# Metro- North considering Double Deckers



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 17, 2010)

MNCR is considering double deckers as replacement for M-3's

These Double Deckers would be for Harlem & Hudson electrified zone only.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/nyregion/16double.html?_r=2


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Aug 17, 2010)

I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 17, 2010)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.


Superliners are far higher than these commuter cars, and for ADA compliant long distance trains these Commuter cars are not compliant.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2010)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I found their discussion of fitting double level cars in/out of Manhattan interesting, as I think it also addresses a similar problem that Amtrak faces if they wanted to ever use double level Superliners for its LD trains in/out of Manhattan.


You can rest assured that Amtrak will never use Superliners into Manhattan. Not in our lifetimes at least.

OTOH, Amtrak could at some point decide to adapt the NJT style multi-levels for use on their trains. These cars are no more ADA non-compliant than the Superliners and Surfliners. The mobility challenged folks would remain confined to the portion of the car that is at platform level, and they will need to make sure that each area designated for mobility challenged folks has an ADA compliant Restroom. This is how the Superliners, Surfliners and indeed even the Viewliner Sleepers satisfy ADA requirements.


----------



## MattW (Aug 17, 2010)

I would NOT want the NJT multi-levels on an Amtrak long-distance, or even Amtrak corridor trains! They're good for commuter service, but thinking back to the Kawasaki bi-levels I rode on MARC, which are still bigger than the NJT stock, I would not want them as Amtrak stock. They're too small for the overhead luggage rack really, and tall people have to duck more. That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2010)

MattW said:


> That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.


Why bother? They seem to be doing just fine as they are. A door at 48" will require everyone to have to climb some stairs. It will destroy the through upper level connections between cars. Indeed, it will most likely force everyone to have to climb some stairs even to get from one car to another. Seems like a lose-lose proposition to me.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 17, 2010)

jis said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > That said, I would like to see a Superliner design with a mid-deck at 48 inches though so Superliner routes can serve high-level platforms, and platforms can start to be standardized to 48" away from freight lines.
> ...


Because it would be neat to have Superliner on Lake Shore Limited and Carolinian and Silver Meteor.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Because it would be neat to have Superliner on Lake Shore Limited and Carolinian and Silver Meteor.


No amount of dreaming and wishful thinking will ever get Superliners into New York.

So we will destroy the single level walk that one can take the entire length of a Superliner train at the upper level to put in doors at 48" so that they can run on these trains which will then have to stop going to New York? What kind of logic is that?


----------



## MattW (Aug 18, 2010)

The logic behind my opinion isn't so much putting Superliners on the Crescent, Silvers, LSL or other NYP trains, as much as it is for new/revived and expanded capacity without expanded trains on existing non-NYP routes such as the Downeaster while being able to serve the already-existing high level platforms. It'll also make things easier at low-level platforms as you now have a rise of maybe 10 inches from platform to floor vs the 40 inch rise you do now thus making handicapped access easier (ramps maybe instead of lifts?) as well as access easier overall.

From what I understand, the Superliner would be America's standard railcar if it weren't for those pesky NYP height restrictions (and some other stuff, but the single level fleet exists mostly because of NYP's restrictions). For instance, if a train was started CHI-JAX via ATL, it'd most likely be a Superliner train and Atlanta could build a station with 48 inch platforms to allow level boarding to both the Crescent and this new hypothetical train if it used the tri-level Superliner idea.

But ultimately, I know Amtrak would not use a tri-level Superliner because the ramp would take up too much room even if it spiraled up/down to the middle-level.


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2010)

MattW said:


> From what I understand, the Superliner would be America's standard railcar if it weren't for those pesky NYP height restrictions (and some other stuff, but the single level fleet exists mostly because of NYP's restrictions). For instance, if a train was started CHI-JAX via ATL, it'd most likely be a Superliner train and Atlanta could build a station with 48 inch platforms to allow level boarding to both the Crescent and this new hypothetical train if it used the tri-level Superliner idea.


My bet is that Atlanta will never build 48" platforms, thus making this a non-issue for that train. For the (very) few places (e.g. Syracuse NY or Schenectady NY comes to mind) where this might be an issue, a much much cheaper and less disruptive solution is to to have half length of the platform low and other half high, if they do want to provide some high level platform space.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Aug 19, 2010)

Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 19, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.


Can 30th Street Station support Superliners? I am guessing nit but if so then Silver Meteor can start at Newark instead of NYP and Lake Shore limited at Poughkeepsie.


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Can 30th Street Station support Superliners? I am guessing nit but if so then Silver Meteor can start at Newark instead of NYP and Lake Shore limited at Poughkeepsie.


30th St has one platform that can, at the far end, but only under special operating procedures. But Newark Penn Station cannot. In any case moving the New York terminal for these trains from New York Penn to somewhere outside New York City will have significant adverse effect on ridership, and will take away one of the primary attractions of train service, which is direct connectivity to downtown. One does not take that away from the city that is the largest O/D for Amtrak, even on the LDs that serve that city. The second problem will be servicing of the equipment since neither will be able to get to the New York area maintenance base at Sunnyside. On the whole a non-starter of an idea I'd say.


----------



## jis (Aug 19, 2010)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.


Since a catenary one can, there is no reason that a third rail one could not if someone wanted such. Most double-deckers EMUs however have some equipment cabinets in what could be passenger space at least in one or two cars in a four car unit, typically in the end cars where the driving cab is.


----------



## Trogdor (Aug 19, 2010)

Shawn Ryu said:


> Nexis4Jersey said:
> 
> 
> > Can Double Decker be self powered? I know Catenary ones can , like in Japan. Ive never heard of Double Decker 3rd Rail EMU's.
> ...


Superliners will not fit through tunnels south of Baltimore, either, so all your long-distance trains would have to start in WAS.

This discussion seems to come up every few months (though, I swear, the last time we had this was much more recently than this). Really, there's nothing wrong with having two types/sizes of equipment in the LD fleet. There's nothing wrong with having single-level LD cars in the Amtrak system. The cost of changing infrastructure would be too great to allow standardizing. Any compromised car design would be a step back from either type of car that's out there now.

There's nothing "special" about a Superliner, other than its capacity. You can get the same capacity by adding cars. The current set of LD trains are nowhere near their maximum length. Current single-level LD trains, except for the Lake Shore, generally run with a baggage, two sleepers, two food cars, and four coaches (the Silver Meteor often runs with a third sleeper, and the Cardinal is much shorter). A couple decades ago, these trains ran 15-20 cars long.

It would be far, far easier to add a few cars to the train to get the capacity you want, than to invent a new long-distance car design that requires everybody to walk up and down stairs when moving from car to car (I know I said this already, in another thread very recently on this forum) just so that the train can serve high-level platforms. The "tri-level" type commuter car design already isn't designed with baggage storage (or enough restroom tank capacity) in mind. I've never been in the new NJT cars, but I'd imagine they're even shorter than the Bombardier-type coaches, meaning even less room for overhead luggage racks and such.

Turning those types of cars into long-distance passenger equipment really sounds more like a solution looking for a problem than anything else.

Update. Here's where the subject was discussed last time: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/33449-bombardier-bilevel-cars-over-longer-distances/


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Aug 19, 2010)

Why are we making this a Amtrak superliner thread on a commuter rail forum.


----------



## Jay (Jan 30, 2011)

Bi-level rail cars for Metro-North Railroad will most likely never become a reality. The MTA has already spent a lot of money on the future M9 rail cars for both the LIRR and Metro-North(EMU's similar to the M7 cars). Plus, non-powered coaches do not fit into the MTA's plan of further electrification of the Hudson line. Running full bi-level rail cars into GCT will require very low ceilings for each level, and would be more cramped than the single level cars currently used. If bi-level cars were to be purchased, more dual mode locomotives able to operate in GCT wold have to be purchased and there currently aren't enough GE [toaster] Genesis P32ACDM's to warrant that type of purchase.


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2011)

Jay said:


> Running full bi-level rail cars into GCT will require very low ceilings for each level, and would be more cramped than the single level cars currently used.


I have been meaning to ask someone that knows .... What is the max loading gauge height allowed through the Park Ave. tunnels into GCT?

Since the P32s are nominally either 14'6" or 14'8" depending on which source you believe, I presume at least 14'6" does fit into GCT, Since many dozens of P32 moves happen into and out of GCT each day.

The NJT and LIRR multi-level vehicles, are likely to be the prototypical ones for anything that MNRR might get, and they are 14'6" tall. So barring any additional corner striking issues as in case of the LIRR MLVs trying to get into the North River Tunnels, it would seem that these MLVs would fit into GCT.

And yes, in one way they are more cramped and in another way they are less cramped. The ceiling height is lower but the seating is 2-2 instead of 3-2.

Of course full bilevels like Superliners won't work too well at all. The only known full bilevel that fit in that loading gauge are the Talgo bilevels with vestibules at both levels, for which Talgo apparently holds a patent. But they won't work very well with high platforms.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 30, 2011)

The Genesis is 14'6", and is same height as the NJT multilevels on paper.

this picture shows someone is cheating however:

http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2382922


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2011)

Dutchrailnut said:


> The Genesis is 14'6", and is same height as the NJT multilevels on paper.
> 
> this picture shows someone is cheating however:
> 
> http://rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=2382922


Interesting!

Did you notice that the new standard single level car is spec-ed as 14'8" tall?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 30, 2011)

Dutchrailnut said:


> MNCR is considering double deckers as replacement for M-3's
> 
> These Double Deckers would be for Harlem & Hudson electrified zone only.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/nyregion/16double.html?_r=2


Somebody, it may have been Joe Clift or George Hikalis- I'm positive it was someone from RRWG, told me that MNCR was not interested in letting any cars taller than 14' 4" through the Park Ave tunnels and that while the Genesis is 14'6" tall at its very peak, it can generally fit into tighter loading gauges than its height indicates because of its roof curvature.

The NJT Multilevels are so cramped they are almost inadvisably so. My understanding, however, is that MNCR is primarily interested in single level cars and that orders of cars will likely involve piggy backing on the "Amfleet III" order, for lack of another name. The only reason I could think of for them to want bi-levels is to buy MLVs for WOH services and modify their Comet V HVAC to allow EOH usage for them. HOWEVER, there is really no pressing need to retire the Shoreliners, and if they develop a need for more cars, NJT is getting 100 completely unneeded MLVs soon, so they will probably retire the Comet IIs. Which are basically Shoreliners.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 31, 2011)

Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.

Specially due to reverse commuting and loss of storage at GCT due to ESA now trains have to go out to Highbridge yard.

This extra outbound traffic has saturated the tunnels.

The 142 M-3 cars will be replaced by 130 Doubledecker cars, once design is finished, this will maintain current seats and expand about 10% the replacement of M-3's


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Jan 31, 2011)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.
> 
> Specially due to reverse commuting and loss of storage at GCT due to ESA now trains have to go out to Highbridge yard.
> 
> ...


Is there anyway to double Capacity , it seems this region is headed for a Capacity Crisis. I think were going to have to build a New station and approach system for Metro North into GCT...


----------



## AlanB (Jan 31, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > Problem with MNCR and park avenue tunnel is its at capacity, and only way to maintain or expand service is to go up.
> ...


I suspect that the bigger issue isn't the number of tracks in the tunnel, it's the interlocking at Grand Central.

Bring a train into track 27 for example, the only way to get it back out is to cross it over 3/4ths of the interlocking essentially shutting down the station for a minute while it moves across the interlocking. You can't have other trains moving south in the tunnel with a train crossing over every track on its way to the north bound track(s) and you can't have other trains already in the station leaving as again, that train crossing over is blocking every switch and track.

One of the biggest ways to help ease the pain at GCT is to get Eastside Access finished and then start routing at least a few Hudson and New Haven line trains into NYP taking over some of the current LIRR slots from LIRR trains diverted to GCT via Eastside Access. Of course that also has it's own technical issues and problems that will need to be dealt with.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 31, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Of course that also has it's own technical issues and problems that will need to be dealt with.


Technical issues aren't important. The main issues are political.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 31, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Of course that also has it's own technical issues and problems that will need to be dealt with.
> ...


nope real problem is treack capacity in four tunnel tracks in Park avenue tunnel.

The interlocking at GCT can handle enough it spits into 8 at first split and to 40 or more on two levels at second split.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 31, 2011)

Dutchrailnut said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


Dutch,

I'm sorry but that simply doesn't make sense that the tunnel is the problem. The LIRR runs almost as many trains as MN, if not more, and the LIRR also competes for space in the East River tunnels with both Amtrak and NJT. MN competes with no one for the Park Avenue tunnel. Now I'll grant that the LIRR has the West End Yard which helps considerably. But then, NJT is taking up the slots being saved by the LIRR's ability to run into the West End Yard.

So with both "tunnels" each having 4 tracks, I don't understand how the tunnel is the restricting issue here. Yes, it might be nice if a way could be found to put 5 tracks under Park Ave, but for the moment the interlocking has to be the bigger problem. Penn has fewer problems with its interlocking plant, since there are fewer crossing movements thanks to how the 4 tracks connect to the station. With less conflicting movements, they can move more trains.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 31, 2011)

If I recall correctly, Alan, the LIRR has 3 terminals, only one of which is Penn Station. Metro-North only has two- GCT which is its exclusive territory, and the former Delaware, Lackawanna & Western terminal in Hoboken, NJ which it shares with NJ Transit. And it only sees a couple of MN trains an hour during peak periods.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 1, 2011)

MNCR has about 150% more trains entering Manhattan than LIRR, this why ESA is being constructed to get more LIRR trains to were they are needed.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 1, 2011)

Dutchrailnut said:


> MNCR has about 150% more trains entering Manhattan than LIRR, this why ESA is being constructed to get more LIRR trains to were they are needed.


Dutch,

I of course know who you work for and what you do, and I hope that you know that I have the utmost respect for you when it comes to most things relating to RR's. But I'm sorry, I'm just not seeing it on this one.

A count of the inbound trains on MN during the 8 AM to 9 AM period, the busiest period, shows 49 trains. I'm assuming (and hoping) that MN makes no non-revenue movements in the peak direction, as that would make no sense. Counting up the LIRR movements during that same period shows 39 revenue trains inbound to Penn. That means that MN is has about 25% more train movements in the peak direction over the LIRR; not 50%.

And then MN doesn't have to contend with at least 2 Amtrak non-revenue moves during that time period and I'm guessing at least 2 or 3 NJT non-rev moves, as NJT loops some trains around at Sunnyside just to keep things flowing in the station. So while MN may still have the most peak direction train movements, at best they only have 6 more movements than the East River tunnels. And the major road block we keep being told at Penn is lack of platforms and crossing movements, not the actual tunnels. Conflicting moves at Harold interlocking doesn't help things either.

So again, I'm just not seeing how the Park Ave tunnels are the problem here. Not trying to be a pain, but I just don't get it.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 1, 2011)

Trains tend to move through both the North and East river tunnels at high velocity. I don't know the actual speed limit. However, I know that movement into the North River tunnels is in excess of 40 mph. Contarywise, speeds at Grand Central Terminal are slothlike going through the Park Avenue tunnels.

I'm going to guess this has to do with track maintenance, the general setup of the interlocking, and the general incompetence of the dispatchers and train masters at Grand Central Terminal and Metro North in general.

Generally speaking, I'd think that the nature of movement through Penn Station tends to result in good people keeping the dispatching jobs they had even way back when. Trains departing GCT always head north in one direction until after they leave Manhattan Island at the very least. There is only one peak direction for Metro North.

Penn Station has trains arriving at peak times from three entirely different train lines (East River, North River, Empire) as well as trains moving, during peak, into the West Side yards. Due to its flow through nature, and the mass of directional movements, any dispatcher that wasn't exceptional would be out of a job because the resulting backup from a simple inability to make order out of chaos would make the news.

So I continue to think that the basic simplicity of Metro-North's general system, and the fact that Metro-North is the only operator- remember, Amtrak dispatches Penn Station- results in a lower level of operations.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 1, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Amtrak dispatches Penn Station- results in a lower level of operations.


I don't believe that the actual dispatchers change, but Amtrak only controls PSCC 6 months out of the year. The LIRR is charge of PSCC for the other six months. That was part of the agreement when the LIRR permanently brought slots from Amtrak during one of its many cash crises.

I'm not sure of all the particulars as to how the sharing agreement works, although I believe that it's just management that changes.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Feb 1, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Dutchrailnut said:
> 
> 
> > MNCR has about 150% more trains entering Manhattan than LIRR, this why ESA is being constructed to get more LIRR trains to were they are needed.
> ...



between 8 am and 9 am just New Haven moves are outbound 9 trains (5 deadheads) and 20 inbounds

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Harlem moves are outbound 8 trains (4 deadheads) and 14 inbounds

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Hudson moves are outbound 7 trains (5 deadheads) and 15 inbounds


----------



## AlanB (Feb 2, 2011)

I concur, I counted 49 inbounds myself via the TT's. Which again leaves MN with only 10 more trains than the LIRR. Toss in 2 or 3 NJT trains and 2 Amtrak trains and MN is barely ahead of the East River tunnels in terms of total inbound movements.

Outbound Amtrak pushes 3 trains, the LIRR moves 8 revenue trains outbound (don't know about deadheads), and while I don't have access to deadhead info if I had to hazzard a guess NJT probably moves at least 8 trains out and most likely that number is higher.

So again based upon the numbers that I'm seeing, it would appear to me that the issue is the interlocking plant and not so much the tunnels.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Feb 2, 2011)

AlanB said:


> I concur, I counted 49 inbounds myself via the TT's. Which again leaves MN with only 10 more trains than the LIRR. Toss in 2 or 3 NJT trains and 2 Amtrak trains and MN is barely ahead of the East River tunnels in terms of total inbound movements.
> 
> Outbound Amtrak pushes 3 trains, the LIRR moves 8 revenue trains outbound (don't know about deadheads), and while I don't have access to deadhead info if I had to hazzard a guess NJT probably moves at least 8 trains out and most likely that number is higher.
> 
> So again based upon the numbers that I'm seeing, it would appear to me that the issue is the interlocking plant and not so much the tunnels.


How old is the Interlocking plant , there are so places in Japan with the same amount of Interlocks and operate on a Rapid Transit timetable for there Rail service. So upgrading would probably solve the congestion issues.


----------



## jis (Feb 2, 2011)

Nexis4Jersey said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > So again based upon the numbers that I'm seeing, it would appear to me that the issue is the interlocking plant and not so much the tunnels.
> ...


'Tis not the age of the interlocking plant that is at issue, It is the track layout and traffic flows. The original track layout was designed for a very different traffic flow. Changing it is a humongously disruptive and expensive proposition.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 2, 2011)

Is there some place I can go to see where these tunnels and interlockings are located and how they're setup? I am having a heck of a time fully understanding this interesting but difficult to follow thread. Trying to envision the specific patterns, bottlenecks, and complications involved is making smoke come out of my ears.


----------



## Train2104 (Feb 2, 2011)

daxomni said:


> Is there some place I can go to see where these tunnels and interlockings are located and how they're setup? I am having a heck of a time fully understanding this interesting but difficult to follow thread. Trying to envision the specific patterns, bottlenecks, and complications involved is making smoke come out of my ears.


http://www.richegreen.com/MNRRv6.pdf

Giant file, download not view.

It's the entire MNR system, find GCT. NYP is also in there, at the same scale. Speed limits are also a problem, into GCT it's 10MPH. I believe in NYP it's 15?


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 2, 2011)

It isn't so much the interlocking layout as the very basic nature of the flow through Grand Central Terminal.

Like 30th Street Station in Philly, GCT has two levels, one designed primarily for suburban (meaning commuter) trains, and one designed for longer distance intercity service, such as the Twentieth Century Limited.

The lower level, with its 26 tracks, was intended to handle high-volume, quick-turnover commuter service trains. The upper level, with its 41 tracks, was intended to handle longer distance trains that would sit there for some time. Every train in that station, carrying passengers or not, in order to leave a platform, must pass through that choke point where the 67 tracks narrow down two four over the course of two interlockings.

Penn Station, is set up as a flow through station. The Long Island Railroad uses two tunnels, and Amtrak uses two tunnels. I don't remember the tunnel numbers, so I'll create an imaginary set of 4 tunnels, 1 through 4. 1 and 3 are for trains leaving Penn Station to Long Island, and 2 and 4 are for trains entering Penn Station from Long Island. All Amtrak trains leave via tunnel 1, and all LIRR trains leave via tunnel 3. All Amtrak trains arrive via tunnel 2, and all LIRR trains arrive via tunnel 4.

So imagine this as two parallel divided highways. Properly operated, and it is, an inbound Amtrak train should never have to wait for an outbound Amtrak train, let alone a Long Island train, to cross its path. Amtrak trains that enter Penn Station from New Jersey do not reverse direction in Penn Station. They enter through the east bound North River Tunnel, platform, discharge and receive passengers, and then continue in the same direction out either to Hell Gate on its way to Boston or Springfield, or to Sunnyside Yard.

Many LIRR trains in Penn will then continue from their track out to the West Side Yard, where they will be turned. LIRR trains generally don't have to wait for each other, either.

Grand Central Terminal is not set up that way. All of its tracks are dead ends. For a train heading southbound (and thus on one of the west two tracks on the ex-NYC main) to platform at a platform to its east, by its very nature, must cross over the northbound tracks. During the time it is crossing over the northbound tracks, northbound trains can't leave the station. That train will then be in a position to exit to the north without crosssing over.

But contrarywise, a train that pulled in from the north to one of the western platforms wouldn't have had to cross over on its entry, but it will have to do so on its exit. So with the exception of two trains on the middle tracks on (I believe) the upper level, all trains will have to foul the entire interlocking either on their entrance or on their departure. This is a problem inherent to a terminal station.

A ten track all-through-running station that is not a major terminal point for passengers could play host to about 500 trains an hour, because all the train has to do is stop, spend 30 seconds doing its business, and leave. With Penn Station, this can be achieved to a degree restricted only by its bottleneck of 4 tunnels to the east and 2 tunnels to the west. Operated purely as a run through station, and with a second set of tunnels (so that, for instance, all LIRR trains became NJT trains) Penn Station could play service to something like 150 trains an hour, or about 300 as equivalent to what we have today.

Grand Central can't do that because no matter what you do, you have to restrict movement of some trains in order to move others.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 2, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Penn Station, is set up as a flow through station. The Long Island Railroad uses two tunnels, and Amtrak uses two tunnels. I don't remember the tunnel numbers, so I'll create an imaginary set of 4 tunnels, 1 through 4. 1 and 3 are for trains leaving Penn Station to Long Island, and 2 and 4 are for trains entering Penn Station from Long Island. All Amtrak trains leave via tunnel 1, and all LIRR trains leave via tunnel 3. All Amtrak trains arrive via tunnel 2, and all LIRR trains arrive via tunnel 4.
> 
> So imagine this as two parallel divided highways. Properly operated, and it is, an inbound Amtrak train should never have to wait for an outbound Amtrak train, let alone a Long Island train, to cross its path. Amtrak trains that enter Penn Station from New Jersey do not reverse direction in Penn Station. They enter through the east bound North River Tunnel, platform, discharge and receive passengers, and then continue in the same direction out either to Hell Gate on its way to Boston or Springfield, or to Sunnyside Yard.


You got the tunnel numbers correct! The only correction is that during rush hour, LIRR trains do use the Amtrak tunnels. Otherwise, barring track/tunnel work or a problem with a train laying down, Amtrak does generally use 1 & 2 and the LIRR 3 & 4.

The only other thing that I would add to the description is that going from south to north, at Penn the tunnels run 1, 2, 3, & 4. However 2 & 3 effectively flip flop before they get to Queens, meaning that on the Queens side from south to north you'd find 1, 3, 2, & 4. This sets things up so that the two outbound tunnels are together in Queens and the two inbound tunnels are together.


----------



## jis (Feb 3, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> A ten track all-through-running station that is not a major terminal point for passengers could play host to about 500 trains an hour, because all the train has to do is stop, spend 30 seconds doing its business, and leave. With Penn Station, this can be achieved to a degree restricted only by its bottleneck of 4 tunnels to the east and 2 tunnels to the west. Operated purely as a run through station, and with a second set of tunnels (so that, for instance, all LIRR trains became NJT trains) Penn Station could play service to something like 150 trains an hour, or about 300 as equivalent to what we have today.


I must admit this 150 or 300 train thing stumps me a bit. If you have two tunnels flowing each way feeding into Penn Station from both ends (NJ end and LI end), assuming that signal capacity of each track is 30 tph (120 sec headway, which is better than what we have today), my simple mind says that the max flow in each direction can be 60tph assuming no holdups in the station and free flowing congestion points. Which adds upto a total capacity of 120tph counting both directions. Are we getting the 300 number by suggesting that we will runs trains at less than 60 second headway through the tunnels? What am I missing?

Interestingly, when I saw this, the first thing that came to my mind is wow! This is exactly a current analysis problem in circuit theory with no resistors in the circuit! Ah those good old college days


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 3, 2011)

I don't think you need 60 second headways to run trains through those tunnels. I think 30 would more than suffice. All you'd need to do, signal wise, is modify the PTC to automatically penalty brake trains in succession if one in the line dumped its brakes for any reason. 30 seconds would be more than adequate for the train behind it to not run into the one in front of it.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> I don't think you need 60 second headways to run trains through those tunnels. I think 30 would more than suffice. All you'd need to do, signal wise, is modify the PTC to automatically penalty brake trains in succession if one in the line dumped its brakes for any reason. 30 seconds would be more than adequate for the train behind it to not run into the one in front of it.


What will the max allowed speed be for running 30 second headways safely and one that FRA will accept? Speeds like on the Boston Green Line through the tunnels?  What will the block lengths need to be? Or are we talking CBTC? Not that it can do much about speeds restrictions much either. There is always so much length of track that you need to stop a train on a 1.8% downgrade from any given speed under the worst conditions. Just trying to check whether we are in la la land or not.

I don;t know the answers to those questions and I don't have the time right now to do the back of the envelope calculations. Maybe someone like George can help figure this out.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

jis said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think you need 60 second headways to run trains through those tunnels. I think 30 would more than suffice. All you'd need to do, signal wise, is modify the PTC to automatically penalty brake trains in succession if one in the line dumped its brakes for any reason. 30 seconds would be more than adequate for the train behind it to not run into the one in front of it.
> ...


Failure of logic, Jishnu. The reason I don't really need 250 feet following distance between myself and a car in front of me at 70 miles an hour is that it is highly unlikely (nay, impossible) for the car to suddenly crash into a brick wall, which is the only circumstance wherein said car would come to an immediate stop. Instead, it would also come to a stop in about 250 feet, assuming it is jamming on its brakes.

I only need enough space to make up for the amount of time between which the driver in front of me applied his brakes and I followed suit.

If we developed a CTC/PTC/CBTC signaling system that would allow for the trains behind the one that initially stopped to go into full braking potential within a second of the leading trains initiating it, you don't need more than a 30 second headway. Thus, if the front train inline had some reason to suddenly go into emergency, or apply its brakes, all trains behind it would automatically also apply their brakes. Because of the near instant response, the trains would remain at 30 (or to allow for fudge, 25) second headways all the way to a full stop.

This system would be complicated and expensive, but it would also allow for massive capacity improvements at Penn Station such that multi-billion dollar deep cavern death traps would not be needed for many years to come.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Failure of logic, Jishnu. The reason I don't really need 250 feet following distance between myself and a car in front of me at 70 miles an hour is that it is highly unlikely (nay, impossible) for the car to suddenly crash into a brick wall, which is the only circumstance wherein said car would come to an immediate stop. Instead, it would also come to a stop in about 250 feet, assuming it is jamming on its brakes.
> 
> This system would be complicated and expensive, but it would also allow for massive capacity improvements at Penn Station such that multi-billion dollar deep cavern death traps would not be needed for many years to come.


Ah OK we are talking fantasy. In which case it is OK. Charge ahead


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> This system would be complicated and expensive, but it would also allow for massive capacity improvements at Penn Station such that multi-billion dollar deep cavern death traps would not be needed for many years to come.


Great, just what we need, more people in the death trap called Penn Station that can't even be evacuated nearly as fast as that never built station that you are criticizing as a death trap.

Besides, the limiting factor isn't the tunnel, it's A interlocking.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

jis said:


> Ah OK we are talking fantasy. In which case it is OK. Charge ahead


Would you care to explain to me why this is a fantasy? And I'm not being sarcastic, I'd really like to know.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > This system would be complicated and expensive, but it would also allow for massive capacity improvements at Penn Station such that multi-billion dollar deep cavern death traps would not be needed for many years to come.
> ...


Saying there is one factor in fixing Penn's capacity issues is like suggesting there is one factor in fixing our country's financial situation.

Secondarily, Penn Station is far less of a death trap than the unbuilt ARC terminal for many many reasons that I am not going to debate with you because you have a highly unrealistic perspective on the entire project, and I am not in the mood to sit around banging my head against a brick wall.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Green Maned Lion said:
> ...


I'm not saying that there isn't more than one factor in fixing Penn's capacity. I'm saying that fixing A interlocking is the first step. Fixing dwell times, capacity to push more trains out the east side, and adding some more tracks would be next. Then and only then would we want to start thinking about whether or not we can push more trains through the North River tunnels safely with closer headways.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Secondarily, Penn Station is far less of a death trap than the unbuilt ARC terminal for many many reasons that I am not going to debate with you because you have a highly unrealistic perspective on the entire project, and I am not in the mood to sit around banging my head against a brick wall.


My perspective on the entire project is quite realistic. I'm sure you don't think so; but that doesn't change the fact that I'm more in the center than you are on that project. You saw no good in it; I at least saw good and bad in it. And now I see that nothing will get done for probably another 50 years if we're lucky. As bad as that project was, it was still better than nothing, which is what we now have and what we'll maintain now for many more years. In fact, I'll probably be dead before we see a new real rail tunnel under the river now. And by "real" I mean a tunnel that doesn't carry a subway, which I'm also not holding my breath on either.

But a station that would have had more escalators and elevators than Penn station does, and fewer passengers at any given time than Penn does, is certainly not going to be more unsafe than Penn. And several fires at Penn have already proved just how unsafe it is. And I was there for one of the small fires too and I saw how quickly things smoked up. And that was just a fire on top of an AEM-7.

The fact that only NJ was building this doesn't mean that they didn't have to meet the very strick standards of the NYC's fire department for evacuations.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

AlanB said:


> My perspective on the entire project is quite realistic. I'm sure you don't think so; but that doesn't change the fact that I'm more in the center than you are on that project. You saw no good in it; I at least saw good and bad in it. And now I see that nothing will get done for probably another 50 years if we're lucky. As bad as that project was, it was still better than nothing, which is what we now have and what we'll maintain now for many more years. In fact, I'll probably be dead before we see a new real rail tunnel under the river now. And by "real" I mean a tunnel that doesn't carry a subway, which I'm also not holding my breath on either.


The project didn't have any good in it at all. Its potential for increased capacity was more puffery than reality, for one thing. For another, believe it or not as you will, it really, really would have increase commute times for certain types of passengers. Pascack/Main/Bergen commuters, for one, would have found their commute times increased as service to Hoboken ended.

The project would have increased commute times for M&E and M-B riders by several minutes as far as actually arriving into the city goes. Beyond that, the time needed to leave a station set up like that would have been impressive. NJT, in their unbridled optimism, said it would take only 7 minutes for passengers to reach the streets. It presently takes me 3 minutes to reach the street from the platforms if the train isn't too crowded.

But beyond that, Joe Clift told me he figured 7 minutes was an off peak estimate, and the nearest he could figure for actual track-to-street times would have been more along the lines of 10 minutes to 15 minutes. That would be double the longest I've ever spent getting to the street on an SRO NJT train. And I tend to wait for other people to depart, too, and get the back of the line. The project was flawed, at its very core, on the basis of a workable transportation improvement.



AlanB said:


> But a station that would have had more escalators and elevators than Penn station does, and fewer passengers at any given time than Penn does, is certainly not going to be more unsafe than Penn. And several fires at Penn have already proved just how unsafe it is. And I was there for one of the small fires too and I saw how quickly things smoked up. And that was just a fire on top of an AEM-7.
> 
> The fact that only NJ was building this doesn't mean that they didn't have to meet the very strick standards of the NYC's fire department for evacuations.


Penn Station has many more exits than 34th street would ever have. As a mechanism for actually moving people, escalators leave much to be desired. Which, as Joe explained to me, is why LIRRs concourse has a very limited number of them on platforms. Escalators move people slower than stairs do. 34th street, in a fire, would be a panicked mob of people attempting to go up escalators for 174 feet, or approximately 15 stories. And beyond that very simple item, there would be no way for firefighting crews to get into that station until it was fully evacuated- a time period that could have taken up to 45 minutes.

34th street was an ill planned death trap and a memorial to the ego of a very vain and very stupid man.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> The project didn't have any good in it at all. Its potential for increased capacity was more puffery than reality, for one thing. For another, believe it or not as you will, it really, really would have increase commute times for certain types of passengers. Pascack/Main/Bergen commuters, for one, would have found their commute times increased as service to Hoboken ended.


Only if NJT ended service entirely to Hoboken, something that wasn't in the plan, and then only for those actually working in lower Manhattan. And even then it’s debatable, depending on where the actually work in lower Manhattan. The PATH train is hardly a speed demon.



Green Maned Lion said:


> The project would have increased commute times for M&E and M-B riders by several minutes as far as actually arriving into the city goes.


I can't imagine how cutting out the stop and dwell at Secaucus Junction would increase running times for those coming off the M&E. Please explain.



Green Maned Lion said:


> Beyond that, the time needed to leave a station set up like that would have been impressive. NJT, in their unbridled optimism, said it would take only 7 minutes for passengers to reach the streets. It presently takes me 3 minutes to reach the street from the platforms if the train isn't too crowded.


I don't who worked on those estimates or how they could arrive at such a ridiculous conclusion. I can get from the platform to the street in less than 3 minutes at the 168th Street subway stop, a station that is far deeper than NJT's would have been.



Green Maned Lion said:


> But beyond that, Joe Clift told me he figured 7 minutes was an off peak estimate, and the nearest he could figure for actual track-to-street times would have been more along the lines of 10 minutes to 15 minutes. That would be double the longest I've ever spent getting to the street on an SRO NJT train. And I tend to wait for other people to depart, too, and get the back of the line. The project was flawed, at its very core, on the basis of a workable transportation improvement.


Utter nonsense!

I can get from the ground floor of Macy’s to the top floor during Christmas on their old slow wooden escalators in 4 to 5 minutes.



Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > But a station that would have had more escalators and elevators than Penn station does, and fewer passengers at any given time than Penn does, is certainly not going to be more unsafe than Penn. And several fires at Penn have already proved just how unsafe it is. And I was there for one of the small fires too and I saw how quickly things smoked up. And that was just a fire on top of an AEM-7.
> ...


And Penn Station handles probably 3 to 4 times the number of people that the new station would have handled. While I haven't actually done the math, I suspect that Penn has more people per exit than the new station would have had.



Green Maned Lion said:


> As a mechanism for actually moving people, escalators leave much to be desired. Which, as Joe explained to me, is why LIRRs concourse has a very limited number of them on platforms. Escalators move people slower than stairs do.


With all due respect, Joe should stick to other things than escalators. I quote from two stories:



> The escalators provide a smoothing function, delivering people in an orderly manner to the lines at the counters, and at a much higher effective rate, more people per minute than could possibly be provided by elevators or stairs.


My linkhttp://reconshmigurable.wordpress.com/page/2/



> While stairs can't move as many people per minute as an escalator, they also don't break or have to be closed for repairs very often.


http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/6863/mapping-metros-escalators/



Green Maned Lion said:


> 34th street, in a fire, would be a panicked mob of people attempting to go up escalators for 174 feet, or approximately 15 stories.


While having less distance to go up, the mob would be much, much bigger at Penn. And with fewer exits per person.



Green Maned Lion said:


> And beyond that very simple item, there would be no way for firefighting crews to get into that station until it was fully evacuated- a time period that could have taken up to 45 minutes.


So are you saying that all the down escalators would have suddenly reversed to the up direction in a fire?



Green Maned Lion said:


> 34th street was an ill planned death trap and a memorial to the ego of a very vain and very stupid man.


You can come up with all sorts of reasons to hate that final plan simply because it didn't go where you wanted and thought it should have gone to, GCT, but that doesn't change the fact that the plan wasn't an unmitigated disaster. Yes, I remain firmly convinced that killing the connecting tracks to the existing Penn was a major mistake, but that was probably the biggest stupidity contained within the final plan.

But now we're left with nothing. There is no plan and there is nothing on the horizon. And there is little hope of ever getting funding even if someone does come up with a plan. I know that I have little hope of being alive, much less able to ride a train, when a new tunnel finally does get built under the Hudson.


----------



## jis (Feb 4, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Ah OK we are talking fantasy. In which case it is OK. Charge ahead
> ...


The details are too sparse to convince oneself that the scheme could be made to work reasonably and safely. Until those details are filled in and a safety analysis can be done and we can figure out what speed such a system will be able to operate safely covering all reasonable contingencies and failures of parts of the system. It just is fantasy. The devil in these things is always in the details.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 4, 2011)

AlanB said:


> You can come up with all sorts of reasons to hate that final plan simply because it didn't go where you wanted and thought it should have gone to, GCT, but that doesn't change the fact that the plan wasn't an unmitigated disaster.


Alan, lets get one thing straight. I can't speak for others in my organization, but tracks to GCT were always a fantasy in my mind dreamed up by loons. You can't tunnel that far through Central Manhattan at a reasonable distance to the surface. It would be really cool for NJT trains to stop at GCT. It would be equally cool to have HS maglevs running between NY and London. I consider them about as reasonable.

My objections to the plan came down to cost and utility. The project cost far too much of MY tax money (not yours, I point out), and accomplished very little. NJ Transit can't successfully move trains at any reasonable speed through the Bergen tunnels, I can't imagine how they would ever be able to dispatch that terminal in a reasonably efficient manner. So the expanded capacity they ballyhooed was mostly ballyhoo. Their yapping about Bayhead trains going into Penn is utter nonsense. Existing Long Branch trains can get dual modes, and run express past Rahway and you have Bayhead to New York trains voila like.

You say that no tunnel will be built for fifty years. Alan, Penn station needs a huge track-side renovation and concourse expansion combined with additional tunnels. If these tunnels were built, that would NEVER EVER happen. Now there is a chance within our lifetimes the right project will be built.

And really, when it comes down to actual passenger capacity, if NJT really gave a hoot, the MLVs would be 2-3 seating like all the other NYMA cars!



jis said:


> The details are too sparse to convince oneself that the scheme could be made to work reasonably and safely. Until those details are filled in and a safety analysis can be done and we can figure out what speed such a system will be able to operate safely covering all reasonable contingencies and failures of parts of the system. It just is fantasy. The devil in these things is always in the details.


Ah, ok. I accept that.


----------



## AlanB (Feb 5, 2011)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > You can come up with all sorts of reasons to hate that final plan simply because it didn't go where you wanted and thought it should have gone to, GCT, but that doesn't change the fact that the plan wasn't an unmitigated disaster.
> ...


Ok, my apologies, I'll retract my statement. Usually when I hear the nonsense about the station being in Macy's basement and deathtraps, etc. it's from those who wanted GCT or those just opposed to spending money on trains.



Green Maned Lion said:


> My objections to the plan came down to cost and utility. The project cost far too much of MY tax money (not yours, I point out), and accomplished very little.


I guess you forgot that Federal monies were being used in this project; $3 Billion. I pay Federal taxes. I guess you forgot that PA monies were to be used for that project; $3B. It's the Port Authority of NY & NJ. And I leave my fair share of money behind at the tolls every time I cross over the river, typically at least 3 or 4 times a month and sometimes far more often than that.

Yes, perhaps more of your money would have been used; that I would accept. But they were still using some of my money too!

As for the cost, try to remember, this was NJ's project. Maybe if Mr. Christie had put the right people in place they could have actually held things close to the budget, after all it had contingencies built into the budget for cost overruns. Instead he was too busy worrying about his Presidential aspirations and gallivanting around the country, even as he told us that he was actually looking into things. After all, the majority of the contracts would have been let by his administration. So basically what he’s said is that he knew that he couldn’t trust his people to handle things; so he cancelled the project.



Green Maned Lion said:


> You say that no tunnel will be built for fifty years. Alan, Penn station needs a huge track-side renovation and concourse expansion combined with additional tunnels. If these tunnels were built, that would NEVER EVER happen. Now there is a chance within our lifetimes the right project will be built.


Maybe yours, but at age 50 it's now looking doubtful that I'll ever ride a train through a new tunnel under the river. It'll take us 15 to 20 years just to get back to the point where there is a plan and to start finding the funds for it. By the time it's built, I'll be 80 if I make it that far.



Green Maned Lion said:


> And really, when it comes down to actual passenger capacity, if NJT really gave a hoot, the MLVs would be 2-3 seating like all the other NYMA cars!


First, it's a well documented fact that people don't like the middle seat, and therefore half that capacity goes wasted as people will stand rather than occupy the middle seat. And standing people cut the car’s capacity as they block the doors preventing others from getting in and they slow down loading/unloading which slows down schedules.

Additionally when they went taller cars for the greater capacity of the cars as compared to single level cars, they couldn't go as wide and still fit through the tunnel. A middle seat would have been impractical.


----------



## jis (Feb 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You say that no tunnel will be built for fifty years. Alan, Penn station needs a huge track-side renovation and concourse expansion combined with additional tunnels. If these tunnels were built, that would NEVER EVER happen. Now there is a chance within our lifetimes the right project will be built.
> ...


I tend to believe that nothing will happen as far as Penn Station is concerned until Amtrak or someone in charge of the NEC gets into the act and builds something as part of a HSR project. NJ is simply not capable of managing a project of that magnitude. So I would not be expecting any action for 10 to 15 years from now.



> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > And really, when it comes down to actual passenger capacity, if NJT really gave a hoot, the MLVs would be 2-3 seating like all the other NYMA cars!
> ...


If they are serious about capacity they should do 1 - 2 seating and provide ample space for standees, at least in some standees friendly cars, which could better accommodate short turn heavy loads e.g. SEC - NYP. Admittedly, the MLVs are already better in this respect providing significant standing space in the middle level, which I thought was a huge improvement over all the single level stock

The NEC commuter trains are some of the most difficult trains to ride in heavy load conditions. Perhaps that is because even the railroads operators believe that not too many people would ride the trains anyway so why bother thinking about such contingencies. And yet, many trains at least on the NEC are SRO. If they are going to be SRO might as well provide people comfortable places to stand without blocking all pedestrian flow in the car. Way way cheaper to expand capacity that way than digging zillion dollar tunnels, somewhat facetiously speaking.

The problem is if one thinks one has zillion dollars forthcoming one stops thinking up cheaper effective solutions for immediate problems, and even things that should be cheap become gold plated expensive Christmas trees, with gifts of dubious value hung on it for everyone and more. Hopefully, zillion dollars fading away will change people's mindsets


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Feb 5, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Ok, my apologies, I'll retract my statement.


Apology accepted.



AlanB said:


> As for the cost, try to remember, this was NJ's project. Maybe if Mr. Christie had put the right people in place they could have actually held things close to the budget, after all it had contingencies built into the budget for cost overruns. Instead he was too busy worrying about his Presidential aspirations and gallivanting around the country, even as he told us that he was actually looking into things. After all, the majority of the contracts would have been let by his administration. So basically what he’s said is that he knew that he couldn’t trust his people to handle things; so he cancelled the project.


The tunnel, like it or not, was a Corzine project, and really, a McGreavy project, too. As such, it was fraught with the kind of absolutely horrendous bribery and old boy networks they were known for. By the time Christie became involved with this project, it was an alliance of two groups of thieves with their hands so deep in each others pockets, they couldn't successfully rob a third.

The project was deeply flawed, hilariously over budget with the kind of corruptive nonsense that only NJ can produce, and in order to fix the project, it would have had to be scrapped anyway. The more I know from internal information about Christie's decision making process, rather than the load of utter BS they printed in the paper and other news media, the more I have become convinced that his cancellation of the project had as much to do with concerns over the utility of the project as concerns over its costs.

And while Christie is somewhat (but not VERY) pro-highway, he is not particularly anti-rail. Merely anti-gas-tax to the hilt, and from there all else flows.



AlanB said:


> First, it's a well documented fact that people don't like the middle seat, and therefore half that capacity goes wasted as people will stand rather than occupy the middle seat. And standing people cut the car’s capacity as they block the doors preventing others from getting in and they slow down loading/unloading which slows down schedules.


The day NJT makes a decision like that based on passenger input, I'll eat my shorts.



jis said:


> NJ is simply not capable of managing a project of that magnitude.


Amen.



jis said:


> Way way cheaper to expand capacity that way than digging zillion dollar tunnels, somewhat facetiously speaking.
> 
> The problem is if one thinks one has zillion dollars forthcoming one stops thinking up cheaper effective solutions for immediate problems, and even things that should be cheap become gold plated expensive Christmas trees, with gifts of dubious value hung on it for everyone and more. Hopefully, zillion dollars fading away will change people's mindsets


Let us hope so, Jishnu. I remain skeptical. Zillion dollar plans are a lot more marketable then austerity.


----------

