NEC capacity

[PRR 60]

Are you saying that Amtrak is going to continue to use the present tunnels after THE Tunnel is built? I would have thought it might make more sense to move all the Amtrak traffic to THE Tunnel to open up the possibility of Amtrak operating full-height bi-level cars on its whole system.

Amtrak will continue to use the existing tunnels. NJ Transit will use the new tunnel and will also retain present slots in the Amtrak tunnels. The new tunnel will not access the existing Penn Station trackage.

 

[AlanB]

Are you saying that Amtrak is going to continue to use the present tunnels after THE Tunnel is built? I would have thought it might make more sense to move all the Amtrak traffic to THE Tunnel to open up the possibility of Amtrak operating full-height bi-level cars on its whole system.

Sadly, yes, that is exactly what he's saying. The original plan called for a link between the new tunnels and Penn Station. The current revised plan however, has sadly eliminated that connection. The new tunnels will only connect to the new station to be built under 34th Street. There will be a pedestrian passage between the two stations, but no rail connection.

This will mean that NJT has exclusive access to the new tunnels and the new station. Amtrak will have nothing to do with the new tunnels, will not control them, or contribute any money towards them AFAIK.

 

[jis]

Sadly, yes, that is exactly what he's saying. The original plan called for a link between the new tunnels and Penn Station. The current revised plan however, has sadly eliminated that connection. The new tunnels will only connect to the new station to be built under 34th Street. There will be a pedestrian passage between the two stations, but no rail connection.
This will mean that NJT has exclusive access to the new tunnels and the new station. Amtrak will have nothing to do with the new tunnels, will not control them, or contribute any money towards them AFAIK.

Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.

OTOH, now that there is no connection at Penn Station it is quite likely that the new tracks all the way from Swift, over the southern bridge of the Portal replacements, through Secaucus (south) all the way into 34th St. station will be controlled completely by NJT. At Swift there will be crossovers both from NEC to the new tracks and vice versa. At Portal there will be a single crossover from the new tracks to the NEC, and that's about it in terms of connections between the two sets of tracks. Think of the new pair of tracks as a continuation of a branch from the M&E into 34th St station with crossovers to/from NEC at Swift, and you will get an accurate picture.

This is all truly ironic considering that the new tunnels will be big enough to have clearance for Superliners under the catenary! The TBMs that will be used to bore the tunnels will be something like 28' in diameter. The inside diameter of the tunnels will be over 20'. But of course 34th St station, officially called the New York Penn Station Extension, with tracks 22 through 27), will not have low level platforms so getting Superliners in there will be a neat trick. Will require steps to be placed in the cars to climb down into them, if they were brought in there somehow.

 

[Chris J.]

Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.
OTOH, now that there is no connection at Penn Station it is quite likely that the new tracks all the way from Swift, over the southern bridge of the Portal replacements, through Secaucus (south) all the way into 34th St. station will be controlled completely by NJT. At Swift there will be crossovers both from NEC to the new tracks and vice versa. At Portal there will be a single crossover from the new tracks to the NEC, and that's about it in terms of connections between the two sets of tracks. Think of the new pair of tracks as a continuation of a branch from the M&E into 34th St station with crossovers to/from NEC at Swift, and you will get an accurate picture.

Is this new station something do with what's now the post office building? There was some sign up there about a station, but I've read lots of "bits" on what was/is/wasn't/isn't happening at Penn that I've rather lost track of it all now.

 

[AlanB]

Amtrak was not contributing any money to THE Tunnel even when it did have a connection to Penn Station, so nothing has changed in that regard. It has always been a pure NJT project with Amtrak being dragged along as and when needed. It is funded by the FTA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ. OTOH, the Portal Bridge replacement does involve Amtrak, and that is funded by FRA, PANYNJ and the State of NJ.
OTOH, now that there is no connection at Penn Station it is quite likely that the new tracks all the way from Swift, over the southern bridge of the Portal replacements, through Secaucus (south) all the way into 34th St. station will be controlled completely by NJT. At Swift there will be crossovers both from NEC to the new tracks and vice versa. At Portal there will be a single crossover from the new tracks to the NEC, and that's about it in terms of connections between the two sets of tracks. Think of the new pair of tracks as a continuation of a branch from the M&E into 34th St station with crossovers to/from NEC at Swift, and you will get an accurate picture.

Is this new station something do with what's now the post office building? There was some sign up there about a station, but I've read lots of "bits" on what was/is/wasn't/isn't happening at Penn that I've rather lost track of it all now.

No. The post office is between 8th & 9th Aves and 31st & 33rd Streets, directly across 8th Avenue from MSG and Penn Station. And it is doubtful that this project will ever see the light of day at the moment. Much of this station would have been above ground.

The new station that the new tunnels will link to will be under 34th Street between 6th & 8th Aves, one full block to the north. It will be entirely under ground, other than the entrance/exit portals.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

What's the ultimate cause of Amtrak not being involved in this project? Is it a lack of interest by Amtrak's management in enhancing Amtrak in logical ways? Would NJT have any objection to Amtrak switching over to THE Tunnel if it meant that some of the federal money came with more favorable terms, and NJT ended up being able to run the same number of trains per hour into Manhattan either way?

The platform height issue seems really annoying, though. I would think some of the platforms in Penn Station could be assigned just to Amtrak and lowered. But then there's the issue of compatibility with all the other stations in the NEC system, and for example I doubt that there'd be much enthusiasm if the North South Rail Link gets built in Boston for having high platforms at each station, plus low platforms for Superliners further down the same track.

Given that double stack container trains are several feet higher than the Superliners, the long term answer might be to simply build even taller bi-level cars, but that probably has its own set of annoyances, and there are probably tracks Amtrak uses somewhere that have clearance for the current bi-level Superliners but not for double stack container trains.

 

[jis]

What's the ultimate cause of Amtrak not being involved in this project? Is it a lack of interest by Amtrak's management in enhancing Amtrak in logical ways? Would NJT have any objection to Amtrak switching over to THE Tunnel if it meant that some of the federal money came with more favorable terms, and NJT ended up being able to run the same number of trains per hour into Manhattan either way?

Well, for one thing, if Amtrak trains want to run through New York and on to Boston they simply cannot use the new station and as defined presently THE Tunnel too, since it goes only to the new station, which has no egress for trains to the east.

Unfortunately the federal money granting algorithms don't work the way that you appear to surmise in asking the question about NJT's objection or not. FTA and FRA are separate feifdoms in the federal government and get their funding from vastly different budget lines that are funded from different sources.

As I mentioned earlier, this has all along been an NJT project funded out of FTA and PANYNJ, partly because there was no possibility for Amtrak to get anywhere near the kind of money needed given the political atmosphere surrounding Amtrak, and partly (this is my conjecture) NJT wanted its own station and tunnel into Manhattan having been jerked around endlessly by Amtrak and LIRR at Penn Station, while MTA was too busy trying to rescue the ESA and the 2nd Ave. Subway projects out of deep financial trouble.

Adding fuel to the fire was NY State's reluctance to fund any part of a project to create a run through station - rumored to have risen to active connivance to prevent such from happening using any resources of the MTA, which would have enabled Amtrak's use of the new station and tunnel better. On the whole the politics surrounding this whole thing is breathtaking, to say the least. In effect in the whirlwind of tri-state politics, Amtrak has been rendered to a position of an impotent spectator of the spectacle like most others, while the two Governors, the PANYNJ, NJTransit and the FTA deck it out among themselves. The original MIS was a joint project of NJT, MTA, Amtrak and PANYNJ. In moving from MIS to DEIS something happened - MTA got busy with LIRR ESA and 2nd Ave. Subway, Amtrak got budget constipation etc., and the thing got thrown entirely into NJT and PANYNJ's laps and that's where it sits today.

At the end of the day NJT is hardly likely to complete a brand spanking new $7 billion project and then donate it for Amtrak's use while it continues using the old digs at Penn Station itself. Human nature and hence politics just does not work that way.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Penn Station will need an overhaul eventually, but its a long way off. I also think that NJTransit got a nice sized scare with the idea of an Amtrak strike. Most of the way would be cleared for NJT to direct all of its traffic through this and bypass the NEC entirely except for NEC-line trains. It makes a lot of sense for them. With ESA, I suspect Penn-Station is going to become a less-important station.

 

[AlanB]

Penn Station will need an overhaul eventually, but its a long way off. I also think that NJTransit got a nice sized scare with the idea of an Amtrak strike. Most of the way would be cleared for NJT to direct all of its traffic through this and bypass the NEC entirely except for NEC-line trains. It makes a lot of sense for them.

While I'm sure that NJT wasn't happy with the threatened strike, this has little to do with a strike and it won't mitigate one in the future, should a strike happen.

NJT isn't planning to divert existing service to the new station, they plan to run service from lines that have never seen Manhattan, into the new station. Ok to be fair, it's possible that some new lines might end up at the old station and some existing lines could end up at the new station. But the bottom line is that NJT plans to run trains from the Raritan, Bergan, Main, and Pascack Valley lines into NY. Also factored into the equation are trains from the MOM line, if they ever get it up and running.

So an Amtrak strike will be just as devastating to NJT 20 years in the future, as it would have been this year. And the new station still isn't going to help NJT in the event of a strike with serveral lines, as they'll still loose MOM, NEC, Coast, and Raritan in the event of an Amtrak strike. And possibly diminished capacity on the M & E.

With ESA, I suspect Penn-Station is going to become a less-important station.

East Side Acess won't diminish Penn in any way. The MTA isn't planning any major reduction in service into Penn, once ESA is up and running. They expect to increase service overall on LI, as well as possibly throw some MN trains into Penn.

Penn Station will be just as important as ever, no matter what happens. Neither NJT's puny 6 track station nor ESA is going to diminish the importance of Penn and its 21 tracks.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd imagine that this will heavily decrease the importance of Hoboken Terminal, however?

 

[AlanB]

I'd imagine that this will heavily decrease the importance of Hoboken Terminal, however?

You may see some decrease at Hobo, but I don't believe that it will be hugely significant, to the point where the station is in danger of being closed. Many people will still continue to Hobo, for its easier & cheaper access to lower Manhattan. Between the HBLRT, PATH, and the commuter trains, I believe that Hoboken is in no danger of closing.

Secaucus Junction could have easily put Hoboken out of business, and it didn't. It still sees a significant number of passengers every day.

Remember, the new tunnels aren't just about getting more trains into Manhattan, it's about getting more trains running inside NJ too. So not every train that currently runs to Hoboken is going to suddenly start running to Manhattan, if/when this is done. New trains will be added to many lines, and not all of those trains are going to fit into Manhattan. Some will still have to go to Hoboken, both for the demmand of the passengers, but also because they can't run to Manhattan.

 

[jis]

East Side Acess won't diminish Penn in any way. The MTA isn't planning any major reduction in service into Penn, once ESA is up and running. They expect to increase service overall on LI, as well as possibly throw some MN trains into Penn.
Penn Station will be just as important as ever, no matter what happens. Neither NJT's puny 6 track station nor ESA is going to diminish the importance of Penn and its 21 tracks.

That's true. LIRR is not releasing any slots at Penn Station as a result of ESA, which implies that they plan to run as many trains into Penn Station after ESA as they do before it.

NJT's puny 6 track station will be allegedly handling 25 trains per hour, about the same number that the old Penn Station handles from the west (if you count Empire Corridor too that is at the current 1 tph). In a way because of grade separated approach to the six tracks actually NJT will find it easier to pull that off than at the old station because the notorious A Interlocking conflicts will be almost non-existent in the new station - if and when it is built.

it is also true that if anything the NJT station is being billed as an extension to Penn Station rather than as a separate station. Its tracks will be numbered 22 through 27. It's construction is not going to diminish the importance of Penn Station, and indeed will actually enhance it.

As for traffic distribution, AFAIK NJT will move Midtown Directs from NYP to NYPSE. Most likely all dual-modes will go to NYPSE since it will have enhanced fire emergency handling systems and the new tunnels will have better fire escapes with cross tunnel interconnect walkways at regular intervals like in the channel tunnel for escaping from emergencies using the other tunnel etc.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.

 

[jis]

Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.

NJT has an RFP out for diesel and catenary powered electric dual mode locomotives. Response deadlines have been postponed many times since no one seems to be able to meet the requirements specified. But at NJT hope springs eternal of course.

In addition NJT has an RFP for a specific number of EMUs, DMUs, and one prototype dual-mode (diesel and catenary) DEMU out and there are reportedly at least two credible responses to that one involving credible equipment manufacturers. So that one is likely to happen in some way shape or form. In phase 1 though it is primarily a procurement of EMUs, enough to retire the Arrow IIIs. The significant DMU order and the dual mode DEMU are in phases 2 and 3.

 

[AlanB]

Just as an FYI for those who may not know:

RFP = Request For Proposal, or basically tell us how you would build this thing and what you would charge us for building it.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

NJT has an RFP out for diesel and catenary powered electric dual mode locomotives. Response deadlines have been postponed many times since no one seems to be able to meet the requirements specified. But at NJT hope springs eternal of course.
In addition NJT has an RFP for a specific number of EMUs, DMUs, and one prototype dual-mode (diesel and catenary) DEMU out and there are reportedly at least two credible responses to that one involving credible equipment manufacturers. So that one is likely to happen in some way shape or form. In phase 1 though it is primarily a procurement of EMUs, enough to retire the Arrow IIIs. The significant DMU order and the dual mode DEMU are in phases 2 and 3.

Interesting. Boston will probably want dual mode diesel / catenary locomotives (with traction motors sufficient for mile long 3% uphill grades just beyond the platforms with whatever collection of coaches the MBTA uses) if the North South Rail Link ever gets built. Is there some reason why this is a harder problem than diesel / third rail dual mode locomotives? Is there anyone in business who knows how to make new FRA compliant catenary electric-only locomotives these days that haul standard non-Acela coaches that use normal couplers?

(The alternative for Boston might be to electrify the entire commuter rail system, which mostly seems like a good idea if you're willing to ignore the price tag, but if that is done and there are no catenary dual mode locomotives, Amtrak 448/449 would not be able to run through the tunnel unless a locomotive swap was performed at Worcester or something. Or I guess 448/449 could maybe run something like the Atlantic City Line with the electric locomotive being dead weight for half the trip and the diesel being dead weight the other half of the trip.)

I also wonder if dual mode locomotives would make any sense for BOS to NPN trips if they existed, or if it really is better to swap the locomotives at WAS. Relatedly, I've always wondered why Amtrak chooses to swap locomotives in Albany on 48/49.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

First: Mr. Weber: I'm going to take an uneducated stab at it and say that nobody currently makes FRA compliant Cat/Diesel dual mode locos, and therefore, would have to design one. While NJT is a large potential customer, I don't think they'd be large enough to justify such a project economically in the eyes of most companies. I think they might find more success third-railing THE Tunnel and contracting with GE for some P32AC-DMs.

Dual modes? I didn't think NJT had any dual modes, or even Penn-capable diesels aside from a handful of P40s.

NJT has an RFP out for diesel and catenary powered electric dual mode locomotives. Response deadlines have been postponed many times since no one seems to be able to meet the requirements specified. But at NJT hope springs eternal of course.

In addition NJT has an RFP for a specific number of EMUs, DMUs, and one prototype dual-mode (diesel and catenary) DEMU out and there are reportedly at least two credible responses to that one involving credible equipment manufacturers. So that one is likely to happen in some way shape or form. In phase 1 though it is primarily a procurement of EMUs, enough to retire the Arrow IIIs. The significant DMU order and the dual mode DEMU are in phases 2 and 3.

Why retired the Arrow IIIs? They seem pretty reliable, solid, and so on. Also, by credible manufacturers, I assume you mean NOT CRC?

 

[AlanB]

Is there some reason why this is a harder problem than diesel / third rail dual mode locomotives?

The transformers required to convert 600 to 750 VDC are tiny compared to what's required to convert 22,000 VAC. Packing a diesel engine powerful enough to move the train efficiently, as well as provide HEP, and the needed transformers into a standard sized engine body is proving to be a bit of a challange. And then there is the weight issue, as those transformers aren't light. Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.

Is there anyone in business who knows how to make new FRA compliant catenary electric-only locomotives these days that haul standard non-Acela coaches that use normal couplers?

Sure, NJT has ben buying a bunch in recent years, the ALP-44 and 46. And even Amtrak, as well as MARC, just brought the HHP-8 locos not too long ago from Bombardier

I also wonder if dual mode locomotives would make any sense for BOS to NPN trips if they existed, or if it really is better to swap the locomotives at WAS. Relatedly, I've always wondered why Amtrak chooses to swap locomotives in Albany on 48/49.

Because they don't have enough P32-ACDM's to send them all the way to Chicago and still meet the demands of the Empire service. I suspect that the fact that they also produce 1,050 less horsepower, thanks to the smaller engine necessary to fit in the 3rd rail transformers, also has something to do with the decision.

 

[AlanB]

First: Mr. Weber: I'm going to take an uneducated stab at it and say that nobody currently makes FRA compliant Cat/Diesel dual mode locos, and therefore, would have to design one. While NJT is a large potential customer, I don't think they'd be large enough to justify such a project economically in the eyes of most companies. I think they might find more success third-railing THE Tunnel and contracting with GE for some P32AC-DMs.

Third rail isn't an ideal alternative either, since the substations required are expensive. And then there is the fact that NJT needs loco's that can run into either tunnel, not just the new tunnel. That means getting Amtrak to extend the third rail on their tunnels too. And I've heard reports that Amtrak isn't willing to do that. That's even been suggested as one of the reasons, beyond the costs and a few other issues, as to why the current plan has cut out the connection between the new tunnels and the existing Penn Station.

And I'm not sure that GE is even building that model of loco anymore, so getting an order of P32-ACDM's might not be as easy as you think.

Jishnu will know better, but I do think that NJT's order was more than large enough to interest people. The problem really is as I mentioned above, packing all the equipment needed for catenary running into the body of the loco without exceeding the frame size and maximum weight on the wheels.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I do want to point out that the ALP-44 is made by Asea Brown Bovari in Sweden, (Despite its outwardly similar appearance to the related but largely American AEM-7.) and that the ALP-46 is basically an AEG/Daimler-Benz design (its based off the German Class 101)

 

[transit54]

Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.

That makes me curirous: how much does a pantograph weigh? Not precisely, of course, but a ballpark guess. Never did I ever consider that the pantograph would be an especially heavy object.

 

[PRR 60]

Add in the weight of the pantograph and it's mechanism, along with the diesel motor, and you're pushing the upper limits of just how much weight can one locomotive put on the tracks. A third rail shoe weighs nothing in comparison to a panatograph.

That makes me curirous: how much does a pantograph weigh? Not precisely, of course, but a ballpark guess. Never did I ever consider that the pantograph would be an especially heavy object.

Pantographs are not very heavy, but Alan is correct that the physical challenges to combine a 25kV electric locomotive with a diesel locomotive within one box are formidable. Unlike electronics, power transformation equipment has not changed much in the last 70 years. Transformers to convert 25kV AC to traction motor voltage are big and very heavy. I'm not saying that a dual mode catenary - diesel locomotive cannot be designed, but I think that if one was it would be an obese, energy-hog monster. It would be far more cost effective and energy efficient to devise equipment and procedures to change power in a timely manner (i.e., faster than the snail's pace that Amtrak exhibits) than to develop a cat-diesel locomotive that would be a lousy performer in either mode.

 

[jis]

Third rail isn't an ideal alternative either, since the substations required are expensive. And then there is the fact that NJT needs loco's that can run into either tunnel, not just the new tunnel. That means getting Amtrak to extend the third rail on their tunnels too. And I've heard reports that Amtrak isn't willing to do that. That's even been suggested as one of the reasons, beyond the costs and a few other issues, as to why the current plan has cut out the connection between the new tunnels and the existing Penn Station.

Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.

I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.

And I'm not sure that GE is even building that model of loco anymore, so getting an order of P32-ACDM's might not be as easy as you think.

GE does have an updated version of that locomotive using GeVO technology and a slightly modified but still monococque body in its catalog. So they could manufacture such, but neither NJT nor Amtrak want to deal with them in the highky congested Hudson Tunnels for use in commercial service. Remember that nothing from the era when P32s and P40s and P42s were manufactured would be admissible today since none of them will pass the current emission laws. Even the NJT PL42s with GM 710 prime-movers made it just under the bar before the new emission laws went into effect.

Jishnu will know better, but I do think that NJT's order was more than large enough to interest people. The problem really is as I mentioned above, packing all the equipment needed for catenary running into the body of the loco without exceeding the frame size and maximum weight on the wheels.

The RFP is a joint one involving NJT and Montreal's AMT and the total number of units overall is around 50 or so as I recall. If the engineers pull it off at a reasonable price then there would be other potential takers like SEPTA, MBTA and MARC.

BTW, I think most people agree that putting such a thing together using conventional iron core transformers, specially ones that would work even for 25Hz is beyond a daunting task within the weight limits of a Bo-Bo frame, which is a requirement for the locomotive to be able to travel at NEC speeds i.e. 125mph - remember these would be used for ACY service too if they were available.

One very plausible way to get there is for power electronics to advance to such a stage that there is a cost effective way to put together an HV side chopper facility to create very high frequency high voltage feed into an air-core power transformer which will be much lighter and more compact, and then feed the link voltage from it, typically 3kV into rectifiers to feed the DC link which then would connect into a conventional AC motor drive system (e.g. MITRAC from Bombardier as in the ALP-46A). So instead of the typical AC-DC-AC linkage from delivered power to the motors you essentially get a AC-DC-AC-DC-AC linkage, where the middle AC is high frequency, and to get there you potentially need the first DC link which is at line voltage.

The diesel driven alternator would also then feed into the rectifier bank at about 3kV and thus hook into the DC link that way. Needless to say, to do all this and deliver 4,000 HP needs a little non-trivial and novel engineering which takes a bit of time and money.

That in a nutshell is a highly simplified and glossed over description of how one could get to what NJT and AMT want. Whether they will get it or not at a price that is acceptable, is another issue. But they do have 10 years to get there, since the tunnel won't be there for at least another 10 years as it looks now.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.

I'm realizing that I don't have a clear understanding of where third rail power is available. I guess it's available to trains coming out of the west side of Penn Station via the Empire Connection but not the tunnels heading towards New Jersey, and it's probably available going into Grand Central Terminal, and it's probably available coming into Penn Station from the east for LIRR?

I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.

I'm confused about whether the reference to LIRR earlier in this thread implies that the new tracks 22-27 are going to have a connection to Long Island.

BTW, I think most people agree that putting such a thing together using conventional iron core transformers, specially ones that would work even for 25Hz is beyond a daunting task within the weight limits of a Bo-Bo frame, which is a requirement for the locomotive to be able to travel at NEC speeds i.e. 125mph - remember these would be used for ACY service too if they were available.
One very plausible way to get there is for power electronics to advance to such a stage that there is a cost effective way to put together an HV side chopper facility to create very high frequency high voltage feed into an air-core power transformer which will be much lighter and more compact, and then feed the link voltage from it, typically 3kV into rectifiers to feed the DC link which then would connect into a conventional AC motor drive system (e.g. MITRAC from Bombardier as in the ALP-46A). So instead of the typical AC-DC-AC linkage from delivered power to the motors you essentially get a AC-DC-AC-DC-AC linkage, where the middle AC is high frequency, and to get there you potentially need the first DC link which is at line voltage.

The diesel driven alternator would also then feed into the rectifier bank at about 3kV and thus hook into the DC link that way. Needless to say, to do all this and deliver 4,000 HP needs a little non-trivial and novel engineering which takes a bit of time and money.

That in a nutshell is a highly simplified and glossed over description of how one could get to what NJT and AMT want. Whether they will get it or not at a price that is acceptable, is another issue. But they do have 10 years to get there, since the tunnel won't be there for at least another 10 years as it looks now.

Are all of the locomotives and EMUs operating in 25Hz land capable of operating on 60 Hz, or do NJT and/or SEPTA have equipment that requires 25 Hz? (I'm wondering if it would be possible to ``just'' rip out all the 25Hz infrastructure and convert it to 60 Hz to make these dual mode locomotives easier, though I realize that conversion would still be a bunch of cost and work.)

One of the big problems that can come up when converting things that dissipate lots of power to transistors is that you need to get rid of the heat somehow; you often can easily shrink things a lot with transistors if you ignore the heat dissipation problem, but not getting the heat away from the transistor can fry the transistor rapidly. In amateur radio, a lot of the 1.5 kilowatt RF power amplifiers still use vacuum tubes for the final amplifier stage, usually with some transistorized control circuitry, and I think a lot of that is because just using a single vacuum tube is simplier than carfully matching up an array of several transistors and making sure they're well attached to a big metal heatsink.

It's rare to have transistorized power supplies even be 90% efficient. So it's likely that in whatever space you put the power conversion equipment, you have wasted heat equal to at least 10% of the energy the engine is using to pull the train, and you have to get that heat out of that area somehow.

I believe at 25 kV, the amount of space you need isolating things to prevent arcing is a lot larger than at 600V, which probably limits how much you can shrink things in volume to some extent.

So there's probably a limit to how small a space that equipment can fit into, but using modern technology to reduce weight may well still be possible.

What is ACY service, and what is a Bo-Bo frame?

 

[AlanB]

Even NJT is not willing to get into the business of dealing with yet another mode of supplying power to trains. NJT's new tunnel will not have any third rail in it at all AFAIK.

I'm realizing that I don't have a clear understanding of where third rail power is available. I guess it's available to trains coming out of the west side of Penn Station via the Empire Connection but not the tunnels heading towards New Jersey, and it's probably available going into Grand Central Terminal, and it's probably available coming into Penn Station from the east for LIRR?

Third rail is available in the East River tunnels, Penn itself, the Hudson River tunnels, and the Empire connection tunnel; plus of course Grand Central too. However, it is important to note that Metro North uses an under-running third rail, whereas the LIRR uses an over-running third rail. These two types are not compatable with one another, so it's not like Amtrak could just borrow a MN P32-ACDM if they had too many of their own engines in the shop.

As for the third rail in the Hudson or North River tunnels, the issue is that the third rail doesn't extend very far beyond he mouth of the tunnel. Therefore there isn't enough time for an engineer to switch onto third rail power and off of diesel, before he's already in the tunnel. And then of course as Jishnu pointed out, NJT doesn't really want to head down that road anyhow if they can help it.

I don't think this has anything to do with the "cutting of connection". The primary issue there is dealing with the obduracy of Army Core of Engineers regarding how close to the bottom of the river the tunnel can be, and the idiocy of NIMBY's in Manhattan (who want to not dig up an unused parking lot while constructing the tunnel), and airhead environmentalists who want to save the bottom of a bunch of rotting piles that mark the edge of the river at the Manhattan end of the tunnel as a historical artifact. Hence the tunnel enters Manhattan much deeper than originally planned and there is no way for it to climb up to the level of the current Penn Station in the short distance available from the river edge to 9th Ave.

I'm confused about whether the reference to LIRR earlier in this thread implies that the new tracks 22-27 are going to have a connection to Long Island.

As currently envisioned, the new station will have tail tracks that will allow NJT to store a few trains beyond the station under the 6th Avenue area. But there are no plans to build beyond that point at this time. Not withstanding the added cost, I suspect that part of the problem is the ever ongoing debate about connecting to Grand Central. And then if you did go under the East River, where do you come up and how much work would be needed to tie things into Harold interlocking, which is already slated for major changes to permit the East Side Access.

What is ACY service, and what is a Bo-Bo frame?

ACY=Atlantic City service.

Bo-Bo frame is a frame built by Yogi Bear's nephew Boo-Boo. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Seriously though, it's a two truck - two axles per truck frame.