# NEC capacity



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

On the days around Thanksgiving or during a busy weekday rush hour, is the NEC running at near capacity? I understand the tunnels under the Hudson are but it looks like a solution is being worked on (THE Tunnel), but other than that, how many more people could be carried on the NEC?

On a side note, took Metro-North from Stamford to GCT today and the train was PACKED. They really need to add some more holiday trains or add some more cars, if they have any.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 25, 2006)

Nngo11 said:


> On the days around Thanksgiving or during a busy weekday rush hour, is the NEC running at near capacity? I understand the tunnels under the Hudson are but it looks like a solution is being worked on (THE Tunnel), but other than that, how many more people could be carried on the NEC?


First this question needs to be clarified a bit. If we assume that only Amtrak was running trains, then no the NEC is no where near capacity. It's only when coupled with commuter service that capacity issues start to enter the picture.

Now, you've already named one big choke point the Hudson River tunnels, but there are others. First is the capacity at Penn to handle more trains, one reason that in conjunction with the tunnels a new station is being built under 34th Street.

Then there are capacity contraints at Boston's South Station that while not currently a problem, could become a problem as the T adds more trains and if Amtrak also wants to add more. There is also a potential for problems between Attleboro, MA and South Station if more too many more trains are added. Moving south, the potential for conflicts increases on Metro North territory, especially if there are any problems.

South of Penn we have the two track Portal bridge not far from Secacus Junction which is almost at capacity right now, and will need capacity improvements before anyone can really take advantage of The Tunnel. The next potential choke point is Wilmington Del, where things are ok right now, but any substantial increases by SEPTA or Amtrak will start to create problems.

Further south from Perryville, MD to the Gunpowder River could become a problem if MARC ever needed to triple, possibly double, it's current service levels. Then just south of Baltimore things are already getting tight in the tunnel just beyond the station. Part of the problem here is simply the low speeds, so fixing things up to increase speeds would help. But it wouldn't be a permenant solution if service levels continue to increase.

Finally some improvements would need to be made to the interlocking leading into DC, if service levels were to be increased by much more than what they currently are. The speeds across the interlocking are just to slow to keep things fluid with many more trains. Of course going southbound they really can't go too much faster without risking using the station as a bumper block, and we don't need to park another engine in the basement like the Pennsy did with that GG1 many years ago. But northbound things could really be helped by increased speeds.



Nngo11 said:


> On a side note, took Metro-North from Stamford to GCT today and the train was PACKED. They really need to add some more holiday trains or add some more cars, if they have any.


Well Metro North is having a big problem right now with flat wheels thanks to the fall leaves. I saw a news report not too long ago that IIRC stated that they had over 200 cars out of service thanks to the slippery rail conditions caused by the falling leaves. They were running their wheel truing shop 24/7 trying to catch up, but even then I think that they can only fix about 18 cars per day, so there is a big backlog.

All that said, they probably should have tried to run a few more trains than what was planned even before they lost all those cars.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

Wow I didn't expect that detailed of answer. See below.



AlanB said:


> Then there are capacity contraints at Boston's South Station that while not currently a problem, could become a problem as the T adds more trains and if Amtrak also wants to add more. There is also a potential for problems between Attleboro, MA and South Station if more too many more trains are added. Moving south, the potential for conflicts increases on Metro North territory, especially if there are any problems.


Could this be solved just by starting trains at Back Bay Station? Or are the yards in the wrong place?

I imagine there is no real solution to the Metro-North capacity issues because there isn't room for another track, I imagine, and also because it takes Connecticut 50 years to do anything.



AlanB said:


> South of Penn we have the two track Portal bridge not far from Secacus Junction which is almost at capacity right now, and will need capacity improvements before anyone can really take advantage of The Tunnel.


I think the plans for THE Tunnel include adding a track here.



AlanB said:


> The next potential choke point is Wilmington Del, where things are ok right now, but any substantial increases by SEPTA or Amtrak will start to create problems.


That's interesting - why would Wilmington be a choke point but not Philadelphia? or Trenton, for that matter?



AlanB said:


> Further south from Perryville, MD to the Gunpowder River could become a problem if MARC ever needed to triple, possibly double, it's current service levels. Then just south of Baltimore things are already getting tight in the tunnel just beyond the station. Part of the problem here is simply the low speeds, so fixing things up to increase speeds would help. But it wouldn't be a permenant solution if service levels continue to increase.
> Finally some improvements would need to be made to the interlocking leading into DC, if service levels were to be increased by much more than what they currently are. The speeds across the interlocking are just to slow to keep things fluid with many more trains. Of course going southbound they really can't go too much faster without risking using the station as a bumper block, and we don't need to park another engine in the basement like the Pennsy did with that GG1 many years ago. But northbound things could really be helped by increased speeds.


So to summarize your post, is this fair? The curent choke points, in order of of severity are

1) Hudson River tunnels

2) Portal Bridge

3) Baltimore tunnels

4) DC interlockings

5) Wilmington, Del.

6) Metro North New Haven Line conflicts

7) South Station/MBTA

1-2 are being worked on (it seems); 4 doesn't look too hard. 3 has been talked about forever but I'm not sure if anything can be done about it, given cost limitations etc.. I profess ignorance about potenial solutions to 5, 6 and 7.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

I forgot to add Perryville, MD to Gunpowder River to my summary, but I assume this would take last place on that list.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 25, 2006)

Nngo11 said:


> Wow I didn't expect that detailed of answer. See below.
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> ...


Probably not, but not because of the yard being in the wrong place. There is a wye track from the yard that would allow trains to reach BBY without needing to go to South Station. The track was cut for the big dig project and I'm not sure if it is back in service yet or not, however restoring it wouldn't be a big problem. The problems would be the need to cut across the 3 tracks that run between BBY and BOS, coupled with the fact that BBY only has 3 NEC tracks so capacity isn't wonderful at BBY.



Nngo11 said:


> I imagine there is no real solution to the Metro-North capacity issues because there isn't room for another track, I imagine, and also because it takes Connecticut 50 years to do anything.


Actually capacity on MN could be increased a bit without adding a 5th track, if they restored the 4th track south of New Haven down to Milford. The other thing that could be done, although it wouldn't be easy, would be to eliminate or at least mitigate some of the sharp curves on the line. With proper banking and gentler curves, speeds could then be increased for both Amtrak and MN, thereby increasing capacity. There is a finate limit to how much capacity could be increased that way, but it would help some.



Nngo11 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > South of Penn we have the two track Portal bridge not far from Secacus Junction which is almost at capacity right now, and will need capacity improvements before anyone can really take advantage of The Tunnel.
> ...


I'm not sure if the Portal Bridge is actually included in the plan for The Tunnel.



Nngo11 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The next potential choke point is Wilmington Del, where things are ok right now, but any substantial increases by SEPTA or Amtrak will start to create problems.
> ...


Trenton has 4 thru tracks, along with 2 side tracks, Philly of course has many tracks and Amtrak is seperated from SEPTA at Philly. Wilmington is an issue in part because the station only has 3 tracks, and SEPTA turns most of it's trains on one of those tracks, and because both entering and leaving the station you drop down to 2 tracks only for a short distance.



Nngo11 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Further south from Perryville, MD to the Gunpowder River could become a problem if MARC ever needed to triple, possibly double, it's current service levels. Then just south of Baltimore things are already getting tight in the tunnel just beyond the station. Part of the problem here is simply the low speeds, so fixing things up to increase speeds would help. But it wouldn't be a permenant solution if service levels continue to increase.
> ...


That's probably a fair representation. #5 could be helped by adding a third track both north and south of the station and if need be, by not turning SEPTA trains in the station. I already mentioned a few things regarding #6, yet another would be to rebuild the Shell interlocking as originally planned when Acela was concieved. Shell interlocking is where Amtrak leaves the MN tracks, just south of New Rochelle.

I'm not real sure what could be done to help #7 at present, but if the big dig had included a rail connection to North Station, that would have helped South Station considerable, as trains would have been able to run through. It takes time to change ends and get out of South and that is what creates the potential for bottle necks if too many more trains start showing up at South Station.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

http://www.njtransit.com/nn_press_release....RELEASE_ID=2250

Portral Bridge: it's being studied and "the project is expected to be completed for the opening of THE Tunnel in 2016," to be taken with a grain of salt though. You're right though in that in that it's not directly a part of the THE Tunnel project.


----------



## JAChooChoo (Nov 25, 2006)

Nngo11 said:


> On the days around Thanksgiving or during a busy weekday rush hour, is the NEC running at near capacity? I understand the tunnels under the Hudson are but it looks like a solution is being worked on (THE Tunnel), but other than that, how many more people could be carried on the NEC?
> 
> On a side note, took Metro-North from Stamford to GCT today and the train was PACKED. They really need to add some more holiday trains or add some more cars, if they have any.


*Your last point is the best answer, Acela capacity could be doubled without any additional track capacity with six more cars, and I doubt there are many 12 car regionals running. *


----------



## AlanB (Nov 25, 2006)

JAChooChoo said:


> Nngo11 said:
> 
> 
> > On the days around Thanksgiving or during a busy weekday rush hour, is the NEC running at near capacity? I understand the tunnels under the Hudson are but it looks like a solution is being worked on (THE Tunnel), but other than that, how many more people could be carried on the NEC?
> ...


If only Amtrak actually had the extra cars to add to the consists. Alas there are no extra cars to add.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 25, 2006)

I don't think the issue that will get people on to the trains is necessarily the number of seats, but rather the frequency of those seats. I'm ok with the Acelas as is, but if we could get more departures, and a little shorter more consistent runs the business people would have a hard time ignoring the lure of the train. The next big thing with Acela though will be Internet Access, whenever that occurs. In the business would the more connected you are, especially while in transit, the better. If they can get high speed internet to the business boys you better believe those trains will be packed.


----------



## GG-1 (Nov 25, 2006)

AlanB said:


> All that said, they probably should have tried to run a few more trains than what was planned even before they lost all those cars.


Aloha

Depending on a safe headway, wouldn't it provide more capacity, to add cars, to existing trains rather than extras? Assuming the cars are available and the capacity of head end is not exceeded.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

AlanB said:


> If only Amtrak actually had the extra cars to add to the consists. Alas there are no extra cars to add.


But buying new cars, I would guess, is cheaper than a lot of the large capital projects we were talking about. My question, though, would be if the extra cars, particularly adding six more to the Acela, would have a (significant) effect on trip times.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 25, 2006)

GG-1 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > All that said, they probably should have tried to run a few more trains than what was planned even before they lost all those cars.
> ...


Well in this case since we're talking about Metro North and not Amtrak, most of their trains are MU's so there is no worry about exceeding the head end capacity. The limiting factor is platform length and most of their trains are already 8 to 10 car trains, and I believe that some are even 12 (not postive about that). So the odds are that they can't add more cars, or at least many more, without having issues with cars that don't land on the platform.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 25, 2006)

Nngo11 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > If only Amtrak actually had the extra cars to add to the consists. Alas there are no extra cars to add.
> ...


I don't think that adding more cars would have a huge impact on running times. After all the Acela is already over-powered for it's needs. The HHP-8 can haul at least 10 to 12 cars and it's HP rating is 8,000. Acela boasts two power cars each with 6,000 HP.

The problem is the expense of the cars, not to mention that it is a major project to add cars to the trainset. It's not a simple yard procedure like it is with all other Amtrak cars. You must shop the train to add or subtract cars. So adding cars just for a holiday weekend doesn't make sense and the other alternative, hauling around empty cars the rest of the year also doesn't make sense.

Then of course you'd actually have to get Bombardier to agree to build them, which might not be possible considering the outcome of the lawsuits over the Acela project.

Finally, while the cost of buying additional cars for Acela would be cheaper than some of the affore mentioned projects, buying new cars only helps Acela. Perfoming any of the track improvement projects helps all Amtrak trains, as well as potentially many commuter trains too. That makes the investment worth while.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 25, 2006)

AlanB said:


> GG-1 said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Yes, can confim that my PACKED train had ten cars today and since there were people standing up and down the entire aisle of most cars (so far as I could tell), just adding two more cars would have only helped a little. I think twelve cars is the Stamford platform length. I however managed to get a seat because I was not intimidated by two 'tough guys' with a suit case on the seat in between them. They glared, but moved it when I asked.


----------



## George Harris (Nov 26, 2006)

Part of the NEC capacity is the variety of services operated. If all trains ran the same stops, the same power to weight ratio, and had the same maximum speed, you could run them at headways of about 3 minutes all day long with only two tracks. However, that is not the case. That is why, in particular the mostly two tracks only section south of Perryville makes the list.

A straight four track section through Baltimore would do a lot for the overall capacity, not to mention save a few minutes of time.

Unless it has changed, the speed in Washington Union Station is 15 mph on the turnouts and 30 mph on the throat tracks until off the curve under New York Avenue. Due to clearances, this curve has no superelevation and the radius make the 30 mph close to the practical limit. You could save a couple of minutes here by improving this curve and putting in some higher speed crossovers.

The other situations I do not know that much about.

George


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 26, 2006)

George Harris said:


> Part of the NEC capacity is the variety of services operated. If all trains ran the same stops, the same power to weight ratio, and had the same maximum speed, you could run them at headways of about 3 minutes all day long with only two tracks. However, that is not the case. That is why, in particular the mostly two tracks only section south of Perryville makes the list.


 Excllent point George. The fact that there are so many different types of trains, making different stops, slowing for curves, and so on and so forth is what makes things interesting, and a dispatchers life hell. I personally think triple tracking would do wonders for the currently double track segment in the Baltimore/DC area, and quad tracking would help even more.


----------



## Rafi (Nov 26, 2006)

I guess it depends on one's definition of the NEC, but it seems to me that we shouldn't forget the Washington-Newport News corridor, either, which has notorius congestion woes. First on the priority list in that section of the corridor is the Quantico bridge, which is a single-track nightmare, bottlenecking VRE, Amtrak, and CSX traffic. All three entities are currently working to add another bridge parallel to the current one, which supports two additional tracks (although I can't recall if they're installing two tracks to begin with, or just one). I believe that process is nearing completion, thankfully.

Second on the list is Acca Yard in Richmond, which has a variety of traffic congestion problems, although I'm not too familiar with them. I do know that the speed limit through that area is pretty slow, however.

And I guess third on the list would be the Potomac River long bridge out of Washington, which is two tracks and is nearing capacity between CSX, Amtrak, and VRE traffic.

Just my two cents...

-Rafi


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 26, 2006)

Good point Rafi, most people don't consider WAS-NPN truly part of the NEC because such a small percentage of NEC traffic sees it, and Amtrak does not have ownership of the road. The new bridge at Quantico is nearing completion. The deck does have the capacity for two tracks to be laid, but only one will be laid initially. Even this will help traffic flow immensly since you will have the ability to have rolling meets. Acca does have a large number of problems, and I as you do not know these issues well enough to comment. The key to improving the WAS-RVR corridor is going to be further investment by the State of Virginia and more cooperation by CSX.


----------



## Nngo11 (Nov 26, 2006)

battalion51 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > Part of the NEC capacity is the variety of services operated. If all trains ran the same stops, the same power to weight ratio, and had the same maximum speed, you could run them at headways of about 3 minutes all day long with only two tracks. However, that is not the case. That is why, in particular the mostly two tracks only section south of Perryville makes the list.
> ...


I imagine the NEC must be unique in the world in having such a high density of very different equipment and operators. The whole thing, other than New Haven to New Rochelle, is dispatched by Amtrak now. I imagine the chances that MN will be give up dispatching responsibilities to be pretty low, but would this help at all -- having only one company dispatch the length of the corridor probably couldn't be too bad. And after all, the MBTA did give up dispatching on their section of the NEC at some point, if I'm not mistaken, and they haven't fared poorly after doing so.


----------



## battalion51 (Nov 26, 2006)

Well the big thing is that because Amtrak has such a large number of dispatchers they can develop better training programs since they have more people to train, and a larger knowledge base to tap. This also means that any new dispatchers are going to be trained by other dispatchers that know their territory well and can help teach the newbies their craft well. I know many new dispatchers for CSX are trained on the BA desk (Auburndale, Miami, and Homestead Subs) because it's one of the more difficult to dispatch, but has some of the best dispatchers as a result.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 20, 2008)

AlanB said:


> I don't think that adding more cars would have a huge impact on running times. After all the Acela is already over-powered for it's needs. The HHP-8 can haul at least 10 to 12 cars and it's HP rating is 8,000. Acela boasts two power cars each with 6,000 HP.


How long does an HHP-8 take to go from 0 to 125 MPH when pulling 10 coaches?



AlanB said:


> The problem is the expense of the cars, not to mention that it is a major project to add cars to the trainset. It's not a simple yard procedure like it is with all other Amtrak cars. You must shop the train to add or subtract cars.


Why is that? What's involved in adding cars to an Acela trainset?

Regarding MBTA capacity, it looks like there's a decent chance the North South Rail Link will get built in the next 10 or 15 years.

I think the more interesting question is the capacity between Rhode Island and South Station. Extending the MBTA Orange Line to Readville and getting rid of the commuter rail stop at Hyde Park might help with some of the issues with running trains with different mixes of stops. The original Orange Line plan through that corridor apparently included two branches off of Forest Hills, one to Readville and the other along the Needham Line (which has the potential to get the Needham trains off the three NEC tracks heading into downtown Boston). If there's enough space in the right of way south of Readville, quad track might be a good idea; I suspect in the long run it would be good to have MBTA express trains going between Rhode Island and downtown Boston that skip a bunch of the stops.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 20, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think that adding more cars would have a huge impact on running times. After all the Acela is already over-powered for it's needs. The HHP-8 can haul at least 10 to 12 cars and it's HP rating is 8,000. Acela boasts two power cars each with 6,000 HP.
> ...


Sorry, but I have no clue. 



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is the expense of the cars, not to mention that it is a major project to add cars to the trainset. It's not a simple yard procedure like it is with all other Amtrak cars. You must shop the train to add or subtract cars.
> ...


Acela does not use standard RR couplers. So one can't just roll back to an extra car and couple on like normal. It requires tools, nuts, and bolts to couple two cars together, and then you've got some work on the diagphram to hook that together. It may even require a bit of reprogramming to the computers, so as to ensure that all cars tilt for the proper amount of time.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I think the more interesting question is the capacity between Rhode Island and South Station. Extending the MBTA Orange Line to Readville and getting rid of the commuter rail stop at Hyde Park might help with some of the issues with running trains with different mixes of stops. The original Orange Line plan through that corridor apparently included two branches off of Forest Hills, one to Readville and the other along the Needham Line (which has the potential to get the Needham trains off the three NEC tracks heading into downtown Boston). If there's enough space in the right of way south of Readville, quad track might be a good idea; I suspect in the long run it would be good to have MBTA express trains going between Rhode Island and downtown Boston that skip a bunch of the stops.


I believe that capacity at South Station will become a problem long before capacity through the BBY - Readville corridor. As for south of there, it would probably be pretty easy to add more track. In fact, the station platforms at Route 128 look like they were built with the idea in mind that one day there might just be a 4 track main running through there.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 20, 2008)

There certainly has been some discussion of relocating the post office to be able to build something like two new tracks at the existing surface station (or maybe it was four?) but I haven't heard anything about that in a while, and that's probably unneeded if the North South Rail Link actually does get built, although moving the post office might go somewhat faster. Then again, I find it really convenient that the almost-always-open post office is right by South Station, and will be disappointed if it goes somewhere else.

We apparently are surviving the opening of the Greenbush Line without capacity upgrades at South Station; the next things that seem likely to get added that will require more capacity at South Station are more trains to Worcester whenever CSX and the state stop arguing about liability, and the Fall River / New Bedford trains (the MBTA website's commuter rail map currently shows the Stoughton branch being extended and diverging into two branches as the proposal, but the news stories claim that they're studying all the options and haven't made up their minds yet; there's probably no track that needs to be constructed if they went via Attleboro or Middleboro).


----------



## jis (Apr 21, 2008)

Nngo11 said:


> On the days around Thanksgiving or during a busy weekday rush hour, is the NEC running at near capacity? I understand the tunnels under the Hudson are but it looks like a solution is being worked on (THE Tunnel), but other than that, how many more people could be carried on the NEC?


If number of train movements are considered then the tunnels under the Hudson are at capacity only for an hour in the morning and an hour in the evening during rush hours. If the total possible capacity to move people is considered they are nowhere near capacity even in those hours, since many trains that run during those hours are not near the full length possible.

Incidentally, THE Tunnel will only marginally release train movement capacity (about 20% or so) in the current Hudson tunnels, but the difference is spoken for by additional NJT movements. Amtrak gets only one more slot per hour out of it. Most of its capacity in the new tunnel is spoken for in the form of new services, and the rest with service that is moved from the current tunnels to the new ones, all NJT traffic of course.

In terms of how many more "people" can be carried, I am sure even carrying double the number of people currently carried is not out of the realm of possibilities. Afterall none of the corridor trains are at full possible length (12, they are mostly at 8) nor at full possible density of seating. As for number of train movements, except in the rush hours there is room for quite a bit of growth. Even in rush hours there is some room for growth specially with improvement of signaling, shorter blocks and deployment of ACSES across the board, some of which has already been applied to the Hudson tunnels to achieve the 25 or so tph that it can handle now (the choke point at present is not the tunnels but A Interlocking conflicts within Penn Station).

In short there are many low hanging fruits to be picked in this area before one has to start taking any drastic steps, except in a few choke points, where a double track segment sits between two triple or more track segments. But even there more capacity would open up with more aggressive packing of trains using shorter blocks and better use of advanced overlays on the existing signaling system.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 21, 2008)

Are you saying that Amtrak is going to continue to use the present tunnels after THE Tunnel is built? I would have thought it might make more sense to move all the Amtrak traffic to THE Tunnel to open up the possibility of Amtrak operating full-height bi-level cars on its whole system.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 21, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are you saying that Amtrak is going to continue to use the present tunnels after THE Tunnel is built? I would have thought it might make more sense to move all the Amtrak traffic to THE Tunnel to open up the possibility of Amtrak operating full-height bi-level cars on its whole system.


Amtrak will continue to use the existing tunnels. NJ Transit will use the new tunnel and will also retain present slots in the Amtrak tunnels. The new tunnel will not access the existing Penn Station trackage.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 21, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are you saying that Amtrak is going to continue to use the present tunnels after THE Tunnel is built? I would have thought it might make more sense to move all the Amtrak traffic to THE Tunnel to open up the possibility of Amtrak operating full-height bi-level cars on its whole system.


Sadly, yes, that is exactly what he's saying. The original plan called for a link between the new tunnels and Penn Station. The current revised plan however, has sadly eliminated that connection. The new tunnels will only connect to the new station to be built under 34th Street. There will be a pedestrian passage between the two stations, but no rail connection.

This will mean that NJT has exclusive access to the new tunnels and the new station. Amtrak will have nothing to do with the new tunnels, will not control them, or contribute any money towards them AFAIK.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Sadly, yes, that is exactly what he's saying. The original plan called for a link between the new tunnels and Penn Station. The current revised plan however, has sadly eliminated that connection. The new tunnels will only connect to the new station to be built under 34th Street. There will be a pedestrian passage between the two stations, but no rail connection.
> This will mean that NJT has exclusive access to the new tunnels and the new station. Amtrak will have nothing to do with the new tunnels, will not control them, or contribute any money towards them AFAIK.


Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.

OTOH, now that there is no connection at Penn Station it is quite likely that the new tracks all the way from Swift, over the southern bridge of the Portal replacements, through Secaucus (south) all the way into 34th St. station will be controlled completely by NJT. At Swift there will be crossovers both from NEC to the new tracks and vice versa. At Portal there will be a single crossover from the new tracks to the NEC, and that's about it in terms of connections between the two sets of tracks. Think of the new pair of tracks as a continuation of a branch from the M&E into 34th St station with crossovers to/from NEC at Swift, and you will get an accurate picture.

This is all truly ironic considering that the new tunnels will be big enough to have clearance for Superliners under the catenary! The TBMs that will be used to bore the tunnels will be something like 28' in diameter. The inside diameter of the tunnels will be over 20'. But of course 34th St station, officially called the New York Penn Station Extension, with tracks 22 through 27), will not have low level platforms so getting Superliners in there will be a neat trick. Will require steps to be placed in the cars to climb down into them, if they were brought in there somehow.


----------



## Chris J. (Apr 22, 2008)

jis said:


> Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.
> OTOH, now that there is no connection at Penn Station it is quite likely that the new tracks all the way from Swift, over the southern bridge of the Portal replacements, through Secaucus (south) all the way into 34th St. station will be controlled completely by NJT. At Swift there will be crossovers both from NEC to the new tracks and vice versa. At Portal there will be a single crossover from the new tracks to the NEC, and that's about it in terms of connections between the two sets of tracks. Think of the new pair of tracks as a continuation of a branch from the M&E into 34th St station with crossovers to/from NEC at Swift, and you will get an accurate picture.


Is this new station something do with what's now the post office building? There was some sign up there about a station, but I've read lots of "bits" on what was/is/wasn't/isn't happening at Penn that I've rather lost track of it all now.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 22, 2008)

Chris J. said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.
> ...


No. The post office is between 8th & 9th Aves and 31st & 33rd Streets, directly across 8th Avenue from MSG and Penn Station. And it is doubtful that this project will ever see the light of day at the moment. Much of this station would have been above ground.

The new station that the new tunnels will link to will be under 34th Street between 6th & 8th Aves, one full block to the north. It will be entirely under ground, other than the entrance/exit portals.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 22, 2008)

What's the ultimate cause of Amtrak not being involved in this project? Is it a lack of interest by Amtrak's management in enhancing Amtrak in logical ways? Would NJT have any objection to Amtrak switching over to THE Tunnel if it meant that some of the federal money came with more favorable terms, and NJT ended up being able to run the same number of trains per hour into Manhattan either way?

The platform height issue seems really annoying, though. I would think some of the platforms in Penn Station could be assigned just to Amtrak and lowered. But then there's the issue of compatibility with all the other stations in the NEC system, and for example I doubt that there'd be much enthusiasm if the North South Rail Link gets built in Boston for having high platforms at each station, plus low platforms for Superliners further down the same track.

Given that double stack container trains are several feet higher than the Superliners, the long term answer might be to simply build even taller bi-level cars, but that probably has its own set of annoyances, and there are probably tracks Amtrak uses somewhere that have clearance for the current bi-level Superliners but not for double stack container trains.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> What's the ultimate cause of Amtrak not being involved in this project? Is it a lack of interest by Amtrak's management in enhancing Amtrak in logical ways? Would NJT have any objection to Amtrak switching over to THE Tunnel if it meant that some of the federal money came with more favorable terms, and NJT ended up being able to run the same number of trains per hour into Manhattan either way?


Well, for one thing, if Amtrak trains want to run through New York and on to Boston they simply cannot use the new station and as defined presently THE Tunnel too, since it goes only to the new station, which has no egress for trains to the east.

Unfortunately the federal money granting algorithms don't work the way that you appear to surmise in asking the question about NJT's objection or not. FTA and FRA are separate feifdoms in the federal government and get their funding from vastly different budget lines that are funded from different sources.

As I mentioned earlier, this has all along been an NJT project funded out of FTA and PANYNJ, partly because there was no possibility for Amtrak to get anywhere near the kind of money needed given the political atmosphere surrounding Amtrak, and partly (this is my conjecture) NJT wanted its own station and tunnel into Manhattan having been jerked around endlessly by Amtrak and LIRR at Penn Station, while MTA was too busy trying to rescue the ESA and the 2nd Ave. Subway projects out of deep financial trouble.

Adding fuel to the fire was NY State's reluctance to fund any part of a project to create a run through station - rumored to have risen to active connivance to prevent such from happening using any resources of the MTA, which would have enabled Amtrak's use of the new station and tunnel better. On the whole the politics surrounding this whole thing is breathtaking, to say the least. In effect in the whirlwind of tri-state politics, Amtrak has been rendered to a position of an impotent spectator of the spectacle like most others, while the two Governors, the PANYNJ, NJTransit and the FTA deck it out among themselves. The original MIS was a joint project of NJT, MTA, Amtrak and PANYNJ. In moving from MIS to DEIS something happened - MTA got busy with LIRR ESA and 2nd Ave. Subway, Amtrak got budget constipation etc., and the thing got thrown entirely into NJT and PANYNJ's laps and that's where it sits today.

At the end of the day NJT is hardly likely to complete a brand spanking new $7 billion project and then donate it for Amtrak's use while it continues using the old digs at Penn Station itself. Human nature and hence politics just does not work that way.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 22, 2008)

Penn Station will need an overhaul eventually, but its a long way off. I also think that NJTransit got a nice sized scare with the idea of an Amtrak strike. Most of the way would be cleared for NJT to direct all of its traffic through this and bypass the NEC entirely except for NEC-line trains. It makes a lot of sense for them. With ESA, I suspect Penn-Station is going to become a less-important station.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 22, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Penn Station will need an overhaul eventually, but its a long way off. I also think that NJTransit got a nice sized scare with the idea of an Amtrak strike. Most of the way would be cleared for NJT to direct all of its traffic through this and bypass the NEC entirely except for NEC-line trains. It makes a lot of sense for them.


While I'm sure that NJT wasn't happy with the threatened strike, this has little to do with a strike and it won't mitigate one in the future, should a strike happen.

NJT isn't planning to divert existing service to the new station, they plan to run service from lines that have never seen Manhattan, into the new station. Ok to be fair, it's possible that some new lines might end up at the old station and some existing lines could end up at the new station. But the bottom line is that NJT plans to run trains from the Raritan, Bergan, Main, and Pascack Valley lines into NY. Also factored into the equation are trains from the MOM line, if they ever get it up and running.

So an Amtrak strike will be just as devastating to NJT 20 years in the future, as it would have been this year. And the new station still isn't going to help NJT in the event of a strike with serveral lines, as they'll still loose MOM, NEC, Coast, and Raritan in the event of an Amtrak strike. And possibly diminished capacity on the M & E.



Green Maned Lion said:


> With ESA, I suspect Penn-Station is going to become a less-important station.


East Side Acess won't diminish Penn in any way. The MTA isn't planning any major reduction in service into Penn, once ESA is up and running. They expect to increase service overall on LI, as well as possibly throw some MN trains into Penn.

Penn Station will be just as important as ever, no matter what happens. Neither NJT's puny 6 track station nor ESA is going to diminish the importance of Penn and its 21 tracks.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 22, 2008)

I'd imagine that this will heavily decrease the importance of Hoboken Terminal, however?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 22, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I'd imagine that this will heavily decrease the importance of Hoboken Terminal, however?


You may see some decrease at Hobo, but I don't believe that it will be hugely significant, to the point where the station is in danger of being closed. Many people will still continue to Hobo, for its easier & cheaper access to lower Manhattan. Between the HBLRT, PATH, and the commuter trains, I believe that Hoboken is in no danger of closing.

Secaucus Junction could have easily put Hoboken out of business, and it didn't. It still sees a significant number of passengers every day.

Remember, the new tunnels aren't just about getting more trains into Manhattan, it's about getting more trains running inside NJ too. So not every train that currently runs to Hoboken is going to suddenly start running to Manhattan, if/when this is done. New trains will be added to many lines, and not all of those trains are going to fit into Manhattan. Some will still have to go to Hoboken, both for the demmand of the passengers, but also because they can't run to Manhattan.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2008)

AlanB said:


> East Side Acess won't diminish Penn in any way. The MTA isn't planning any major reduction in service into Penn, once ESA is up and running. They expect to increase service overall on LI, as well as possibly throw some MN trains into Penn.
> Penn Station will be just as important as ever, no matter what happens. Neither NJT's puny 6 track station nor ESA is going to diminish the importance of Penn and its 21 tracks.


That's true. LIRR is not releasing any slots at Penn Station as a result of ESA, which implies that they plan to run as many trains into Penn Station after ESA as they do before it.

NJT's puny 6 track station will be allegedly handling 25 trains per hour, about the same number that the old Penn Station handles from the west (if you count Empire Corridor too that is at the current 1 tph). In a way because of grade separated approach to the six tracks actually NJT will find it easier to pull that off than at the old station because the notorious A Interlocking conflicts will be almost non-existent in the new station - if and when it is built.

it is also true that if anything the NJT station is being billed as an extension to Penn Station rather than as a separate station. Its tracks will be numbered 22 through 27. It's construction is not going to diminish the importance of Penn Station, and indeed will actually enhance it.

As for traffic distribution, AFAIK NJT will move Midtown Directs from NYP to NYPSE. Most likely all dual-modes will go to NYPSE since it will have enhanced fire emergency handling systems and the new tunnels will have better fire escapes with cross tunnel interconnect walkways at regular intervals like in the channel tunnel for escaping from emergencies using the other tunnel etc.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 23, 2008)

Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.


----------



## jis (Apr 23, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.


NJT has an RFP out for diesel and catenary powered electric dual mode locomotives. Response deadlines have been postponed many times since no one seems to be able to meet the requirements specified. But at NJT hope springs eternal of course.

In addition NJT has an RFP for a specific number of EMUs, DMUs, and one prototype dual-mode (diesel and catenary) DEMU out and there are reportedly at least two credible responses to that one involving credible equipment manufacturers. So that one is likely to happen in some way shape or form. In phase 1 though it is primarily a procurement of EMUs, enough to retire the Arrow IIIs. The significant DMU order and the dual mode DEMU are in phases 2 and 3.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 23, 2008)

Just as an FYI for those who may not know:

RFP = Request For Proposal, or basically tell us how you would build this thing and what you would charge us for building it.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 23, 2008)

jis said:


> NJT has an RFP out for diesel and catenary powered electric dual mode locomotives. Response deadlines have been postponed many times since no one seems to be able to meet the requirements specified. But at NJT hope springs eternal of course.
> In addition NJT has an RFP for a specific number of EMUs, DMUs, and one prototype dual-mode (diesel and catenary) DEMU out and there are reportedly at least two credible responses to that one involving credible equipment manufacturers. So that one is likely to happen in some way shape or form. In phase 1 though it is primarily a procurement of EMUs, enough to retire the Arrow IIIs. The significant DMU order and the dual mode DEMU are in phases 2 and 3.


Interesting. Boston will probably want dual mode diesel / catenary locomotives (with traction motors sufficient for mile long 3% uphill grades just beyond the platforms with whatever collection of coaches the MBTA uses) if the North South Rail Link ever gets built. Is there some reason why this is a harder problem than diesel / third rail dual mode locomotives? Is there anyone in business who knows how to make new FRA compliant catenary electric-only locomotives these days that haul standard non-Acela coaches that use normal couplers?

(The alternative for Boston might be to electrify the entire commuter rail system, which mostly seems like a good idea if you're willing to ignore the price tag, but if that is done and there are no catenary dual mode locomotives, Amtrak 448/449 would not be able to run through the tunnel unless a locomotive swap was performed at Worcester or something. Or I guess 448/449 could maybe run something like the Atlantic City Line with the electric locomotive being dead weight for half the trip and the diesel being dead weight the other half of the trip.)

I also wonder if dual mode locomotives would make any sense for BOS to NPN trips if they existed, or if it really is better to swap the locomotives at WAS. Relatedly, I've always wondered why Amtrak chooses to swap locomotives in Albany on 48/49.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 23, 2008)

First: Mr. Weber: I'm going to take an uneducated stab at it and say that nobody currently makes FRA compliant Cat/Diesel dual mode locos, and therefore, would have to design one. While NJT is a large potential customer, I don't think they'd be large enough to justify such a project economically in the eyes of most companies. I think they might find more success third-railing THE Tunnel and contracting with GE for some P32AC-DMs.



jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.
> ...


Why retired the Arrow IIIs? They seem pretty reliable, solid, and so on. Also, by credible manufacturers, I assume you mean NOT CRC?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 23, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is there some reason why this is a harder problem than diesel / third rail dual mode locomotives?


The transformers required to convert 600 to 750 VDC are tiny compared to what's required to convert 22,000 VAC. Packing a diesel engine powerful enough to move the train efficiently, as well as provide HEP, and the needed transformers into a standard sized engine body is proving to be a bit of a challange. And then there is the weight issue, as those transformers aren't light. Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is there anyone in business who knows how to make new FRA compliant catenary electric-only locomotives these days that haul standard non-Acela coaches that use normal couplers?


Sure, NJT has ben buying a bunch in recent years, the ALP-44 and 46. And even Amtrak, as well as MARC, just brought the HHP-8 locos not too long ago from Bombardier



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I also wonder if dual mode locomotives would make any sense for BOS to NPN trips if they existed, or if it really is better to swap the locomotives at WAS. Relatedly, I've always wondered why Amtrak chooses to swap locomotives in Albany on 48/49.


Because they don't have enough P32-ACDM's to send them all the way to Chicago and still meet the demands of the Empire service. I suspect that the fact that they also produce 1,050 less horsepower, thanks to the smaller engine necessary to fit in the 3rd rail transformers, also has something to do with the decision.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 23, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> First: Mr. Weber: I'm going to take an uneducated stab at it and say that nobody currently makes FRA compliant Cat/Diesel dual mode locos, and therefore, would have to design one. While NJT is a large potential customer, I don't think they'd be large enough to justify such a project economically in the eyes of most companies. I think they might find more success third-railing THE Tunnel and contracting with GE for some P32AC-DMs.


Third rail isn't an ideal alternative either, since the substations required are expensive. And then there is the fact that NJT needs loco's that can run into either tunnel, not just the new tunnel. That means getting Amtrak to extend the third rail on their tunnels too. And I've heard reports that Amtrak isn't willing to do that. That's even been suggested as one of the reasons, beyond the costs and a few other issues, as to why the current plan has cut out the connection between the new tunnels and the existing Penn Station.

And I'm not sure that GE is even building that model of loco anymore, so getting an order of P32-ACDM's might not be as easy as you think.

Jishnu will know better, but I do think that NJT's order was more than large enough to interest people. The problem really is as I mentioned above, packing all the equipment needed for catenary running into the body of the loco without exceeding the frame size and maximum weight on the wheels.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 23, 2008)

I do want to point out that the ALP-44 is made by Asea Brown Bovari in Sweden, (Despite its outwardly similar appearance to the related but largely American AEM-7.) and that the ALP-46 is basically an AEG/Daimler-Benz design (its based off the German Class 101)


----------



## transit54 (Apr 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.


That makes me curirous: how much _does_ a pantograph weigh? Not precisely, of course, but a ballpark guess. Never did I ever consider that the pantograph would be an especially heavy object.


----------



## PRR 60 (Apr 24, 2008)

rnizlek said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.
> ...


Pantographs are not very heavy, but Alan is correct that the physical challenges to combine a 25kV electric locomotive with a diesel locomotive within one box are formidable. Unlike electronics, power transformation equipment has not changed much in the last 70 years. Transformers to convert 25kV AC to traction motor voltage are big and very heavy. I'm not saying that a dual mode catenary - diesel locomotive cannot be designed, but I think that if one was it would be an obese, energy-hog monster. It would be far more cost effective and energy efficient to devise equipment and procedures to change power in a timely manner (i.e., faster than the snail's pace that Amtrak exhibits) than to develop a cat-diesel locomotive that would be a lousy performer in either mode.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Third rail isn't an ideal alternative either, since the substations required are expensive. And then there is the fact that NJT needs loco's that can run into either tunnel, not just the new tunnel. That means getting Amtrak to extend the third rail on their tunnels too. And I've heard reports that Amtrak isn't willing to do that. That's even been suggested as one of the reasons, beyond the costs and a few other issues, as to why the current plan has cut out the connection between the new tunnels and the existing Penn Station.


Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.

I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.



> And I'm not sure that GE is even building that model of loco anymore, so getting an order of P32-ACDM's might not be as easy as you think.


GE does have an updated version of that locomotive using GeVO technology and a slightly modified but still monococque body in its catalog. So they could manufacture such, but neither NJT nor Amtrak want to deal with them in the highky congested Hudson Tunnels for use in commercial service. Remember that nothing from the era when P32s and P40s and P42s were manufactured would be admissible today since none of them will pass the current emission laws. Even the NJT PL42s with GM 710 prime-movers made it just under the bar before the new emission laws went into effect.



> Jishnu will know better, but I do think that NJT's order was more than large enough to interest people. The problem really is as I mentioned above, packing all the equipment needed for catenary running into the body of the loco without exceeding the frame size and maximum weight on the wheels.


The RFP is a joint one involving NJT and Montreal's AMT and the total number of units overall is around 50 or so as I recall. If the engineers pull it off at a reasonable price then there would be other potential takers like SEPTA, MBTA and MARC.

BTW, I think most people agree that putting such a thing together using conventional iron core transformers, specially ones that would work even for 25Hz is beyond a daunting task within the weight limits of a Bo-Bo frame, which is a requirement for the locomotive to be able to travel at NEC speeds i.e. 125mph - remember these would be used for ACY service too if they were available.

One very plausible way to get there is for power electronics to advance to such a stage that there is a cost effective way to put together an HV side chopper facility to create very high frequency high voltage feed into an air-core power transformer which will be much lighter and more compact, and then feed the link voltage from it, typically 3kV into rectifiers to feed the DC link which then would connect into a conventional AC motor drive system (e.g. MITRAC from Bombardier as in the ALP-46A). So instead of the typical AC-DC-AC linkage from delivered power to the motors you essentially get a AC-DC-AC-DC-AC linkage, where the middle AC is high frequency, and to get there you potentially need the first DC link which is at line voltage.

The diesel driven alternator would also then feed into the rectifier bank at about 3kV and thus hook into the DC link that way. Needless to say, to do all this and deliver 4,000 HP needs a little non-trivial and novel engineering which takes a bit of time and money.

That in a nutshell is a highly simplified and glossed over description of how one could get to what NJT and AMT want. Whether they will get it or not at a price that is acceptable, is another issue. But they do have 10 years to get there, since the tunnel won't be there for at least another 10 years as it looks now.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 24, 2008)

jis said:


> Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.


I'm realizing that I don't have a clear understanding of where third rail power is available. I guess it's available to trains coming out of the west side of Penn Station via the Empire Connection but not the tunnels heading towards New Jersey, and it's probably available going into Grand Central Terminal, and it's probably available coming into Penn Station from the east for LIRR?



jis said:


> I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.


I'm confused about whether the reference to LIRR earlier in this thread implies that the new tracks 22-27 are going to have a connection to Long Island.



jis said:


> BTW, I think most people agree that putting such a thing together using conventional iron core transformers, specially ones that would work even for 25Hz is beyond a daunting task within the weight limits of a Bo-Bo frame, which is a requirement for the locomotive to be able to travel at NEC speeds i.e. 125mph - remember these would be used for ACY service too if they were available.
> One very plausible way to get there is for power electronics to advance to such a stage that there is a cost effective way to put together an HV side chopper facility to create very high frequency high voltage feed into an air-core power transformer which will be much lighter and more compact, and then feed the link voltage from it, typically 3kV into rectifiers to feed the DC link which then would connect into a conventional AC motor drive system (e.g. MITRAC from Bombardier as in the ALP-46A). So instead of the typical AC-DC-AC linkage from delivered power to the motors you essentially get a AC-DC-AC-DC-AC linkage, where the middle AC is high frequency, and to get there you potentially need the first DC link which is at line voltage.
> 
> The diesel driven alternator would also then feed into the rectifier bank at about 3kV and thus hook into the DC link that way. Needless to say, to do all this and deliver 4,000 HP needs a little non-trivial and novel engineering which takes a bit of time and money.
> ...


Are all of the locomotives and EMUs operating in 25Hz land capable of operating on 60 Hz, or do NJT and/or SEPTA have equipment that requires 25 Hz? (I'm wondering if it would be possible to ``just'' rip out all the 25Hz infrastructure and convert it to 60 Hz to make these dual mode locomotives easier, though I realize that conversion would still be a bunch of cost and work.)

One of the big problems that can come up when converting things that dissipate lots of power to transistors is that you need to get rid of the heat somehow; you often can easily shrink things a lot with transistors if you ignore the heat dissipation problem, but not getting the heat away from the transistor can fry the transistor rapidly. In amateur radio, a lot of the 1.5 kilowatt RF power amplifiers still use vacuum tubes for the final amplifier stage, usually with some transistorized control circuitry, and I think a lot of that is because just using a single vacuum tube is simplier than carfully matching up an array of several transistors and making sure they're well attached to a big metal heatsink.

It's rare to have transistorized power supplies even be 90% efficient. So it's likely that in whatever space you put the power conversion equipment, you have wasted heat equal to at least 10% of the energy the engine is using to pull the train, and you have to get that heat out of that area somehow.

I believe at 25 kV, the amount of space you need isolating things to prevent arcing is a lot larger than at 600V, which probably limits how much you can shrink things in volume to some extent.

So there's probably a limit to how small a space that equipment can fit into, but using modern technology to reduce weight may well still be possible.

What is ACY service, and what is a Bo-Bo frame?


----------



## AlanB (Apr 24, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.
> ...


Third rail is available in the East River tunnels, Penn itself, the Hudson River tunnels, and the Empire connection tunnel; plus of course Grand Central too. However, it is important to note that Metro North uses an under-running third rail, whereas the LIRR uses an over-running third rail. These two types are not compatable with one another, so it's not like Amtrak could just borrow a MN P32-ACDM if they had too many of their own engines in the shop.

As for the third rail in the Hudson or North River tunnels, the issue is that the third rail doesn't extend very far beyond he mouth of the tunnel. Therefore there isn't enough time for an engineer to switch onto third rail power and off of diesel, before he's already in the tunnel. And then of course as Jishnu pointed out, NJT doesn't really want to head down that road anyhow if they can help it.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.
> ...


As currently envisioned, the new station will have tail tracks that will allow NJT to store a few trains beyond the station under the 6th Avenue area. But there are no plans to build beyond that point at this time. Not withstanding the added cost, I suspect that part of the problem is the ever ongoing debate about connecting to Grand Central. And then if you did go under the East River, where do you come up and how much work would be needed to tie things into Harold interlocking, which is already slated for major changes to permit the East Side Access.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> What is ACY service, and what is a Bo-Bo frame?


ACY=Atlantic City service.

Bo-Bo frame is a frame built by Yogi Bear's nephew Boo-Boo. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously though, it's a two truck - two axles per truck frame.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Are all of the locomotives and EMUs operating in 25Hz land capable of operating on 60 Hz, or do NJT and/or SEPTA have equipment that requires 25 Hz? (I'm wondering if it would be possible to ``just'' rip out all the 25Hz infrastructure and convert it to 60 Hz to make these dual mode locomotives easier, though I realize that conversion would still be a bunch of cost and work.)


All equipment capable of running under 25Hz that are currently on-line, can run on 60Hz as well and can change over from one to the other on the fly.



> One of the big problems that can come up when converting things that dissipate lots of power to transistors is that you need to get rid of the heat somehow; you often can easily shrink things a lot with transistors if you ignore the heat dissipation problem, but not getting the heat away from the transistor can fry the transistor rapidly. In amateur radio, a lot of the 1.5 kilowatt RF power amplifiers still use vacuum tubes for the final amplifier stage, usually with some transistorized control circuitry, and I think a lot of that is because just using a single vacuum tube is simpler than carefully matching up an array of several transistors and making sure they're well attached to a big metal heatsink.


Of course heat dissipation has to be accounted for. They have to do that anyway at the low voltage half of the drive, since that is already all solid state. At the high voltage end the heat dissipation issue should be less daunting since smaller amounts of current are involved as heat generation is proportional to I^2*R.



> It's rare to have transistorized power supplies even be 90% efficient. So it's likely that in whatever space you put the power conversion equipment, you have wasted heat equal to at least 10% of the energy the engine is using to pull the train, and you have to get that heat out of that area somehow.


Yet that is what is exactly used in the modern AC drive locomotives. So they may have figured out ways of making them dissipate less in high power circuits. I am sure they are aware of this issue and do handle it to their satisfaction. In today's electric locomotives, the only non-solid state component in the power supply chain in the locomotive is the big-a$$ main transformer and the the main HV circuit breaker.



> I believe at 25 kV, the amount of space you need isolating things to prevent arcing is a lot larger than at 600V, which probably limits how much you can shrink things in volume to some extent.


Yes, good heat conducting electrical insulators are naturally in great demand 



> So there's probably a limit to how small a space that equipment can fit into, but using modern technology to reduce weight may well still be possible.


Yes


----------



## George Harris (Apr 24, 2008)

Two other little things to think about:

The third rail system used by the Long Island Railroad and the third rail system used on Metro North are incompatilbe. The system used by the LIRR and run into Penn Staiton is a top contact third rail. The ex New York Central third rail used in Grand Central and north thereof is a bottom contact system. If there is such a thing as a vehicle or contact shoe system that can handle both I have never heard of it, and am not sure that it is even possible to build one.

The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.


----------



## jis (Apr 24, 2008)

George Harris said:


> The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.


That is what is done with bi-level (actually tri-level) equipment that is used in the North East Corridor. The boarding level is the middle level with steps going up to the upper level and down to the lower level. The vestibule is at the middle level. Examples of such are used by MBTA, LIRR NJTransit and MARC. All except LIRR also have traps at least at some of the doors for use at low level platforms.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 24, 2008)

jis said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.
> ...


True for that equipment, but not for the superliners.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 25, 2008)

I can't imagine there would be an incredible amount of difficulty to build one platform in an as-yet unbuilt station to accommodate Superliners, so thats not really an issue.


----------



## AlanB (Apr 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I can't imagine there would be an incredible amount of difficulty to build one platform in an as-yet unbuilt station to accommodate Superliners, so thats not really an issue.


Well it's really not a big deal to do it, in fact it's probably cheaper.

The question is, "why would NJT do it?"

They don't need a low level platform. In fact a high level platform is in their best interests, since they can get people on and off the train two or three times faster than with a low level plat. That means that they get the trains on and off the plats faster, which is critical during rush hour.

Next, Amtrak wouldn't want them to do it, since it would be useless to Amtrak. They won't be able to service the train in the station, and they can't send the train to Sunnyside for servicing. So that means that the train would go right back out without any servicing. It also doesn't help Amtrak who will have all their ticketing still in the old Penn Station and probably anger a bunch of people, since they now have to walk a block to board their train.

It simply doesn't make sense in so many ways.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Apr 25, 2008)

If you're talking about the unbuilt Penn Station extension, there's the question of what trains would operate Superliners into it if there were such a platform and NJT did want to share with Amtrak and Amtrak did want to get involved.

I suspect the station extension is going to be too low to have a reasonable grade to get to the Empire Connection. And it's not going to have a connection to the east (at least not in the near term), so no trains to Boston.

If you did have one Superliner platform in the station, you could use it for trains going towards DC. However, do the stations on the way to DC that you'd want to stop at also have low level platforms available? For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?

Also, how do you get the Superliner train between Sunnyside Yard and the station? Or is there some other yard to use instead?

When the Superliner III cars get built, I wonder how hard it would be to provide a vestibule at the right level for a high level platform, on both sides of one end of each car, narrow enough so that the hallway on the upper level of the car could pass through the space between the two vestibules. That's obviously not sufficient for Amtrak's limited mobility customers, but you could probably build a small elevator into the middle of platform that would normally be level with the rest of the platform, but that could be lowered to the height of the low level doors.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Apr 25, 2008)

You know, with a little space robbery, it probably could be done, albeit only on one side of the car, on the stairs.

Actually, I can think of a reason to do this, Alan. And that would be to utilize off-the shelf Bombardier bi-levels, but that would imply that it was running on an only low-platform route, of which I don't think their are any on the NJT system. I'd assume Bombardier bi-levels are somewhat cheaper than the custom-designed NJT bilevels.


----------



## Rafi (Apr 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?


This was actually discussed a few years ago. I think the consensus was that a Superliner, IF it could clear the tunnels, would only be able to really stop south of New York in Philly (questionable), Wilmington, Baltimore, and DC.

Here's the thread.

Rafi


----------



## jis (Apr 28, 2008)

Rafi said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?
> ...


The northbound/eastbound low level platform at Wilmington now has a temporary-permanent high level platform. It is used by SEPTA trains.


----------



## AmtrakCrescent20 (Apr 29, 2008)

IIRC Trenton also has one low level platform on track 3, the easternmost track, which is usually used for NJT storage.


----------



## MetsFan (May 15, 2008)

The connection to queens from THE tunnel's tracks would be to let those trains continue on to sunnyside yard, it has nothing to do with LIRR, though in theory you could run a LIRR train from the proposed GCT connection (east side access) through to THE tracks, but since LIRR equipment depends either on 3rd rail or diesel it would stop at the western edge of the 3rd rail zone just west of penn station. In other words, you could not cross the hudson with said train unless it was pushed/pulled by amtrak or njt electric loco's

- Andy


----------



## MetsFan (May 15, 2008)

AmtrakCrescent20 said:


> IIRC Trenton also has one low level platform on track 3, the easternmost track, which is usually used for NJT storage.


There is a low level platform on the other side of track 2, marked by a bus stop style shelter, however the other side, on the other platform, next to track 5, is simply a lay up area with no platforming capability as it is directly next to a concrete lined creek that drains into the delaware river and some sort of piping that looks like it has to do with the switches and signals. The low level platform looks as if it can only be accessed through an employee only area with both NJtransit, and amtrak marked vehicles as well as unmarked station employee vehicles. Will toss in a photo or 2 to show you what i mean.

Standing next to track 5 looking over to the lay up track (no platforms).







Looking from the window of a train sitting on track 2 over to the low level platform with aforementioned shelter.






- Andy


----------



## AlanB (May 15, 2008)

MetsFan said:


> The connection to queens from THE tunnel's tracks would be to let those trains continue on to sunnyside yard, it has nothing to do with LIRR, though in theory you could run a LIRR train from the proposed GCT connection (east side access) through to THE tracks, but since LIRR equipment depends either on 3rd rail or diesel it would stop at the western edge of the 3rd rail zone just west of penn station. In other words, you could not cross the hudson with said train unless it was pushed/pulled by amtrak or njt electric loco's
> - Andy


Well since there are no plans at present to extend The Tunnels' tracks to Sunnyside, along with the proposed GCT connection, it's all academic.

And actually the LIRR can get under the Hudson and into NJ on its own. Third rail extends almost to the mouth of the tunnels in New Jersey. They'd die very quickly after reaching the mouth, but they could run under the Hudson River.

Ps. Nice pictures.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 24, 2008)

AlanB said:


> As currently envisioned, the new station will have tail tracks that will allow NJT to store a few trains beyond the station under the 6th Avenue area. But there are no plans to build beyond that point at this time. Not withstanding the added cost, I suspect that part of the problem is the ever ongoing debate about connecting to Grand Central. And then if you did go under the East River, where do you come up and how much work would be needed to tie things into Harold interlocking, which is already slated for major changes to permit the East Side Access.


Some potential benefits I could see to tracks connecting Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal include:

NJT would have a way to get passengers directly to GCT.

Amtrak could run Empire Corridor trains through to WAS if the right tracks at NYP were connected to the right tracks at GCT.

If trains regularily ran to one station and then continued to the other, instead of having a particular train destined for either one station or the other, passengers will typically end up experiencing more frequent headways for the trains that will get them to their destination. (Strangely, people who plan mass transit service often don't seem to think frequent headways are important, at least not to the extent I do.)

Potential issues / downsides I see:

If lead track capacity is strained, running some trains to only one station or only the other station maybe would help with that.

The capital cost of building such a connection would be nonzero.

Are there other downsides I'm missing in connecting NYP to GCT?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 25, 2008)

Joel, the Empire Corridor and Lake Shore Limited trains run to Penn. I'm pretty sure they are serviced at Sunnyside and can pass through A-interlocking, and thus head on to WAS.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 25, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Joel, the Empire Corridor and Lake Shore Limited trains run to Penn. I'm pretty sure they are serviced at Sunnyside and can pass through A-interlocking, and thus head on to WAS.


Yes, Empire Corridor trains can reach Sunnyside and are indeed serviced in Sunnyside. In fact that's where the cafe cars are restocked now.

However, an Empire Corridor train cannot come off the Empire Corridor and "just" head west to DC. It must go into Penn at least and then a change of end would be required and that assumes that a cab car was on the train. Otherwise either the train would have to have an engine added or the current engine would have to run around, or the train would have to run out to the Sunnyside loop first, before returning to NYP and points west.

One other small problem would be that the P32 diesel would run out of third rail before it could actually switch on the prime mover, so you'd either have to coast a bit or fire up the prime mover while still in the tunnel on the NJ side.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Some potential benefits I could see to tracks connecting Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal include:
> NJT would have a way to get passengers directly to GCT.
> 
> Amtrak could run Empire Corridor trains through to WAS if the right tracks at NYP were connected to the right tracks at GCT.
> ...


Local hotdog vendors from 34th Street to 42nd Street would lose business?

More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.

By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.

The Boston commuter line has already extended pretty far south, and there's a proposal to extend it further to Wareham. But it needs to go the next step to Hyannis, and connect to the main Amtrak line in Providence.


----------



## Tygercat (Jun 25, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.


Er, not quite. There are two subway lines that run north from NYP to Times Square, and there you can get the shuttle to GCT. So the subway trip involves a transfer, there is no direct line.

Having said that, I don't know that I would care to do this if I was hauling luggage. DH and I took the shuttle from GCT to Times Square to the 1 train while carrying some bulky camera gear, and it was a serious squeeze. OK, it was rush hour- probably not the best time to be there- but it was not a real pleasant trip.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 25, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.
> By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.


One other potential issue is how close the stations are, what the relative elevations above/below sea level the existing tracks are, and whether a reasonable grade can connect them. There are probably ways to work this out, and maybe the details turn out to be such that this isn't a major problem, but I'm not sure.

(But GCT's headhouse appears to be roughly 2000 feet or maybe a bit more from the eastern tracks out of NYP; at a 3% grade, which may be more than the railroads might prefer, that only lets you have a 60' change in altitude. There's slop in all sorts of directions in my guesses here; I didn't measure all that precisely, and I don't know where the GCT tracks are relative to the GCT headhouse. But there may well not be enough room for the new NJT tracks to connect to tracks just below the street level at GCT without building a horribly indirect and therefore expensive tunnel, for example. Then again, connecting the upper levels at GCT to the upper levels at NYP and the lower levels at NYP to the lower levels at GCT might well work out just fine.)

I'm just feeling baffled that whether a GCT<->NYP track connection would be valuable is something that could be the subject of debate, which makes me suspect there must be some downside I'm missing. Or maybe people are just allergic to spending money on infrastructure?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 25, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.
> The Boston commuter line has already extended pretty far south, and there's a proposal to extend it further to Wareham. But it needs to go the next step to Hyannis, and connect to the main Amtrak line in Providence.


Aside from the really obvious funding issues, and the need to work things out with the railroad on Cape Cod, a couple of other subtle issues there:

The right way to do BOS-Hyannis, I think, involves the MBTA running separate local and express trains on the Middleboro line. Track capacity may be an issue in various places of the system, especially at, for example, JFK/Umass where the commuter rail system has single track which is shared between the Greenbush, Plymouth, Kingston, and Middleboro trains. The current South Station is also near its capacity limit. So any BOS-Hyannis plan may run into issues with track capacity to the north of Middleboro that need to be included in the costs of making it work.

That said, I hear there's lots of automobile traffic congestion going to Cape Cod, at least at some times of year and days of the week, and some of those times may even be at times which are not otherwise peak MBTA times.

NYP to Hyannis probably would annoy the very same people who don't want certain existing tracks used for Fall River / New Bedford commuter service. (And it requires a locomotive switch somewhere; New Haven or PVD strike me as the likely locations.) I keep wondering if rail along the 495 corridor from the Providence Line to the Middleboro Line could give everyone what they want; such a track would also be useful for getting people from Old Colony land to T F Green Airport.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

Tygercat said:


> Er, not quite. There are two subway lines that run north from NYP to Times Square, and there you can get the shuttle to GCT. So the subway trip involves a transfer, there is no direct line.


Yep, you're right. I was speaking too loosely.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.
> ...


There was definitely track that ran Amtrak trains to Hyannis in the early 1990s. From what I know of the Cape - I spend most summers there - people would be delighted to have a railroad that really went somewhere again...


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 25, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.
> ...


Thanks for the analysis - it does put this in better technological perspective.

As far as not wanting to spend money on infrastructure in NYC, we have the sad case of the Second Avenue subway line, under construction for 70+ years. It's been stopped and started again almost as many times as there are stations on the Lexington Avenue line.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> There was definitely track that ran Amtrak trains to Hyannis in the early 1990s. From what I know of the Cape - I spend most summers there - people would be delighted to have a railroad that really went somewhere again...


I'm pretty sure all the track you would need to do this is still in place if you aren't overly concerned with going fast. But some of that track is also track where the neighbors have a demonstrated habit of demonstrating against frequent train service.

I'm not sure to what extent anyone who would have to listen to demonstrators is in control of that; I would not be surprised if CSX currently owns the key pieces through Attleboro and Taunton that the demonstrators care about, and that track may or may not be included in the set of track that Massachusetts is not currently succeeding in buying from CSX. The railroad on Cape Cod probably doesn't have to give in to pressure from people in Attleboro and Taunton. And maybe if it was a few trains a day instead of a few trains an hour people would care less.

Though one other potential issue is that the state of Massachusetts may not be enthusiastic about subsidizing a train that Attleboro residents object to, and Amtrak isn't exactly known for agressively adding routes that states aren't contributing to.

And WAS to Hyannis might make a nice Acela route for service once every 3-4 hours if only there were electrification to Hyannis and enough Acela trainsets, even if the part north/east of Providence was on slower track.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

One other issue that would come up with an NYP (or WAS) to Hyannis train is that there are a finite number of slots over the Connecticut River bridge. Stealing a slot from Shore Line East or a Boston-bound train is probably not good for the overall system.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.
> ...


While I'm not saying that it's impossible, connecting anything at GCT to NYP or the new NJT station isn't as simple as "let's dig a new tunnel. At GCT, there are loop tracks that run around all the stub end tracks. So you'd have to start by cutting those tracks, something that MN might not like.

Then you next have to deal with the fact that you've got the Lexington Avenue subway running under Park Avenue at that point, the fact that there is the Park Avenue tunnel used by autos, that forces the subway down to a lower level. And of course the fact that you need to deal with all the rest of the infrastructure like sewers, steam, water, and electric. Finally of course, just to make things more interesting (read you can't start dropping the MN tracks earlier to go under everything), is the fact that the LIRR is currently building the tunnels for the third (lower level) at GCT. I'm not sure that contruction as started on the station yet, but they have started boring the tunnels under Park Avenue for the East Side Access project.

Frankly with all the issues that would be associated with such a project, it would not surprise me if the short connection wouldn't cost more than the new tunnels under the Hudson which are far more straight forward.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> And WAS to Hyannis might make a nice Acela route for service once every 3-4 hours if only there were electrification to Hyannis and enough Acela trainsets, even if the part north/east of Providence was on slower track.


My wife and I would jump on that Acela in Stamford in a heartbeat.

Putting WAS into the route makes a lot of sense.

It's also sad to think that, in an alternate universe with JFK and RFK alive most or all of these past decades, there would have been a lot more interest in a WAS to Hyannis route.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> One other issue that would come up with an NYP (or WAS) to Hyannis train is that there are a finite number of slots over the Connecticut River bridge. Stealing a slot from Shore Line East or a Boston-bound train is probably not good for the overall system.


I see your point.

How feasible, then, is a spur from PVD to Hyannis?


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> While I'm not saying that it's impossible, connecting anything at GCT to NYP or the new NJT station isn't as simple as "let's dig a new tunnel. At GCT, there are loop tracks that run around all the stub end tracks. So you'd have to start by cutting those tracks, something that MN might not like.
> Then you next have to deal with the fact that you've got the Lexington Avenue subway running under Park Avenue at that point, the fact that there is the Park Avenue tunnel used by autos, that forces the subway down to a lower level. And of course the fact that you need to deal with all the rest of the infrastructure like sewers, steam, water, and electric. Finally of course, just to make things more interesting (read you can't start dropping the MN tracks earlier to go under everything), is the fact that the LIRR is currently building the tunnels for the third (lower level) at GCT. I'm not sure that contruction as started on the station yet, but they have started boring the tunnels under Park Avenue for the East Side Access project.
> 
> Frankly with all the issues that would be associated with such a project, it would not surprise me if the short connection wouldn't cost more than the new tunnels under the Hudson which are far more straight forward.


Ok, but why does the Lexington Ave subway and Park Ave have to be involved at all? What's wrong with using the tunnel that already runs from GCT to Times Square?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > One other issue that would come up with an NYP (or WAS) to Hyannis train is that there are a finite number of slots over the Connecticut River bridge. Stealing a slot from Shore Line East or a Boston-bound train is probably not good for the overall system.
> ...


Tangentially, in the long run the Connecticut River bridge ought to be replaced with something higher that could be closed more often while still letting enough of the recreational boats through. But aside from people occasionally saying that here, I haven't seen anyone trying to do anything about making that happen. It might be good for someone to show up at a Connecticut Commuter Rail Council meeting and bring up this issue; regardless of whether a NYP to Hyannis train ever happens, Shore Line East would benefit from that sort of bridge improvement.

The issues I'm aware of with a PVD to Hyannis Amtrak train:

It would still go through the parts of Attleboro and Taunton where the neighbors don't want frequent trains. I don't know how much power those residents really have, and I don't know if a few trains a day to Hyannis would annoy them less than a few trains an hour that have been proposed for the commuter rail to Fall River / New Bedford which we know they oppose.

I'm pretty sure the tracks are all intact, assuming you wanted to go somewhere probably around 40-60 MPH and don't mind bothering the residents of Attleboro and Taunton.

There's a mix of Amtrak owned and operated track in Rhode Island, Massachusetts owned track that Amtrak has the contract to dispatch and maintain (so I don't know if Amtrak would need permission from Massachusetts to run more trains there or not), I suspect some of the track is owned by CSX, and then there's the Mass Coastal Railroad. Trackage rights need to be worked out along the whole route, in any case. I'm not sure either CSX or the Mass Coastal Railroad would have been in existance last time there was a passenger train there.

Amtrak has plenty of P42 locomotives, and they have some mothballed Amfleet I coaches. They could overhaul some Amfleet I coaches to be able to use them on this route.

Amtrak probably doesn't have any food service cars lying around, and doesn't have any easy way to order more that would be delivered quickly, so if this was going to run in the near future, it probably wouldn't have a food service car. Maybe a cart could be used to serve passengers at their seats.

The train would probably manage to lose money, which means that someone would have to subsidize it. Getting state and national legislative bodies to decide to spend money always seems to take time.

Amtrak would need to clean the train cars somewhere. Maybe the easiest thing to do would be to deadhead the trains up to the yards near South Station in Boston. Or if Amtrak became the railroad offering BOS to Hyannis service, they could possibly run each trainset under four train numbers in between cleanings: BOS to Hyannis, Hyannis to PVD, PVD to Hyannis, Hyannis to BOS. They might want to work out overnight parking at PVD and/or Hyannis, which may or may not introduce construction costs.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > While I'm not saying that it's impossible, connecting anything at GCT to NYP or the new NJT station isn't as simple as "let's dig a new tunnel. At GCT, there are loop tracks that run around all the stub end tracks. So you'd have to start by cutting those tracks, something that MN might not like.
> ...



The fact that the Grand Central Shuttle runs in that tunnel pretty much stops you from using it. And this is a very heavily used route. Not to mention that once you get to TS, you have no place to go to bring the trains south to NYP. The shuttle tracks are orientated to run to the north, not the south. And there is no room to dig a new tunnel there, as you've got the #7, 1, 2, 3, A, C, E, N, Q, R, W trains all in that area. Then even if you could get past that problem, now you're entering Penn Station from the north, while all the tracks run east/west.

And back at GCT you'd have to run tracks right across the lower level of the station through the Oyster Bar, a landmark resturant, in order to link up with the subway tracks.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 26, 2008)

There is no way any railroad equipment will fit into any of the New York subway tunnels, and even if they could, they could not make a lot of the curves.

New York underground is an absolute maze of pipes and tunnels.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Ok, the taking out of the Oyster Bar is more than enough to convince me that that route isn't the way to go...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 26, 2008)

Subway cars have a much smaller loading gauge than Amtrak cars. They can go around sharper turns, negotiate smaller tunnels, and have the horsepower (due to their EMU nature) to up steep grades that would make most Amtrak equipment derail or beg for mercy.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

A couple other thoughts about Hyannis service:

I was assuming a few posts above that Amtrak would run a PVD to Hyannis train. But maybe the Cape Cod Central Railroad could run it instead, in which case the rolling stock issues would become different. Or if Amtrak does run the train, maybe some of the Cape Cod Central Railroad's mainstenance infrastructure would offer an alternative to getting the train to the yard near South Station, though Amtrak may prefer to let their own crews do the work.

If there were an existing Amtrak-branded diesel PVD to Hyannis train, and if the tracks from PVD to NYP had infinite capacity for more trains, you still have the issue of needing to swap a locomotive somewhere unless the tracks all the way to Hyannis were electrified, and swapping an locomotive takes much longer than walking across the platform at PVD. On the other hand, I know AlanB has argued against walking across a platform in New Haven for the Vermonter in the cold of winter, but I tend to think of Hyannis as a summer destination; then again, I think it does indeed have some full-year residents.

Amtrak also basically does not have any extra electric locomotives, and while they could piggyback on an NJT order whenever one happens to happen, they probably don't want to collect more different models of catenary powered locomotive.

Yet another option would be to get an overhauled Budd RDC with HEP connectors and 125 MPH trucks, tow it from Washington to PVD on the back of an existing Washington to Boston Regional, and have the main train drop the RDC off in Providence, at which point it would start up its diesels and go to Hyannis. But that would probably create a 10 minute delay in PVD for the Bostonians while the brake test is done on the slightly shortened train that goes to Boston.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Ok, but why does the Lexington Ave subway and Park Ave have to be involved at all? What's wrong with using the tunnel that already runs from GCT to Times Square?


In addition to all the points the others have brought up, there is also the matter that the FRA has a certain amount of concern for passenger safety in collisions. There are a lot of rules that a passenger railroad has to follow that subway systems are exempt from. For a subway system to remain exempt from the railroad regulations, there are some very, very limited circumstances in which subway track can be connected to the national rail system; I believe the rule is something along the lines that you can have a siding that's one or two cars long which has a Y arrangement that connects it to both the national rail system and the subway system. The point of this is largely to make sure that you never have a heavy freight train collide with a subway train (except possibly when the subway cars are being delivered from the manufacturer, but at that point the subway cars probably don't have passengers in them). Europe probably doesn't have such strict rules about this, but they solve this particular problem (to one extent or another) by not running such heavy freight trains.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

AlanB said:


> While I'm not saying that it's impossible, connecting anything at GCT to NYP or the new NJT station isn't as simple as "let's dig a new tunnel. At GCT, there are loop tracks that run around all the stub end tracks. So you'd have to start by cutting those tracks, something that MN might not like.
> Then you next have to deal with the fact that you've got the Lexington Avenue subway running under Park Avenue at that point, the fact that there is the Park Avenue tunnel used by autos, that forces the subway down to a lower level. And of course the fact that you need to deal with all the rest of the infrastructure like sewers, steam, water, and electric. Finally of course, just to make things more interesting (read you can't start dropping the MN tracks earlier to go under everything), is the fact that the LIRR is currently building the tunnels for the third (lower level) at GCT. I'm not sure that contruction as started on the station yet, but they have started boring the tunnels under Park Avenue for the East Side Access project.
> 
> Frankly with all the issues that would be associated with such a project, it would not surprise me if the short connection wouldn't cost more than the new tunnels under the Hudson which are far more straight forward.


Maybe part of the answer is to connect only the lower level(s), then. WAS is an example of a station with a terminal that goes in only one direction on the upper level, and a lower level with through tracks. There's a proposal to have BOS and BON end up being similar to WAS in this regard. At least one if not both of the commuter terminals in the center of Philadelphia were abandoned when their tunnel connecting the stations was built. (I personally think the surface platforms at BON should be abandoned once the NSRL is built and electrification happens everywhere, but the authors of the NSRL study don't agree with me.)

Is there anything that would prevent building a tunnel by which the MTA's tracks to upstate New York and to Connecticut could reach the MTA's under construction third, lowest level at GCT?

I'm also not sure how much cutting the loops is really a problem. They might not be needed for through trains to NYP. Though if the MTA were running significantly more trains than NJT, some trains certainly would have to continue to turn around at GCT and or NYP. (And I'm also making the perhaps overly optimistic assumption that NJT and the MTA could combine their efforts and through run many/all of their trains across their systems.)

Do the subway and utility lines get in the way for the level that's currently the lower level at GCT, and that will become the middle level after the East Side Access project is done, or is this only a problem for the upper level?

How many tracks would be where if this were all done? I believe there are going to be four tracks heading to New Jersey total once THE Tunnel is constructed, and a GCT-NYT connection would possibly make the existing Empire Connection obsolete, so four tracks from NYP to GCT might make sense. Is there a level of the existing Penn Station that's low enough that it could reasonably get underneath everything to get to some level of GCT?

Would it be possible to construct things so that an LIRR train could come across the river from Long Island, stop at GCT, continue to NYP, and then head back across the river back to Long Island?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 26, 2008)

While I wish I could catch an Amtrak train from the granduer of Grand Central Terminal, I fail to see much in the way of an advantage to such a link up.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

A lot of the benefit is that such a link would put more commuters within walking distance of the commuter rail station so that they wouldn't need to transfer to the subway. You might want to take a look at this article about SEPTA's commuter operations if you haven't seen it before.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> If there were an existing Amtrak-branded diesel PVD to Hyannis train, and if the tracks from PVD to NYP had infinite capacity for more trains, you still have the issue of needing to swap a locomotive somewhere unless the tracks all the way to Hyannis were electrified, and swapping an locomotive takes much longer than walking across the platform at PVD. On the other hand, I know AlanB has argued against walking across a platform in New Haven for the Vermonter in the cold of winter, but I tend to think of Hyannis as a summer destination; then again, I think it does indeed have some full-year residents.


Summer service would be the only way a PVD to Hyannis train could be profitable - conceivably it could support some kind of reduced service all year.

Question (with apologies for my ignorance): why can't a slower deisel train run between PVD and Hyannis - a train that passengers on WAS or NYP to BOS could catch in PVD? Where does the need for swapping come in?


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Amtrak also basically does not have any extra electric locomotives, and while they could piggyback on an NJT order whenever one happens to happen, they probably don't want to collect more different models of catenary powered locomotive.


Well if NJT were to go ahead with obtaining a dual mode locomotive, then Amtrak could piggyback on that order.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Maybe part of the answer is to connect only the lower level(s), then. WAS is an example of a station with a terminal that goes in only one direction on the upper level, and a lower level with through tracks. There's a proposal to have BOS and BON end up being similar to WAS in this regard. At least one if not both of the commuter terminals in the center of Philadelphia were abandoned when their tunnel connecting the stations was built. (I personally think the surface platforms at BON should be abandoned once the NSRL is built and electrification happens everywhere, but the authors of the NSRL study don't agree with me.)


Only the old Reading terminal was abandoned when the Center City connection was built. On the Pennsy side they only essentially knocked 4 holes in the wall to connect with the new tunnel to the new Market East station



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Is there anything that would prevent building a tunnel by which the MTA's tracks to upstate New York and to Connecticut could reach the MTA's under construction third, lowest level at GCT?


Yes, Metro North uses under-running third rails, while the LIRR uses over-running third rails.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> I'm also not sure how much cutting the loops is really a problem. They might not be needed for through trains to NYP. Though if the MTA were running significantly more trains than NJT, some trains certainly would have to continue to turn around at GCT and or NYP. (And I'm also making the perhaps overly optimistic assumption that NJT and the MTA could combine their efforts and through run many/all of their trains across their systems.)


I'm not sure that it would be a huge problem, but AFAIK MN does still use the loop tracks. Most trains do turn right on the platform, but not all.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Do the subway and utility lines get in the way for the level that's currently the lower level at GCT, and that will become the middle level after the East Side Access project is done, or is this only a problem for the upper level?


It's a problem for both levels. You've got the Lexington Ave line that transistions from Lex to Park at one level, the Shuttle at yet another level, and the #7 at the lowest level. So you're basically fighting subway tracks on three levels. It's probably still possible to push something through, but it won't be easy.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> How many tracks would be where if this were all done? I believe there are going to be four tracks heading to New Jersey total once THE Tunnel is constructed, and a GCT-NYT connection would possibly make the existing Empire Connection obsolete, so four tracks from NYP to GCT might make sense. Is there a level of the existing Penn Station that's low enough that it could reasonably get underneath everything to get to some level of GCT?


I don't see why more than 2 would be needed, but in theory you could certainly run 4.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> Would it be possible to construct things so that an LIRR train could come across the river from Long Island, stop at GCT, continue to NYP, and then head back across the river back to Long Island?


Well anything is possible, just not sure that it's needed or practical. But it wouldn't be that hard to do, once a track was built, since you'd then run through GCT and then just reverse in NYP or the East Side yard.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 26, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Amtrak also basically does not have any extra electric locomotives, and while they could piggyback on an NJT order whenever one happens to happen, they probably don't want to collect more different models of catenary powered locomotive.


I think Amtrak would love to get their hands on ALP-46a locos. But I think the rules under which Amtrak bids for things rules out the Daimler-Benz designed, largely German-built Class 101-based locomotive.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 26, 2008)

PaulLev said:


> Question (with apologies for my ignorance): why can't a slower deisel train run between PVD and Hyannis - a train that passengers on WAS or NYP to BOS could catch in PVD? Where does the need for swapping come in?


I probably wasn't being clear.

If you wanted to have passengers board a particular Amfleet I coach in NYP and stay in that coach until they get to Hyannis, and if there's no electrification from PVD to Hyannis, the train has to be powered by an electric locomotive part of the way (because diesels are not allowed to run inside the New York City tunnels) and a diesel locomotive in the areas where there is no electrification. While there are circumstances where dual mode locomotives can be usable, and while it would be possible to simply put one locomotive of each type on the train and haul a locomotive that wasn't running, a more likely approach to dealing with this would be to replace the locomotive at some point during the trip.

The Regional trains that run to Newport News do this type of locomotive swap, usually at WAS; there's no electrification south of WAS. There are also a few Springfield trains that do this type of swap in New Haven, and before the electrification north of New Haven was completed, all BOS to NYP trains swapped locomotives at New Haven. The Lake Shore Limited swaps between a dual mode locomotive (diesel and third rail) and a pair of plain diesel locomotives at ALB.

Of course, if the passengers get out of the train at PVD and walk across the platform, they can walk over to a train that has a different type of locomotive than the train they were just on, and the brake test can be performed before the passengers start boarding.


----------



## PaulLev (Jun 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> PaulLev said:
> 
> 
> > Question (with apologies for my ignorance): why can't a slower deisel train run between PVD and Hyannis - a train that passengers on WAS or NYP to BOS could catch in PVD? Where does the need for swapping come in?
> ...


Thanks. They used to do a swap at NHV, until all the tracks to BOS were electrified.

It seems like walking across the platform at PVD would be the way to go, as far as simplicity. And since summer would by far be the peak time, freezing cold weather shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jun 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Do the subway and utility lines get in the way for the level that's currently the lower level at GCT, and that will become the middle level after the East Side Access project is done, or is this only a problem for the upper level?
> ...


I wonder if this argues for building the lowest level lower than they'd been planning to build it.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > How many tracks would be where if this were all done? I believe there are going to be four tracks heading to New Jersey total once THE Tunnel is constructed, and a GCT-NYT connection would possibly make the existing Empire Connection obsolete, so four tracks from NYP to GCT might make sense. Is there a level of the existing Penn Station that's low enough that it could reasonably get underneath everything to get to some level of GCT?
> ...


The Boston NSRL proposal contemplates both two track and four track versions. The four track version increases the number of trains that take passengers to both North Station and South Station (and Central Station, if it gets built) without passengers having to change trains.

Given how huge New York City is compared to Boston, it seems unlikely to me that having fewer tracks for a seemingly-equivalent thing in New York City would make sense. Then again, I think GCT is closer to NYP than BON to Aquarium or Aquarium to BOS. (Central Station is expected to be near the existing Aquarium station.)

Given that NYP is going to have 4 leads to New Jersey and four to Long Island, and GCT is going to have 4 leads to Metro-North territory and two to Long Island (I think), if through running is something people believe is valuable, it might make some sense to have four through tracks from New Jersey to Metro North territory, and to try to get those trains to completely stop turning around in Manhattan at all, and configure the tracks so that trains that arrived in Manhattan via ESA would stop at GCT, then NYP, then continue back to Long Island via the southern four tracks, and trains headed to the ESA tunnels would reverse that procedure. But then there would still be two LIRR lead tracks at NYP for which the trains would need to turn around in NYP.

Large amounts of catenary installation might get rid of the third rail compatibility issues.


----------



## AlanB (Jun 27, 2008)

Joel N. Weber II said:


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


That wouldn't help, since the point of any connection between GCT and NYP is to interline NJT and MN. Making the new LIRR level lower does nothing to solve the above problem and the LIRR doesn't need to run between GCT and NYP. There is no point for them to do so. They'll just switch have pax continue to switch trains in Jamaica like they do now, to pick the correct train to either GCT or NYP.



Joel N. Weber II said:


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


Yes, there will be 4 tunnels to NJ once "The Tunnel" is completed. However, two tunnels will only serve the existing NYP and the two new tunnels will only serve the new 34th Street station that will be built under 34th Street. So that comlicates things considerably. And as I pointed out above, the LIRR will not be using any connection between GCT and NYP. They don't need it.

Not to mention that a connection that would allow the LIRR to run from GCT to NYP and then return to Queens without turning the train would not only increase the costs of the project, it would render the connection useless to MN and NJT as the LIRR would need the tunnel to enter NYP from the western side, while NJT & MN would need the tunnel to enter NYP from the eastern side.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 27, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Not to mention that a connection that would allow the LIRR to run from GCT to NYP and then return to Queens without turning the train would not only increase the costs of the project, it would render the connection useless to MN and NJT as the LIRR would need the tunnel to enter NYP from the western side, while NJT & MN would need the tunnel to enter NYP from the eastern side.


Also not mentioning that the Long Island and Metro North electrification systems are beyond incompatible, they are mutually exclusive.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jun 28, 2008)

I imagine the point of interlining MN and NJT would be to create one-seat rides from GCT to MN stations on the Port Jervis and Spring Valley lines? Also, it would be beneficial to NJT, I'm sure, to have a stop in downtown.


----------

