Moynihan Station in New York

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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would imagine with its size that it couldn't possible be used for passenger service--too short. So I wonder why someone in a previous post mentioned its rebuilding to add additional platform space? Could it be connected somehow to an already existing platform?
No. The only proposal for using the diagonal platform involves doing a significant bit of track reconfiguration around it to make it to replace it by a platform that is aligned with the rest. It is easy to provide access to it or its replacement from the Moynihan Concourse. Since it could be directly connected to the Empire Connection, it would be an ideal location to originate/terminate standard Empire Corridor trains which are usually 5 cars and at most 6 cars long, except for the LSL. Also as I said, this work is not currently funded.
 
During weekends on tracks 1 - 4 NJT turns trains in platform and typically they are scheduled for 20 to 25 minutes in the platform to do the turn. Of course on weekends this is not a problem since there are only 4 trains to handle per hour.
I thought six. 3 round trips, NJCL, NEC, and M&E. Where am I off?
GML depends on the time of the day. At the heaviest service times these are the trains:

1 NEC Trenton Express

1 NEC Trenton Local

1 NJCL Long Branch (alternate hours connection to Bay Head)

1 NEC Rahway Local

1 MTD Dover

When the Express is not running there are 4 otherwise there are 5. So if you count each service as two train movements then the numbers would be 8 or 10. But most of them get turned within the station.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That does leave me wondering whether the platforms could be widened by eliminating five platform tracks if tracks 1-4 could be connected through to Long Island.
While theoretically one can think of all sorts of mathematical justification for platform widening and what not, practically that is quite unlikely to come to pass in short order, because hell will freeze over before people will be willing to take the disruption that would be caused by such construction work within Penn Station. The only possibility of such ever coming to pass will be after another 6 platform tracks are added somewhere and before those get saturated with traffic, so that traffic can be temporarily moved there to vacate platform space to do construction work. I would not hold my breath on that one given the politics of the situation among LIRR, Amtrak and NJT :)

Actually there is a similar problem with connecting the new tunnels to the old Penn Station, but hopefully that can be managed with careful sequencing of construction. But it will stretch out construction time to a decade and it will not be cheap since the reconstruction and realignment of A interlocking will have to take place without shutting down traffic through it. But notwithstanding that connecting the new tunnels to NYP in conjunction with eventual construction of Plan 780 makes a lot of sense. Of course after Plan 780 is constructed, then one can take 6 platform tracks out of service in old NYP at a time to replace them with 4 platform track and replace 3 platforms with 2 if that can be justified by pedestrian ingress/egress time savings achieved as a result. But either way that is a few decades away at best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right on! I remember the misery during the much simpler Harold Interlocking reconstruction. What a mess.
 
Actually there is a similar problem with connecting the new tunnels to the old Penn Station, but hopefully that can be managed with careful sequencing of construction. But it will stretch out construction time to a decade and it will not be cheap since the reconstruction and realignment of A interlocking will have to take place without shutting down traffic through it. But notwithstanding that connecting the new tunnels to NYP in conjunction with eventual construction of Plan 780 makes a lot of sense. Of course after Plan 780 is constructed, then one can take 6 platform tracks out of service in old NYP at a time to replace them with 4 platform track and replace 3 platforms with 2 if that can be justified by pedestrian ingress/egress time savings achieved as a result. But either way that is a few decades away at best.
Which new tunnels are we discussing here? The ones that will mostly be perceived as not being worth building once NYPSE is operational, since the NYPSE tunnels will solve most of the same problems?
 
None of the run through plans will remove the bottleneck at A Intelocking inside Penn Station and at Harold by Sunnyside. Indeed it could make the situation worse at Harold potentially putting more trains through it. A interlocking congestion mitigation will require the building of at least one tunnel under 31st street providing egress from tracks 1-4 to Sunnyside.
I seem to recall that there was a proposal for connecting 5 platform tracks at Penn Station to the lower existing level of Grand Central Terminal. Were Penn Station's tracks 1-5 the ones that could be connected to GCT in that fashion?

I'm wondering if a viable operating plan for a NYP-GCT connection might be to have NJT run about a dozen trains an hour in NJT's peak direction through Penn Station without stopping at Penn Station, with their only Manhattan stop being GCT, and then have them continue along Metro North's Park Ave track as what Metro North would view as reverse peak trains, possibly just deadheading to the nearest yard. One challenge with this is it is not clear to me that there is a nearby yard readily reachable by the existing tracks.

In addition to that, Amtrak might run various trains through GCT to whatever extent Amtrak could work out the power issues.

On the one hand, Metro North may not have any obligation to provide Amtrak with five slots an hour in each direction (if we're rounding up counting one Acela round trip, one Northeast Regional roundtrip, one Empire roundtrip that might run through to WAS, and a Keystone and a long distance train), plus a dozen reverse peak slots an hour for commuter trains from New Jersey. On the other hand, it appears that Metro North may have some interest in finding some way for some of their trains to reach Penn Station, and perhaps Amtrak should insist that they agree to share some GCT capacity if they're going to start using some Penn Station capacity.

There is the question also of what would happen with the loop at GCT, but I suspect that the Penn Station tracks could have a level crossing with the loop; if there were only five mid-day trains in each direction on the Penn Station tracks and 25 slots an hour, it ought to be possible to run 15 trains an hour through the loop during the mid day even if the Amtrak trains in opposite directions were never scheduled to coincide with each other, and if someone told Metro North that they had to figure out how to live with that limitation as a condition for getting into Penn Station, they might manage to figure out how to operate with that restriction.

I think this plan might work with one platform track at GCT for northbound Amtrak trains, a second for southbound Amtrak trains, and two platform tracks for NJT; that should give each train an average of at least 10 minutes with each platform track. Again, perhaps Metro North could be persuaded to figure out how to make these GCT tracks available if they are interested in using some platform space at Penn Station.

The reason I suggest having the NJT GCT trains not stop at Penn Station is that otherwise, they may very well run fairly empty from Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal after bringing a large number of passengers to Penn Station, and if only a limited number of NJT trains reach GCT, it is desirable to have them carrying passengers who actually wanted to go to Grand Central Terminal. Perhaps Secaucus Junction would be a useful transfer point.
 
I don't think that the NYP - GCT connection will go too far beyond the feverish imagination of a few advocates. There are way too many technical and political problems with it and the return on the investment is just not there. So I don't think too much about it. However, those that like to live in the land of imagine, they are most welcome to carry on imagining. :)

What might happen some day is a station in the vicinity of GCT, perhaps under Madison Ave, that connects to tracks 1-5 and perhaps the Plan 780 tracks if they are ever built. But I don't think there will be any run through of anything at least in my lifetime, and I do expect to live another 30 years ;)

All this just my somewhat informed humble opinion of course.
 
Which new tunnels are we discussing here? The ones that will mostly be perceived as not being worth building once NYPSE is operational, since the NYPSE tunnels will solve most of the same problems?
In my mind, given the current budgetary situation NYPSE is not necessarily a given. The move to redirect the planned tunnels to connect to NYP instead may just play out. And if it does then this problem will arise. This is yet another one that is conveniently glossed over by some advocates when they proclaim that not building NYPSE will immediately save all the money budgeted for it. I suspect that at least half of that money would easily get eaten up connecting the tunnels to NYP. Again just my slightly informed humble opinion :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The ideal for NYC would be to have in effect what Philadelphia enjoys. That is the connection between 30th Street Station and Suburban Station over to Market Street East, where most trains start at one line, run through the center city making a few stops, then continue on to another outbound line. Of course since the entire operation is pretty much one railroad (SEPTA), it was much easier to implement. I believe Boston will someday have a similar connection between North and South Stations. Due to their proximity, it wouldn't take much to do the same in Chicago, at least between Union Station and Northwestern Station. In the case of Union Station, they could run a few trains right now thru from the south side to the north side using the existing thru track (remember when Amtrak ran thru from Milwaukee to St. Louis?).

Back to New York. I have wondered why they didn't take what to me looks like a much simpler and shorter plan to get LIRR trains to GCT. They could have built a relatively short connection from the tunnels under 33rd street North under Madison Avenue, angling on into GCT. Perhaps they calculated that these tunnels couldn't bear much additional traffic? If that was the case, Another parallel tunnel or two would still have been much shorter than the current ESA plan.
 
GML depends on the time of the day. At the heaviest service times these are the trains:
1 NEC Trenton Express

1 NEC Trenton Local

1 NJCL Long Branch (alternate hours connection to Bay Head)

1 NEC Rahway Local

1 MTD Dover

When the Express is not running there are 4 otherwise there are 5. So if you count each service as two train movements then the numbers would be 8 or 10. But most of them get turned within the station.
I'm pretty sure the "NEC Rahway Local" and the NJCL Long Branch trains are the same train. I mean they have the same numbers. NEC Local 7265 departs NYC at 6:07 and arrives Rahway at 6:44. NJCL local train 7265 departs NYC at 6:07 and arrives Rahway at 6:44. Unless you know differently, Mr. Mukerji, I'd say that there is only one 7265, running NYC to Long Branch connecting to 4765 to Bay Head.
 
I'm pretty sure the "NEC Rahway Local" and the NJCL Long Branch trains are the same train.
No.

The departure order in the hours when everything is running is

x-1:57 Trenton Express

x:01 Rahway local

x:07 NJCL

x:11 MTD

x:14 NEC Local

Or some approximation within +/- 2 minutes thereof.

Rahway local does not run in all hours. Nor does NEC express.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
On the one hand, Metro North may not have any obligation to provide Amtrak with five slots an hour in each direction (if we're rounding up counting one Acela round trip, one Northeast Regional roundtrip, one Empire roundtrip that might run through to WAS, and a Keystone and a long distance train), plus a dozen reverse peak slots an hour for commuter trains from New Jersey. On the other hand, it appears that Metro North may have some interest in finding some way for some of their trains to reach Penn Station, and perhaps Amtrak should insist that they agree to share some GCT capacity if they're going to start using some Penn Station capacity.
Amtrak is in no position to ask for anything since Metro-North will not be using any slots in NYP that Amtrak has any control over. Remember Amtrak has essentially sold to LIRR the capacity that it uses and has no way of getting it back to bargain with it. Metro-North, when it comes into Penn Station will be using slots that are already owned by MTA through LIRR. And of course needless to say NJT has less than zero leverage to get anything from Metro-North or LIRR at either station.

OTOH, Metro North does not have slots to give away at GCT during rush hours, specially after it has lost a significant portion of its local storage to ESA concourse. The Park Avenue Viaduct runs 3 tracks inbound and one outbound in the morning and vice versa in the evening, and most of the reverse traffic is to bring empties in from or out to High Bridge Yard.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Metro-North has 67 tracks to work with. I can't imagine it having storage problems. And with 3 leads in or out as per the rush hour flow, I can't imagine it has capacity issues, either.
 
This is gonna sound dumb, but would LIRR and MNRR have to dicker around with each other since they're both MTA? Wouldn't it be more of a paperwork issue? There are subsidiaries and then there are subsidiaries and from what I understand, there can be various levels of cooperation between subsidiaries of the same company ranging from just a name all the way to basically separate companies.
 
This is gonna sound dumb, but would LIRR and MNRR have to dicker around with each other since they're both MTA? Wouldn't it be more of a paperwork issue? There are subsidiaries and then there are subsidiaries and from what I understand, there can be various levels of cooperation between subsidiaries of the same company ranging from just a name all the way to basically separate companies.

Ohhh they are REALLY different from the different third rails to the signals. Can't compare them.

GML MN does have a ton of problems even with 67 tracks, some tracks aren't used and the main issue comes when two levels join into a four track tunnel with trains from all over coming in.
 
Metro-North has 67 tracks to work with. I can't imagine it having storage problems. And with 3 leads in or out as per the rush hour flow, I can't imagine it has capacity issues, either.
You might wish to get out of the world of "imagine" ;) and speak to a few dispatchers who handle GCT when you get a chance. It really is an eye opener. The devil is all in the details.
 
This is gonna sound dumb, but would LIRR and MNRR have to dicker around with each other since they're both MTA? Wouldn't it be more of a paperwork issue? There are subsidiaries and then there are subsidiaries and from what I understand, there can be various levels of cooperation between subsidiaries of the same company ranging from just a name all the way to basically separate companies.
You're naive. If MTA is anything like NJ Transit, there are territory wars, turf protection, infighting, political nonsense, different politicians backing the various segments of the organization, and so on. Getting them to work together is certainly not simple paperwork. MTA has tried in the past to combine them into one entity, and as far as I can tell, that has consistently turned up SOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top