ARC project NYC

[birdy]

When I read that ARC project to build a new rail tunnel under the Hudson from New Jersey to Macy's was going to get $3 billion in federal money, I checked it out. The need for a new rail tunnel under the Hudson after 100 years seems fairly obvious. But why will it take until 2017 from ground-breaking in 2009 to complete the project? Tunnelling that length (by that I mean the actual boring of the hole) should take about a year. Tunneling for the terminal I guess would take about the same time. Presumably some of the above ground improvements on the New Jersey side could continue apace. So this looks like it should be maybe a five year project. What gives?

Also, when I google it up, I see vague complaints about the configuration of the Macy's station, and something about how it doesn't solve transportation issues through to New England, which I don't understand. What's that about?

So what would you East coast railheads do to improve the ARC project?

 

[John Bredin]

Also, when I google it up, I see vague complaints about the configuration of the Macy's station, and something about how it doesn't solve transportation issues through to New England, which I don't understand. What's that about?
So what would you East coast railheads do to improve the ARC project?

I'm not an East coaster, :lol: but I can give a basic answer. The present plan, mostly NJ Transit's baby, is to have the new Hudson River tunnel(s) end in a stub-end terminal deep under the vicinity of Macy's and Penn Station. People would be able to change trains to LIRR and Amtrak at Penn, but trains couldn't run through.

The objectors would prefer a through station that connects at some point to the Amtrak/Metro North tracks on to Connecticut and beyond (hence the New England reference). They want the money spent on this to result not merely in more capacity for NJT's trains ending in New York, which is what the presently-planned dead-end terminal does, but for:

(1) More platforms and through tracks for Amtrak's Acela and other NEC trains, including sufficient capacity to have the Silver Service trains start/end in Boston, and

(2) Through-routing of commuter trains, now operated under the separate auspices of NJT, LIRR, and M-N. At first, this would be special trains for events, such as M-N and LIRR passengers having a through train to sporting events at the Meadowlands. Eventually, I would imagine, supporters of a through station envision regular through routes, looking to the example of Philadelphia with the nearly-seamless through-routing of the ex-Reading and ex-Pennsy lines with the Commuter Tunnel.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

(1) More platforms and through tracks for Amtrak's Acela and other NEC trains, including sufficient capacity to have the Silver Service trains start/end in Boston, and

I don't think this really has much to do with NYP and NYPSE. If you move some NJT services out of the existing Hudson tunnels, that does make room for more Amtrak service. You've also got capacity issues at the Connecticut River bridge and on the tracks Amtrak shares with the New Haven Line of Metro-North. I don't think that whether the two new tracks connect through under the East River has any effect on this.

(2) Through-routing of commuter trains, now operated under the separate auspices of NJT, LIRR, and M-N. At first, this would be special trains for events, such as M-N and LIRR passengers having a through train to sporting events at the Meadowlands. Eventually, I would imagine, supporters of a through station envision regular through routes, looking to the example of Philadelphia with the nearly-seamless through-routing of the ex-Reading and ex-Pennsy lines with the Commuter Tunnel.

Part of the point of this would be that if you want to get from somewhere in LIRR land or on a line that currently terminates at Grand Central Terminal to a branch of NJT that currently terminates in Hoboken, it would be nice if you'd be able to transfer in a single place and have a two seat ride.

 

[zoltan]

These complaints don't seem at all grounded in reality. NJ Transit trains make up the majority of the congestion in and out of Penn Station and the demands for platforms at Penn Station; moving the NJ Transit trains out of Penn Station would be a huge advantage for Amtrak!

This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.

 

[PRR 60]

I, too, do not agree with NARP's objection to ARC. The project will not reduce the through-train capacity at NYP. It simply opens additional capacity for NJT operations terminating in New York. If someone, some day, wishes to run a one-seat ride from New Jersey through to Long Island or Connecticut, that option is still open. I'm not holding my breath. I don't see any great demand for that service.

I should clarify that the ARC project does not result in NJT moving out of NYP or even reducing service there. NJT will retain their existing slots into Penn post-ARC. The project opens new capacity for NJT access to Manhattan, and was not intended to provide capacity for Amtrak.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.

Is there anything that would prevent building a tunnel from NYPSE to ESA at a later date? (Are the elevations and distance such that a 3% track grade (or less) would work?)

 

[AlanB]

This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.

Is there anything that would prevent building a tunnel from NYPSE to ESA at a later date? (Are the elevations and distance such that a 3% track grade (or less) would work?)

There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.

IMHO if one is going to spend the money on such a project, one should be tying it into Metro North tracks at GCT, not LIRR tracks.

 

[AlanB]

This runs at the same as East Side Access, bringing LIRR trains into Grand Central, far closer to most passenger's offices. While this will sadly remove the potential for a two-seat ride from New Jersey to Long Island, this will account for a negligible amount of custom on the Long Island system compared to commuters reaching their midtown offices, and ultimately it's of most benefit to look after the largest and most loyal group of passengers.

Let's also be clear that ESA isn't removing the LIRR from Penn Station. The LIRR fully expects to continue to operate into Penn even after ESA opens, and they predict that service overall into Penn will not be significantly reduced. They expect that overall ridership will just be increased with the opening of ESA, as people switching to trains headed for GCT will just open up more seats for people wishing to reach Penn.

That said, while I'm in agreement that the Access To The Regions Core project shouldn't be squashed without a link to Penn, I do feel that it is a major mistake to build it without such a link. The flexibility that such a link provides is enormous and cannot and should not be overlooked.

 

[John Bredin]

That said, while I'm in agreement that the Access To The Regions Core project shouldn't be squashed without a link to Penn, I do feel that it is a major mistake to build it without such a link. The flexibility that such a link provides is enormous and cannot and should not be overlooked.

Interesting you mention flexibility, because that leads into the (missing) third point against the present dead-end ARC plan I should have mentioned in my earlier posting.

3) Ability to get trains across the Hudson and into Penn, or vice versa, if the existing antique, overused two-track Hudson tunnel into Penn is for some reason -- maintenance, fire or other blockage of the tracks approaching the tunnels, or (gods forbid!) a fire or blockage of the tunnel itself -- out of service.

There are two issues here, terminal throughput and Hudson-tunnel throughput. ARC does something for the former, no doubt, but as a dead-end terminal does nothing for the latter, but with the expense as if it did! Why spend a vast sum, from the limited few billions made available for the transit needs of the entire nation, for a long- and sorely-needed additional tunnel under the Hudson that will not add one whit of capacity for Amtrak, who after all owns Penn?!

The project will not reduce the through-train capacity at NYP. [snip] I should clarify that the ARC project does not result in NJT moving out of NYP or even reducing service there.

Assuming both assertions are correct, ARC will do nothing to increase Penn's capacity. While that may be a reasonable investment if the U.S. invested in intercity and commuter rail at the pace of other nations, it is IMHO not a reasonable investment from the limited tax dollars available to transit in recent decades.

In other words, while ARC clearly has benefits -- I don't contend that it's a positively detrimental project -- I don't see how those limited benefits justify the cost when compared to, say, a similar new tunnel under the Hudson that would lead into the existing Penn as well as a new terminal.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.
IMHO if one is going to spend the money on such a project, one should be tying it into Metro North tracks at GCT, not LIRR tracks.

That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.

On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.

Though that still leaves me wondering about a few things:

1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?

2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?

 

[AlanB]

There's probably nothing that absolutely precludes trying to build such a link, but one would have to ask why? It serves no useful purpose, beyond reaching GCT, that can't already be accomplished by just running through the existing Penn Station tracks and out into Sunnyside and onto the LIRR tracks.
IMHO if one is going to spend the money on such a project, one should be tying it into Metro North tracks at GCT, not LIRR tracks.

That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.

I wouldn't deny that it would be helpful for NJT to be able to drop off passengers on the east side, just like the LIRR is trying to do with ESA.

On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.

I'm not sure of the exact depths involved here, but there is a good chance that the LIRR level is even lower than NYPSE. Remember GCT already has two levels now, so the LIRR will be the third level below ground.

However that's only part of the problem here. You've got a lot of infrastructure that must be avoided also. Things like utilities, the Park Avenue tunnel, and the Lexington Avenue subway as well as the #7 subway.

1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?

In a word, no. One would be reducing the LIRR's capacity to get people into Manhattan if one were to force every train through GCT first. ESA will have two tracks under the East River and Park Avenue, one inbound and one outbound. Currently the LIRR has access to two inbound tunnels and two outbound tunnels at Penn. So forcing all LIRR trains to Penn to go via GCT would cut service in half.

2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?

Well that depends on your definition of easy. However, that is one reason that people continue to float the idea of extending the LIRR tracks at Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn to lower Manhattan.

 

[jis]

That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.

I wouldn't deny that it would be helpful for NJT to be able to drop off passengers on the east side, just like the LIRR is trying to do with ESA.

I agree with that. Unfortunately there is the New York City water tunnel under 6th Avenue that sits in the way of extending the tracks from the proposed NYPSE station to GCT.

On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.

I'm not sure of the exact depths involved here, but there is a good chance that the LIRR level is even lower than NYPSE. Remember GCT already has two levels now, so the LIRR will be the third level below ground.

NYPSE is a two level station which is about 170' below ground. Actually if I recall correctly the lower level platform is 170' below ground, the mezzanine is 155' below ground and the upper platforms are 140' below ground or something like that.

However that's only part of the problem here. You've got a lot of infrastructure that must be avoided also. Things like utilities, the Park Avenue tunnel, and the Lexington Avenue subway as well as the #7 subway.

At those depths there is no infrastructure to be avoided (other than the water tunnel of course). The only other thing that could come partly in the way is the eastern end of the #7 tunnel, but I don't think even that is the case. That was the whole reasoning for building the stations deep. Of course NYPSE finally had to go deeper because the rock structure at the originally planned shallower level was not suitable for using hard rock TBMs for drilling the tunnels for the station cavern without disturbing stuff near the surface.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?

In a word, no. One would be reducing the LIRR's capacity to get people into Manhattan if one were to force every train through GCT first. ESA will have two tracks under the East River and Park Avenue, one inbound and one outbound. Currently the LIRR has access to two inbound tunnels and two outbound tunnels at Penn. So forcing all LIRR trains to Penn to go via GCT would cut service in half.

I was forgetting that LIRR has four tracks and not two into NYP, but if there were a two track connecting tunnel from NYP to the ESA section of GCT, it ought to be possible to run two thirds of LIRR trains via both stations and one third via only NYP and not have any fewer trains crossing the river than you would if ESA runs in isolation from LIRR NYP service (igorning the fact that Amtrak also uses the NYP tunnels, anyway).

2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?

Well that depends on your definition of easy. However, that is one reason that people continue to float the idea of extending the LIRR tracks at Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn to lower Manhattan.

Are the Flatbush Ave tracks the ones ESA will connect to?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

That's a good point, and I was probably confusing ESA with GCT. I think the real benefit of a NYP-GCT track connection project (which would cause the latter to no longer be a terminal) would be to NJT users who are trying to get to places better reached via GCT than NYP, and MN users who want to reach places best reached via NYP. ESA will already mean that LIRR riders can get to both GCT and NYP.

I wouldn't deny that it would be helpful for NJT to be able to drop off passengers on the east side, just like the LIRR is trying to do with ESA.

I agree with that. Unfortunately there is the New York City water tunnel under 6th Avenue that sits in the way of extending the tracks from the proposed NYPSE station to GCT.

How wide and how tall is that water tunnel?

On the other hand, ESA probably does refer to the lower level(s) of GCT, which would be more likely to be at roughly the same elevation below sea level as NYPSE.

I'm not sure of the exact depths involved here, but there is a good chance that the LIRR level is even lower than NYPSE. Remember GCT already has two levels now, so the LIRR will be the third level below ground.

NYPSE is a two level station which is about 170' below ground. Actually if I recall correctly the lower level platform is 170' below ground, the mezzanine is 155' below ground and the upper platforms are 140' below ground or something like that.

Is Manhattan completely flat? It seems like Mean Sea Level would be a more useful reference than ground level if we're trying to figure out what grade would be required to get from NYPSE to ESA, though even the definition of Mean Sea Level apparently has its problems.

 

[AlanB]

1) The ESA design seems to be based upon the idea that some LIRR trains will go to GCT and others to NYP. Wouldn't there be better service frequencies if all trains served both stations?

In a word, no. One would be reducing the LIRR's capacity to get people into Manhattan if one were to force every train through GCT first. ESA will have two tracks under the East River and Park Avenue, one inbound and one outbound. Currently the LIRR has access to two inbound tunnels and two outbound tunnels at Penn. So forcing all LIRR trains to Penn to go via GCT would cut service in half.

I was forgetting that LIRR has four tracks and not two into NYP, but if there were a two track connecting tunnel from NYP to the ESA section of GCT, it ought to be possible to run two thirds of LIRR trains via both stations and one third via only NYP and not have any fewer trains crossing the river than you would if ESA runs in isolation from LIRR NYP service (igorning the fact that Amtrak also uses the NYP tunnels, anyway).

I'm not sure how you figure on getting two thirds of the trains that currently run through two tunnels that are maxed out during rush hour, through one tunnel. With only one tunnel and one track in said tunnel, you get exactly half the capacity of two tunnels, each with one track in them. Amtrak represents only a very small portion of the rush hour capacity of the East River tunnels, probably no more than two or three trains per hour during rush hour. NJT might add a few more trains in the peak direction, although many more in the other direction.

Finally, the point of ESA is to increase the LIRR's ability to get more people into Manhattan. If we start running LIRR trains from GCT on down to Penn, a Penn that can't handle any more trains than it currently has, then we haven't increased the number of trains into Manhattan and therefore haven't increased capacity. We've made things perhaps more flexible, meaning less transferring in Jamaica. But that isn't the goal of ESA. The goal of ESA is to get more trains and through that, more passengers into Manhattan; not to mention getting some of them closer to where they work.

2) Are there places within Manhattan that are not easily reachable from either GCT or NYP that would benefit from direct commuter service?

Well that depends on your definition of easy. However, that is one reason that people continue to float the idea of extending the LIRR tracks at Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn to lower Manhattan.

Are the Flatbush Ave tracks the ones ESA will connect to?

No, ESA will connect to the existing LIRR/Amtrak mainline in Sunnyside Queens. Flatbush Avenue is in Brooklyn, several miles south of Sunnyside.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I'm not sure how you figure on getting two thirds of the trains that currently run through two tunnels that are maxed out during rush hour, through one tunnel. With only one tunnel and one track in said tunnel, you get exactly half the capacity of two tunnels, each with one track in them. Amtrak represents only a very small portion of the rush hour capacity of the East River tunnels, probably no more than two or three trains per hour during rush hour. NJT might add a few more trains in the peak direction, although many more in the other direction.
Finally, the point of ESA is to increase the LIRR's ability to get more people into Manhattan. If we start running LIRR trains from GCT on down to Penn, a Penn that can't handle any more trains than it currently has, then we haven't increased the number of trains into Manhattan and therefore haven't increased capacity. We've made things perhaps more flexible, meaning less transferring in Jamaica. But that isn't the goal of ESA. The goal of ESA is to get more trains and through that, more passengers into Manhattan; not to mention getting some of them closer to where they work.

I assume if a train goes from Long Island to Manhattan via the inbound ESA tunnel at 7:00 AM, there isn't space for it to sit in Manhattan until 10:00 AM waiting for a slot to deadhead out.

So I'm assuming that in the isolated-ESA world, that train that came into Manhattan is going to need an outbound ESA tunnel slot sometime not too long after 7:00 AM.

If that train that came inbound via ESA gets out of Manhattan via one of the NYP tunnels, and a train that went inbound to NYP gets back out of Manhattan via the outbound ESA tunnel, you haven't lost any capacity across the East River vs having the ESA trains come in via the inbound ESA tunnel and out via the outbound ESA tunnel, and the NYP train likewise using the NYP tunnel in both directions.

NYP capacity is in issue I hadn't been thinking about though, and if the LIRR trains have to switch which end is the front of the train at NYP, that's certainly an issue. On the other hand, if the ESA to NYP tunnel were built to connect the GCT ESA tracks to the west side of a handful of NYP platforms, the time savings from not having to turn the trains around would probably lead to more efficient platform use such that there'd still be enough platform tracks.

If you could configure the tracks such that one of the inbound Long Island PRR tunnels fed two platform tracks at NYP, and those two platforms connected to a track that went to GCT where it would again split out to two platform tracks, and from there those tracks would merge back into one track to continue to the outbound ESA track, and had a similar scheme for the reverse direction, I suspect that would be enough to keep the two ESA tracks across the East River and two of the PRR tracks across the East River busy, and then the other two PRR tracks could continue to be used in the traditional NYP only stub end terminal fashion.

 

[AlanB]

I assume if a train goes from Long Island to Manhattan via the inbound ESA tunnel at 7:00 AM, there isn't space for it to sit in Manhattan until 10:00 AM waiting for a slot to deadhead out.
So I'm assuming that in the isolated-ESA world, that train that came into Manhattan is going to need an outbound ESA tunnel slot sometime not too long after 7:00 AM.

If that train that came inbound via ESA gets out of Manhattan via one of the NYP tunnels, and a train that went inbound to NYP gets back out of Manhattan via the outbound ESA tunnel, you haven't lost any capacity across the East River vs having the ESA trains come in via the inbound ESA tunnel and out via the outbound ESA tunnel, and the NYP train likewise using the NYP tunnel in both directions.

I think that I understand this, but I don't think that it's very practical. It certainly makes for a very complicated switching setup and frankly I don't see the point. Why send someone to NYP first, if they want to go to GCT? No one, save maybe a railfan, is going to stay on a train because they'll get a one seat ride to NYP, only to sit there for 10 minutes while the crew changes ends and pulls out to GCT. They're going to get off in Jamaica, just like thousands do every day right now, and switch to a train that runs direct to GCT.

Perhaps someone who wanted NYP, but was on a GCT bound train, might remain onboard if that train was going to run through to NYP. But they might also decide that they'd rather transfer for the speed run to NYP.

However, I believe that the LIRR will continue and expand upon the current practice during rush hour, where most of the lines send the 7:00 AM originating train for example to NYP, and the 7:10 AM train to Flatbush. They'll expand on that by sending a 7:05 AM train to GCT. Then repeating. Granted that's a bit of an over simplification and the real times might vary some, but you get the idea. For those that can't catch the right direct train, or don't have one, then they'll continue to change to the correct train at Jamaica. So there is no need for LIRR run through service.

NJT and Metro North on the other hand would benefit far more greatly by linking GCT & NYP.

NYP capacity is in issue I hadn't been thinking about though, and if the LIRR trains have to switch which end is the front of the train at NYP, that's certainly an issue. On the other hand, if the ESA to NYP tunnel were built to connect the GCT ESA tracks to the west side of a handful of NYP platforms, the time savings from not having to turn the trains around would probably lead to more efficient platform use such that there'd still be enough platform tracks.

Some trains do change ends right on the platforms, but most don't. Most pull out of Penn going west into the West End Yard. Some will be parked there until the evening rush hour, while still others will change ends in the yard before heading back east to Penn and eventually Long Island. The West End Yard precludes any chance of hooking up tracks that would run to GCT. And frankly in a city like NY, it wouldn't have been very practical to tunnel west first, only to loop all the way around to the east, and then head north to GCT. It would certainly be very expensive to do, and I don't imagine that it would be very worthwhile either. And it wouldn't help NJT to connect to GCT, so now you've got four tunnels that would need to head towards GCT, even if they eventually merge prior to connecting to GCT.

If you could configure the tracks such that one of the inbound Long Island PRR tunnels fed two platform tracks at NYP, and those two platforms connected to a track that went to GCT where it would again split out to two platform tracks, and from there those tracks would merge back into one track to continue to the outbound ESA track, and had a similar scheme for the reverse direction, I suspect that would be enough to keep the two ESA tracks across the East River and two of the PRR tracks across the East River busy, and then the other two PRR tracks could continue to be used in the traditional NYP only stub end terminal fashion.

I believe that the above reply explains why this doesn't work.

 

[jis]

NYPSE is a two level station which is about 170' below ground. Actually if I recall correctly the lower level platform is 170' below ground, the mezzanine is 155' below ground and the upper platforms are 140' below ground or something like that.

Is Manhattan completely flat? It seems like Mean Sea Level would be a more useful reference than ground level if we're trying to figure out what grade would be required to get from NYPSE to ESA, though even the definition of Mean Sea Level apparently has its problems.

I agree and I do have the plan and elevation drawings of NYPSE, but they are not available easily to hand right now. Hence I posted the numbers that I remembered.

Again from memory, purely in terms of vertical distances, it would be quite feasible to connect NYPSE to ESA level for level, i.e. upper level to upper level and lower level to lower level. Remember that the design of the two stations are almost identical in form, having been done by the same outfit, platforms at two levels.

As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.

And as far as ESA goes, another fly in the ointment is the dimension of the ESA tunnels under the east river. At present NJT own nothing that would fit through those tunnels, and as a matter of fact even the MNRR M-7s won't fit through them. Only the LIRR ones will fit through them. LIRR C-3's for example will never make it into GCT. They will always run only to NYP or Hunterspoint Ave.

There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.

I'm a little skeptical of this. We've seen evidence (under the Hudson River and East River) that it's possible to install a 20' to 30' diameter pipe in a large body of water and run trains inside that pipe. It's not clear to me why a similar pipe could not be installed through the large body of water known as the water tunnel. It would undoubtably be more difficult to install such a pipe in a body of water where there is no surface access directly above where that train pipe is going, but I'm not at all sure it would be impossible. The folks who run the water tunnel do know how to send divers into the water tunnel.

 

[AlanB]

As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.

I'm a little skeptical of this. We've seen evidence (under the Hudson River and East River) that it's possible to install a 20' to 30' diameter pipe in a large body of water and run trains inside that pipe. It's not clear to me why a similar pipe could not be installed through the large body of water known as the water tunnel. It would undoubtably be more difficult to install such a pipe in a body of water where there is no surface access directly above where that train pipe is going, but I'm not at all sure it would be impossible. The folks who run the water tunnel do know how to send divers into the water tunnel.

Well remember that this "pipe" is a dual use pipe. The upper level carries the 63rd Street Subway line, the F route on the map, while the lower level will carry the LIRR ESA tracks.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think that I understand this, but I don't think that it's very practical. It certainly makes for a very complicated switching setup and frankly I don't see the point. Why send someone to NYP first, if they want to go to GCT? No one, save maybe a railfan, is going to stay on a train because they'll get a one seat ride to NYP, only to sit there for 10 minutes while the crew changes ends and pulls out to GCT. They're going to get off in Jamaica, just like thousands do every day right now, and switch to a train that runs direct to GCT.
Perhaps someone who wanted NYP, but was on a GCT bound train, might remain onboard if that train was going to run through to NYP. But they might also decide that they'd rather transfer for the speed run to NYP.

I've been thinking about this problem and considering another variation: build a total of six tracks from GCT/ESA to NYP/NYPSE.

Use four of those tracks to run all MN trains through to NJT and vice versa. NJT will more or less have four tracks into Manhattan (ignoring what they need to share with Amtrak), and I suspect that Metro-North's three or so New Haven Line tracks plus the Hudson and Harlem Lines might add up to almost as many trains. If not, since presumably NYPSE would have 8 platform tracks and only need four for through running, up to half the NYPSE NJT trains could turn around at NYPSE, or perhaps the GCT configuration could allow some NJT trains to turn around at GCT.

Then, during peak travel times, use both ESA tracks in the peak direction, with morning inbound trains stopping first at GCT and then at NYP (and 1/3 of the LIRR trains still going inbound via a PRR tunnel, stopping only at NYP and not GCT). Reverse peak travelers in the morning would have to board at NYP, but they'd find the average wait time at GCT for a LIRR train going to NYP to be somewhere around 45 seconds. The average wait time would be more like 20 seconds if they were also willing to take an NJT/MN train, but at some point people might have to start optimizing for short walks rather than taking a train from any possible platform.

To make this work, you'd probably basically need two groups of 8 (potentially stub end) platform tracks each in the approximate horizontal position of NYP at some depth or another, with each group of 8 platform tracks having a track to ESA and a track to a PRR tunnel; these platform tracks might be existing NYP tracks, or they might be new platforms built below the existing platforms.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As for the water tunnel, it is not just the diameter of the tunnel but a region around it that is not usable and that is large enough to prevent any of the tracks from NYPSE to be extended eastwards.

I'm a little skeptical of this. We've seen evidence (under the Hudson River and East River) that it's possible to install a 20' to 30' diameter pipe in a large body of water and run trains inside that pipe. It's not clear to me why a similar pipe could not be installed through the large body of water known as the water tunnel. It would undoubtably be more difficult to install such a pipe in a body of water where there is no surface access directly above where that train pipe is going, but I'm not at all sure it would be impossible. The folks who run the water tunnel do know how to send divers into the water tunnel.

Well remember that this "pipe" is a dual use pipe. The upper level carries the 63rd Street Subway line, the F route on the map, while the lower level will carry the LIRR ESA tracks.

I was thinking of the PRR iron pipes into NYP in thinking of what a train pipe through the water tunnel might look like, though probably slightly larger diameter, and quite possibly concrete or something instead of iron.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.

Do the ESA tunnels fit any multilevel equipment at all?

 

[AlanB]

There is no way that NJT will acquire equipment just to fit through ESA by reducing capacity (relative to the multi-level cars). So you can pretty much forget about through running from NJ to LI via ESA. Won;t happen even if there were the tunnel connections.

Do the ESA tunnels fit any multilevel equipment at all?

While I was unaware that there were height differences between a Metro North M7 and an LIRR M7 car, if the tunnel won't clear a Metro North M7 single level car, it surely isn't going to clear any possible multilevel car.

 

[jis]

While I was unaware that there were height differences between a Metro North M7 and an LIRR M7 car, if the tunnel won't clear a Metro North M7 single level car, it surely isn't going to clear any possible multilevel car.

The only piece of equipment on the MNRR cars that causes the height difference is the vent that sticks out on the roof. Notice that LIRR does not have that. This allows them to fit in the East River tunnels for ESA. I don't know where they stuck that vent on the LIRR cars. MNRR insisted that they be on the roof far far away from the rails, after their sad experience in the past with the wrong kind of snow getting in through vents and causing havoc.