. We've made things perhaps more flexible, meaning less transferring in Jamaica. But that isn't the goal of ESA. The goal of ESA is to get more trains and through that, more passengers into Manhattan; not to mention getting some of them closer to where they work.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


No, ESA will connect to the existing LIRR/Amtrak mainline in Sunnyside Queens. Flatbush Avenue is in Brooklyn, several miles south of Sunnyside.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 3, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I'm not sure how you figure on getting two thirds of the trains that currently run through two tunnels that are maxed out during rush hour, through one tunnel. With only one tunnel and one track in said tunnel, you get exactly half the capacity of two tunnels, each with one track in them. Amtrak represents only a very small portion of the rush hour capacity of the East River tunnels, probably no more than two or three trains per hour during rush hour. NJT might add a few more trains in the peak direction, although many more in the other direction.
> Finally, the point of ESA is to increase the LIRR's ability to get more people into Manhattan. If we start running LIRR trains from GCT on down to Penn, a Penn that can't handle any more trains than it currently has, then we haven't increased the number of trains into Manhattan and therefore haven't increased capacity. We've made things perhaps more flexible, meaning less transferring in Jamaica. But that isn't the goal of ESA. The goal of ESA is to get more trains and through that, more passengers into Manhattan; not to mention getting some of them closer to where they work.


I assume if a train goes from Long Island to Manhattan via the inbound ESA tunnel at 7:00 AM, there isn't space for it to sit in Manhattan until 10:00 AM waiting for a slot to deadhead out.

So I'm assuming that in the isolated-ESA world, that train that came into Manhattan is going to need an outbound ESA tunnel slot sometime not too long after 7:00 AM.

If that train that came inbound via ESA gets out of Manhattan via one of the NYP tunnels, and a train that went inbound to NYP gets back out of Manhattan via the outbound ESA tunnel, you haven't lost any capacity across the East River vs having the ESA trains come in via the inbound ESA tunnel and out via the outbound ESA tunnel, and the NYP train likewise using the NYP tunnel in both directions.

NYP capacity is in issue I hadn't been thinking about though, and if the LIRR trains have to switch which end is the front of the train at NYP, that's certainly an issue. On the other hand, if the ESA to NYP tunnel were built to connect the GCT ESA tracks to the west side of a handful of NYP platforms, the time savings from not having to turn the trains around would probably lead to more efficient platform use such that there'd still be enough platform tracks.

If you could configure the tracks such that one of the inbound Long Island PRR tunnels fed two platform tracks at NYP, and those two platforms connected to a track that went to GCT where it would again split out to two platform tracks, and from there those tracks would merge back into one track to continue to the outbound ESA track, and had a similar scheme for the reverse direction, I suspect that would be enough to keep the two ESA tracks across the East River and two of the PRR tracks across the East River busy, and then the other two PRR tracks could continue to be used in the traditional NYP only stub end terminal fashion.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> I assume if a train goes from Long Island to Manhattan via the inbound ESA tunnel at 7:00 AM, there isn't space for it to sit in Manhattan until 10:00 AM waiting for a slot to deadhead out.
> So I'm assuming that in the isolated-ESA world, that train that came into Manhattan is going to need an outbound ESA tunnel slot sometime not too long after 7:00 AM.
> 
> If that train that came inbound via ESA gets out of Manhattan via one of the NYP tunnels, and a train that went inbound to NYP gets back out of Manhattan via the outbound ESA tunnel, you haven't lost any capacity across the East River vs having the ESA trains come in via the inbound ESA tunnel and out via the outbound ESA tunnel, and the NYP train likewise using the NYP tunnel in both directions.


I think that I understand this, but I don't think that it's very practical. It certainly makes for a very complicated switching setup and frankly I don't see the point. Why send someone to NYP first, if they want to go to GCT? No one, save maybe a railfan, is going to stay on a train because they'll get a one seat ride to NYP, only to sit there for 10 minutes while the crew changes ends and pulls out to GCT. They're going to get off in Jamaica, just like thousands do every day right now, and switch to a train that runs direct to GCT.

Perhaps someone who wanted NYP, but was on a GCT bound train, might remain onboard if that train was going to run through to NYP. But they might also decide that they'd rather transfer for the speed run to NYP.

However, I believe that the LIRR will continue and expand upon the current practice during rush hour, where most of the lines send the 7:00 AM originating train for example to NYP, and the 7:10 AM train to Flatbush. They'll expand on that by sending a 7:05 AM train to GCT. Then repeating. Granted that's a bit of an over simplification and the real times might vary some, but you get the idea. For those that can't catch the right direct train, or don't have one, then they'll continue to change to the correct train at Jamaica. So there is no need for LIRR run through service.

NJT and Metro North on the other hand would benefit far more greatly by linking GCT & NYP.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> NYP capacity is in issue I hadn't been thinking about though, and if the LIRR trains have to switch which end is the front of the train at NYP, that's certainly an issue. On the other hand, if the ESA to NYP tunnel were built to connect the GCT ESA tracks to the west side of a handful of NYP platforms, the time savings from not having to turn the trains around would probably lead to more efficient platform use such that there'd still be enough platform tracks.


Some trains do change ends right on the platforms, but most don't. Most pull out of Penn going west into the West End Yard. Some will be parked there until the evening rush hour, while still others will change ends in the yard before heading back east to Penn and eventually Long Island. The West End Yard precludes any chance of hooking up tracks that would run to GCT. And frankly in a city like NY, it wouldn't have been very practical to tunnel west first, only to loop all the way around to the east, and then head north to GCT. It would certainly be very expensive to do, and I don't imagine that it would be very worthwhile either. And it wouldn't help NJT to connect to GCT, so now you've got four tunnels that would need to head towards GCT, even if they eventually merge prior to connecting to GCT.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> If you could configure the tracks such that one of the inbound Long Island PRR tunnels fed two platform tracks at NYP, and those two platforms connected to a track that went to GCT where it would again split out to two platform tracks, and from there those tracks would merge back into one track to continue to the outbound ESA track, and had a similar scheme for the reverse direction, I suspect that would be enough to keep the two ESA tracks across the East River and two of the PRR tracks across the East River busy, and then the other two PRR tracks could continue to be used in the traditional NYP only stub end terminal fashion.


I believe that the above reply explains why this doesn't work.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > NYPSE is a two level station which is about 170' below ground. Actually if I recall correctly the lower level platform is 170' below ground, the mezzanine is 155' below ground and the upper platforms are 140' below ground or something like that.
> ...


I agree and I do have the plan and elevation drawings of NYPSE, but they are not available easily to hand right now. Hence I posted the numbers that I remembered.

Again from memory, purely in terms of vertical distances, it would be quite feasible to connect NYPSE to ESA level for level, i.e. upper level to upper level and lower level to lower level. Remember that the design of the two stations are almost identical in form, having been done by the same outfit, platforms at two levels.

As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.

And as far as ESA goes, another fly in the ointment is the dimension of the ESA tunnels under the east river. At present NJT own nothing that would fit through those tunnels, and as a matter of fact even the MNRR M-7s won't fit through them. Only the LIRR ones will fit through them. LIRR C-3's for example will never make it into GCT. They will always run only to NYP or Hunterspoint Ave.

There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

jis said:


> As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.


I'm a little skeptical of this. We've seen evidence (under the Hudson River and East River) that it's possible to install a 20' to 30' diameter pipe in a large body of water and run trains inside that pipe. It's not clear to me why a similar pipe could not be installed through the large body of water known as the water tunnel. It would undoubtably be more difficult to install such a pipe in a body of water where there is no surface access directly above where that train pipe is going, but I'm not at all sure it would be impossible. The folks who run the water tunnel do know how to send divers into the water tunnel.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.
> ...


Well remember that this "pipe" is a dual use pipe. The upper level carries the 63rd Street Subway line, the F route on the map, while the lower level will carry the LIRR ESA tracks.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

AlanB said:


> I think that I understand this, but I don't think that it's very practical. It certainly makes for a very complicated switching setup and frankly I don't see the point. Why send someone to NYP first, if they want to go to GCT? No one, save maybe a railfan, is going to stay on a train because they'll get a one seat ride to NYP, only to sit there for 10 minutes while the crew changes ends and pulls out to GCT. They're going to get off in Jamaica, just like thousands do every day right now, and switch to a train that runs direct to GCT.
> Perhaps someone who wanted NYP, but was on a GCT bound train, might remain onboard if that train was going to run through to NYP. But they might also decide that they'd rather transfer for the speed run to NYP.


I've been thinking about this problem and considering another variation: build a total of six tracks from GCT/ESA to NYP/NYPSE.

Use four of those tracks to run all MN trains through to NJT and vice versa. NJT will more or less have four tracks into Manhattan (ignoring what they need to share with Amtrak), and I suspect that Metro-North's three or so New Haven Line tracks plus the Hudson and Harlem Lines might add up to almost as many trains. If not, since presumably NYPSE would have 8 platform tracks and only need four for through running, up to half the NYPSE NJT trains could turn around at NYPSE, or perhaps the GCT configuration could allow some NJT trains to turn around at GCT.

Then, during peak travel times, use both ESA tracks in the peak direction, with morning inbound trains stopping first at GCT and then at NYP (and 1/3 of the LIRR trains still going inbound via a PRR tunnel, stopping only at NYP and not GCT). Reverse peak travelers in the morning would have to board at NYP, but they'd find the average wait time at GCT for a LIRR train going to NYP to be somewhere around 45 seconds. The average wait time would be more like 20 seconds if they were also willing to take an NJT/MN train, but at some point people might have to start optimizing for short walks rather than taking a train from any possible platform.

To make this work, you'd probably basically need two groups of 8 (potentially stub end) platform tracks each in the approximate horizontal position of NYP at some depth or another, with each group of 8 platform tracks having a track to ESA and a track to a PRR tunnel; these platform tracks might be existing NYP tracks, or they might be new platforms built below the existing platforms.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I was thinking of the PRR iron pipes into NYP in thinking of what a train pipe through the water tunnel might look like, though probably slightly larger diameter, and quite possibly concrete or something instead of iron.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

jis said:


> There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.


Do the ESA tunnels fit any multilevel equipment at all?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.
> ...


While I was unaware that there were height differences between a Metro North M7 and an LIRR M7 car, if the tunnel won't clear a Metro North M7 single level car, it surely isn't going to clear any possible multilevel car.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2009)

AlanB said:


> While I was unaware that there were height differences between a Metro North M7 and an LIRR M7 car, if the tunnel won't clear a Metro North M7 single level car, it surely isn't going to clear any possible multilevel car.


The only piece of equipment on the MNRR cars that causes the height difference is the vent that sticks out on the roof. Notice that LIRR does not have that. This allows them to fit in the East River tunnels for ESA. I don't know where they stuck that vent on the LIRR cars. MNRR insisted that they be on the roof far far away from the rails, after their sad experience in the past with the wrong kind of snow getting in through vents and causing havoc.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.
> ...


Hey, you are welcome to your skepticism. I am merely conveying what the owners of the water tunnel have said they will allow or not. I can understand their lack of enthusiasm in allowing tinkering with the water tunnel in any way because NYC downstream of 34th St depend on that water. The tunnel is old and no one knows for sure what kind of punishment it can withstand. However, I'd strongly recommend that you go ahead and offer your civil engineering expertise to the powers that be and maybe they will concede the error of their ways


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 4, 2009)

jis said:


> I can understand their lack of enthusiasm in allowing tinkering with the water tunnel in any way because NYC downstream of 34th St depend on that water. The tunnel is old and no one knows for sure what kind of punishment it can withstand.


If it's so unknown does anyone know for sure if it'll even last another 10 years if left alone?

I can certainly see the need to be more careful putting a train pipe through that water tunnel than the level of care that was needed to put train pipes through the Hudson, since the consequences of accidentally poluting the Hudson aren't nearly as severe, but if you can demolish the foundations under a freeway while traffic is going across that freeway, I tend to think that there are a lot of problems that have never been solved before that could be solved if you find the set of circumstances that justifies solving them. There's got to be some way to reinforce the walls of the water tunnel near where the train pipes would come poking through to mitigate that set of concerns, I should think.

I also wonder if building a new water tunnel either deeper or to the east or west and rerouting that water away from where tracks might be desired is an option. Or with a different cross section that's larger in the horizontal plane and smaller in the vertical plane.

But we were also discussing a NYPSE to ESA connection when we started discussing this, and now it seems as if connecting NYPSE to a higher level of GCT would be desired. If the track heading east out of NYPSE had a 3% grade going up, is it still going to encroach upon the space that the water tunnel folks feel entitled to?

And are both existing GCT track levels shared by all of the New Haven, Harlem, and Hudson Lines, such that NYPSE could be connected to either level to get through to all those MN lines if the track grades work and the fresh water can be gotten around?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> And are both existing GCT track levels shared by all of the New Haven, Harlem, and Hudson Lines, such that NYPSE could be connected to either level to get through to all those MN lines if the track grades work and the fresh water can be gotten around?


All three mainlines can access either level of GCT.

The problem here is that both of those levels have loop tracks that would be cut by any southern connection. I'm not sure that the lower level loop tracks see much use, I seem to recall Dutch stating that at least one of the tracks was out of service, if not even removed. But the other was still in place and I believe usable, but again I'm not sure how much use it gets. The two loop tracks on the upper level however do see regular use to my knowledge. So there's problem #1.

Now for problem #2, remember that earlier Jishnu told me that connecting to the LIRR level wouldn't cause issues with the Subway's and the Park Avenue auto tunnel. Well that issue will now rear its ugly head when you start trying to connect to the MNRR levels of GCT.

By the way, even though I eliminated it from the quote, something tells me that you'd need more than a 3% grade to get from the NYPSE station at 7th Avenue to reach a level at 6th Avenue that clears the water tunnel. And that assumes that there is even room between the 6th Avenue subway tunnels and the Broadway subway tunnels and the water tunnel to punch through yet another tunnel for at GCT connector.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I think that I understand this, but I don't think that it's very practical. It certainly makes for a very complicated switching setup and frankly I don't see the point. Why send someone to NYP first, if they want to go to GCT? No one, save maybe a railfan, is going to stay on a train because they'll get a one seat ride to NYP, only to sit there for 10 minutes while the crew changes ends and pulls out to GCT. They're going to get off in Jamaica, just like thousands do every day right now, and switch to a train that runs direct to GCT.
> ...


First, before I even go anywhere else, I think that you are now being ridiculously grandiose here, sorry. While I'd love to see a GCT-NYP connection, it definitely doesn't need to be six tracks. And it can't be six tracks, as there are no avenues or streets that can handle a 6 track RR, unless it's run on two levels. And the later greatly increases the costs for little benefit. While some run through service would be nice, we don't need every train to run through. It's just unnecessary and unneeded.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Use four of those tracks to run all MN trains through to NJT and vice versa. NJT will more or less have four tracks into Manhattan (ignoring what they need to share with Amtrak), and I suspect that Metro-North's three or so New Haven Line tracks plus the Hudson and Harlem Lines might add up to almost as many trains. If not, since presumably NYPSE would have 8 platform tracks and only need four for through running, up to half the NYPSE NJT trains could turn around at NYPSE, or perhaps the GCT configuration could allow some NJT trains to turn around at GCT.


You forgot that you need to turn the MN trains around at NYPSE. MN has a hard time turning around all the trains that they have in GCT right now, and they've got over 30 tracks to do it. Adding 8 tracks at Penn, even assuming that Penn could afford to loose 8 tracks to MN, still isn't going to solve the problem.

And what happened to the other 2 tracks?



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Then, during peak travel times, use both ESA tracks in the peak direction, with morning inbound trains stopping first at GCT and then at NYP (and 1/3 of the LIRR trains still going inbound via a PRR tunnel, stopping only at NYP and not GCT). Reverse peak travelers in the morning would have to board at NYP, but they'd find the average wait time at GCT for a LIRR train going to NYP to be somewhere around 45 seconds. The average wait time would be more like 20 seconds if they were also willing to take an NJT/MN train, but at some point people might have to start optimizing for short walks rather than taking a train from any possible platform.


I suspect that there are also other issues with this, but the big one that springs to my mind is the fact that the outbound ESA tunnel will connect to the eastbound LIRR tracks in Sunnyside. So now you've either got to build one complex interlocking to get some of the morning rush hour trains all the way across potentially 8 or more tracks to the normally outbound ESA tunnel, or you've got to wrong rail trains from Jamaica and essentially shut down reverse peak service. And the LIRR does have a halfway decent reverse peak flow. It doesn't compare to the rush hour flow, but it is still significant and one has to get those trains out of Manhattan, regardless of whether they are carrying passengers or not.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> To make this work, you'd probably basically need two groups of 8 (potentially stub end) platform tracks each in the approximate horizontal position of NYP at some depth or another, with each group of 8 platform tracks having a track to ESA and a track to a PRR tunnel; these platform tracks might be existing NYP tracks, or they might be new platforms built below the existing platforms.


And there is no where at Penn where this would be possible without huge modifications to the current interlocking plant, and even then I'm not sure that it would be possible. Also, this depends on the NJT changing the design to once again include connections to NYP, something that currently isn't even on the drawing board.


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I can understand their lack of enthusiasm in allowing tinkering with the water tunnel in any way because NYC downstream of 34th St depend on that water. The tunnel is old and no one knows for sure what kind of punishment it can withstand.
> ...


AFAICT, no one knows for sure. They just wake up every morning and make appropriate offerings to their favorite dieties and hope that it will last at least until Water Tunnel #3 is completed. 



> I also wonder if building a new water tunnel either deeper or to the east or west and rerouting that water away from where tracks might be desired is an option. Or with a different cross section that's larger in the horizontal plane and smaller in the vertical plane.


One is being built on a completely new alignment, but that is not as a replacement of the old one for the long term. It will just allow the old one to be taken out of service and refurbished and put back into service. One could posit that when that is done it could be rerouted around the 34th St. area, but then the several hundred million dollar question will be who is going to pay for it and for what purpose. What is the real ROI on a hypothetical NYPSE-GCT connection that that might enable. My suspicion is that this idea cannot be cost justified.



> But we were also discussing a NYPSE to ESA connection when we started discussing this, and now it seems as if connecting NYPSE to a higher level of GCT would be desired. If the track heading east out of NYPSE had a 3% grade going up, is it still going to encroach upon the space that the water tunnel folks feel entitled to?


Yes.The lower level will still drive straight into the tunnel and the upper level will be in the safe zone that the water tunnel owners have decreed. This is what caused the originally planned tail tracks from the upper level to be removed, because there was no way to build them without encroaching.



> And are both existing GCT track levels shared by all of the New Haven, Harlem, and Hudson Lines, such that NYPSE could be connected to either level to get through to all those MN lines if the track grades work and the fresh water can be gotten around?


The big issue IMHO is not getting MNRR trains going into GCT to be able to continue on to NYP. For MNRR to send trains to NYP the primary plan is to do so using the Empire Connection from the Hudson Line and using the NYCRR (Hell Gate Line) for New Haven Line trains. Somehow MNRR has not indicated that it is important to get Harlem Line trains to NYP.

The big issue has always been to get NJT trains to the East Side (read GCT) because a significant proportion of the folks arriving into NYP from NJ are actually headed for the area just north of GCT on weekdays.

The original Alternative G actually called for extending tracks 1-5 of NYP eastwards and then turning two tracks north under Park Ave S to connect into the lower level of GCT. That most likely still remains the most viable option notwithstanding all of the vigorous arm-waving that is going on about extending NYPSE eastwards and what nots, even though it does cause encroachment into one of the IRT tunnels which will need to be slightly moved. The possibility of extending NYPSE eastwards was buried when the changes were made to send the station deeper underground in the SDEIS. Of course the cheerleaders for the SDEIS including,luminaries like Mr. Zupan did not realize this until the tail tracks were nixed in the final design. I had gone on record at an RCLC meeting where I gave a deposition pointing out that this would be the case and was ignored back then.

Additionally, the way the politics of this has worked so far, NYC or NYS is not going to pay a dime for a facility the primarily is used by NJ residents, never mind that they increase the tax base for NY. And even I as an NJ citizen would probably baulk at spending another billion or two of NJ taxpayer money to connect NYP to GCT when there are a zillion things in NJ, including rail service extensions, that are going abegging for funding. I find it very hard to make a cogent argument that funding the NYP-GCT connection will have a more positive economic effect on NJ than say building the Lackawanna Cutoff and building service out to Allentown to make it easier for people in those areas to come into their work locations in Somerset and Morris counties.

Given that situation, I don't see the NYP-GCT connection happening ever, unless a compact of NY/NJ and perhaps CT can be put together to jointly fund such, or if the PANYNJ and the Feds together want to fund it. Though, if PANYNJ comes into such additional funds, wouldn't one rather spend it on another Hudson Rail crossing upstream etc.? Isn't Tappan Zee replacement more critical than a NYP-GCT connection?


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> By the way, even though I eliminated it from the quote, something tells me that you'd need more than a 3% grade to get from the NYPSE station at 7th Avenue to reach a level at 6th Avenue that clears the water tunnel. And that assumes that there is even room between the 6th Avenue subway tunnels and the Broadway subway tunnels and the water tunnel to punch through yet another tunnel for at GCT connector.


You can't get a tunnel with any usable grade to leap over the water tunnel and its encroachment zone starting from the NYPSE tunnels. That is why the proposed tail track from the upper level was eliminated.Originally they thought they could but on more detailed analysis they found they could not.

If NYPSE were at a depth that is about 35 feet less there was a way, i.e. there is enough space between the water tunnel and the subway tunnes. But that is now not possible. NYPSE allegedly has to be where it is because the rocks higher up are not strong enough to support tunneling using rock TBM without disturbing the surface. And connection from the Hudson Tunnel into such a higher level station would encroach into the #7 tail track tunnels.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2009)

jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > But we were also discussing a NYPSE to ESA connection when we started discussing this, and now it seems as if connecting NYPSE to a higher level of GCT would be desired. If the track heading east out of NYPSE had a 3% grade going up, is it still going to encroach upon the space that the water tunnel folks feel entitled to?
> ...


I'll admit that I'm still on my first cup of coffee for the day, but color me confused. :unsure: If the owners have decreed that there is a safe zone above the water tunnel and the upper level of NYPSE would run into that safe zone, why would they drop the tail tracks from the upper level?

Or did you mean to say that they dropped the tail tracks from the lower level?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> First, before I even go anywhere else, I think that you are now being ridiculously grandiose here, sorry. While I'd love to see a GCT-NYP connection, it definitely doesn't need to be six tracks. And it can't be six tracks, as there are no avenues or streets that can handle a 6 track RR, unless it's run on two levels. And the later greatly increases the costs for little benefit. While some run through service would be nice, we don't need every train to run through. It's just unnecessary and unneeded.


I believe that in the ideal rail system, it should be possible to get from any rail station in a given metro area to any other rail station with only one transfer. I don't see how you're going to achieve that if some branches of the commuter rail network only stop at NYP and others only stop at GCT. Maybe you could have some trains from all branches stop at GCT and require those doing such transfers to wait longer for a train to their destination, but that seems non-ideal.

I think requiring multiple transfers makes about as much sense as having two major highways in a major city which you can only connect between by driving for two miles on a road with a couple stop lights a mile and a 45 MPH speed limit.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Use four of those tracks to run all MN trains through to NJT and vice versa. NJT will more or less have four tracks into Manhattan (ignoring what they need to share with Amtrak), and I suspect that Metro-North's three or so New Haven Line tracks plus the Hudson and Harlem Lines might add up to almost as many trains. If not, since presumably NYPSE would have 8 platform tracks and only need four for through running, up to half the NYPSE NJT trains could turn around at NYPSE, or perhaps the GCT configuration could allow some NJT trains to turn around at GCT.
> ...


No, you shouldn't need to turn any MN trains around at NYPSE; the idea would be MN and NJT would get together to share a common pool of equipment, and the southern terminal of every single MN trainset would be moved to New Jersey instead of being in Manhattan, much as how SEPTA runs their trains through. That style of run through effectively doubles the capacity vs trying to have every train terminate at the far end of the downtown from the branch being served.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Then, during peak travel times, use both ESA tracks in the peak direction, with morning inbound trains stopping first at GCT and then at NYP (and 1/3 of the LIRR trains still going inbound via a PRR tunnel, stopping only at NYP and not GCT). Reverse peak travelers in the morning would have to board at NYP, but they'd find the average wait time at GCT for a LIRR train going to NYP to be somewhere around 45 seconds. The average wait time would be more like 20 seconds if they were also willing to take an NJT/MN train, but at some point people might have to start optimizing for short walks rather than taking a train from any possible platform.
> ...


So you need a couple of flyover bridges. Isn't that trivial compared to the tunnel construction I'm proposing here?



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > To make this work, you'd probably basically need two groups of 8 (potentially stub end) platform tracks each in the approximate horizontal position of NYP at some depth or another, with each group of 8 platform tracks having a track to ESA and a track to a PRR tunnel; these platform tracks might be existing NYP tracks, or they might be new platforms built below the existing platforms.
> ...


Huh? I don't think I was proposing connecting ESA to NYPSE here at all.

Isn't there a considerable vertical gap between the lowest traditional NYP platform track and the highest NYPSE track, and thus space in between that might potentially gain more tracks?

Is there a map somewhere that clearly shows all of the potential obstructions in the vertical plane?


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


Ah bad wording by me. The owners of the water tunnel have defined a zone around the tunnel which must not be encroached into. They call it the safety zone. I mis-characterized it as "safe zone" causing your confusion. Naturally from the perspective of the water tunnel owners their safety zone is the zone that must not be breached by anyone else.


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Isn't there a considerable vertical gap between the lowest traditional NYP platform track and the highest NYPSE track, and thus space in between that might potentially gain more tracks?
> Is there a map somewhere that clearly shows all of the potential obstructions in the vertical plane?


NYPSE is nowhere near NYP horizontally. NYP is between 33rd and 31st St and between 10th Ave and 7th Ave. NYPSE is exactly under 34th St and between 8th Ave and 6th Ave.

The reason that NYPSE was moved down is allegedly because if it were any shallower it could not be built without disturbing stuff above it. If that is true then same will hold good for attempting to build any station at a depth less than NYPSE.

The original Alternative-P called for a station right under NYP. That was abandoned, exactly for what reason I don;t know, but it is possible that there were concerns about difficulty in constructability. Apparently there is an underground river valley that runs through the area which causes the rock line to dip quite a ways down in part of the area making it necessary for any shallow station to be partly outside the rock base, which they apparently want to avoid for fear of disturbing existing structures above.

If any tracks are gained in NYP they will apparently be in the so called block 780 which is the block between 7th and 8th Ave and south of 31st St, which for some reason NY City wants to re-develop and hence there is a possibility of not worrying about current structures that are in that block. But even this is a far out possibility. Amtrak has been talking up this angle over the last 6 months. There has been a minor spat also going on about not precluding additional tunnels across the Hudson that come in around 31st St to connect to such an extension..... but that is another separate long long story in this complex of political posturing and creation of alternative visions etc.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > First, before I even go anywhere else, I think that you are now being ridiculously grandiose here, sorry. While I'd love to see a GCT-NYP connection, it definitely doesn't need to be six tracks. And it can't be six tracks, as there are no avenues or streets that can handle a 6 track RR, unless it's run on two levels. And the later greatly increases the costs for little benefit. While some run through service would be nice, we don't need every train to run through. It's just unnecessary and unneeded.
> ...


If we built some sort of connector between GCT & NYP it would be possible to go from a station in NJ to a station in NY with only one transfer, and all without needing to run every single train coming into NY between GCT and NYP/NYPSE. It might take a bit of planning on one's part to catch the correct run through train between GCT-NYP, but it is possible. There are lines which even today don't reach Manhattan and they never will for various reasons, so those lines would require two transfers.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


SEPTA was easy! The same agency was running trains on both sides of the tunnel with equipment that was compatable with each side. Here you have three different agencies, plus Amtrak in the middle, all running equipment that by and large is incompatible. You are also involving three different states that each have their own priorities.

The expense is huge and they will never reach a deal on who gets to throw away their equipment and buy new equipment that is compatible all around. Heck, even now we can't share equipment between the LIRR and MNRR, and they have the same parent. The costs of throwing away all the new equipment, as well as the old, is simply too great.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Joel N. Weber II said:
> ...


If only we had room in Sunnyside for those flyovers. They're already shoe horning the tunnels in as it is. And then you've already got flyovers that can't be removed. Those flyovers would force any new ones to be so much higher that there wouldn't be enough distance to provide a reasonable grade.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 5, 2009)

AlanB said:


> SEPTA was easy! The same agency was running trains on both sides of the tunnel with equipment that was compatable with each side. Here you have three different agencies, plus Amtrak in the middle, all running equipment that by and large is incompatible. You are also involving three different states that each have their own priorities.
> The expense is huge and they will never reach a deal on who gets to throw away their equipment and buy new equipment that is compatible all around. Heck, even now we can't share equipment between the LIRR and MNRR, and they have the same parent. The costs of throwing away all the new equipment, as well as the old, is simply too great.


But SEPTA's system was originally one railroad on each side.

Are there any dimensional problems with running NJT equipment on MN's ROW or vice versa? (Let me guess, MN ordered equipment that won't fit through the old PRR tunnels?)

If you start with connecting two tracks from the old NYP to the lower level of the old GCT, and it takes ten years to build it from when it's planned, there's a decent chance that some of the equipment (which probably has a 30 year lifespan) was going to be replaced while the tunnel was being constructed anyway. And the older equipment could be used for the stub end routes that don't go all the way across Manhattan until it wears out. Or some of the 20 year old equipment could be sold off to some other city that's starting up commuter service. Connecticut may be extending the commuter runs past New Haven towards Hartford, which might help to create demand for some of that older equipment, too.

There is also some evidence that MN can cooperate with NJT in that there are some lines that are technically MN lines operated by NJT into Hoboken. Is the MN equipment used for that the same as the Hudson Line / Harlem Line equipment?


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > SEPTA was easy! The same agency was running trains on both sides of the tunnel with equipment that was compatable with each side. Here you have three different agencies, plus Amtrak in the middle, all running equipment that by and large is incompatible. You are also involving three different states that each have their own priorities.
> ...


Metro North probably would not have any problems with the equipment fitting through Penn and the old North River tunnels. However I'm not so sure that any of NJT's equipment would fit into the Park Avenue tunnels, certainly the brand new still being delievered multi-levels won't fit.

However the bigger problem is that the propulsion technologies are different for each RR. Of the Metro North equipment, the only cars currently capable of operating into NYP are the ones that run on the New Haven line. And at most, that represents 1/3 of MN's entire fleet. All the cars on the Harlem and Hudson lines at present cannot operate into NYP, much less into New Jersey. Only the New Haven cars can pull power from an overhead catenary.

And while there is third rail in all of NYP, it ends shortly before the North River tunnels pop up in New Jersey. Additionally, MN's third rail is incompatible with the LIRR's third rail, which is what exists in NYP and the North River tunnels. MN uses an under-running shoe to pull the power off the rail, whereas the LIRR uses an over-running shoe to pull power off the third rail. And no technology exists to install reversible on the fly shoes and I rather doubt that it can be invented without huge expense, if even then.

Turning back to NJT, they die as soon as they reach GCT, since there is no catenary in the Park Avenue tunnels and no room to install catenary in those tunnels. Similarly the LIRR can't operate into the existing GCT because of the shoe issue, and they can't operate into NJ because the third rail ends just as they exit the tunnels.

So it's not just a matter of attrition on equipment, attrition that won't help all that much anyhow at least with a 10 year window, since all three agencies have probably replaced at least 50% of their fleet within the last 5 to 8 years. It's a matter of someone biting the bullet to install the other's technology and then finding dual use cars to use, at least until everyone is on the same technology.

Throw Amtrak into the mix, who isn't going to want to replace the catenary with something else, and that pretty much means that NJT would have to install third rail throughout their entire system so that MN and LIRR can operate into NJ, and then either the LIRR or MN has to replace their third rail system with the other's third rail system.

We're talking Billions of dollars, if not a Trillion or more, for little benefit IMHO. Having a cross town connector would be something that I would support and could see both happening and being very useful. Trying to integrate all three systems so that 80% of all the trains run can operate from one state to the next simply isn't worth the effort and the money for the small amount of people that would actually use it. Are there people who could take advantage of an NJT train that ran to say White Plains or Babylon? Most likely, yes. But there aren't enough of them to warrant the expense. Better to simply have them make a transfer at either Penn or GCT to accomplish that, than to spend Billions. The benefits don't outweigh the costs.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Or some of the 20 year old equipment could be sold off to some other city that's starting up commuter service. Connecticut may be extending the commuter runs past New Haven towards Hartford, which might help to create demand for some of that older equipment, too.


Most of the current MN equipment that would become available is incompatible with the diesel hauled trains being considered for New Haven to Hartford and beyond. One can’t haul MU trains with a diesel engine in revenue service.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> There is also some evidence that MN can cooperate with NJT in that there are some lines that are technically MN lines operated by NJT into Hoboken. Is the MN equipment used for that the same as the Hudson Line / Harlem Line equipment?


No, the MN equipment used for the joint service basically matches NJT’s diesel hauled operations elsewhere in NJ. It is not the same, nor is it compatible with the MU’s used on the Hudson & Harlem lines, or even the MU’s on the New Haven line. Once a track connection is built, assuming that ARC is built and NJT obtains the dual mode locomotives that I believe are now on order (it might still be at the RFP phase), those trains will be able to operate into Penn. But they won’t be able to operate into GCT because of the third rail issues.

One final thought on SEPTA, when they built their run through it was rather easy by comparison. You’re talking about knocking out four holes in a station wall, with no tracks in the way. Then building a half mile tunnel or so, that basically runs straight for most of it’s distance and didn’t have multiple subways, an underground auto tunnel, and a water tunnel in their way. With NYP-GCT you’re talking about a mile and a quarter run, with a big turn and all of the aforementioned issues of subways and tunnels.


----------



## jis (Feb 6, 2009)

I think there is a very important factor that we are missing in this discussion. The technical problem, some of which may appear daunting, can eventually be handled, mitigated or worked around, provided there is political will. The real difficult problem right now is institutional both in the way of the lack of enthusiasm among the various bureaucracies involved to work with each other, and also to come up with a coherent regional vision that makes any sense. I have no clue how to fix that problem. And without addressing that problem all these other things will just remain to be nice dreams among us.

It takes political will to build something like the Interstate System in the US or something like the Kashmir Rail link in India or the Lhasa Rail Link in China. They don;t come about as a result of business ROI calculations. Inevitably, initially they are built initially in a form that would appear to be "pork" to many. It is political will and vision that converts them from "pork" to spectacular successes. New York area at present is negatively blessed negatively with a large collection of non-visionary leaders who are more intent upon tending to their own nests instead of dreaming and pushing big regional visions based on cooperation among agencies that have traditionally not been known to work well together. It is this lack of eladership that is the bigger problem than a few technical ones.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Metro North probably would not have any problems with the equipment fitting through Penn and the old North River tunnels. However I'm not so sure that any of NJT's equipment would fit into the Park Avenue tunnels, certainly the brand new still being delievered multi-levels won't fit.


How difficult would enlarging the Park Avenue tunnels be?



AlanB said:


> Once a track connection is built, assuming that ARC is built and NJT obtains the dual mode locomotives that I believe are now on order (it might still be at the RFP phase), those trains will be able to operate into Penn.


Are these the diesel/catenary locomotives whose horsepower requirements and weigh requirements, when combined with current technology, turn out to be impossible to build?



AlanB said:


> One final thought on SEPTA, when they built their run through it was rather easy by comparison. You’re talking about knocking out four holes in a station wall, with no tracks in the way. Then building a half mile tunnel or so, that basically runs straight for most of it’s distance and didn’t have multiple subways, an underground auto tunnel, and a water tunnel in their way. With NYP-GCT you’re talking about a mile and a quarter run, with a big turn and all of the aforementioned issues of subways and tunnels.


This page says:



> The mainline of the Commuter Tunnel is comprised of a four-track reinforced concrete box tunnel. It weaves both above and below pre-existing subway lines, and its design and construction were both very challenging. This included extensive underpinning of the Reading Terminal Train Shed while it was still in use, also extensive underpinning of several historic and high rise buildings along the route. There was massive relocation of utilities, all of which had to be kept in service without disruption. Complex, detailed construction scheduling was needed to maintain motor vehicle, pedestrian and rail traffic at street level, and also in the multiple levels of subways and concourses. The design of the project included plans for interfacing to future buildings.





> Philadelphia has four subway lines that pass through Center City, and three interfered with tunnel construction at several places. The north-south Broad Street Subway was built in 1928, and it was designed to allow a future subway line to pass over it near City Hall. Clearances were barely adequate for the Commuter Tunnel, and the 120-foot (36.6 m) wide subway roof was demolished and the tunnel was built while subway traffic was maintained on at least two of the four tracks. Just east of the Broad Street Subway, a 400-foot (122 m) section of underground trolley tunnel was parallel to the Commuter Tunnel, and it needed to be moved 16 feet (4.9 m) to the south, without disrupting regular trolley schedules. This is the Market Street Subway-Surface light rail line tunnel that makes a long loop around City Hall. When cut-and-cover tunnel construction passed under a street, the heavy downtown motor vehicle traffic was carried on timber beam decking, which provided a temporary street roadway.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 6, 2009)

AlanB said:


> Throw Amtrak into the mix, who isn't going to want to replace the catenary with something else, and that pretty much means that NJT would have to install third rail throughout their entire system so that MN and LIRR can operate into NJ, and then either the LIRR or MN has to replace their third rail system with the other's third rail system.


If the proposal was carried out to connect tracks 1 through 5 at NYP through to a two track tunnel through to GCT, wouldn't it be possible to convert those five tracks at NYP to MN style third rail, and leave the rest of NYP compatible with LIRR style equipment?

But I suspect the real key to making this work would be to figure out how to retrofit NJT's catenary locomotives to add MN third rail compatibility, and figure out how to add the M8 style catenary equipment to the M7s.


----------



## jis (Feb 7, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Throw Amtrak into the mix, who isn't going to want to replace the catenary with something else, and that pretty much means that NJT would have to install third rail throughout their entire system so that MN and LIRR can operate into NJ, and then either the LIRR or MN has to replace their third rail system with the other's third rail system.
> ...


No, not track 5. It must have LIRR style third rail to accommodate Empire Connection Amtrak DMs.

Also, even if such a connection is made, the primary purpose of that will be to get NJT trains to GCT and not the other way round. The locus of jobs is around GCT and on the East side and hence the desire to give NJT East Side Access. LIRR has been working on ESA for the same reason. There is relatively much lower traffic from the East Side to the NYP area, and as I said earlier that need can be pretty much met by a combination of the existing subway lines and MNRR bringing in a few NH line and Hudson line trains to NYP using existing tracks.



> But I suspect the real key to making this work would be to figure out how to retrofit NJT's catenary locomotives to add MN third rail compatibility, and figure out how to add the M8 style catenary equipment to the M7s.


Which of course means that one has to wait till the next generation NJT equipment is ordered, since the current generation covering delivery upto about 2017 and with a lifetime of 30 or so years is pretty much set in stone. Retrofitting third rail shoes and related electrical equipment is a highly non-trivial exercise in an existing catenary locomotive. And finally who is going to pay for that venture and why?

Furthermore, the M8s such as they are currently are incapable of operating into Penn Station. They can operate only upto CP Gate on the Hell Gate line which is where 60Hz electrification ends and 25Hz begins. The M8 transformers are incapable of operating at 25 Hz without becoming an impressive bonfire.



AlanB said:


> However the bigger problem is that the propulsion technologies are different for each RR. Of the Metro North equipment, the only cars currently capable of operating into NYP are the ones that run on the New Haven line. And at most, that represents 1/3 of MN's entire fleet. All the cars on the Harlem and Hudson lines at present cannot operate into NYP, much less into New Jersey. Only the New Haven cars can pull power from an overhead catenary.


See above. Notwithstanding the fact that they have pantographs, only the old MNRR EMUs can operate into NYP, i.e. the ones that will be taken out of service once the M8's start arriving. The M8s cannot work into NYP.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> How difficult would enlarging the Park Avenue tunnels be?


Just to enable through running? politically close to impossible. Remember that one of the reasons that NYPSE became a deep dungeon is because New York City baulked at permitting cut and cover tunneling through an empty piece of land on the east side by the river. Try digging up Park Avenue - the epicenter of business in New York City. No way no how  BTW, those tunnels are too shallow to use any technique other than cut and cover.

Also BTW, actually NJT equipment other than the MLVs would fit through them but there is not enough space to string traditional catenary. I don;t know if fixed overhead rail like used in the tunnels in the Delhi Metro for example would fit. It will be touch and go at best. The problem will be the side tunnels more than the center two tracks I should think.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are these the diesel/catenary locomotives whose horsepower requirements and weigh requirements, when combined with current technology, turn out to be impossible to build?


And yet, they are actually being manufactured and will be delivered starting late 2010/early 2011. The orders have been placed both by NJT and by AMT of Montreal, and NJT is about to exercise a further option on them. Apparently current technology has moved far enough along to make them possible. It was always a matter of time anyway, since there is nothing absolute that made them impossible.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Feb 8, 2009)

jis said:


> Furthermore, the M8s such as they are currently are incapable of operating into Penn Station. They can operate only upto CP Gate on the Hell Gate line which is where 60Hz electrification ends and 25Hz begins. The M8 transformers are incapable of operating at 25 Hz without becoming an impressive bonfire.


Oh, so there _is_ equipment out there that's incompatible with 25 hz.

I'm sure converting NYP and/or NJT territory to 60 hz is possible if someone wanted to pay for it, though. The only argument in favor of keeping 25 hz at all seems to be that the conversion to 60 hz would cost money.



jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > How difficult would enlarging the Park Avenue tunnels be?
> ...


Isn't it possible to remove a track, remove some dirt/whatever, and replace that track at a lower height, at least in some cases? I'm sure I've seen a study of how to make some tracks in Vermont compatible with double stack freight, and there were places where they proposed to lower the tracks by a few feet to avoid needing to rebuild bridges. Also, if you stand on the street to the north of the Back Bay platforms in Boston, east of the entrance, you can see where the Framingham / Worcester and Orange Line tracks are a little bit higher than the NEC tracks, which makes me wonder if once upon a time the tracks were all at the same level, and the tracks which now have catenary were lowered to add catenary.

I imagine the portal Metro-North uses coming out of the tunnel might need to be enlarged from above if the tracks are sitting on a bridge at that portal, though.

Is Metro-North ever going to need multi-level equipment to meet their own capacity needs?


----------

