Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement
- Thread starter jis
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Of course the second Portal Bridge would help. But four tracking all the way from Swift to Newark will have substantial effect in decongesting because currently there is backup from Newark in bursts since there are not enough blocks to absorb a sudden arrival of a bunch of trains from New York. With 4 tracks they will be able to use 3 tracks in the heavy traffic direction to absorb such burst better thus allowing Midtown Directs to not get entangled in the Newark backup and such. So even without 4 tracks all the way to the tunnel it will substantially reduce congestion.
Hmm...I'm skeptical the tugboat company didn't know about the plans to replace the current moveable bridge with a fixed span until last year. Seems like a fairly biased article, but hundreds of trucks of sludge is nothing to sneeze at.
1) Go under the bridge at low tide, when the barge will fit.
2) Spend a couple of million for a new longer, wider, but lower barge (same capacity) that will fit under the bridge.
3) Spend several hundred million and several years delay to redesign the bridge to be two feet higher.
Which of these?
2) Spend a couple of million for a new longer, wider, but lower barge (same capacity) that will fit under the bridge.
3) Spend several hundred million and several years delay to redesign the bridge to be two feet higher.
Which of these?
Note that it is not the barge that doesn't fit, but the tugboat. Barges usually don't have much of a structure above water. As the article notes, for 500K the tugboat could be outfitted with hinges for its antennas. Or he could trade it in for a smaller tug.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
One possibility is that the Barge guy is exploring possibilities to get a new barge funded by the taxpayers. Considering that the Barge Issue has been discussed many times in course of the NEPA for this it seems incredible that the owner of the Barge Tug in question was unaware of this. Perhaps it is an indication that their level of situational awareness is incompatible with the caution necessary to operate a tug. Who knows?
The Coast Guard approved this 10 years ago. Those are public proceedings involving the waterway users. Sounds like they will either get a shorter tug, or spend the money to hinge. Perhaps they are hoping someone gives it to them.
west point
Engineer
There will be some kind of change for the tug boat. Even a different one or hinge the present. 600k to hinge??? This whole item stinks
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
This one cannot even claim to be eligible for grandfathering in any way. The current contract was tendered and let out many years after the Coast Guard approved the 50feet clearance fixed structure and it was duly notified. Appears to be just negligence on part of the Tugboat operators. and lack of supervision by whoever signed the barge contract. Someone will now have to eat the money.
George Harris
Engineer
I would say the stupid here is on the part of the barge operator. Fifty feet is a standard minimum clearance for structures over inland waterways. Tell the tow boat operator to get his boat in compliance and quit complaining. If he doesn't want to do that, then reschedule for low tide passage. Again quite complaining.
Apparently, some rush hour trains (which operate into and out of Penn Station) are less busy than pre-Covid, and some other trains are even busier than Pre-Covid.
Does anyone think that NJ Transit can increase trans-hudson capacity with 12 car emu rush hour trains and to build one single tube (instead of two tunnels).
The following is an article from 2019 which discusses beginning the Gateway Project with just one tube at first. Part 6 of 6: We Have a Plan B. Do We Need a Plan C? - Railway Age
Does anyone think that NJ Transit can increase trans-hudson capacity with 12 car emu rush hour trains and to build one single tube (instead of two tunnels).
The following is an article from 2019 which discusses beginning the Gateway Project with just one tube at first. Part 6 of 6: We Have a Plan B. Do We Need a Plan C? - Railway Age
One single tube would not be much cheaper than two, and NYC Fire Code prohibits it anyway. This is a 120 year project. Do it right the first time and not be dependent on a relatively brief Covid aftermath and hybrid work.
NJT already runs 12 car Arrow MU's and 9 and 10 car MLV's. That has nothing to do with building one tunnel or two.
NJT already runs 12 car Arrow MU's and 9 and 10 car MLV's. That has nothing to do with building one tunnel or two.
The biggest problem with one tube is the lack of escape routes. Current best practice is to build two tubes with crossovers.
west point
Engineer
a second tube though smaller would have to be built for escape. But the geology of the new gateway tunnel route would have required a tunnel with too steep grade rising from the low point under the Hudson silt. Any new tunnel has to be below any silt. So, let's put this single bore idea to bed. If you have been following NJ Transit it is shortening an existing tunnel being restored to service to prevent an escape bore having to be built.
Last edited:
After the Hudson Tunnel Project gets built (which will double the number of tracks between just east of Secaucus and NY Penn Station). will NJ Transit (and Amtrak) be able to add additional rush hour trains, such as direct am and pm Raritan Valley Line and more Acela Express slots without any additional platforms in Penn Station?
Also, remember that Amtrak's Empire Connection in Midtown Manhattan is only a single tube as well.
Also, remember that Amtrak's Empire Connection in Midtown Manhattan is only a single tube as well.
Last edited:
The rule is that there has to be exits, which the Empire Connection has. You can't put exits in a single tube under the Hudson without someplace like a second tube to go to.
When the new tunnels open, the first thing that will happen is they will close the existing tunnels so they can be refurbished. They are in serious need of this, even if there is not another event like Sandy. I don't know how long this will take, probably a year or two. Once that is complete, assuming they don't discover any serious structural problems that results in the old tunnels being closed indefinitely or permanently, they will be able to increase (basically double) the number of trains.
If one of the existing tunnels is in better shape, they may be able to refurbish the worst tunnel first, leaving the other tunnel open, and then switch to it and refurbish the other one. This would allow a smaller immediate increase in trains, but not nearly 50%. The reason for this is they would have to switch directions of one or more tunnels because an equal number of trains, on average, would have to pass through the tunnels in each direction each day. Every time a tunnel switches direction, there is a delay while the last train clears the tunnel before the first train in the other direction can enter. Also, they would be able to use one tunnel for people, construction equipment, concrete trucks and so forth to access the other tunnel, increasing the work efficiency. So it may be cheaper and quicker to close both existing tunnels and refurbish them simultaneously.
The next bottle neck would be the platform space at Penn Station, which I think is why they want to build the Penn Station south expansion. This may prevent doubling the number of trains even after all four tunnels are open.
@alanh explained why the Empire Connection doesn't require a second tunnel. It isn't underwater and there are stairs to the surface along its length. It also isn't very deep, only about the depth of an average basement, so stairwells aren't particularly expensive or onerous for passengers and crew to use. If a train is disabled or crashes or catches fire in the Empire Connection tunnel, people with mobility problems can be evacuated relatively easily by emergency responders. People don't need an accessible underground place to shelter, like they would under the middle of the Hudson.
Trans-Hudson train capacity would increase by 2 trains per hour without Penn Station South, 18 with it. The Raritan line's own Congressional whiner from Westfield, Tom Kean, Jr, can keep nagging to impress the local realtors, but it will not have any impact.
There are thru-running NIMBY's, planners, and foamers under various auspices of IRUM, Rethink, and Tristate Transportation Campaign who are actively opposing Penn Station South, wishing to marry train operations of LIRR and MN (from New Rochelle) with NJT's for anywhere from 6 to 10 minutes dwell time because they allegedly do it in Your-Up and that will magically give them so much more capacity. All the physical, technical, rolling stock, station slot ownership, and operational practicality issues in preventing that are way over their heads and they cannot be convinced. It is like a cult.
There are thru-running NIMBY's, planners, and foamers under various auspices of IRUM, Rethink, and Tristate Transportation Campaign who are actively opposing Penn Station South, wishing to marry train operations of LIRR and MN (from New Rochelle) with NJT's for anywhere from 6 to 10 minutes dwell time because they allegedly do it in Your-Up and that will magically give them so much more capacity. All the physical, technical, rolling stock, station slot ownership, and operational practicality issues in preventing that are way over their heads and they cannot be convinced. It is like a cult.
Last edited:
Please explain to a layman why they're wrong. Seems to me that if the mainline tracks can handle an additional 18 trains per hour but the station can only has space to turn around turn around two more per hour, getting them out of the station ASAP by having them turn around somewhere else is exactly what's needed. Metro North vs. NJT is a bureaucratic obstacle, not a technical one, and the Port Authority was created to deal with just that sort of problem. Establishing a crew base at New Rochelle or Newark or wherever instead of NYP might cost a bit, but there's no way to spend money on that that even compares to the cost of demolishing a couple blocks of midtown Manhattan.
There are plenty of other reasons Penn Station needs a remodel, sure, but I don't see why the impossibility of through-running is one of them.
The Port Authority has nothing to do with Penn Station train operations, NJT, LIRR, or MN, only to an unrelated and land-locked PATH.
Thru run to where ? There is no place to send them except Sunnyside or back to Jersey and Sunnyside is pretty well full mid-day. Nothing is being done east of 7th Avenue Manhattan, beyond the scope of the Gateway Project. If you want to build a fifth track across Manhattan, the East River, and out to Jamaica, find $30 or 40 Billion. You can't thru run MN trains to the NEC and turn back anywhere until South Amboy, and definitely not Newark, which serves no purpose. The peak services of MTA and NJT run in opposite directions toward Manhattan.
Metro North will use LIRR owned station slots vacated by the LIRR when Grand Central Madison opened a year ago, and either proceed to West Side Yard or back to New Rochelle, or wherever they came from. Their station dwell time is seldom more than 10 minutes. It is not like MTA trains sit around for a half hour and LIRR is a lightly used railroad ready to accommodate more traffic.
https://www.irum.org/20140807_Amtrak_NYP_Thru_Running_Assessment.pdf
"Further, current operations are optimized around the existing terminal infrastructure with its two main support yards serving in a critical role to achieving very high levels of performance. Without investment in new station facilities to compensate for the utility provided by yards, the introduction of a through running revenue service with commuter trains would lead to fewer peak period trains and/or less reliable operations under representative service scenarios evaluated. Potential"
Thru run to where ? There is no place to send them except Sunnyside or back to Jersey and Sunnyside is pretty well full mid-day. Nothing is being done east of 7th Avenue Manhattan, beyond the scope of the Gateway Project. If you want to build a fifth track across Manhattan, the East River, and out to Jamaica, find $30 or 40 Billion. You can't thru run MN trains to the NEC and turn back anywhere until South Amboy, and definitely not Newark, which serves no purpose. The peak services of MTA and NJT run in opposite directions toward Manhattan.
Metro North will use LIRR owned station slots vacated by the LIRR when Grand Central Madison opened a year ago, and either proceed to West Side Yard or back to New Rochelle, or wherever they came from. Their station dwell time is seldom more than 10 minutes. It is not like MTA trains sit around for a half hour and LIRR is a lightly used railroad ready to accommodate more traffic.
https://www.irum.org/20140807_Amtrak_NYP_Thru_Running_Assessment.pdf
"Further, current operations are optimized around the existing terminal infrastructure with its two main support yards serving in a critical role to achieving very high levels of performance. Without investment in new station facilities to compensate for the utility provided by yards, the introduction of a through running revenue service with commuter trains would lead to fewer peak period trains and/or less reliable operations under representative service scenarios evaluated. Potential"
Last edited:
In the sense that at least all NJ and south trains get turned in Sunnyside, on the Long Island end of the East River tunnels, those trains ALL are through-running, If there is a shortage of space for turning (by which I mean and I think everyone else means cleaning, emptying the trash, flipping seats to face the opposite direction, swapping in new crews when necessary, etc., in many cases they currently run the trains through the tunnels to do that rather than park them under Penn Station for an hour or so. If there isn't enough room at Sunnyside, or NYP, maybe the cheapest solution would be to run empty trains through the East River tunnels and/or the new Hudson River tunnels when complete and set up a new servicing area either on Long Island or even over the bridge in the Bronx or somewhere nearby (New Rochelle?) or on the New Jersey side or both? I'm sure the people planning the Penn South expansion have evaluated all these possibilities, and decided buying and demolishing a couple of blocks in Midtown made more sense,
Still, if you are going to have to run north/east bound trains arriving at NYP through the East River tunnels and south/west bound arrivals on through to New Jersey anyway, it might make more sense to convert those trains to through-running trains and service them at the outlying points instead of in the middle of their routes.
Most of the Amtrak NEC trains already run through, though some are WAS<>NYP. Lots of the extended NEC trains (Vermonter, Hartford line, etc.) also already run through. The Crescent and Meteors originate/terminate at NYP and run through for servicing at Sunnyside already.
The issue seems to primarily pertain to LIRR and NJT trains. which start or finish at NYP. (Most Metro North trains use GCT.) The NEC/Acela trains already have to deal with delays inbound from one direction causing delays outbound in the other direction, and it does not seem to be catastrophic, but maybe long-distance travellers are more tollerant of delays than commuters. Also, I think there are lots more commuters using NYP than Amtrak passengers.
Turn over NJT's Northeast Corridor line and Metro North (or LIRR, if you prefer -- I'm not familiar with local commuting patterns) to the Port Authority to eliminate the bureaucratic infighting. Run trains from New Rochelle (Jamaica) to Trenton and back, at whichever is the greater of the existing frequencies on Metro North and NJT (so one will see no change and the other will see improved service). Service them at Trenton and New Rochelle and forget Sunnyside Yard. Only possible ways this reduces peak period traffic is if Metro North runs more frequently than NJT and the tracks south of Grand Central Station can't handle that frequency, or NJT is the more frequent of the two and the tracks north of NYP can't handle the traffic (maybe this is the case, but nothing in that document said so, and I'm not super familiar with the area). The benefit comes from replacing one inbound NJT train and one outbound Metro North train (for a total of two trains through the chokepoint) with a single train performing both tasks; of course through running doesn't help much if you just continue on to someplace useless (in terms of passenger demand) like Sunnyside Yard.
Seems simple enough, but for some reason nobody seems to have thought of it in that study. It would admittedly force inbound and outbound frequencies to be the same (including at peak times), but rebuilding Penn Station is an awfully high price to pay just to make sure reverse commuters don't have frequent service, especially if Sunnyside Yard has capacity issues too.
Last edited:
Nobody will turn over anything to the Port Authority and they don't want it. The railroads are far more complex and extensive than Trenton to New Rochelle and Jamaica. MN will be a very small entity with 2 to 6 trains per hour and there is already room for them.
MTA has nothing to do with the Gateway project. They are on their side of the station, with some joint usage of the middle tracks, NJT on the other side. Tracks 1 thru 4 are stub ended at 7th Avenue. They can't go east. Tracks 20 and 21 are too far north to access the Hudson tunnels and most LIRR trains arrive on 20 and 21. So thru running means a massive game of checkers, over using the thru tracks, less use of the north and south tracks, but nothing in total to be gained.
There isn't a single locomotive or MU car, and LIRR has 1,100 of them, on either NJT or LIRR that can operate on each other's railroad. Third rail system to the east, and dual voltage catenary to the west.
MTA has nothing to do with the Gateway project. They are on their side of the station, with some joint usage of the middle tracks, NJT on the other side. Tracks 1 thru 4 are stub ended at 7th Avenue. They can't go east. Tracks 20 and 21 are too far north to access the Hudson tunnels and most LIRR trains arrive on 20 and 21. So thru running means a massive game of checkers, over using the thru tracks, less use of the north and south tracks, but nothing in total to be gained.
There isn't a single locomotive or MU car, and LIRR has 1,100 of them, on either NJT or LIRR that can operate on each other's railroad. Third rail system to the east, and dual voltage catenary to the west.
