Metro North to Penn Station

[BlackDiamond]

Are there any plans to re-route some Hudson Line trains to Penn?

Given that some portions of the connection to Penn Station are single track such as the Sputen Dyvil bridge and that the junction there is a flat junction I imagine that there will be a limit on how many trains could be diverted to NYP without resulting in congestion. Not to mention NYP itself until expansion happens with the Gateway project

 

[John819]

Are there any plans to re-route some Hudson Line trains to Penn?

There are a lot of practical issues to be dealt with here, including double tracking the Empire Connection and a lack of track space at NYP accessible from the Empire Connection.

 

[jis]

There are a lot of practical issues to be dealt with here, including double tracking the Empire Connection and a lack of track space at NYP accessible from the Empire Connection.

Empire Connection is double track, excpt for short distances at its two ends. The single track segments are A intelocking in Penn Station to CP Empire and CP Inwood to the junction with MNRR (I forget the MNRR CP number).

Strictly speaking no additional tracks are really necessary to add one or two additional tph in each direction, though of course every bit of additional track helps, but then again costs money too. A service could be run using currently available dual mode ACDMs fitted with dual system pickup shoes. The plan is to build two station on the Empire Connection at 125th St and 62nd St.

My understanding is they really are not contemplating any huge diversion of service to Penn Station. One tph growing eventually to maybe three, with maybe one or two additional at rush hours.

Capacity, or lack thereof at Penn Station is most likely one of the primary gating factor.

 

[neroden]

The MNRR EMUs are not capable of operating on 25Hz catenary at any voltage. When that decision was made in a desperate move to stay with axle load limits (25Hz transformers are heavier by quite a bit becuase they need a larger core), many pointed out that this might prove to be a problem later. But since there was always the third rail option available it was not considered to be a major issue.

The only issue was the different kind of third rail, and that was addressed by designing a universal shoe that works on both over and under running third rail. They were tested and found to be satisfactory at least five years back now.

Oooh. Didn't know they'd solved that. You know this means if they electrified with 60Hz overhead north of Poughkeepsie, it would be perfectly straightforward to have a single electric locomotive or EMU run from Penn to Albany...

 

[joelkfla]

Given that some portions of the connection to Penn Station are single track such as the Sputen Dyvil bridge and that the junction there is a flat junction I imagine that there will be a limit on how many trains could be diverted to NYP without resulting in congestion. Not to mention NYP itself until expansion happens with the Gateway project

Won't East Side Access free up some capacity at NYP?

 

[jis]

Won't East Side Access free up some capacity at NYP?

That is what is being used to do the New Haven Line to Penn Station. Of course it is upto MTA to figure out how much of the Penn Station capacity that they own is to be used for LIRR trains vs. MNRR trains. It is an entirely in house decision for them. Penn South if it happens is an entirely Amtrak/NJT thing with no MNRR involvement.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

This is a purely theoretical question (for JIS and the other experts): could a service be run in a U shape from the Hudson line via Penn onto one of the other Metro North lines (or even LIRR or into NJ) with existing infrastructure? In other words an S bahn/RER regional type service.

 

[jis]

MNRR to MNRR or NEC to NEC is technically doable without needing too much technical tweaking. Going into LIRR territory is a different matter since they have unique track circuit conveyed signal codes that are a mandatory overlay on the standard NEC codes, and AFAIK none of the MNRR or any NEC equipment are equipped to handle those. Maybe @Amtrak25 can clarify further.

Of course the internecine protection of territory/fiefdom by management and unions may make this a much more "socially" untenable thing in the NY area, if past experiences serve as a guide. The easiest to make happen may be MNRR to MNRR. Just spitballing here.

 

[Amtrak25]

This is a purely theoretical question (for JIS and the other experts): could a service be run in a U shape from the Hudson line via Penn onto one of the other Metro North lines (or even LIRR or into NJ) with existing infrastructure? In other words an S bahn/RER regional type service.

I really don't see any commercial need for a MN-HUD - MN-NH service. Who would want to go between Harmon and New Rochelle via Penn Station ?

As for LIRR, MN equipment would have to get expensive LIRR ASC and PTC speed code equipment, whatever the technical term is.

For MN-NH - NJT, 3rd rail in the Hudson River tunnels ends a couple of hundred feet west of the Bergen Portals in New Jersey, and is only for emergency use. M-8's can't use 25 cycle catenary. I'd expect mid-day storage of several of their trains to be at LIRR's West Side Yard, which is only 3rd rail.

 

[SubwayNut]

The Hudson Line also has such lower ridership than the New Haven Line that I think it would be super hard to justify the cost to build and divert some of its service into Penn Station. It also has better connections to subways to the West Side than the New Haven Line via its (albeit slow and requiring lots of steps) connections to the 1 train at Marble Hill or to the D train at Yankees-East 153 Street. The only stop in the Bronx on the New Haven Line is at Fordham, a hilly 3rd of a mile, 6 block walk from the D train.

 

[jis]

I suspect any NEC through service, if one were to materialize by some miracle, would involve push-pull using NEC locomotives. Theoretically the new NJT MLV EMUs should be able to hack it too, since the voltage/system change points and pantograph lowering/raising points are marked by transponders in the MNRR portion of the NEC. This was done in preparation for running through game trains from New Haven to Secaucus Junction.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Thanks for the answers - I was asking for purely academic and "just wondering" speculation, obviously there's no commercial case or plans for any of it at the moment.

 

[west point]

1. West side trains can only access what tracks 1 - 8 at NYP?
2. MNRR using west side tracks will need 3rd rail.
3. #2 means some MNRR equipment will need both under running shoes (MNRR) with over running capability. Just how the shoes can change types on the fly may have some technical problems. East side no problem as M-8s can switch while under CAT.
4. The last time I viewed a video of running up west side there was a lot of signal tracks. It would need 2 Main tracks the whole way from outside NYP to the swing bridge. IMO for seamless service the swing bridge will need to be replaced with a 2 MT flyover to the MNRR center tracks.

 

[PVD]

The box at the end of the Empire Connection leading into NYP is not wide enough for 2 tracks. If I recall, the bridge can take a second track

 

[west point]

PVD that is correct. The problem is north of the bridge and intersecting tracks delaying both lines. IMO would be worse with 2 tracks from NYP.

 

[jis]

1. West side trains can only access what tracks 1 - 8 at NYP?

As soon as they put in the missing crossover in the A Ladder (which they already might have) all tracks accessible from the Hudson tunnels will be (or already are) accessible from the Empire Connection.

2. MNRR using west side tracks will need 3rd rail.

Only if one insists on using EMUs. An ACDM powered push-pull with an ACDM equipped with dual third rail shoes will have no problem running from the Hudson Line to Penn Station today. Amtrak trains already run that way, don't they?

3. #2 means some MNRR equipment will need both under running shoes (MNRR) with over running capability. Just how the shoes can change types on the fly may have some technical problems. East side no problem as M-8s can switch while under CAT.

Just use push-pulls powered by ACDMs with dual shoes as described by Dutchrailnut earlier in this thread, and the problem disappears into thin air

4. The last time I viewed a video of running up west side there was a lot of signal tracks. It would need 2 Main tracks the whole way from outside NYP to the swing bridge. IMO for seamless service the swing bridge will need to be replaced with a 2 MT flyover to the MNRR center tracks.

The Empire Connection was fully double tracked many years back. It is double track from CP Empire to CP Inwood. It is single track only at the two ends. You don't need more tracks to run a 3-4tph service (including Amtrak), which is all that is contemplated.

I doubt that anyone will ever build any flyovers at Spuyten Duyvil. There will never be enough capacity available at Penn Station to make it worth anyone's while. Grand Central will always receive 95% of the traffic from the Hudson Line.

The things to be done before Hudson Line service to Penn Station can be put in place are finding capacity at Penn Station and the construction of the two planned stations on the Empire Connection.

 

[Amtrak25]

1. West side trains can only access what tracks 1 - 8 at NYP?

Tracks 1 - 4 don't have 3rd rail

 

[west point]

Tracks 1 - 4 don't have 3rd rail

OOPs completely forgot about. ''Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Amtrak25]

1 - 4 are also stub tracks and Amtrak Empire trains are not push pull, won't be until later in the decade.

 

[jis]

1 - 4 are also stub tracks and Amtrak Empire trains are not push pull, won't be until later in the decade.

I suspect this is or soon will be a non issue since all tracks accessible from the Hudson Tunnels are or soon will be accessible from the Empire Connection.

I also suspect that any MNRR Hudson service coming to Penn Station under Phase II of the MNRR to Penn Station Project will be push-pull, since all MNRR trains are either push-pull or EMU.

 

[west point]

JIS: I have to wonder if MNRR wants to use dual modes on the west side line unless it plans to use them north of the end of 3rd rail? The initial costs of the units are what? Would the one-time capital costs of restoring third rail be more than buying dual modes? Has anyone compared operating costs of duals to EMUs? MNRR certainly has present figures and NJT has some figures although NJT's figures cannot be completely compared.

Naturally Amtrak does need them for planned almost hourly trains to Albany. Would that preclude MNRR needing them north of 3rd rail? Yes, MNRR would need more EMUs but have to compare costs of them with conventional cars behind Duals?

It certainly gets complicated. Do most operating costs come out of a different money pot than capital costs?

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

JIS: I have to wonder if MNRR wants to use dual modes on the west side line unless it plans to use them north of the end of 3rd rail? The initial costs of the units are what? Would the one-time capital costs of restoring third rail be more than buying dual modes? Has anyone compared operating costs of duals to EMUs? MNRR certainly has present figures and NJT has some figures although NJT's figures cannot be completely compared.

Naturally Amtrak does need them for planned almost hourly trains to Albany. Would that preclude MNRR needing them north of 3rd rail? Yes, MNRR would need more EMUs but have to compare costs of them with conventional cars behind Duals?

It certainly gets complicated. Do most operating costs come out of a different money pot than capital costs?

So I have another obnoxiously theoretical question: afaict there is no plan to electrify the Empire Corridor, but if it were, I would assume it would be overhead rather than third rail?

 

[jis]

JIS: I have to wonder if MNRR wants to use dual modes on the west side line unless it plans to use them north of the end of 3rd rail? The initial costs of the units are what? Would the one-time capital costs of restoring third rail be more than buying dual modes? Has anyone compared operating costs of duals to EMUs? MNRR certainly has present figures and NJT has some figures although NJT's figures cannot be completely compared.

I don't know about relative costs, but MNRR uses scads of dual modes for their Poughkeepsie - Grand Central service and I expect the Penn Station service when it happens will be Poughkeepsie service too. So I am a bit confused about your premise for the argument.

EMUs in general cost more in terms of periodic inspections etc. but of course that is not an argument for not using EMUs or even DEMUs where one can, for that matter, for frequent start stop service.

Naturally Amtrak does need them for planned almost hourly trains to Albany. Would that preclude MNRR needing them north of 3rd rail? Yes, MNRR would need more EMUs but have to compare costs of them with conventional cars behind Duals?

I am still puzzled. MNRR uses dual modes on every train to Poughkeepsie on the Hudson Line. And there are talks off and on about extending some MNRR trains to Rhinecliff so that folks from the Rhinebeck area can enjoy the lower MNRR fares and only marginally slower service to New York than using Amtrak.

It certainly gets complicated. Do most operating costs come out of a different money pot than capital costs?

Yes they come from very different pots, if not anything else, at least for the purposes of financial reporting. One pot is depreciated and the other is expense.

So I have another obnoxiously theoretical question: afaict there is no plan to electrify the Empire Corridor, but if it were, I would assume it would be overhead rather than third rail?

Who knows what our geniuses will do, but in general in the rest of the world AFAICT no one electrifies using third rail on main line anymore, except in rare cases of extending an existing system. My guess is if it comes to pass, it will be 25kV 60HZ OHE electrification.

 

[west point]

So I have another obnoxiously theoretical question: afaict there is no plan to electrify the Empire Corridor, but if it were, I would assume it would be overhead rather than third rail?

That is a difficult question. Definitely overhead CAT. Substations are much further apart. 3rd rail substation depends on loads but not more than 5- 7 miles. Cal Train is only building 3 substations and each one can back up another that is down. Could see it happening if it was funded under federal carbon reduction. Otherwise, it is only needed if regular hours were every 1/2 - 1 hour and rush every 20 minutes. Now MNRR does not have experience of both 3rd rail and overhead except at Woodlawn? Would MNRR have problems? Another question is the MNRR signal system now compatible with 60 Hz overhead CAT? Hopefully it is.

 

[jis]

Some more details of what will be built as part of the MNRR to Penn Station Phase I (New Haven Line) Project...

https://www.railjournal.com/infrast...m_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=30137