The New New York Station

[AAARGH!]

I would think that on both straight line and walking distance the Oakland Colisseum station has both beat. Straight line from the platform to the stadium is no more than 200 feet. Walking would probably be about 450 feet due to the winding ramp and bridge over the tracks.

You are correct!

By the same technique I used to measure CLE and SEA, the Oakland Coliseum station and Coliseum are 219 feet apart straight line and 924 feet walking (6 ramps up to bridge). So Oakland is the physically closest, but SEA is the closest to walk. Now if there's an elevator to the bridge in Oakland, then it would be the winner. I know... Splitting hairs.

I haven't been there, so it wasn't in the front of my mind like the others, but it is the closest.

Three NFL stadiums within ~1/10 of a mile of Amtrak stations. That's useful. Of course if you were to arrive by train in Cleveland on gameday, you would have to wait 8 - 11 hours until gametime. But you could start tailgating (if you have a tailgate).

It is nice that Amtrak is so close to this many professional venues. Not to mention and college stadiums. :huh:

 

[jis]

So are Midtown Direct trains going to be evicted entirely from New York or are they being evicted from NYP and moving over to NYPSE? And how are trains from the non-electrified Pascack, Main-Bergen and Raritan Valley Lines going to make it into the tunnels? Is NJT buying multi-mode engines or are they going to change the law to allow diesels into the tunnels? And finally if all these lines do start running into NY what will become of Seacacus? It would pretty much become useless at that point.

Midtown Directs will go to NYPSE as will potential through service from the Lackawanna Cutoff. Trains from the non-electrified branches will use the dual-mode diesel/catenary electrics that NJT has placed an order for. Secaucus will continue to be used as a transfer station for in-state transfers from the Hoboken Division Main/Bergen?Pascack/Port Jervis/Meadowland lines to the Newark Division NEC,NJCL/RVL lines and also to some extent to Midtown Direct Lines. Also, all trains from Main/Bergen/Pascack/Port Jervis/Meadowland lines will not necessarily run into NYPSE. Some will continue to run to Hoboken.

 

[AlanB]

So are Midtown Direct trains going to be evicted entirely from New York or are they being evicted from NYP and moving over to NYPSE? And how are trains from the non-electrified Pascack, Main-Bergen and Raritan Valley Lines going to make it into the tunnels? Is NJT buying multi-mode engines or are they going to change the law to allow diesels into the tunnels? And finally if all these lines do start running into NY what will become of Seacacus? It would pretty much become useless at that point.

Midtown Direct trains will still serve NYC, they'll just most likely use the new station under 34th Street.

Regarding your second question, NJT has indeed ordered dual-mode engines that will run on diesel in NJ and switch to catenary to enter NY. By the way, there is actually no law that prevents the use of diesels in Manhattan.

Secaucus will stay in operation, but it will be a shadow of its current self in terms of usage. But there will still be interline transfers for those traveling solely within NJ and the parking lots will still attract some riders.

 

[Bob Dylan]

I would think that on both straight line and walking distance the Oakland Colisseum station has both beat. Straight line from the platform to the stadium is no more than 200 feet. Walking would probably be about 450 feet due to the winding ramp and bridge over the tracks.

You are correct!

By the same technique I used to measure CLE and SEA, the Oakland Coliseum station and Coliseum are 219 feet apart straight line and 459 feet walking.

I haven't been there, so it wasn't in the front of my mind like the others, but it is the closest.

It is nice that Amtrak is so close to this many professional venues. Not to mention and college stadiums. :huh:

Per my original post, isnt it a shame that Cleveland and Oakland ( and Detroit etc! :lol: )dont have a professional team close to their Amtrak stadium! :lol: :lol: :lol:Go Cowboys!!!

 

[AAARGH!]

Per my original post, isnt it a shame that Cleveland and Oakland ( and Detroit etc! :lol: )dont have a professional team close to their Amtrak stadium! :lol: :lol: :lol:Go Cowboys!!!

Cowboys.... "Doink!" (sound of football hitting metal)

 

[the_traveler]

If you are talking about ANY pro stadium, then NYP (MSG), Seattle (Safeco (Baseball) & Football), Cleveland (Brown's Stadium), Denver (Coors) are probably the closest that I can think of.

How about the Boston Garden (or BankNorth Garden or whatever it's called now) and BON? :huh: They are both at North Station in Boston, are they not? :huh:

 

[Bob Dylan]

Per my original post, isnt it a shame that Cleveland and Oakland ( and Detroit etc! :lol: )dont have a professional team close to their Amtrak stadium! :lol: :lol: :lol:Go Cowboys!!!

Cowboys.... "Doink!" (sound of football hitting metal)

Hey,remember why the hole was in the original Texas Stadium and was included in the new design,so God could watch his favorite,and ,Americas,team!

As an omen,the guy that won Mike Irvins reality show,Jesse Holly,was signed to the practice squad along with several other newcomers that performed well in the pre-season,and Tony Romo(aka Tony Romeo!!! :lol: )let his movie star distraction go,and T.O. and Pacman are history(aka some other cities headache!)so all the way to the Super Bowl finaly!!!The Boys are back!!!!(and next year there willlbe an Amtrak stop by the new Palace in Arlington!!!)

 

[AAARGH!]

If you are talking about ANY pro stadium, then NYP (MSG), Seattle (Safeco (Baseball) & Football), Cleveland (Brown's Stadium), Denver (Coors) are probably the closest that I can think of.

How about the Boston Garden (or BankNorth Garden or whatever it's called now) and BON? :huh: They are both at North Station in Boston, are they not? :huh:

Like I said "... that I can think of". You are most likely correct!

FYI: I heavily edited my post above about Oakland. I mis-measured the first time.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Regarding your second question, NJT has indeed ordered dual-mode engines that will run on diesel in NJ and switch to catenary to enter NY. By the way, there is actually no law that prevents the use of diesels in Manhattan.

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

However- the new NJT dualmodes are not like the P32ACDM. They are primarily intended to be electrics, with diesel engines to haul them along on the slower, non-electric portions of their lines. They'll run electric east of Dover, north of Long Branch, north of Newark Penn, and so on.

 

[jis]

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

You know, for the longest time I have been looking for someone who has actually researched this subject and can provide actual references to the legal restrictions. Looks like you have done the research. Would it be possible for you to provide some cites to the actual laws that specify these restrictions? I have heard so many conflicting reports on this issue from so many seemingly knowledgeable people that I have developed a certain need to lay the matter to rest once and for all, but haven't had the time to research it myself. Hoping that you can help. Don't feel bad if you don't have any cites to back it up, since the last two dozen people who made claims on all sides of this issue did not either.

 

[Guest]

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

You know, for the longest time I have been looking for someone who has actually researched this subject and can provide actual references to the legal restrictions. Looks like you have done the research. Would it be possible for you to provide some cites to the actual laws that specify these restrictions? I have heard so many conflicting reports on this issue from so many seemingly knowledgeable people that I have developed a certain need to lay the matter to rest once and for all, but haven't had the time to research it myself. Hoping that you can help. Don't feel bad if you don't have any cites to back it up, since the last two dozen people who made claims on all sides of this issue did not either.

All I could find was New York Law RRD §209 Change of Motive Power which technically only outlaws steam. Perhaps case law has prohibited diesel in addition, but if so, I was unable to find in in a brief search of case law.

§ 209. Change of motive power authorized. Any railroad company having the right to use any railroad now constructed in any public tunnel, road

or way depressed below the surface of and wholly within any public park in any city within the state of New York having a population of one

million five hundred thousand or upwards, may change the motive power and operate any such railroad by cable power, underground current of

electricity, compressed air, or any other motive power other than locomotive steam power that may be consented to by the authorities

having control of such park or parks, and by the commissioner of transportation, and may make changes in the construction of the road or

roadbed or other property made necessary by the change of motive power. Such reconstruction shall be at the sole cost and expense of the

railroad company making such change, and when completed such improved railroad shall be the property of the municipal corporation having

control of such public tunnel, road or depressed way.

My understanding from admittedly limited sources (history channel show or two) is that originally there were steam locomotives in the tunnels until a train collision with (iirc) some deaths and the tunnels went straight to electric since diesel was not in use at that time. Extrapolating wildly from that, perhaps since the electric was already there it just became a defacto rule as it was a good idea that seemed like a law.

 

[Guest]

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

You know, for the longest time I have been looking for someone who has actually researched this subject and can provide actual references to the legal restrictions. Looks like you have done the research. Would it be possible for you to provide some cites to the actual laws that specify these restrictions? I have heard so many conflicting reports on this issue from so many seemingly knowledgeable people that I have developed a certain need to lay the matter to rest once and for all, but haven't had the time to research it myself. Hoping that you can help. Don't feel bad if you don't have any cites to back it up, since the last two dozen people who made claims on all sides of this issue did not either.

All I could find was New York Law RRD §209 Change of Motive Power which technically only outlaws steam. Perhaps case law has prohibited diesel in addition, but if so, I was unable to find in in a brief search of case law.

§ 209. Change of motive power authorized. Any railroad company having the right to use any railroad now constructed in any public tunnel, road

or way depressed below the surface of and wholly within any public park in any city within the state of New York having a population of one

million five hundred thousand or upwards, may change the motive power and operate any such railroad by cable power, underground current of

electricity, compressed air, or any other motive power other than locomotive steam power that may be consented to by the authorities

having control of such park or parks, and by the commissioner of transportation, and may make changes in the construction of the road or

roadbed or other property made necessary by the change of motive power. Such reconstruction shall be at the sole cost and expense of the

railroad company making such change, and when completed such improved railroad shall be the property of the municipal corporation having

control of such public tunnel, road or depressed way.

My understanding from admittedly limited sources (history channel show or two) is that originally there were steam locomotives in the tunnels until a train collision with (iirc) some deaths and the tunnels went straight to electric since diesel was not in use at that time. Extrapolating wildly from that, perhaps since the electric was already there it just became a defacto rule as it was a good idea that seemed like a law.

I forgot to note that even that law only applies to trains in parks.

 

[jis]

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

You know, for the longest time I have been looking for someone who has actually researched this subject and can provide actual references to the legal restrictions. Looks like you have done the research. Would it be possible for you to provide some cites to the actual laws that specify these restrictions? I have heard so many conflicting reports on this issue from so many seemingly knowledgeable people that I have developed a certain need to lay the matter to rest once and for all, but haven't had the time to research it myself. Hoping that you can help. Don't feel bad if you don't have any cites to back it up, since the last two dozen people who made claims on all sides of this issue did not either.

All I could find was New York Law RRD §209 Change of Motive Power which technically only outlaws steam. Perhaps case law has prohibited diesel in addition, but if so, I was unable to find in in a brief search of case law.

§ 209. Change of motive power authorized. Any railroad company having the right to use any railroad now constructed in any public tunnel, road

or way depressed below the surface of and wholly within any public park in any city within the state of New York having a population of one

million five hundred thousand or upwards, may change the motive power and operate any such railroad by cable power, underground current of

electricity, compressed air, or any other motive power other than locomotive steam power that may be consented to by the authorities

having control of such park or parks, and by the commissioner of transportation, and may make changes in the construction of the road or

roadbed or other property made necessary by the change of motive power. Such reconstruction shall be at the sole cost and expense of the

railroad company making such change, and when completed such improved railroad shall be the property of the municipal corporation having

control of such public tunnel, road or depressed way.

My understanding from admittedly limited sources (history channel show or two) is that originally there were steam locomotives in the tunnels until a train collision with (iirc) some deaths and the tunnels went straight to electric since diesel was not in use at that time. Extrapolating wildly from that, perhaps since the electric was already there it just became a defacto rule as it was a good idea that seemed like a law.

I forgot to note that even that law only applies to trains in parks.

Thanks. My impression was that this law was enacted specifically to apply to the Park Avenue Tunnels, hence the reference to Park. But I may be completely mistaken on that one.

 

[Guest]

I've now searched New York City Code and was unable to find any mention of a prohibition on diesel. Chapter 19, Article 3, sections 30 and 31 according to New Code of Ordinances circa 1922 do prohibit the use of bituminous coal in the Park Avenue Tunnel and the Long Island Railroad respectively. It also says that the Park Avenue tunnel restriction is from a Manhattan Ordinance. I wasn't aware that each of the boroughs also had their own level of governance and rules, but I think I've hit enough layers of bureaucracy for today.

This also appears in the 1908 edition.

And is still on the books.

New York law can be searched here.

New York City code can be searched here.

 

[AlanB]

Regarding your second question, NJT has indeed ordered dual-mode engines that will run on diesel in NJ and switch to catenary to enter NY. By the way, there is actually no law that prevents the use of diesels in Manhattan.

You're wrong on both counts. Well, sorta. There are laws that prevent use of diesel in certain areas of Manhattan- inside Penn, and GCT as well as the North River, East River, Empire, and Park Avenue tunnels.

As already noted by the Guest, there is no law on the books that prohibits the operation of diesel engines in Manhattan. And in fact the Empire Service trains don't switch from diesel to third rail until they are out of the Empire connection tunnel. I once found a site that had done the research and concluded that there is no such ordinance. I'm not at home right now, and I'm not even positive that I did save that link, but I will look for it once I return home.

Amtrak does have a moratorium on using diesels in the city unless actually needed, but they do nonetheless keep a P42/P32-ACDM on standby at NYP and it is routinely fired up to ensure that it will run when needed.

And back before Metro North got all of their P32-ACDM's, many of the FL9's were in such bad shape that it was not uncommon for them to run on diesel into and out of GCT, and even provide HEP via the diesel motor while sitting at the platform.

However- the new NJT dualmodes are not like the P32ACDM. They are primarily intended to be electrics, with diesel engines to haul them along on the slower, non-electric portions of their lines. They'll run electric east of Dover, north of Long Branch, north of Newark Penn, and so on.

Who said anything about the new NJT-dual modes being like a P32-ACDM? For that matter, when was the last time you saw a P32-ACDM with a pantograph on the roof? And they aren’t primarily intended to be electric engines, they are intended to be dual mode engines so that they can run from Port Jervis all the way to Secaucus and then switch to overhead power to reach Penn or NYPSE.

 

[jis]

I've now searched New York City Code and was unable to find any mention of a prohibition on diesel. Chapter 19, Article 3, sections 30 and 31 according to New Code of Ordinances circa 1922 do prohibit the use of bituminous coal in the Park Avenue Tunnel and the Long Island Railroad respectively. It also says that the Park Avenue tunnel restriction is from a Manhattan Ordinance. I wasn't aware that each of the boroughs also had their own level of governance and rules, but I think I've hit enough layers of bureaucracy for today.
This also appears in the 1908 edition.

And is still on the books.

New York law can be searched here.

New York City code can be searched here.

Thank you very much. All that is most illuminating info.

My impression was that PRR of its own accord never planned to use non-electric locomotives in its tunnels, but as I said earlier, I had never verified the veracity of that impression. This impression may be more correct than I had imagined. It followed from that impression, that the avoidance of use of Diesel power in the PRR tunnels continues to this day based more on common sense than on legal restrictions. So far we have not found evidence to the contrary as far as I can tell.

 

[AlanB]

I managed to remember who had done the research and found the site by searching for the name. Info on the various laws can be found here.

The author even points out the fact that it would be inane for the city to fine the very RR's it supports for violating the Park Avenue restrictions. But Penn remains unrestricted by law.

 

[George Harris]

As has been exhaustively tested in the courts in the rest of the country, the FRA requlations pre-empt any such law, whether concerning steam or diesel, since railroads are in interstate commerce. If New York City wanted to prohibit diesels within the city, they would have to lobby congress to get it made part of the FRA rules. They might be able to get away with it.

The Pennsylvania RR's Hudson River tubes originally were powered by third rail. Do not know when the overhead was installed.

 

[jis]

Amtrak does have a moratorium on using diesels in the city unless actually needed, but they do nonetheless keep a P42/P32-ACDM on standby at NYP and it is routinely fired up to ensure that it will run when needed.

On at least two occasions a Lake Shore Limited that I was on was pulled into NYP by a P42, and once a departing LSL was pulled out of NYP by a pair of P42s! So go figure. Admittedly this happens only very occasionally when there is a serious imbalance of availability of P32ACDMs between New York and Albany.

 

[GML]

Who said anything about the new NJT-dual modes being like a P32-ACDM? For that matter, when was the last time you saw a P32-ACDM with a pantograph on the roof? And they aren’t primarily intended to be electric engines, they are intended to be dual mode engines so that they can run from Port Jervis all the way to Secaucus and then switch to overhead power to reach Penn or NYPSE.

The P32AC-DMs are used as dual modes, running diesel until they must be ran on electric third rail. Their top speed using third rail power is lower than using diesel. MN fires up the diesel the moment they are out of the Park Ave. tunnels, for instance.

The NJT dual modes are going to be faster under electric, and their diesel engines are intended to be used only where no catenary exists.

Thus, they are unalike. The Genesis dual modes are dual mode, primary diesel. The AdTranz dual modes are dual mode, primarily electric.

 

[jis]

Thus, they are unalike. The Genesis dual modes are dual mode, primary diesel. The AdTranz dual modes are dual mode, primarily electric.

AdTranz? Did you mean to say Bombardier?

GML is correct. These units in many ways are like gensets in their diesel operations. They use two high speed diesels engines that are physically much smaller in size, that are easy to start and shut down, which go on on demand, either one or both depending on the power demanded, and power the unit, and of course HEP. When they are in electric mode the diesel units shut down and the engine operates on cat power. So they are actually quite different in architecture from the P32ACDMs.

 

[AlanB]

Guys, I never said that the NJT units were the same as the P32-ACDM's. All I said was that "NJT was ordering dual mode engines." And these new engines are indeed dual mode engines. They can either run on catenary power or they can run on their own internal diesel engines. That qualifies them as dual mode engines.

 

[AlanB]

The NJT dual modes are going to be faster under electric, and their diesel engines are intended to be used only where no catenary exists.
Thus, they are unalike. The Genesis dual modes are dual mode, primary diesel. The AdTranz dual modes are dual mode, primarily electric.

While I've no doubt that the units will indeed be faster under the wire, than under diesel power, if these units were designed to be primarily electric, then NJT has made a major mistake. It doesn't need electric engines. It needs diesel engines that can also operate under electric power.

After all, more than half of NJT's lines don't have catenary. So if they've designed an engine that in diesel mode is inferior to the existing diesel engines currently in use, then again they've wasted their money. A company with a line that will need an engine under diesel power for almost two hours and electric power for less than 10 minutes on one run, doesn't need an engine that can go 125 MPH under electric if it can't operate at least at the same speeds as the currrent diesels do. That would be totally inane to run slower than they currently do for 2 hours, just so that they can make a mad dash at 125 MPH for the last 10 minutes.

The commuters will revolt if this is what NJT is getting. They'd rather keep changing at Secaucus than add time to their commute.

Yes it is nice that they will indeed be able to run faster under catenary, and that will make it easier for traffic control on the NEC and the new tunnels. But these engines are being brought to use their diesel motors. They aren't being purchased because NJT needs new electric motors. If they don't spend many more of their hours of use running off the diesel motor, then again, NJT has wasted taxpayer monies. NJT could have simply purchased more ALP-46A's instead.

By the way, the power output of the two diesel engines is only about 900KW less than what the traction motors can handle when running on cat.

 

[wayman]

I've not heard that NJT has opted out of ever moving to Moynihan if it ever does get built, but at present it doesn't appear that it will ever get built. If it does get built, to my knowledge NJT still has dibs on the station. And it would be foolish for Amtrak to ever consider moving there, unless a deal is worked out whereby they don't have to pay rent.

To whom would Amtrak be paying the rent, if Moynihan were built and Amtrak were to use it? The City of New York? Private investors? The Port Authority?

I suppose it would be impossible to trade outright ownership of Penn Station for ownership of Moynihan... and I'm not even sure if that would do any good, since I imagine Amtrak makes a pretty penny off rent from NJT and LIRR, and they'd lose that income in this scenario?

 

[tp49]

I've not heard that NJT has opted out of ever moving to Moynihan if it ever does get built, but at present it doesn't appear that it will ever get built. If it does get built, to my knowledge NJT still has dibs on the station. And it would be foolish for Amtrak to ever consider moving there, unless a deal is worked out whereby they don't have to pay rent.

To whom would Amtrak be paying the rent, if Moynihan were built and Amtrak were to use it? The City of New York? Private investors? The Port Authority?

I suppose it would be impossible to trade outright ownership of Penn Station for ownership of Moynihan... and I'm not even sure if that would do any good, since I imagine Amtrak makes a pretty penny off rent from NJT and LIRR, and they'd lose that income in this scenario?

IIRC and it's been a number of years since I read the press release but the owner would be NYS via the Empire State Development Corporation.