Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement

[Andrew]

If telecommuting becomes permanent, than is only Gateway Phase 1 likely to get built?

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

If telecommuting becomes permanent, than is only Gateway Phase 1 likely to get built?

I think the jury is still out on that long term, however, NYC isn't likely to shrink that much, there are a lot of jobs that require physical presence and there are also travellers - it's been presented that it's overloaded as it is and no rail access due to tunnel failures would affect the entire national network (at least the NEC).

 

[Andrew]

If Biden loses the election, should the 7 train to Hoboken or Secaucus be looked at as an alternative to Gateway?

 

[railiner]

If Biden loses the election, should the 7 train to Hoboken or Secaucus be looked at as an alternative to Gateway?

I doubt seriously, the MTA would ever consider having the subway crossing the Hudson, and operating into New Jersey. The only presence they have in New Jersey, is NJTransit bringing their Port Jervis Metro North trains into Hoboken....

 

[jis]

I doubt seriously, the MTA would ever consider having the subway crossing the Hudson, and operating into New Jersey. The only presence they have in New Jersey, is NJTransit bringing their Port Jervis Metro North trains into Hoboken....

The Port Jervis and Spring Valley trains are actually NJT trains operated under contract for Metro North for their West of Hudson Service. They contribute a bunch of rolling stock into the NJT pool for equipping that service. The operating staff is NJT.

 

[railiner]

The Port Jervis and Spring Valley trains are actually NJT trains operated under contract for Metro North for their West of Hudson Service. They contribute a bunch of rolling stock into the NJT pool for equipping that service. The operating staff is NJT.

Yes, I was aware of that, but thanks for clarifying what I meant. They don't even want to get involved with manning their own trains, into New Jersey, if they can avoid doing so.
You would think the Metro North unions would demand either changing crews at the border, or MN crews operating some trains all the way into Hoboken, on a pro-rated mileage basis, but apparently not...

 

[jis]

Yes, I was aware of that, but thanks for clarifying what I meant. They don't even want to get involved with manning their own trains, into New Jersey, if they can avoid doing so.
You would think the Metro North unions would demand either changing crews at the border, or MN crews operating some trains all the way into Hoboken, on a pro-rated mileage basis, but apparently not...

Actually MNRR Unions would be a losing position since all of this was duly grandfathered in by the Unions involved when service was transferred from private railroads to state agencies. There is a reason that they have not and possibly will not demand anything like that.

Incidentally what do you believe is the difference in principle between MNRR crew operating trains into Hoboken and NJT crew operating trains to Port Jervis?

 

[railiner]

Actually MNRR Unions would be a losing position since all of this was duly grandfathered in by the Unions involved when service was transferred from private railroads to state agencies. There is a reason that they have not and possibly will not demand anything like that.

Incidentally what do you believe is the difference in principle between MNRR crew operating trains into Hoboken and NJT crew operating trains to Port Jervis?

Your explanation of the 'grandfathered' aspect, is probably the reason the Metro North union does not challenge this.
As for the difference you cited...there isn't any difference, but just a convenient means to avoid a crew change at the border, in the event they (MN crews) did win the right to operate their portion. They would cover a number of runs pro-rated on say a monthly basis to insure that each union would get the mileage they would have covered, had they changed at the border.

An example of how this worked, in the bus industry, was the interline run between Greyhound Lines, and Carolina Trailways...
On the route from Washington, DC to Ocean City, Md., Greyhound had the rights only from Washington to Annapolis, then the rest of the way to the Eastern Shore was Carolina's. The two got together, and pooled their buses, so passenger's would not have to change there. But since the Greyhound portion was so short, it didn't make sense to spend time changing driver's there. So the unions worked it out, that Carolina driver's would operate all the way into the Washington Greyhound Terminal (not the Trailways terminal), the Carolina driver's would prepare two separate trip report envelopes, putting each company's ticket into the respective one. In turn, in the summertime, when several seasonal expresses were added, Greyhound driver's would man those trips, all the way to Ocean City, also preparing two trip reports. But those expresses didn't even have to stop in Annapolis.
By doing it this way, at the end of the year, each union's driver's would get their proportionate mileage, to match what it would have been, had they changed at Annapolis.

There were a few other examples of this in different places, with other companies...

 

[jis]

There is no crew change at the border today. Who would introducing a procedure that requires crew change serve except a handful of MNRR operations people maybe, and that too eventually at an increased cost to the customer for no gains whatsoever.

In true AU tradition I think you are trying to fix a non-existent problem and the proposed solution will dramatically increase MNRR's cost of operation of the West of Hudson service, since they will need to create and maintain new crew bases and what not. It really does not make an iota of sense. It is a service operated under contract, just like Metro North operates in Connecticut too. There is no need to change that.

MNRR would serve itself and its customers better by negotiating a more water tight contract with NJT for the operations for better financial terms and better specified penalty clauses if possible.

 

[west point]

Participated in an interchange between EAL and Braniff with crew swap at Memphis. Was just given a differences folder with no training. IMO was not too safe until had operated 3 or 4 trips.

 

[railiner]

There is no crew change at the border today. Who would introducing a procedure that requires crew change serve except a handful of MNRR operations people maybe, and that too eventually at an increased cost to the customer for no gains whatsoever.

In true AU tradition I think you are trying to fix a non-existent problem and the proposed solution will dramatically increase MNRR's cost of operation of the West of Hudson service, since they will need to create and maintain new crew bases and what not. It really does not make an iota of sense. It is a service operated under contract, just like Metro North operates in Connecticut too. There is no need to change that.

MNRR would serve itself and its customers better by negotiating a more water tight contract with NJT for the operations for better financial terms and better specified penalty clauses if possible.

I am not trying to "fix a non-existant problem"...as I stated earlier...New York MTA doesn't want any part of operating in New Jersey.

 

[jis]

I am not trying to "fix a non-existant problem"...as I stated earlier...New York MTA doesn't want any part of operating in New Jersey.

They don’t. So which problem are you talking about?

 

[railiner]

They don’t. So which problem are you talking about?

As I stated back in post #504, the MTA wouldn’t extend the 7 Line into New Jersey, and just commented that the MN trains (just rolling stock, as you clarified), operated by NJT, is their only presence in NJ....

 

[Andrew]

I am concerned that depending on the outcome of the upcoming November election, the Hudson Tunnel Project might not get built at all. But, I am still convinced that a new trans-hudson tunnel must get built to meet future travel demand; this new tunnel does not necessarily have to dump people into Penn Station.

Could a 7 train extension to Hoboken, New Jersey, which would be paid for by FTA New Starts Grants and Port Authority Funds, in addition to bonds from the state of New Jersey, work to reduce congestion into and out of Manhattan? (A 7 train extension would serve Hudson Yards where many businesses are moving to in addition to Manhattan's East Side).

 

[John Santos]

I am concerned that depending on the outcome of the upcoming November election, the Hudson Tunnel Project might not get built at all. But, I am still convinced that a new trans-hudson tunnel must get built to meet future travel demand; this new tunnel does not necessarily have to dump people into Penn Station.

Could a 7 train extension to Hoboken, New Jersey, which would be paid for by FTA New Starts Grants and Port Authority Funds, in addition to bonds from the state of New Jersey, work to reduce congestion into and out of Manhattan? (A 7 train extension would serve Hudson Yards where many businesses are moving to in addition to Manhattan's East Side).

This would only make sense if it connected to the NEC at both ends, and I don't see any reason it would be superior to the Gateway Project.

It would cost billions, comparable to the cost of the new tunnels. Even if it could be built slightly cheaper by being located away from the existing tunnels, it would require surface or underground connections to Penn Station. Manhattan real estate is incredibly expensive, more than making up for possibly slightly reduced tunnel construction costs by moving it up or down stream.

It would have to be a dual tunnel for safety reasons. There is no way to make an end-run around the requirements by making it a subway-only tunnel.

If it bypassed Penn Station (e.g. connecting to Grand Central instead) the tracks would have to make a sharp westward turn immediately south of Grand Central, another huge construction area in the middle of Manhattan, and the difficulties of scheduling a significant and variable portion of the NEC traffic through two different NYC stations would make it impractical.

If it were NOT intended as an alternative to the existing tunnels, the Gateway Project would still be an absolute necessity. The old tunnels are over 100 years old and really need a complete end-to-end reconstruction. There were major problems with flooding during Sandy and salt water wreaked havoc with the electrical systems. The next Sandy could take out one or both tunnels permanently. To prevent this, they would need to shut down one existing tunnel for years to rebuild it and to extend the flood barriers and then repeat for the other tunnel. During this period, capacity of the biggest railroad bottleneck in the country would be reduced by 60-75%, because turning around the direction of a single tunnel means it is carrying no trains for a while during each reversal. The existing tunnels would probably still not meet current safety standards unless they shut down BOTH tunnels to install several cross-linked escape tunnels between them.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

I guess NYC could go back to using ferries or barges to carry railroad cars across the Hudson.

 

[Andrew]

Would it be cheaper to construct the new hudson tunnels beneath Hoboken?

 

[MARC Rider]

I guess NYC could go back to using ferries or barges to carry railroad cars across the Hudson.

Before they built the tunnels, nobody carried passenger railcars across the Hudson. The trains dead-ended at Hoboken, Jersey City, or Bayonne or whatever, and people would take ferries across the river. NJT still has that sort of service into Hoboken, though I suspect most people ride the PATH trains into Mahattan rather than the ferries, given the rather high ferry fares.

If the Hudson tunnels go kaput, the only alternative for New York- Washington NEC service (as well as the Keystones and the long-distance trains serving the south) would be to terminate the trains in Newark and have people ride PATH to 33rd St, which is only a block from Penn Station. Penn Station would still be usable for New York - Boston service and Empire service.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Before they built the tunnels, nobody carried passenger railcars across the Hudson. The trains dead-ended at Hoboken, Jersey City, or Bayonne or whatever, and people would take ferries across the river. NJT still has that sort of service into Hoboken, though I suspect most people ride the PATH trains into Mahattan rather than the ferries, given the rather high ferry fares.

If the Hudson tunnels go kaput, the only alternative for New York- Washington NEC service (as well as the Keystones and the long-distance trains serving the south) would be to terminate the trains in Newark and have people ride PATH to 33rd St, which is only a block from Penn Station. Penn Station would still be usable for New York - Boston service and Empire service.

If the Hudson River Tunnels were to become entirely unusable, they wouldn't even be able to shift all the trains from the south to Newark since they would no longer be able to access Sunnyside Yard. Many of the corridor trains could probably do it, although they would likely have to be push-pull and may not be able to be serviced until returning to their origin. In such a situation, I doubt the LDs would continue beyond Philadelphia; they could even terminate them in Washington if most NEC-bound passengers are going beyond Philadelphia and would need to connected anyway.

 

[railiner]

If the rail tunnels ever closed, they would have to make two of the three Lincoln tunnel tubes “buses only”, perhaps all three, during rush hours to handle the loads....and set up a temporary overload bus terminal as well, perhaps at the Javits convention center....

 

[jis]

If the rail tunnels ever closed, they would have to make two of the three Lincoln tunnel tubes “buses only”, perhaps all three, during rush hours to handle the loads....and set up a temporary overload bus terminal as well, perhaps at the Javits convention center....

We had a foretaste of that immediately after Hurricane Sandy. It was not pretty.

 

[Andrew]

How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?

 

[joelkfla]

How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?

See the article linked in this thread.

 

[me_little_me]

How would a Biden Administration working with a Republican senate impact both Amtrak and Gateway funding?

It's not a Republican senate. It is a senate with a few more (if they win at least one of Georgia seats) than Democrats. But there are always "defectors" on any specific issues so any Republicans who like rail or whose constituents do, can and often will cross the line especially if it's not a major issue. Amtrak funding is a peanuts issue. Similarly, Democrats do the same.

 

[tricia]

It's not a Republican senate. It is a senate with a few more (if they win at least one of Georgia seats) than Democrats. But there are always "defectors" on any specific issues so any Republicans who like rail or whose constituents do, can and often will cross the line especially if it's not a major issue. Amtrak funding is a peanuts issue. Similarly, Democrats do the same.

It's a Republican Senate as long as Mitch McConnell has absolute control over what can come up for a vote or even debate on the Senate floor.