Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
What do you think the Nimbys would do ?. They would raise a very loud stink over the stink transporting thru their neighborhood on non stop trucks. A very quick court case by the coast guard for impeding a navigable waterway would go against Amtrak.
 
NIMBYs? They make loud puerile and uneducated noise about nothing. We at AU make loud adult educated discussions about such things.
 
west point said:
What do you think the Nimbys would do ?. They would raise a very loud stink over the stink transporting thru their neighborhood on non stop trucks. A very quick court case by the coast guard for impeding a navigable waterway would go against Amtrak.
Click to expand...
If there is no waterborne traffic in that channel which is too shallow for any serious naval ships anyway, I don't think the Coast Guard will care too much. That is where the agreement with the only customer who creates barge traffic a few times a week comes in. There are numerous other "waterways" under Coast Guard jurisdiction along the NEC where the once openable bridges have been bolted permanently shut. There are others that are bolted shut so as to lay welded rails across them except that they are opened occasionally with 24 hour notice, when the welded rail is cut to open the bridge, and then the rails are welded back together after closing it, so as to allow 100+mph speed limit across the bridge. So no, it is not as open and shut case as is being suggested. Almost anything is possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously, isn't it possible for them to use shallower-profile barges? Portal Bridge isn't THAT low. I've seen lift bridges which are ultra low, where you couldn't get a rowboat under them without lifting them, but this is not one of those. (There appears to be a lower bridge downstream right next to the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike, route 7.)

Anyway, they've started construction for Portal North (looks like the eastern approach).

http://www.theobserver.com/2017/10/portal-north-bridge-project-underway-in-south-kearny/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jis said:
Andrew said:
How necessary will construction of the Bergen Loop actually be?
Click to expand...
Operationall? Or politically?

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Click to expand...
I am asking operationally and to meet ridership demands. Will the Bergen Loop really make a big difference for ridership, or can commuters from Bergen County rely on buses to the Port Authority or multi-level trains involving a transfer at Secaucus Junction?
 
If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.
default_wink.png


In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.
 
It creates a problem that will increase the will to have certain civil engineering companies design solutions at even greater cost.
 
jis said:
If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.
default_wink.png


In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.
Click to expand...
Very unlikely the 7 train (or any NYC Subway train), would ever leave the state. More likely solution would be to extend the PATH train from Hoboken to Secaucus...But then, NJT already does that...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We know that. But us NYMA advocates have wild fantasies about a day where there is a NYMATA where EMUs compatible with NJT, MNRR, and LIRR can run rationalized through services in a SEPTA like manner, and the territorial nonsense that probably makes the system about 75% more expensive to run can be abated in a manner that allows to customers better service at reduced cost, while greatly increasing capacity without building massive new stations or tunnels.

Irrational exuberance, I know. We dont actually expect it to happen. But gosh it would be glorious.

As I said, irrational
 
railiner said:
jis said:
If some of us had our druthers they and many others would transfer to the #7 Subway Line at Secaucus.
default_wink.png


In short stuffing everything including the proverbial kitchen sink into Penn Station is not a solution, it is the creation of additional problems. Nothing is being done to enhance Subway service for moving people from Penn Station to anywhere else while planning to add all sorts of additional trains into Penn Station. The results will be predictable as night follows day.
Click to expand...
Very unlikely the 7 train (or any NYC Subway train), would ever leave the state. More likely solution would be to extend the PATH train from Hoboken to Secaucus...But then, NJT already does that...
Click to expand...
That is illustrating one of the tragedies of part of the rail advocacy community. Actually none of these constraints that they keep bringing up are written in stone, and any of them can be changed. But not if everyone seriously thinks they cannot be changed. The result will be that we will forever be prisoners of our own lack of resolve, imagination and commitment to making real progress.

Green Maned Lion said:
Irrational exuberance, I know. We dont actually expect it to happen. But gosh it would be glorious.

As I said, irrational
Click to expand...
Fortunately there are irrational people around. Otherwise we would still be trying to figure out how to move from square to round wheels
default_tongue.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would have been much simpler to integrate commuter service thru New York back in the day when one company operated all of them...Penn Central, later, Conrail. And even LIRR was part of the former PRR until it was sold to the MTA.

I like the way Philadelphia integrated the PC and RDG sides of commuter trains when they connected two stub end operations thru Center City via a new tunnel from Suburban Station onto the RDG via Market Street East.

Imagine if New York had built a similar tunnel linking Penn Station with Grand Central...with a wye connection to the East River Tunnels, as well....

You could run trains from New Jersey not only to Long Island, but upstate as well...or from Long Island, upstate. running trains thru, would vastly improve the efficiency of the current Penn Station without the need to expand it. as much...

You could probably have even reduced the total number of tracks in such a case, allowing for wider platforms to handle detraining and entraining crowds...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And if a Bergen Loop does get built--and if Secaucus Junction gets expanded-- I wonder if the expansion will be a two track, island platform, or if there will be four tracks, similar to what the NEC now has through Secaucus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would be an interesting survey of how many persons interchange between NJ Transit and LIRR at NYPS now. The only near future connections will be NYG connecting passengers between MNRR and LIRR if the East side access is ever completed ?
 
railiner said:
It would have been much simpler to integrate commuter service thru New York back in the day when one company operated all of them...Penn Central, later, Conrail. And even LIRR was part of the former PRR until it was sold to the MTA.
Click to expand...

You do see how that worked out for those railroads, right?

railiner said:
Imagine if New York had built a similar tunnel linking Penn Station with Grand Central...with a wye connection to the East River Tunnels, as well....

You could run trains from New Jersey not only to Long Island, but upstate as well...or from Long Island, upstate. running trains thru, would vastly improve the efficiency of the current Penn Station without the need to expand it. as much...

You could probably have even reduced the total number of tracks in such a case, allowing for wider platforms to handle detraining and entraining crowds...
Click to expand...
While it may be more efficient for equipment utilization, it would be horrendous for passenger utilization. A couple of days ago, LIRR had multiple lines closed due to cars on the tracks. Overcrowding was so bad, the MTA restricted access to NYP. This is on top of the multiple days in the last week that LIRR had severe delays due to cars on the tracks.

Today, a NJT train had pantograph troubles and upended service on the west of the station.

While these situations often cause congestion issues for the other railroads in the area, it is another thing if they were waiting for run through equipment. Can you imagine if NJT needed equipment from LIRR during this disruption? Not only would have LIRR passengers been stranded and locked out, so would the NJT passengers. Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.
 
A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.

The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.
 
JIS: Good points about distributed systems. A main problem in the USA is there is too much old infrastructure and old / incompatible equipment. Sure Japan and much of Europe works well but they have been rebuilt from the ground up..
 
Thirdrail7 said:
Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your point that run through trains can cause even larger cascading issues, I have to argue against this being any sort of "inefficiency" of such that would make something not worth doing. Cost allocations are political problems, not technical, and often it's better for the end user to have cost allocations dealt with on the agency end than for the end user to have to pay numerous disjointed fares to get from point A to point B. NYC, while maybe not the epitome of numerous non-coordinated (at least farewise) transit agencies, definitely has quite a bit of it (what reason is there, other than political, that PATH is completely separate from the NYC subway, at that neither of those have free transfers with LIRR, Metro North, or NJ Transit (nor are any of those cross-compatible, despite the NYC subway, LIRR, and Metro North all being part of the MTA.)

For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's amazing about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.

I'll step off my soap box now.
 
jis said:
A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.

The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.
Click to expand...
Good points....the LIRR West Side Yard does mitigate that situation somewhat, especially since the LIRR has a far greater number of trains than NJT does...in times of service disruption's, there remains the flexibility to 'turn' trains back if necessary...

As would my proposal to have had LIRR trains turn toward GCT from the East River Tunnel's, to run thru onto MN routes...GCT would still have ample storage for trains not running thru...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jebr said:
Thirdrail7 said:
Then, there is the whole cost allocation aspect. That's hardly efficient.
Click to expand...
While I agree with your point that run through trains can cause even larger cascading issues, I have to argue against this being any sort of "inefficiency" of such that would make something not worth doing. Cost allocations are political problems, not technical, and often it's better for the end user to have cost allocations dealt with on the agency end than for the end user to have to pay numerous disjointed fares to get from point A to point B. NYC, while maybe not the epitome of numerous non-coordinated (at least farewise) transit agencies, definitely has quite a bit of it (what reason is there, other than political, that PATH is completely separate from the NYC subway, at that neither of those have free transfers with LIRR, Metro North, or NJ Transit (nor are any of those cross-compatible, despite the NYC subway, LIRR, and Metro North all being part of the MTA.)

For the end customer, simplicity should be key, even if more accounting work has to be done on the back end. While there's a lot I can gripe about with our local transit system here in MSP, one thing that's amazing about it is that literally every transit agency that charges a fare is completely standardized not only on fare medium but passes, transfers, etc. I can go from commuter rail to light rail to city bus to suburban bus all on the same fare, with seamless transfers despite them being different modes and (at least for the suburban buses) different agencies. In my opinion, it should be like that everywhere.

I'll step off my soap box now.
Click to expand...
I believe the day is coming when a new type of fare collection will make it possible for people to simply use their 'smart' phones or 'smart' credit/debit cards to travel seamlessly not only on all transit operator's in a metro area, but in any metro area as well...I heard that NYC will soon be replacing the 'swipe' Metrocard's with a new type of fare collection....
 
jis said:
A more robust system is generally a more decoupled systems where fewer moving parts depend on other part working right. That is why in general endless run through operations with long legs on both sides tend to be very brittle system in the face of failures, that should be avoided. We learned that as we learned about building distributed systems of computers. But I have found it next to impossible to explain this issue to the rail enthusiasts. Most of them appear to have very little experience in building and operating distributed control systems and hence lack the background to appreciate the difficulties in the face of failures.

The balance of course has to be struck somewhere in the happy middle. That is what good engineering is all about.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting observation Jis. When run through service was initially suggested I️ was thinking great idea. I was comparing this favorably with the RER lines in Paris when ch seemed to work pretty well.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
Green Maned Lion said:
I think SEPTA runs with superior reliability to either MTA or NJT.
Click to expand...
SEPTA also does not run every train runthrough. They do so only for a subset of trains, and recently they have reduced the number to increase reliability.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 

Latest posts

Back
Top