Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
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.
Andrew said:
Which Gateway document said that--can you share it?

And are you saying that only two additional trains per hour would be able travel through the Hudson Tunnel Project segment or the future four track segment between Kearny Junction and Manhattan?
Click to expand...

https://walkableprinceton.com/2023/...pand-track-capacity-at-new-york-penn-station/
Go down to the end of the 3rd paragraph. Click on the link to full document. Focus on pages 4 and 5 of the 58 pages downloaded of the pdf.
 
Last edited:
Amtrak25 said:
https://walkableprinceton.com/2023/...pand-track-capacity-at-new-york-penn-station/
Go down to the end of the 3rd paraagraph. Click on the link to full document. Focus on pages 4 and 5 of the 58 pages downloaded of the pdf.
Click to expand...
Interesting document, but I don't see anywhere that it answers the questions Andrew posed. The linked PDF, in the intro mentions the total number of train moves every day, but not what the peaks are (I'm sure it would be much easier to add more New Jersey trains at 3 AM, but that wouldn't be very helpful!) It also doesn't (that I could find) mention what the capacity improvements after the new tunnels open, just that they would be limited by the number of tracks and existing narrow platforms at Penn and the limited access to those platforms (stairs, escalators and elevators that limit how quickly passengers can get off and board the trains, and thus how much platform time each train needs.

Because the PDF is not searchable, I had to skim it looking for relevant numbers, but really couldn't find anything to justify the claim that the new tunnels (presumably after the existing tunnels are refurbished and reopened, so when there are four Hudson River tunnels in use) would only allow 2 more trains per hour. Could you point to the specific page and paragraph?

The claim doesn't sound unreasonable given the other bottlenecks at Penn Station, but I would like to see some sort of analysis and not mere opinion.
 
Amtrak25 said:
I can't find where I read it was two. It was some years ago. But the implications in this document is close to zero, which is probably not right, but it won't be much, definitely not in the high teens.
Click to expand...

So essentially what you are saying is that The Hudson Tunnel Project will increase rush hour capacity without Penn South?
 
Andrew said:
So essentially what you are saying is that The Hudson Tunnel Project will increase rush hour capacity without Penn South?
Click to expand...
As soon as the present tunnel bores are completely refurbished and back in service. However, it may be a slight increase oaf capacity with just the new tunnel bores if capacity can be slightly better than present bores maybe by traveling thru new bores at slightly higher speeds or better signaling???
 
west point said:
As soon as the present tunnel bores are completely refurbished and back in service. However, it may be a slight increase oaf capacity with just the new tunnel bores if capacity can be slightly better than present bores maybe by traveling thru new bores at slightly higher speeds or better signaling???
Click to expand...
At least it will not have the current single-tracking every weekend.

jis said:
People tend to forget that just adding two tubes without the planned additional tracks east of A Interlocking does not decongest A interlocking, which at present already is a bottleneck.
Click to expand...
Are there more details on this? Is there a construction timeline?
 
daybeers said:
Are there more details on this? Is there a construction timeline?
Click to expand...
This is what the NY Penn Station South is all about. There is no fixed timeline for this yet.

The two new tunnels will be connected into the Penn Station platforms tracks by a single ladder track across A interlocking. So access to tracks 7 and above IIRC will be through this single ladder track from the new tunnels. Eventually the design assumes that the new tunnels will mainly feed tracks below 7 and the 4-5 tracks in the Penn Station South extension, while the original tunnels will feed track 8 and above or some such. So the single ladder track will be used very sparingly.

This will make A interlocking much more fluid as the terrible conflicts that exist between NJT terminating trains and Amtrak +NJT through trains at A interlocking will be essentially removed completely as the terminating trains will arrive and depart through the new tunnels to/from the South side platforms, while the through trains will arrive and depart through the old tunnels to/from the middle platforms, without crossing each others path. LIRR/MNRR will remain on the North side platforms not interfering with anything like now as the leads to the West Side Yard do not conflict with any Hudson Tunnel tracks from that end of the station.
 
Penn South is not funded. That and all the real estate development has been put on ice for 7 years.

New tunnels with no station addition means more cross over conflicts. Some trains in Legacy Penn would crossover to the south for the new tunnels. With adding station tracks A thru H, there would be less with new tunnels using new station much of the time. As it is, the 4 stub track departures are often delayed a couple of minutes. The thru running fans hate cross over conflicts, but do not comprehend they are making the problem worse playing Block 780 NIMBY at the same time fantasizing that Amtrak and MN per the Hell Gate Line and the LIRR have rolled out the welcome mat.
 
MARC Rider said:
Of course, those of us in the know can avoid the cattle lines by boarding at the old Penn Station or the West End concourse.
Click to expand...

Another option to avoid the cattle line for those who want to use the lounge is the elevators from Moynihan. When I get the track assignment in the lounge I just head straight for the elevator and take it to track level. Works every time.

Amtrak25 said:
They got their Moynihan Concourse, which ought to be enough, and that has increased dwell time of thru Amtrak trains since it encourages west loading/unloading of trains, the sheeple following Amtrak e-ticketing instructions. With westbound trains having first class, business class, and sleepers at the east end of consist, more time is spent hoofing it up and down the platforms.
Click to expand...

In fairness some of us who board from Moynihan just find the Amtrak level at legacy Penn Station to be a dump and Moynihan to be a more pleasant place to wait and board from. For some I’m sure it doesn’t matter preferring function and transit connection convenience over form which is fine. But I find the lounge and other amenities are value added especially when I’ve purchased a sleeper ticket. It does involve some walking when I board a sleeper but that doesn’t really bother me and I doubt it really had any impact on dwell times for the LD trains. Acela first is always on the west end of the trains so that’s a non issue.
 
Last edited:
How many additional (Raritan Valley Line) trains per hour could travel into and out of Penn Station if just the new Hudson Tunnels get built?
 
jis said:
Oy vey. Here we go with the wondrous NJT Management...

https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...e-project-gateway-tunnels-hudson/71157664007/
Click to expand...
https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...al-bridge-project-design-lawsuit/72484911007/

New update...he is suing NJT for his firing and claiming extreme deficiencies with the bridge design and that it may impact the current bridge. He told Amtrak and an employee responded:
By August of 2023, Nasim alleges, his concerns had reached Amtrak, which owns and operates the current Portal Bridge, and an Amtrak employee sent him a letter that allegedly said, “'The magnitude of movement and the neglect to address this issue is alarming’ and that continuing with the original Portal Partners’ design ‘poses a significant risk to the safety of passenger trains.’”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
AmtrakMaineiac said:
The animation and some drawings show old PRR style variable tension catenary supports. I would hope that the approaches would use constant tension catenary in any new construction.
Click to expand...
Actually there is absolutely nothing that prevents the hanging of constant tension catenary from those structures. That is close to what has been done between County and Ham in NJ. The posts and cross beams pretty much resemble the old structures except the base of posts are more modern detachable variety. The catenary has been hung from those. Some of the original posts and cross beams have been used too. New posts were needed mainly because there was a desire to reduce the span, not because the original posts were unusable.

But all in all I would not try to surmise what sort of catenary will be used based on a animation video of this sort.
 
Last edited:
jis said:
Actually there is absolutely nothing that prevents the hanging of constant tension catenary from those structures. That is close to what has been done between County and Ham in NJ. The posts and cross beams pretty much resemble the old structures except the base of posts are more modern detachable variety. The catenary has been hung from those. Some of the original posts and cross beams have been used too. New posts were needed mainly because there was a desire to reduce the span, not because the original posts were unusable.

But all in all I would not try to surmise what sort of catenary will be used based on a animation video of this sort.
Click to expand...
I was actually referring to the structures on the new section of approaches to the bridge which would presumably be new construction and could use a more modern type of catenary support as on the New Haven to Boston electrification. I suspected that this was an artists conception rather than what would actually be built.
 
AmtrakMaineiac said:
I was actually referring to the structures on the new section of approaches to the bridge which would presumably be new construction and could use a more modern type of catenary support as on the New Haven to Boston electrification. I suspected that this was an artists conception rather than what would actually be built.
Click to expand...
And my point was that there is no need to have a short segment with different structures from the rest around it. Either structure would work just fine. And as both of us have said artists conceptions are not the best guide either way, ;)
 

Latest posts

Back
Top