# New York High Speed Rail



## Guest (Nov 7, 2011)

Imagine getting from Buffalo to New York City in 2 and a half hours. It may become a reality. This is New York High Speed Rail. It will run from what currently is the Buffalo Exchange Street Amtrak Station to New York City's Grand Central Station. But Exchange Street will become Buffalo Regional Transportation Center. It will consist of four tracks with two island platforms. Stations are Buffalo. Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, Schenectady, Albany, then NYC Grand Central. It will between Buffalo and Schenectady,run on existing Amtrak tracks. After Schenectady, it diverges onto tracks just for the high speed line. The Albany station will be located alongside Interstate 87 and will operate next to existing freight tracks that run along the west coast of the Hudson River until it reaches the Paliasades Interstate Parkway and runs alongside it until it reaches Englewood Cliffs. Then it goes over the Hudson River and merges onto the Metro North Hudson Line tracks to get to Grand Central. That is the New York High Speed Rail I want.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

Another impossible dream; sorry!

First, Grand Central has next to no spare capacity for more trains (if it has any at all) and that would go to more commuter trains since the station is owned by Metro North.

Second, you can't string catenary wires in the Park Avenue tunnels, making normal electric HSR trainsets impossible to use.

Third, there is no way to cross the Hudson at the point you suggest and still be able to connect to the MN Hudson line. You can't build a bridge that is high enough to clear ships and yet still tie it into the MN line because of other bridges on the NY side.

Fourth, the run down the Hudson alongside the existing freight lines would not be straight enough for HSR.

So even if you had the money to build your dream, you still couldn't realize it due to the above limitations.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2011)

Since this is actually a variant of a RL project, assuming that you dump the NYG diversion and the odd west-of-Hudson line suggestion, what would it look like if you basically ran this down the existing Amtrak line to NYP? Not saying it's doable, but I _think _there's something in the works in this vein, though I think the running times are at least a little bit slower.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Another impossible dream; sorry!
> 
> First, Grand Central has next to no spare capacity for more trains (if it has any at all) and that would go to more commuter trains since the station is owned by Metro North.
> 
> ...


Actually, Grand Central has a total of 67 tracks so you are wrong that it doesn't have capacity-way wrong. So Grand Central is by far the largest station in the United States so I even think Penn Station should close even though that will not happen. LIRR and NJ Transit are all being diverted to Grand Central. So Grand Central has far more than enough room for a high speed rail line.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 7, 2011)

The problem with Grand Central is not the number of tracks but the fact that the station throat is very congested. There is not enough capacity for MNR trains as it is during the rush hours.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2011)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Another impossible dream; sorry!
> ...


NYG has space in the station, but (serious question again) what does the available space look like on the tracks in/out of the station? If a bunch of tracks got ripped up here under the Penn Central, it's possible that at least some of those tracks are effectively "ceremonial" or organizational (that is to say, there's no practical way to use all 67 to their fullest).


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

Guys, stop arguing, 67 tracks is a lot so you think Grand Central is small and even rush hour Metro-Norths would only cover 1/6-1/5 of all the tracks. Note: I estimated it.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Another impossible dream; sorry!
> ...


As noted by others, it's not the number of tracks that's the issue, it's that there are only 4 tracks in the Park Avenue tunnels. You can't move enough trains down that tunnel fast enough, as well as send trains back out to clear the platforms for more incoming trains. Because of that, during rush hour nearly every track is in use, simply because they have to park trains there until rush hour is over to get them back out.

As for the LIRR, they are building a brand new tunnel and a new station with 8 tracks & 4 platforms underneath the current lower level of the station. They are doing this in part because they don't have the capacity for more trains at GCT.

And New Jersey Transit isn't running to Grand Central for many years, if ever. There are currently no plans, or at least realistic plans backed by people with the money to make it happen, to connect NJT to GCT.

Of course, it's all academic anyhow, since we still have all the other problems that I noted to deal with and not a dime of money to even start building anything.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> Guys, stop arguing, 67 tracks is a lot so you think Grand Central is small and even rush hour Metro-Norths would only cover 1/6-1/5 of all the tracks. Note: I estimated it.


Your estimate is way off! One of our members here drives MN trains and he's said more than once that Metro North barely has any space left and they still need to get more trains into GCT. That's one reason that MN wants to run select Hudson line trains into NYP as well as select New Haven line trains into NYP. Yes, there are people that would like to arrive on the West Side, but its mainly about getting more trains into NY City, trains that they can't get into GCT.


----------



## jis (Nov 7, 2011)

GCT just lost a bunch of the tracks that it used to have to the LIRR Concourse which occupies a good third of what used to be track and platform space at the lower level.

GCT also has the disadvantage of being a stub end station which inherently reduces its capacity. It does have loop tracks but they are highly speed restricted, not particularly helping with capacity. So anyone dreaming of GCT ever becoming a major interstate hub or even medium distance hub is just dreaming. But breaking is good provided one does not want to wake up.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

It is just one HSR line, won't make any problems


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

AlanB said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > Guys, stop arguing, 67 tracks is a lot so you think Grand Central is small and even rush hour Metro-Norths would only cover 1/6-1/5 of all the tracks. Note: I estimated it.
> ...


I just went and pulled up the time tables from MN, for the weekdays. Between 7AM & 9 AM they have 77 trains inbound to GCT and only 25 outbound. That means that they've got 62 trains that have to go some place. Now I suspect that they manage to deadhead a few of them out, but again if you take a train from track 30 and send it out during the morning rush, you shut down every inbound track until that train has crossed. With trains coming in every about every 1.5 minutes, you don't want to shut things down for long and you cannot be doing so, or you would not be able to get 41 trains into GCT between 8 & 9.

During the morning rush, MN uses 3 tracks inbound and 1 outbound. That also reduces just how many trains you can send out.

Just to break things down further and show the problem that they have, between 7 & 8 they send 36 trains inbound and 15 outbound. Between 8 & 9 they send 41 trains inbound and because of that, outbounds drop to 10.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> It is just one HSR line, won't make any problems


HSR by its very nature makes problems. When you run fast, you need more clearance and that means fewer commuter trains can run.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

Now perhaps if you only wanted high speed arrivals during off peak hours they could accommodate that; but then half the reason for high speed is to get business people where they want to go. And that means arrivals during the peak hours, something that cannot be done at GCT.

And once again, you still have many other problems to overcome, not the least of which is that you have no clearance in the tunnels and even quite possibly in the station to hang catenary. No Cat; no HSR.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

You can't have more trains go to Penn Station. Penn station will be Amtrak only. All other trains in Grand Central. Too small 67 tracks, well, add more!


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> You can't have more trains go to Penn Station. Penn station will be Amtrak only. All other trains in Grand Central. Too small 67 tracks, well, add more!


As I already noted, they are adding onto GCT. The LIRR is building a new, third level below the existing station. When that's done, it's expected that the LIRR will give up a few slots at Penn to Metro North.

As for GCT, about the only way to add more tracks would be to build an even more expensive 4th level and that's very unlikely. The existing GCT cannot be expanded without taking over the basements of existing buildings, something not likely to ever happen.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

Besides, no more with Grand Central, how about the other stations!


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 7, 2011)

Yeah, unless there is an extra track added just before Amtrak merges into Metro North Hudson Line, then watch the trains collide on the one available track.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> Yeah, unless there is an extra track added just before Amtrak merges into Metro North Hudson Line, then watch the trains collide on the one available track.


There won't be that many trains on the Amtrak west side line, such that the short stretch of single track can't handle it. However, if they do start getting congested, they can just restore the second track across the bridge to solve the problem.

The bigger and harder problem to overcome would be the single track for the last few hundred yards into NYP.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 7, 2011)

AlanB said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, unless there is an extra track added just before Amtrak merges into Metro North Hudson Line, then watch the trains collide on the one available track.
> ...


I'm guessing that there's no "quick fix" here. Though it probably wouldn't work, would it be possible to "tighten up" the signal situation there to allow that section to be cleared more quickly?


----------



## MattW (Nov 7, 2011)

At the risk of derailing this topic, now I'm curious about a few things with GCT. Looking at Rich E Green's map of GCT, I see what you mean about outbounds blocking every inbound track when originating from a higher-numbered track, but what about when originating from a low-numbered track, or would that create the opposite problem of an inbound blocking everything else as it'd have to cross all the way over? Is this a problem with any stub-terminal, or is GCT just inefficiently laid out right now, but could be improved?


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > USrail21 said:
> ...


While I don't pretend to know all the ins & outs of that connection in Spuyten Duyvil I'd say that currently the biggest bottle neck would be getting Metro North dispatchers to clear the outbounds from NYP onto the Hudson Line. And I'm not suggesting that they wouldn't give some priority to things, after all their trains would now be coming off the West Side line. The issue is that you've got to cross over the inbound MN tracks to reach the outbound or northbound tracks. That could make things interesting to say the least.

But the single track section is very short, less than a mile I'd say, so it really comes down to better dispatching.

Not sure if there would be any way to build a flyover there to eliminate the problem, but I suspect not.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 7, 2011)

MattW said:


> At the risk of derailing this topic, now I'm curious about a few things with GCT. Looking at Rich E Green's map of GCT, I see what you mean about outbounds blocking every inbound track when originating from a higher-numbered track, but what about when originating from a low-numbered track, or would that create the opposite problem of an inbound blocking everything else as it'd have to cross all the way over? Is this a problem with any stub-terminal, or is GCT just inefficiently laid out right now, but could be improved?


You got it right, the inbounds crossing over to the lower number tracks do shut down at least some of the throat tracks. Yes, you can try to keep those inbounds headed to the lower number tracks on the middle two throat tracks, that would always leave inbound local track clear of interference. But still the math doesn't work as you just can't turn the trains fast enough on those lower numbered tracks to increase things by much. No matter what you need to use those higher level tracks, the very tracks that either trap the trains on the platforms or shut down all inbound traffic to clear the platforms.

Now I'm not a design engineer, but the only way that I could think of fixing things would be if you could build some sort of fly over/under tracks that don't require crossing at grade. Unfortunately the existing lower level tracks would most likely preclude any such modification even if there was money for such an expensive fix.


----------



## jis (Nov 8, 2011)

Anderson said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > USrail21 said:
> ...


There exists an easement to build a second track to join the LIRR yard leads, should traffic on the Empire Connection justify such. You can get to tracks as low as 9 or 10 from that side I believe. I do not have the track diagram handy to verify. New additional crossovers from the LIRR leads to the main throat at A Interlocking were put in in the last five years or so. I am not sure whether it feeds the entire southside laddre or only a part of it.

I believe 6 - 8 tph can be handled in each direction on the Empire Connection with some tight dispatching and a few signaling changes. We are far far away from hitting that at this point. Indeed congestion at A interlocking would probably limit that number to something a little bit lower.


----------



## Guest (Nov 8, 2011)

AlanB said:


> USrail21 said:
> 
> 
> > It is just one HSR line, won't make any problems
> ...


The high speed trains will be restricted from going faster than 100 MPH on the Metro-North corridor.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 8, 2011)

Guest said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > USrail21 said:
> ...


I highly doubt that you could even run 100 MPH in the Park Avenue tunnels. But even if you could, and for that matter even if you run faster than the MN trains, that reduces capacity.

But again, it's all academic. This will NEVER happen. GCT really doesn't have the capacity for more trains; they can't string catenary in the Park Avenue tunnels as the engines barely clear the roof right now; there is no way to build a bridge over the Hudson to connect to MN; you can't fix the curve problems running along the Hudson; and no one has stepped up with the Billions of dollars, if not a Trillion, to build anything.


----------



## Trogdor (Nov 8, 2011)

AlanB said:


> GCT really doesn't have the capacity for more trains


It will once you start through-routing all of Metro-North's trains onto the PATH extension down to Newark Airport.


----------



## Nexis4Jersey (Nov 9, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > GCT really doesn't have the capacity for more trains
> ...


What? Im so confused?


----------



## WinNix (Nov 9, 2011)

usually I lurk and do not comment... but here I cannot resist! I take the MTA into the city twice per week - once from the Harlem line (blue), once from the Hudson line (green). The tracks head underground at 122nd street. For roughly 5 - 7 blocks the speed limit is fairly reasonable with conductors doing 20 - 40 mph. Just about 3 minutes into the tunnel, the speed limit slaws to a deadening crawl. I do not recall if it is 10 mph or 15, but that is the ballpark. I hear lots of people saying that the Park Ave tunnel is a bottle neck when compared to the platforms, and that is partly true. There are 4 tracks in/out of Grand central. If the MTA imposes an (idiotic) speed limit on the immediate beginning of those tracks, they have NO one to blame but themselves. Yes,I agree that during rush hour a LOT of trains are scheduled through the tunnel. yes, I agree the dispatchers do an adequate job in the scheduling to get as many trains as possible in/out. However.... I have zero sympathy for the MTA when I hear them complain about adding capacity at Grand central (the MTA does say that from time to time). With a station that has as many platforms as GCT does, there is no excuse to have a 10 mph speed limit on the connected tracks. Imposing a much more reasonable speed limit would increase frequency without any *major* added cost. In fact, I feel like they (MTA) are trying to fool many of us (you and me) when they say they are at capacity. They can try harder.

I have heard two counter arguments to my intolerance of the Park Ave speed limit - 1) the sheer number of converging platform spurs requires a low speed limit, and 2) The speed limit is so low to avoid damaging the huge number of junctions the trains roll over. My response to #1 is: Upgrade your antiquated signaling, because if that is the reason for the hold up that is pathetic. I've been through the tunnels when contrustion lights are on, and I've visually seen the layout and understand the advanced age of the light signals used. The signals are clearly very old. *IF* the antiquated signals are the reason for the low speed limit, I find that a very poor excuse. My response to #2 is in two parts: 2a) In the station with the most platforms, someone HAS to do a better job of laying it out then. If the junctions are of inferior quality, then get some higher quality trackage for the sake of the millions who take the train annually. 2b) The older trainsets were significantly heavier than the ones used today. ALL Harlem line trains, and by the day more New Haven line (red) trains are the newer lighter trains. There are only a few of the old very heavy Wassaic-bound or po-town bound trains used today. The lighter trains do not place as much of a load on the junctions, and therefore you should be able to run the trains faster.

I will admit there are most likely other factors I am unaware of. I won't pretend I found some magical golden answer. Perhaps there is a really good reason why ALL trains into GCT are slowed to a dead crawl before entering the platform junctions. If there is a good reason, the MTA does not make it well known.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2011)

Trogdor meant to add a hboy: to his comment.

Actually the MNRR trains through routed on PATH would then connect into the NEC and go to Atlantic City hboy: hboy: It's all a big gamble


----------



## WinNix (Nov 9, 2011)

I apologize for going on a tangent. I intended my comment(s) to be directed towards GCT's ability to handle an increase in # of trains for the purposes of HSR.... which WOULD have been on topic if I mentioned it 

As for connecting manhattan to HSR - I agree with the several people who mentioned PENN as a better choice. GCT has no connections further south. Even when the east-side-access peoject is done, that will connect GCT to LIRR.... not (directly to) the NEC. NYPENN is the only choice for HSR connectivity.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 12, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Another impossible dream; sorry!
> 
> First, Grand Central has next to no spare capacity for more trains (if it has any at all) and that would go to more commuter trains since the station is owned by Metro North.
> 
> ...


So how about instead of a high bridge over the Hudson River, how about a tunnel, won't interfere with ships.


----------



## USrail21 (Nov 12, 2011)

WinNix said:


> I apologize for going on a tangent. I intended my comment(s) to be directed towards GCT's ability to handle an increase in # of trains for the purposes of HSR.... which WOULD have been on topic if I mentioned it
> 
> As for connecting manhattan to HSR - I agree with the several people who mentioned PENN as a better choice. GCT has no connections further south. Even when the east-side-access peoject is done, that will connect GCT to LIRR.... not (directly to) the NEC. NYPENN is the only choice for HSR connectivity.


No, Penn Station is too small. It has 21 tracks and there are too many Amtrak trains that take up almost all the tracks. Grand Central is a better choice because it has 3x as many.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 12, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Another impossible dream; sorry!
> ...


A waste of money. We don't want HSR to go to Grand Central. Forget the idea. We need a new tunnel to NYP under the Hudson first!

And since you can't build the HSR rail line as you've dreamed it, there is no point of a tunnel for it. No line coming down the Hudson as you've described in your post could ever be high speed. Might as well just improve the current line on the east side of the Hudson.


----------



## AlanB (Nov 12, 2011)

USrail21 said:


> WinNix said:
> 
> 
> > I apologize for going on a tangent. I intended my comment(s) to be directed towards GCT's ability to handle an increase in # of trains for the purposes of HSR.... which WOULD have been on topic if I mentioned it
> ...


Amtrak doesn't take up too many tracks, in fact Amtrak takes up the least amount of space in NYP. The LIRR takes up the most tracks, followed by NJT. And despite the fact that NYP has fewer tracks than GCT, it has more trains and more people coming in and out because NYP has run through service which makes things easier as you don't have to turn trains on the platforms like you do at GCT.


----------

