# Grand Central Questions



## MattW

I was looking at Rich Green's great track maps of Metro North railroad, specifically Grand Central Terminal and had a few questions:

1. Are the loop tracks that swing around the terminal used in regular service?

2. Where do the Metro North trains go for maintenance? I know maintenance doesn't have to be done at the terminating station, but that's typically the arrangement such as Penn having Sunnyside and West Side on either end, or WAS having the Ivy City complex, or Chicago having its huge yard area.

As an afterthought, I also have a question about Penn Station: are any of the "layup" tracks on the west end of the yard used? (The ones labeled 1C-10C, 1E-6E, and 1A-5A including the mail platform tracks)

Thanks for any info!


----------



## jis

MattW said:


> I was looking at Rich Green's great track maps of Metro North railroad, specifically Grand Central Terminal and had a few questions:1. Are the loop tracks that swing around the terminal used in regular service?


Not with passengers on board, but they are used, or at least were used until very recent past for moving empties.



> 2. Where do the Metro North trains go for maintenance? I know maintenance doesn't have to be done at the terminating station, but that's typically the arrangement such as Penn having Sunnyside and West Side on either end, or WAS having the Ivy City complex, or Chicago having its huge yard area.


Highbridge Yard, just off of the Hudson Line on the banks of Harlem River, which I believe is used for midday storage and light repair. The major repair shop is in Croton-Harmon.



> As an afterthought, I also have a question about Penn Station: are any of the "layup" tracks on the west end of the yard used? (The ones labeled 1C-10C, 1E-6E, and 1A-5A including the mail platform tracks)


AFAICT all tracks are used for storage of something or the other, though I have not seen the diagonal platform tracks used for anything of late.


----------



## AlanB

1) The loop tracks are never used in revenue service, but they do get used for equipment moves. Hence only engineers ever get to see the tracks. I'm not positive, but I seem to think that I saw something that said that their use had been curtailed some during the building of the LIRR station. IIRC, the entire east end yard is now gone or at least unusable during the construction project.

2) All diesels go to Croton-Harom shops for anything other than simple basic maintenance. Prior to the start of prep work for the LIRR's East Side access, pretty much all maintenance on trains was done at shops at the northern ends of the various lines. I'm not sure if I've got them all, but there are shops at Croton-Harmon, Stamford, New Haven, North White Plains, and Brewster.

As part of the LIRR's ESA project, a new yard for Metro North was built just north of Manhattan in the Bronx on the Hudson line. Highbridge Yard, seen on those maps just after the Hudson line splits from the main trunk into GCT, has shops that can handle much of the needed work that a car might need. Highbridge opened in 2003.

Finally to your last question, yes most of those tracks at Penn do get used during the day. NJT parks several trains on the southern side, while the LIRR uses the northern tracks to help turn trains. I'm not sure if the LIRR just parks morning trains on their tracks till the evening rush, or if they just use them to turn trains and send them back out. However, NJT typically leaves several trains just sitting there all day until the evening rush.

One track on the southern side generally has a P42 rescue engine sitting there and it's not uncomon to also see an AEM-7 sitting there for rescue purposes too.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

The loop tracks on upper level are very much in use specialy to yard trains to yard near lexington Ave.

yes they are used to loop out passenger(with passengers) trains too, but just in emergencies like track blockage or a no good north end on a train.

The lower level loops are all out of service, as the west side of GCT lower level will be the terminal area waiting room and ticket area for LIRR's ESA.

The ESA train tracks and platforms will be way below the lower level of GCT.


----------



## Jay

A more detailed answer to question two:

Croton-Harmon is Metro-North's largest maintenance facility, and is located at the northern terminus of electrification on the Hudson Line. North White Plains, which until 1984 was the northern terminus of electrification on the Harlem Line, performs minor equipment repair and painting, is the base of the Metro-North rescue crew, and usually has one or two work/rescue GP-35R locomotives based there at all times. Stamford and New Haven shops perform catenary work and heavy locomotive repair on the New Haven Line.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

Jay said:


> A more detailed answer to question two:
> 
> Stamford and New Haven shops perform catenary work and heavy locomotive repair on the New Haven Line.


No MNCR locomotive repairs on New Haven line other than lightbulb changes and brakeshoes, only locomotives maintained in New Haven are the SLE locomotives in CDOT shop.


----------



## Michael

I know that the upper level loop tracks used to drop passengers off at an area that led directly to the street on Madison and 43rd but did the lower level also allow access straight to the street? And I've read mixed things about when the upper level loop went into service. Anyone know?


----------



## WinNix

Michael said:


> I know that the upper level loop tracks used to drop passengers off at an area that led directly to the street on Madison and 43rd but did the lower level also allow access straight to the street? And I've read mixed things about when the upper level loop went into service. Anyone know?


As long as I've been alive, I've not known the upper loops to accept or drop off passengers - it must have been long ago. Now, the only passenger access to the tracks from within GCT are the platforms. From the doors leading to the upper tracks -> south, there is no public access to the tracks; there is just no space. From the lower tracks within GCT, there is no public access to the loop-trackage area anymore that I know of. I have looked. **NOTE** The antique elevators that are still in use adjascent to the massive pedestrian ramps (western ramp) do sidle up beside some tracks. I am not sure, but I think those tracks are the loops... again, I am not sure. The elevators are located west of the oyster bar on either side of the western pedestrian ramp. Of the two banks (north, south), the southern elevator bank backs up to the tracks I am referencing. The tracks are not platformed which is what is making me guess they are the loops.... (?). IF they ever let off passengers, I'd guess those elevators and or the western ped ramp was the only place that could have logistically happened. From below the Eastern ped ramp and south is the beginning of the subway station. I suppose it is possible MNR trains let passengers off into the subway.... but if they did, then that would allow them to bypass all the turnstiles so that is unlikely (perhaps they redid the layout??).

Across the hall from the top of the western pedestrian ramp is a large rite-aid pharmacy. Between the two rite-aid entrances is an employees-only steel door. Every now and then the door will be open with employees in or around it. A set of stairs leading down at least two stories are clearly visible when the door is open. The stairwell wall is painted with "STAIRWELL B". In addition, inside the doors there are metal signs that state "do not enter" and "employees only". I once stopped and asked one of the workers what was down there. They just stared at me with a "why are you bothering me" look... I kept walking. Before I piped up, they had been talking about a vaccum train and garbage trucks.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

arrival on tracks 38 to 42 is part of loop, they are only tracks continouing south with passenger platforms on upper level.

as for stairs near Rite-Aid there use to be locker rooms and bunk rooms for crews, but now its track department and third rail department.


----------



## Anderson

I noticed on at least one map an indication that the tunnels seem to continue south of GCT. Was this a slightly sloppy map (always possible), or do the tunnels go on for a few more blocks? Also (*ducks*), how do these tracks compare, level-wise, with the crosstown line that runs through Penn?


----------



## AlanB

I'm not sure what you were looking at, but no Metro North tracks extend south of 42nd Street. The aforementioned loop tracks get the closest to 42nd, but they do not even get under 42nd even by a tiny bit.

Now if you were looking at plans for the new LIRR station at GCT, those tracks do have tail tracks that extend south of 42nd Street. IIRC, they'll be able to store 1 train on each of the 8 tracks south of the station.

Otherwise the only other thing that I can think of that you were seeing is the Lexington Avenue subway line, which transitions from Lexington to Park at Grand Central.


----------



## Anderson

Alan,

Thanks. It was probably either a sloppy map or an indication of the LIRR "storage tracks". With that said, is there some way that "tail tracks" could be added south of GCT? I'm guessing not (given the placement of the passenger terminals), but it's worth asking, storage-wise. LIkewise, could some setup be put into place to "dump" trains arriving/departing on the side-tracks to clear those tracks during rush hour?


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> With that said, is there some way that "tail tracks" could be added south of GCT? I'm guessing not (given the placement of the passenger terminals), but it's worth asking, storage-wise.


Not a chance. First you'd have to run through the passenger concourse, a huge problem in its own right.  Then you'd have to cut through the loop tracks rendering them useless. Next you have to fight your way through all the infrastructure under 42nd Street, namely water, electrical, steam, the Lexington Avenue Subway, the #7 Subway, and the Times Square Shuttle.

And then after fighting your way through all of that, at least some of the tail tracks would end up in the basements of the buildings across the street from Grand Central, something that they wouldn't take kindly to assuming that it was even possible to cut into them without bringing down the buildings.

Perhaps this drawing of the upper level tracks will help to provide some idea of the layout. Now what you can't see is that the tracks on the end (top of picture closest to Madison Ave.) that access the loop start to dip down as they approach the terminal so as to duck under the concourse.

Here's the diagram for the lower level tracks.



Anderson said:


> LIkewise, could some setup be put into place to "dump" trains arriving/departing on the side-tracks to clear those tracks during rush hour?


I'm not sure that I fully understand what you're asking me, but during rush hour they put trains on pretty much every track.


----------



## Anderson

Alright, that removes the possibility of going south. I had figured there was a reason for that, and (having been there last weekend) I figured the concourse was in the way southbound. Two questions from the map:

1) I see that a lot of tracks seem to cut at 44th street. Are these on the other level?

2) Looking at the track map, could anything be extended north so as to allow trains to be "stashed" there? i.e. Could tracks on the sides be pushed further north (say, to 50th/51st street) to allow trains to be pulled forward into the terminal, offload passengers, and then once the tracks "to the side" of them are more or less full, "back up" the trains onto those tracks and store them there, thereby freeing the tracks to take another inbound train? For example, track X is occupied by a 7:00 AM train from CT. The train sits there until 7:30 and is then "backed out" of the terminal track and onto an added track on its side of the station? Likewise, could the tracks be reworked to allow trains to be "stashed" on the sidings between 48th and 50th streets?


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> Alright, that removes the possibility of going south. I had figured there was a reason for that, and (having been there last weekend) I figured the concourse was in the way southbound. Two questions from the map:
> 
> 1) I see that a lot of tracks seem to cut at 44th street. Are these on the other level?
> 
> 2) Looking at the track map, could anything be extended north so as to allow trains to be "stashed" there? i.e. Could tracks on the sides be pushed further north (say, to 50th/51st street) to allow trains to be pulled forward into the terminal, offload passengers, and then once the tracks "to the side" of them are more or less full, "back up" the trains onto those tracks and store them there, thereby freeing the tracks to take another inbound train? For example, track X is occupied by a 7:00 AM train from CT. The train sits there until 7:30 and is then "backed out" of the terminal track and onto an added track on its side of the station? Likewise, could the tracks be reworked to allow trains to be "stashed" on the sidings between 48th and 50th streets?


1. Yes.

2. no


----------



## AlanB

Anderson said:


> 1) I see that a lot of tracks seem to cut at 44th street. Are these on the other level?


Which diagram are you looking at? The upper or the lower? And what exactly do you mean by "cut"?



Anderson said:


> 2) Looking at the track map, could anything be extended north so as to allow trains to be "stashed" there? i.e. Could tracks on the sides be pushed further north (say, to 50th/51st street) to allow trains to be pulled forward into the terminal, offload passengers, and then once the tracks "to the side" of them are more or less full, "back up" the trains onto those tracks and store them there, thereby freeing the tracks to take another inbound train? For example, track X is occupied by a 7:00 AM train from CT. The train sits there until 7:30 and is then "backed out" of the terminal track and onto an added track on its side of the station? Likewise, could the tracks be reworked to allow trains to be "stashed" on the sidings between 48th and 50th streets?


I don't have any actual information to say conclusively, but I'd imagine that you'd run into basements of buildings if you tried to extend tracks north. It's a well publicized fact that a couple of the tracks on the bottom of the diagram provide direct access to basement of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. And that's not a particularly tall building that would need a deeper basement to support the structure overhead.

Even if it is possible, it would be very expensive to do.


----------



## Anderson

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I see that a lot of tracks seem to cut at 44th street. Are these on the other level?
> 
> 
> 
> Which diagram are you looking at? The upper or the lower? And what exactly do you mean by "cut"?
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Looking at the track map, could anything be extended north so as to allow trains to be "stashed" there? i.e. Could tracks on the sides be pushed further north (say, to 50th/51st street) to allow trains to be pulled forward into the terminal, offload passengers, and then once the tracks "to the side" of them are more or less full, "back up" the trains onto those tracks and store them there, thereby freeing the tracks to take another inbound train? For example, track X is occupied by a 7:00 AM train from CT. The train sits there until 7:30 and is then "backed out" of the terminal track and onto an added track on its side of the station? Likewise, could the tracks be reworked to allow trains to be "stashed" on the sidings between 48th and 50th streets?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any actual information to say conclusively, but I'd imagine that you'd run into basements of buildings if you tried to extend tracks north. It's a well publicized fact that a couple of the tracks on the bottom of the diagram provide direct access to basement of the Waldorf-Astoria hotel. And that's not a particularly tall building that would need a deeper basement to support the structure overhead.
> 
> Even if it is possible, it would be very expensive to do.
Click to expand...

1) On the lower track plan (RailUS_GCT-lowerTracksPlan.gif), lower side of the map (I believe that translates into the east side of the station), there are about ten or so tracks that come to an (apparent) abrupt end at 44th street, well short of the concourse.

2) The point is well taken on that. I'm naturally assuming that nothing is cheap in NYC (heck, even a movie ticket can go for almost $20 at the right theater), but the point is taken. As I wondered, though, on the east side there appears to be a bank of siding tracks to the north side of the GCT yard. Could part of the yard be re-worked and that be used to stash 10 or 20 trains? I'm counting what seems to be at least a dozen tracks there, so even if you had to make a switching mess out of one part of the trackage or another, I'd think the added capacity (say, 15 commuter trains per day at peak, or about a 25% increase) would be worth it.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> 2) The point is well taken on that. I'm naturally assuming that nothing is cheap in NYC (heck, even a movie ticket can go for almost $20 at the right theater), but the point is taken. As I wondered, though, on the east side there appears to be a bank of siding tracks to the north side of the GCT yard. Could part of the yard be re-worked and that be used to stash 10 or 20 trains? I'm counting what seems to be at least a dozen tracks there, so even if you had to make a switching mess out of one part of the trackage or another, I'd think the added capacity (say, 15 commuter trains per day at peak, or about a 25% increase) would be worth it.


If that made financial sense MNRR would have done that instead of building the Highbridge Yard.


----------



## WinNix

Although I've walked around the lower eastern portion of GCT many times, it has been awhile. I'll try to go off memory and double check my statements next week when I go in. One important factor to note on those maps - neither show the existing 59th street utility/emergency station. You can just see the southern tip of the platform on the upper level map. In the event of any type of disaster at GCT and/or the northern end of the tunnel, 59th street has platforms can be used. Filthy and littered with debris? You bet! But they are functional. Extending the branch-outs further north would eliminate this option entirely ALONG with the other folks' aforementioned issues (basements, etc). The space you would use for siding is simply already claimed and used by other people/buildings/utilities/the city itself, and roads. Don't forget the tracks are not buried the whole way. I'll further my thoughts in #2....

1) The doorways and platforms for the lower/eastern tracks are "recessed" a bit further north. The layout makes sense when you consider the grand staircases, highly efficient use of pedestrian & commercial floorspace, etc. If memory serves me (not always these days), the main reason for the ending the lower eastern tracks at 44th was the existing subway station *immediately* south on the eastern edge of GCT's lower level. At first glance it may not appear to overlap if you look at the 42nd street 4/5/6 train station, but it has a ton of pedestrian floor space AND the northbound train platforms have to extend fairly far. I suspect the room to even out all the lower tracks simply did not exist because it was already claimed by the IRT.

2) By one comment you made, it appears you are trying to brainstorm methods for increasing rush hour capacity. A noble effort, but track/platform space is not the main bottle neck. There are two other issues you need to solve. First, three lines of one of the busiest commuter rail come into/out of GCT on (realistically) 3 tracks with 1 reserved for the other direction of course. The number of tracks is just one of the two main bottleneck problems. The other is... wait, look at both those maps again. The trackage between 85th street through to the end of each platform has a max speed limit of 5 or 10 mph. This is, without any doubt, entirely the fault of MNRR. The signals used are ancient. Many are bent over and hard to see. The wires for them are exposed and laying on the ground. On top of that, the switching equipment is old. Obviously, there is such a huge mass of switches. It really makes me irritated when I hear MNRR claim they are near capacity when they can resolve one of the factors forming that capacity ceiling. If they revamped the switches & signals to have a higher speed limit than 5 mph, imagine the flow increase! I know there are counter arguments to what I just said. Previously, someone said the trains must go slower to prevent wear & tear on the switches. Well, All the MUs from the latest generation are between 15-25% lighter than the older MUs. Less weight means less wear means less concern over breaking the switches... If MNRR let the trains move faster through the switches between 85th and 50th, then you'll see an increase in capacity.

edit: Grammar.


----------



## Anderson

To the Grand Central bit:

-That is a good observation about the track speed limit. I know there had been mention of it being slow, but...there's slow and there's slow. A 30 MPH (or even 20 MPH) slow order on a section is one thing, but 5-10 MPH is another item entirely. On top of it being bad enough, fixing that would whack a good bit of time off of commute times (since unless I miss my guess, they're stuck at such a low speed for a mile or more...30-40 blocks, even short ones in Manhattan, is still going to add up). Even getting up to 30 MPH would do wonders for that, and I can see there being other restrictions that would limit that.

-Also, I'm wondering if they could find some way to hike the limit on "non-revenue" trains to 15 MPH or so. Even if they just blocked off a slot and "blew out" a bunch of trains at once in as tight of a block as signaling and dispatching would allow and "dropped them off" in a yard somewhere, my understanding is that the rules tend to be a bit looser for non-revenue trains as long as track conditions will allow.


----------



## AlanB

While I'm far from an expert in this area, that is to say speeds over track switches, I'd bet that at most you could raise speeds to maybe 10 MPH, if indeed it it is true that speeds are only 5 MPH into GCT. These are not mainline switches like Amtrak uses to move Acela's from one track to another at 80 MPH. Those are almost "graceful" switches with long gentle curves to move from one track. Metro North cannot install such switches at GCT, at least not without starting the ladder tracks up at say 90th Street. These are short, hard turning switches, many of them are even slip switches that have multi-positions instead of the normal and reverse positions of high speed switches.

Even if you could put in higher speed switches, you then encounter the issue of having so many trains moving so close together at higher speeds. This makes dispatching both harder and far more critical that they get it all right.

Finally there is the issue of; do we want trains barreling into the platforms at 30 or 40 MPH? Personally I kind of like the fact that Metro North trains aren't crashing into the bumper blocks at GCT in normal operating mode. While I've never paid that close of attention to things, I'm betting that Acela is down to at least 20 MPH when it is effectively 10 blocks or so away from stopping at say BWI, a station that requires no changing of tracks and is right on the mainline.

Now all that said, I will grant that if they could get speeds to say 10 MPH (and again assuming that they are currently 5 MPH), then that would probably increase capacity a bit. But it certainly wouldn't double it. One major reason for that is simple; higher speeds mean you need longer blocks. Longer blocks mean that the backups/slow downs starts further up the Park Avenue tunnels as trains need more stopping distance at higher speeds. The question is how much increase in capacity and at what cost? That's one I can't answer.


----------



## Anderson

Pulling the map up again, the branching seems to start around 56th Street. So even if you went with slowing down to 20 MPH ten blocks north of there, that's still 66th-85th Street you could "reclaim", or about a mile of sped-up running. Going from 5 MPH to 10 MPH, or 10 MPH to 20 MPH up there might not double capacity, but it would still result in _some_ improvement, one suspects.

That said, I do see what you're saying about the layout of the terminal and the switches. GCT was never meant to host hundreds of thousands of commuters trying to jam through in a tight timeframe like it is now, I suspect...the designers expected that business would be more spread out through the day.


----------



## Dutchrailnut

the speed in GCT from 59th street (last emergency platform of park ave tunnel yes folks almost a mile) to bumper block is 10 mph

its 5 mph on loop tracks ( and even that is to fast)

They will never increase speed in GCT for several reasons:

A] the switches are low speed no 6 switches and same angle puzzle switches.

B] any derailment could take out a structural needed support

C] a bumping block is still not rated at any speed to stop a train

the speed in tunnel was already raised in 1989 from 35 to 60 mph but with signal system the first downgrade starts at 72th street


----------



## AlanB

Thanks Dutch!  I was hoping you'd chime in with the actual speed limits since you run trains into GCT.


----------



## WinNix

Anderson, based on all the comments in this thread there is no chance at improving service in/out of Grand Central. Unfortunately.

Alan and Dutch both have excellent reasons & logic for the current speed limit within the tunnel. I understand and agreee with them on why the limits are what they are right now with current equpiment. But I disagree because I think the equipment should be improved on - and in turn the speed limit raised. I think 15 mph would not be impossible. As a rider, I'll always love taking the train. As a customer I'll never be entirely happy with MNRR for not "trying" sometimes. Before I say this next bit, none of my grumblings are directed at conductors. In fact I think the coductors put up with more crapola than they need to. There is no excuse why some of the signals are bent halfway over. Conductors should never have to put up with that. GCT is not in the middle of nowhere, the tunnel handles trains _constantly_. The signals and trackage SHOULD be absolutely as efficient as reasonably possible. There is also no excuse why there is broken plywood on some tracks, 3 foot high piles of garbage off to the sides, old track ties clearly no longer useful, piles of unused ballast not-so-strategically placed through the tunnel. It is probably worse for the conduuctors because they have to look at it all the time whereas I can ignore it.

I am sure that when the existing switches were built & installed hey used the best technology & logic possible. But, I just do not believe that technology and hardware have not advanced at ALL since then. Advances, inventions, patents, happen all the time. New equipment gets purchased. Discoveries are made. The trains are much lighter than they used to be, too. I would be shocked if someone told me an M7 puts more stress on any given switch than an M1 or M3 (based on weight and suspension). So why would the speed limit on those switches built for M1 and M3s still the same for the M7 (and M8)? I am not sayng the switches need to be cut out and redone every few years, but a little modernizing would be nice. That said, I completely understand the risk of taking out a tunnel support. In fact if tunnel-support-pillar-risk alone is the cause for the 10 mph speed limit, I would completely accept it. But it is not - improvable infrastructure is a large part. I am not bullheaded enough to think there is no way I could be wrong. I know I might be entirely wrong - in fact I'm wrong a lot. I am certainly not arguing against anyone or putting anyone down in any way. I just want to see the trains run like they should, that's all. I'd have to see proof the speed limit cannot be improved. I also realize cost may be a counter point. I'll cover that base with: MNRR handles well over 80 million rides a year. 83,300,000 rides per year justifies and pays for a whole lot of things - including top of the line infrastructure, signals, and other equipment. Does it not?


----------



## Trogdor

I'll comment on this one bit.



WinNix said:


> I also realize cost may be a counter point. I'll cover that base with: MNRR handles well over 80 million rides a year. 83,300,000 rides per year justifies and pays for a whole lot of things - including top of the line infrastructure, signals, and other equipment. Does it not?


As soon as you can put "rides" into a bank account, call me (well, don't call me, but call Metro-North).

The fact is, 83 million "rides" doesn't even pay for the cost of running the trains, let alone improving the infrastructure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have better transportation infrastructure (of course we should, in every large city), but the fact is that no passenger transportation really pays for its own infrastructure, and many modes barely (if at all) cover their direct operating costs. That's where subsidy comes in (either direct or indirect), and that's where politics comes in, and that's where doing what's right, makes sense, and benefits most falls apart.


----------



## WinNix

Trogdor said:


> I'll comment on this one bit.
> 
> As soon as you can put "rides" into a bank account, call me (well, don't call me, but call Metro-North).
> 
> The fact is, 83 million "rides" doesn't even pay for the cost of running the trains, let alone improving the infrastructure.
> 
> I'm not saying we shouldn't have better transportation infrastructure (of course we should, in every large city), but the fact is that no passenger transportation really pays for its own infrastructure, and many modes barely (if at all) cover their direct operating costs. That's where subsidy comes in (either direct or indirect), and that's where politics comes in, and that's where doing what's right, makes sense, and benefits most falls apart.


I used poor phrasing, I meant a ride is a ticket.... exremely few people are allowed to ride the train for free so they are basically one in the same. When you and I pay for our tickets, our money goes directly into their bank account (what they do with our money from there isn't our issue). I agree with you on the infrastructure point. If I came across as entirely blaming the MTA for the woes, I did not explain myself fully. I think towns/cities/states/feds should give equal attention to rails as they do roads. That said, the MTA is not blameless. As for the cost of running the trains... For the fair sake of misc overhead, lets lowball the average ticket price to the $4-$5 range (* 83,300,000). Roughly $400m cannot cover just the running cost of the trains alone? Perhaps I am wrong, but I just do not believe it.


----------



## jis

WinNix said:


> The trains are much lighter than they used to be, too. I would be shocked if someone told me an M7 puts more stress on any given switch than an M1 or M3 (based on weight and suspension). So why would the speed limit on those switches built for M1 and M3s still the same for the M7 (and M8)?


Be very prepared to be completely shocked. As a starter ask yourself why an M7 requires 265hp motors per axle whereas and M1/M3 can make do with 148/160hp motors per axle and yet perform as well as or better than M7s. You will suddenly come to realize that all these assumptions about new cars being lighter are not very well founded on reality. Actually M7s and M8s are no more kind on tracks than their predecessors, and possibly they are worse. There are very good reasons for speed limits to not change. If anything they might go down some if that were practically possible. 



> I also realize cost may be a counter point. I'll cover that base with: MNRR handles well over 80 million rides a year. 83,300,000 rides per year justifies and pays for a whole lot of things - including top of the line infrastructure, signals, and other equipment. Does it not?


With 36% farebox recovery where exactly is that extra money going to come from, specially what with the paymasters themselves being more or less broke and in virtual receivership? Afterall, they already have to cover the balance 64% just to keep the wheels rolling and maintaining status quo.

The other relevant question to ask is, if each trip time was reduced by say 5 mins, how many extra fares would that generate, and would that actually increase farebox recovery noticeably? Seems like a relevant question since you appear to believe that MNRR's farebox recovery is already greater than 100%



> For the fair sake of misc overhead, lets lowball the average ticket price to the $4-$5 range (* 83,300,000). Roughly $400m cannot cover just the running cost of the trains alone? Perhaps I am wrong, but I just do not believe it.


Their farebox recovery ratio is in the vicinity of 36%, i.e. tickets cover only 36% of the cost of operation. No one can make you believe things if you refuse to be swayed by facts already evident in audited financial statements of the agency.


----------



## AlanB

Actually Metro North's farebox recovery is 56% for everything, which includes buses & ferry operations. If we look specifically at the train operations only, backing out some agency overhead along with the aforementioned buses & ferry, the train's farebox recovery is 59.26%.

All data from the National Transit Database. Note: The above numbers don't reflect the CT portion of things, which contracts Metro North to operate into CT and covers the losses based upon their fare policies.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Actually Metro North's farebox recovery is 56% for everything, which includes buses & ferry operations. If we look specifically at the train operations only, backing out some agency overhead along with the aforementioned buses & ferry, the train's farebox recovery is 59.26%.
> 
> All data from the National Transit Database. Note: The above numbers don't reflect the CT portion of things, which contracts Metro North to operate into CT and covers the losses based upon their fare policies.


Ah cool, tanks for the clarification. I was looking at some old data. But te fact still remains that farebox recovery is less than 100% so there is no money to be had from the farebox to do anything. It has to come from elsewere.


----------



## Anderson

Alan,

What is "Other operating expenses"? Also, why don't the "Operating funds expended" and "Total operating expenses" lines add up? A joke about them spending money they didn't spend comes to mind here.


----------



## AlanB

Anderson,

I would think that "other operating expenses" would include overhead things like management. As for why things don't add up, the difference is that amount called "Reconciling Cash Expenditures". The NTD's definition of that amount is:



> Any items where accounting practices vary for handling these expenses as a result of local ordinances and conditions. Reconciling items include:
> • Depreciation and amortization
> 
> • Interest payments
> 
> • Leases and rentals.
> 
> They are called reconciling items because they are needed to provide an overall total that is consistent with local published reports. Can be found in: F-40


----------



## George Harris

Dutchrailnut said:


> The speed in GCT from 59th street (last emergency platform of park ave tunnel yes folks almost a mile) to bumper block is 10 mph
> 
> It is 5 mph on loop tracks ( and even that is to fast)
> 
> They will never increase speed in GCT for several reasons:
> 
> A] The switches are low speed no 6 switches and same angle puzzle switches.
> 
> B] Any derailment could take out a structural needed support
> 
> C] A bumping block is still not rated at any speed to stop a train
> 
> The speed in tunnel was already raised in 1989 from 35 to 60 mph but with signal system the first downgrade starts at 72th street


Just to add a few things:

*No. 6 turnouts ! ! !* Getting a modern 85 ft long passenger car through one of these things at all is an accomplishment. Did not know there were any turnouts that small anywhere used by passenger equipment. I have heard that the turnouts in approach to Los Angeles are No. 7, and know that the Dallas Union Station ladders had No. 7 turnouts, but have no idea whether any are left now. In general, most of the eastern roads had used No. 8 as the minimum size turnout.

To try to spell out what this means, here are a few features of these turnouts found in the AREMA Portfolio Plan 920. Chances are this is NOT the exact geometry of the turnouts in approach to Grand Central. New York Central probably had their own standard for these turnouts, and almost everything else. (They used rail sections of their own design right up to the end of their corporate existence.)

I am assuming the curved switch point design, as the straight switch point that goes with these things has an angle of 2 degrees 42 minutes. The curved point has an entry angle of 1 deg 41 min 31 sec, which is very close to the entry angle of the 16'-6" straight point commonly used with a No. 8 turnout.

Internal radius given for these No. 6 turnouts is 283.88 feet. This in itself will result in very large end of car offsets when going through these things. I would hope than no one tries to stand mid vestibule when going through a series of these things. It would be a horizontally moving guillotine. If we were to take a curve of that radius, and consider a limit to unbalanced superelevation to be 3 inches, and in this situation you should certainly not even consider using more, and using less would be better, The maximum speed you could run thorough these would be 14.5 mph, and that would be unwise for other reasons. When you get to very small radii, consideration of "angle of attack" comes into play. That is, the angle between wheel and rail at point of contact. There is also the issue of the difference in radius between the inside and outside rails. Remember the wheels are fixed on the axles. With these considerations into the mix, any speed limit above 10 mph through these things would be pushing the envelope too hard, and even 10 mph would be on the line.


----------



## WinNix

jis said:


> Be very prepared to be completely shocked. As a starter ask yourself why an M7 requires 265hp motors per axle whereas and M1/M3 can make do with 148/160hp motors per axle and yet perform as well as or better than M7s. You will suddenly come to realize that all these assumptions about new cars being lighter are not very well founded on reality. Actually M7s and M8s are no more kind on tracks than their predecessors, and possibly they are worse. There are very good reasons for speed limits to not change. If anything they might go down some if that were practically possible.


Very well. I based my assumption of weight loss on the number of years that passed using the given that technology improvements march onwards. I admitedly have absolutely zero facts to draw upon. I know you are definitely much more well versed in the facts (I am glad for that) and I know you are level headed, thus I will totally accept that I was incorrect on the weights and I yield to your greater knowledge. That said, I am more disappointed in the planning that went into building these cars. I would like to think people would try and use their brains to improve the way the trains worked. Obviously regulations and laws change over time, but come on, so does technology. I know a _LOT_ of other factors came into play, but the bottom line is more relevant. I am disappointed to learn the trains weigh more and are harder on the track. The new trains should have improved things for the track/infrastructure, not the other way around.



> With 36% farebox recovery where exactly is that extra money going to come from, specially what with the paymasters themselves being more or less broke and in virtual receivership? Afterall, they already have to cover the balance 64% just to keep the wheels rolling and maintaining status quo.
> 
> The other relevant question to ask is, if each trip time was reduced by say 5 mins, how many extra fares would that generate, and would that actually increase farebox recovery noticeably? Seems like a relevant question since you appear to believe that MNRR's farebox recovery is already greater than 100%
> 
> Their farebox recovery ratio is in the vicinity of 36%, i.e. tickets cover only 36% of the cost of operation. No one can make you believe things if you refuse to be swayed by facts already evident in audited financial statements of the agency.


I will reiterate my intial thought - 83 million rides *justify* a lot of things including top of the line equipment, etc for Grand Central. That is where I am going with this, and it is in reference to the topic. My response was specifically aimed at running the trains -alone- and not all the other aspects of the system which are covered in the financial report. I know very well the farebox receipts are no where near 100%, that is not where I was going with my thought, and that is not what I said. I am done commenting on this unless someone decides to come after me.

edit: Grammar


----------



## George Harris

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"

Just read a report that included the pronouncement that the speed on the GCT loops could be increased to 15 mph, or to be more exact:



> MTA’s claim that the maximum speed that can be sustained on this track is four miles per hour was challenged by the experts present at the meeting.. . .
> 
> the maximum speed on the Grand Central loop track can be much higher.
> 
> Maximum speed on curves is based on comfort and safety. Very high speed would cause a train to derail and overturn. But a much lower top speed is needed to assure passenger comfort. Assuming there is no superelevation of the track, the maximum speed for the 333 foot radius loop curve at Grand Central would be 15.8 mph. This is determined using the accepted nationwide railway practice of three inches of cant deficiency.
> 
> . . .
> 
> In locations with tight lateral clearances, speed would be set lower to avoid having trains strike nearby structural elements. In Appendix B of the E, MTA cites this as the reason for selecting the four mile per hour maximum. The art of clearance analysis is quite well developed.


blah, blah, blah

For those interested, it is at www.irum.org/ir060605.pdf

I know all about the "art of clearance analysis." It is not nearly as well developed as might be imagined. after doing all calculations, before any tight clearance areas is put in service, some form of clearance checking rig, or better car with feelers attached is run through the area and the reality actually *measured.*

I would not want to stake my professional reputation on promoting the ideas in this paper. The same things I said about the No. 6 turnouts , end car angle, end car offsets, angle of attack of wheels, etc., apply here. You are pushing the envelope that an modern passenger car, whether EMU or unpowered can traverse at all. In general, if building a yard or othere facility you would not even consider a turnout smaller than No. 8 or curve higher that 12 degrees (less than 478.33 ft radius)


----------



## jis

You are talking about IRUM ere. They do not wish to even talk any further with anyone who has the temerity to point out that reality is at odds wit their fancy ideas. I have tried to engage them in meaningful conversations many times and finally just given up. They also run this thing called the RRWG (Regional Rail Working Group) in New York/New Jersey area, and try to include everyone's name in their publications whether those ones included want to be included or not and irrespective of whether they support any of the positions espoused or not. I must admit some rail advocates can be a pretty strange bunch.


----------



## George Harris

jis said:


> You are talking about IRUM here. They do not wish to even talk any further with anyone who has the temerity to point out that reality is at odds wit their fancy ideas.


Just paid a visit to their web site. I see what you mean. Must be nice to be certain that you have all the answers. Unfortunate that reality interferes with whout you are certain ought to be done at times.


----------



## Trogdor

George Harris said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are talking about IRUM here. They do not wish to even talk any further with anyone who has the temerity to point out that reality is at odds wit their fancy ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Just paid a visit to their web site. I see what you mean. Must be nice to be certain that you have all the answers. Unfortunate that reality interferes with whout you are certain ought to be done at times.
Click to expand...

Based on that description, they sound a lot like URPA.


----------

