New Tunnel to New York

[MrEd]

Amtrak is studying whether there's a need to build a second rail tunnel to handle a growing number of passengers between New Jersey and New York City.

The tunnel would be built within 20 years and join the century-old Hudson River crossing and an $8.7 billion tunnel that NJ Transit plans to build by 2017.

More than 1,000 trains arrive at New York's Penn Station from NJ Transit, Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road each weekday.

Amtrak's master plan for the Northeast Corridor says ridership between Washington and Boston is expected to double by 2030.

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/new-1275034...nel-amtrak.html

I thought they were moving out of Penn...

 

[trainrider1976]

Amtrak is studying whether there's a need to build a second rail tunnel to handle a growing number of passengers between New Jersey and New York City.
The tunnel would be built within 20 years and join the century-old Hudson River crossing and an $8.7 billion tunnel that NJ Transit plans to build by 2017.

More than 1,000 trains arrive at New York's Penn Station from NJ Transit, Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road each weekday.

Amtrak's master plan for the Northeast Corridor says ridership between Washington and Boston is expected to double by 2030.

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/new-1275034...nel-amtrak.html

I thought they were moving out of Penn...

I had not heard they were moving out of Penn; but, that would be disappointing. From the Northeast, it is a great location to be dropped off, subway right there, and 1 block away from the PATH. I understand the massive congestion there; however, for the most part, I have noticed trains are usually on time (disclaimer, I only go a few times a year.)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Amtrak is studying whether there's a need to build a second rail tunnel to handle a growing number of passengers between New Jersey and New York City.
The tunnel would be built within 20 years and join the century-old Hudson River crossing and an $8.7 billion tunnel that NJ Transit plans to build by 2017.

More than 1,000 trains arrive at New York's Penn Station from NJ Transit, Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road each weekday.

Amtrak's master plan for the Northeast Corridor says ridership between Washington and Boston is expected to double by 2030.

http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/new-1275034...nel-amtrak.html

I thought they were moving out of Penn...

Amtrak's not moving out of Penn's tracks, they are just moving their concourse to a nicer facility.

This tunnel is the result of the kind of stupid, petty, childish bickering that occurs in our retarded fiefdom based system of little children playing games with real taxpayer money. This tunnel should not only not be built, it should not be needed. Those NJ Transit tunnels should be going into Penn, along with a minor refurbishment of its platforms, and a replacement of the bi-level cars with more intelligent wide-door EMUs similar to Metro-North's M8s. Which would give Amtrak its extra tunnel, and NJT all the extra capacity it would need for quite some time... without actually preventing additional station capacity to be built at a later date if it is needed.

But no. NJ Transit has to run its own railroad, you see. The M&E/M-B Midtown Direct trains need to be removed from Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. This can't connect to Penn. Oh dear god no. That would kill the dangerous, unsafe, boondoggle of a station under Macy's. Heaven forbid!

George Warrington will keep haunting us with his horrible egotistic nonsense from his grave.

 

[jis]

This tunnel is the result of the kind of stupid, petty, childish bickering that occurs in our retarded fiefdom based system of little children playing games with real taxpayer money. This tunnel should not only not be built, it should not be needed. Those NJ Transit tunnels should be going into Penn, along with a minor refurbishment of its platforms, and a replacement of the bi-level cars with more intelligent wide-door EMUs similar to Metro-North's M8s. Which would give Amtrak its extra tunnel, and NJT all the extra capacity it would need for quite some time... without actually preventing additional station capacity to be built at a later date if it is needed.

Crack open the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan which the newspaper article quoted by the OP is referring to. Take a look at Table 13 on page 26.

It is stated there that in 2030 per day there will be 433 Commuter Rail trains going into 34th St station (NYPSE), and in addition 571 Commuter Rail trains running between Secaucus and NYPS for a total of 1004 combined CR movement into NYPS and NYPSE combined. In addition there will be an additional 36 Intercity Passenger Rail movements into NYPS over what goes in today. The total handled by NYPS today is 459 movements, which is to go up to 707 movements. Over and above that, 433 will go into NYPSE.

So your claim is that these additional 248 + 433 = 681 movements can all be accommodated into NYPS by just connecting two additional tunnels into it and doing Plan 780 to add six more platform tracks in NYPS. Am I getting this right, or am I missing something, or is it the case that you do not believe the numbers that Amtrak is using and prefer a different set of numbers. If so what is the set of numbers that you prefer and what is the foundation on which those are arrived at? Just trying to understand your position.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So your claim is that these additional 248 + 433 = 681 movements can all be accommodated into NYPS by just connecting two additional tunnels into it and doing Plan 780 to add six more platform tracks in NYPS. Am I getting this right, or am I missing something, or is it the case that you do not believe the numbers that Amtrak is using and prefer a different set of numbers. If so what is the set of numbers that you prefer and what is the foundation on which those are arrived at? Just trying to understand your position.

I think that two more tunnels, properly connected to a Penn Station expanded in concourse with Moynihan, upgrading all platforms to LIRR standards, all commuter rail cars to M7/M8 standards, and the execution of plan 780 could accommodate approximately 70% of what is discussed. I think that the additional passengers could be handled by expanding use of the underused ex. DL&W terminal at Hoboken, encouraging passengers to use it via discounts and interlining tickets with PATH.

I personally think that a good percentage of passengers that are currently heading into Penn would really find themselves better served by Hoboken and PATH, but it is hard to determine this as it is more expensive for M&E/M-B riders to go to Hoboken than it is to go to NYP.

I think the construction of an entire new station, and a third tunnel, are completely unjustified.

Furthermore, with many LIRR commuters likely to switch from Penn to GCT with the completion of East Side Access, I think the estimates are wildly optimistic from there. I also think that with NJT's current rail plans and fare structures, increases in ridership, to put it mildly, come out of an LSD trip.

I'm sure that by 2030 there will be increased train movements within NYPS, without the operation of the Deep Cavern. But nothing like this, and easily handled by the construction of ARC and 780 alone.

 

[AlanB]

I personally think that a good percentage of passengers that are currently heading into Penn would really find themselves better served by Hoboken and PATH, but it is hard to determine this as it is more expensive for M&E/M-B riders to go to Hoboken than it is to go to NYP.

I'll admit that I didn't check every stop along the way, but a quick sampling shows that's not true. It may not be hugely more expensive to go to NY Penn, but it is more expensive. A monthly pass to go from Morristown to NYP costs $361. A monthly pass to Hoboken is $291, add in $54 for a PATH montly pass and the total is $345. Granted in this case you get a one seat ride on the M&E into NYP, but need to transfer if you go to Hoboken.

A monthly pass from Suffern to NYP costs $309, while a monthly to Hoboken costs $239 or $293 with PATH added in. In this case one needs to make one transfer no matter which way you go.

I made no allowances for subways/buses within NYC, since the point is to get the commuter to NYC.

Furthermore, with many LIRR commuters likely to switch from Penn to GCT with the completion of East Side Access, I think the estimates are wildly optimistic from there.

They estimate that at best 30% of the current commuters will diver to GCT. They expect that more riders will take the places of those who divert to GCT on the trains going into NYP. They do still expect to cut back on the number of trains into NYP run by the LIRR, but the LIRR is not giving up those slots. They plan to fill some of them with Metro North trains and hold the other's for future growth. And since the LIRR owns those slots, no one can force them to give them up.

I also think that with NJT's current rail plans and fare structures, increases in ridership, to put it mildly, come out of an LSD trip.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Granted in this case you get a one seat ride on the M&E into NYP, but need to transfer if you go to Hoboken.
I made no allowances for subways/buses within NYC, since the point is to get the commuter to NYC.

But that's just my point. The point is to get commuters to work, which happens to include getting them into the city!

They estimate that at best 30% of the current commuters will diver to GCT. They expect that more riders will take the places of those who divert to GCT on the trains going into NYP. They do still expect to cut back on the number of trains into NYP run by the LIRR, but the LIRR is not giving up those slots. They plan to fill some of them with Metro North trains and hold the other's for future growth. And since the LIRR owns those slots, no one can force them to give them up.

Oh yes, of course LIRR isn't going to give up their slots. But my point is, a slot isn't an actual train movement. It will be a long time before LIRR, with its chronically decreasing ridership, will actually need to find additional slots to what it currently has.

I also think that with NJT's current rail plans and fare structures, increases in ridership, to put it mildly, come out of an LSD trip.

I'm glad you agree with me. In the same words, even.

 

[jis]

Oh yes, of course LIRR isn't going to give up their slots. But my point is, a slot isn't an actual train movement. It will be a long time before LIRR, with its chronically decreasing ridership, will actually need to find additional slots to what it currently has.

LIRR itself maybe won't but with MNRR picking up some slack I believe that effectively none of the slots that LIRR has will be available for anyone else's use.

So the fact that LIRR ridership went down through 2008 and 2009 as the nation flirted with depression and New York with hit with a crisis in the financial sector, after increasing consistently until 2007 means that they have chronically decreasing ridership? OKey.

 

[AlanB]

Granted in this case you get a one seat ride on the M&E into NYP, but need to transfer if you go to Hoboken.
I made no allowances for subways/buses within NYC, since the point is to get the commuter to NYC.

But that's just my point. The point is to get commuters to work, which happens to include getting them into the city!

Your point was undermined by the statement that fares were more expensive to go to Hoboken, something that I disproved.

I also think that with NJT's current rail plans and fare structures, increases in ridership, to put it mildly, come out of an LSD trip.

I'm glad you agree with me. In the same words, even.

Obviously a mistake on my part.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Oh yes, of course LIRR isn't going to give up their slots. But my point is, a slot isn't an actual train movement. It will be a long time before LIRR, with its chronically decreasing ridership, will actually need to find additional slots to what it currently has.

LIRR itself maybe won't but with MNRR picking up some slack I believe that effectively none of the slots that LIRR has will be available for anyone else's use.

So the fact that LIRR ridership went down through 2008 and 2009 as the nation flirted with depression and New York with hit with a crisis in the financial sector, after increasing consistently until 2007 means that they have chronically decreasing ridership? OKey.

My source of information on that is former LIRR Planning Director and RRWG member Joseph M. Clift. Take it up with him, his background and your background make me think there is something more to the discrepancy then one of you simply being wrong.

 

[jis]

My source of information on that is former LIRR Planning Director and RRWG member Joseph M. Clift. Take it up with him, his background and your background make me think there is something more to the discrepancy then one of you simply being wrong.

So we are now going to try the "baffle with ****" technique is it?

Look, I know Joe and have great respect for him. I work very closely with him on several projects, and also participated in jointly submitting testimony to various RCLCs on various projects. Joe is a very precise person and he would never make such a sweeping statement specially when it could be so easily proved wrong by just looking through APTA ridership statistics.

Please do not try to discredit Joe by attributing you apparently uninformed sweeping generalizations to Joe. This has nothing to do with my background vs. Joe's. It has to do with published ridership figures. Yes there have been periods of ridership decline at LIRR, like the series of declines starting in the second half of 2008 to now. But the fact remains that upto 2Q08 ridership had been rising over several years. It started falling after that, as it did for MNRR, NJT and almost every other agency. I am sure Joe will not disagree with that.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

So we are now going to try the "baffle with ****" technique is it?
Look, I know Joe and have great respect for him. I work very closely with him on several projects, and also participated in jointly submitting testimony to various RCLCs on various projects. Joe is a very precise person and he would never make such a sweeping statement specially when it could be so easily proved wrong by just looking through APTA ridership statistics.

Please do not try to discredit Joe by attributing you apparently uninformed sweeping generalizations to Joe. This has nothing to do with my background vs. Joe's. It has to do with published ridership figures. Yes there have been periods of ridership decline at LIRR, like the series of declines starting in the second half of 2008 to now. But the fact remains that upto 2Q08 ridership had been rising over several years. It started falling after that, as it did for MNRR, NJT and almost every other agency. I am sure Joe will not disagree with that.

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear. I am not in any way trying to discredit Joe, who I also have a very great respect for. He did make such a statement, directly and personally to me, however, and since I have respect for both of you with regards to this subject, I find myself confused. I personally believe there is some situation existing in some way (possibly involving miscommunication or misunderstanding on my own part) where what he said to me, and the information you are telling me, are both correct, depending on perspective, or which particular area you are examining. Or something to that effect.

I can't imagine the information he gave me is wrong. I can't imagine what you are telling me is wrong. I am simply trying to clear up my own misunderstanding. I mentioned his name since I assume you know him and might have heard him say something that I, being slightly out of sorts that day (we were doing his ARC/Penn Station tour thing, and it was pouring rain and I was not dressed for it.) could have easily misinterpreted for that.

 

[jis]

I'm sorry, I must have been unclear. I am not in any way trying to discredit Joe, who I also have a very great respect for. He did make such a statement, directly and personally to me, however, and since I have respect for both of you with regards to this subject, I find myself confused. I personally believe there is some situation existing in some way (possibly involving miscommunication or misunderstanding on my own part) where what he said to me, and the information you are telling me, are both correct, depending on perspective, or which particular area you are examining. Or something to that effect.

Apology accepted, and Thank you.

I suspect Joe made the statement relative to the period post 2008, for which it is true. As I stated in my previous message above, there is no disagreement on that. It is easy to get the numbers quarter by quarter for more than a decade from APTA. It is just not universally true say over a decade. Frankly the disturbing data points are the last two quarters when LIRR ridership declined more than the other two. But two data points don't make a trend (one can fit any arbitrary shaped curve through two data points depending on what point one is trying to make ), and it might have more to do with the destruction of feeder bus service in LI than with latent demand. BTW, NJT is following the same well tried and tested method of self destruction.

Furthermore, I believe that the position that rail advocates should be taking is to work diligently towards fixing the fare level and structure, and develop stable source of funding so that ridership can start growing so as to reduce dependence on motor vehicles, and use projections based on such to plan infrastructure, and not throw up their hands in frustration and say, "Oh well fares are going up, ridership is going down. We should fold our tents and stop planning for significant growths in ridership". I see some of us rail advocates descending into that sort of a mindset which I find disturbing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting that we build wild castles in the air. But on the other hand we need to keep our eyes on the ball and push for growth and construction of infrastructure to support same, and make and support well considered and reasonable plans. In this context while we may quibble about some details, I think the Amtrak NEC Plan is a reasonable plan and has clearly identifiable separate projects - hundreds of them that can be funded and constructed in a staged fashion as and when the need arises.

Just imagine what would have happened if in the dog days of the 60s and 70s, SNCF in France had said well, passenger trends are down. There is no way we can fix this. So let us just keep things running as long as we can. Put a little fix here and a little fix there, and let things rot away. A consequence would have been no TGV and resurgence of passenger rail based on HSR. We don't want to get into such a hypothetical despondent state.

I am as much against wasting money as anyone is. But I would not go so far as to say that nothing other than two tunnels needs to be built to cover projected traffic growth in 20 years. The reality also is that just because Amtrak has Plan 780 does not mean that the political powers that be in New York will allow an iota of that to be built. The same block committees that George has been trying to mobilize to block the 34th St station will be happy to block any other station, and much more likely so at a shallower depth as Plan 780 as it stands today is. So one never knows what may or may not actually happen. One must remember that often the unintended consequences of what we do as an expedient to achieve an immediate goal can be highly destructive of a more global vision/goal.

The reality may very well be that even two ARC tunnels will not get built in 20 years. Who knows? It also maybe that New York city is in an inexorable decline and traffic will only shrink . But if that is the case rightfully it should be time to move somewhere else. I don't think that is the case, and overall trends do not support such a doomsday scenario, unless of course in our infinite wisdom we completely ban immigration and trade. A port city indeed has no future without immigration and trade.

OK, now I shall descend from my soapbox

Anyway, now you ought to have a much better idea of where I am coming from and how I am trying to balance reality with a vision for the future that is positive, even though the immediate situation may feel rather bad.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

BTW, NJT is following the same well tried and tested method of self destruction.

That's an understatement. *sigh*

Furthermore, I believe that the position that rail advocates should be taking is to work diligently towards fixing the fare level and structure, and develop stable source of funding so that ridership can start growing so as to reduce dependence on motor vehicles, and use projections based on such to plan infrastructure, and not throw up their hands in frustration and say, "Oh well fares are going up, ridership is going down. We should fold our tents and stop planning for significant growths in ridership". I see some of us rail advocates descending into that sort of a mindset which I find disturbing.

Generally speaking, I completely agree. I have attempted to get my people to back me on this, but (not going to name names) most of them are so cynical, they make me look like an optimist, and think doing so is entirely an even bigger waste of time than trying to kill ARC.

Dave made a half hearted attempt at getting funding to restore the ORT @ 25%, but he did it more as a matter of form. I personally remain convinced that the present fare increase is such a sucker punch in the average commuters gut that figuring out a way of getting a large-scale backing on a funding reconfiguration is possible.

That being said, I think the way that ARC is planned and structured is so misguided and badly executed that it basically is an open license for anyone objecting to it, and, more pointedly, NJT as a whole, to start taking pot shots at everything. I think that ridership growth over the next 20-30 years, given current realities, does not at all dictate either 780 or 34th street. At present, anyway.

The tunnel itself is the bigger and more important thing, and even at present level the supplemental capacity is useful, if not desperately needed yesterday. I'm of the "Penn Station First" mentality, by which I'm hoping the tunnels should be built going into Penn, but with an alignment that would allow construction of both 780 and/or a separate terminal a la 34th street at a later date if and when they become needed.

I further think that with those tunnels in place, any capacity problems for the next 10 years or so could be taken care of by simply improving access (both passenger and train) to the platforms and tracks that currently exist.

That being said, I am not of the LC's perspective that 34th St. must be killed at any and all costs, up to and including termination of the entire ARC project. We will need the capacity of additional tunnels, and I know enough about the politics to know if ARC dies completely, it will be decades before anything ever gets built.

Anyway, now you ought to have a much better idea of where I am coming from and how I am trying to balance reality with a vision for the future that is positive, even though the immediate situation may feel rather bad.

Most certainly. I mostly agree with you in a broad sense, although we apparently disagree on details here and there.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

The tunnel would be built within 20 years and join the century-old Hudson River crossing and an $8.7 billion tunnel that NJ Transit plans to build by 2017.

Water tunnel #3 planning started in the 1950's, with construction starting way back in 1970, and is not projected to be finished until at least 2020.

A "quick" tunnel by NYC just doesn't seem possible.

 

[jis]

Water tunnel #3 planning started in the 1950's, with construction starting way back in 1970, and is not projected to be finished until at least 2020.
A "quick" tunnel by NYC just doesn't seem possible.

Not that I am suggesting that anything can be done quickly in New York, but, it should be kept in mind that water tunnel #3 is a much larger and more complex project than any of the rail tunnels being proposed or built.

The ESA tunnels have already been completed, the tunneling part that is. The #7 extension tunnels are also pretty close to done. New York city will have to surpass the level of collective incompetence found in third world countries to be unable to dig a tunnel from Jersey Meadows to 34th St in 7 years, specially after all of the necessary permissions have been acquired and source of funding identified (this has not quite happened yet in case of ARC - last I looked, I believe there is some 25 - 30% of the funding yet to be nailed down). It is usually the latter that holds things up and delays things once the rest of the preparation is done.

One could also posit, as many well meaning rail advocates have been, that a little delay for the ARC tunnels may not be a bad thing because possibly a more rational proposal could evolve from it - perhaps connecting them into Penn Station afterall. But something being rational never caused it to not get bogged down in NY politics either. So in the quest for rationality it is quite possible that your surmise will get proved right and there will after all be no new tunnels in 20 years, ARC or the proposed Amtrak ones. It is also possible that some completely out of the box alternate use is found for the ARC tunnels like connecting the #7 line into them and build a transfer station at Secaucus, just to pick a random out of the box ideas.

Of the Amtrak plan, the biggest risk I see is the Block 780 part, because it is a relatively shallow station extension, and its construction will cause massive disruption on the surface. No matter how much we rail advocates like it for its rationality, I don't see any evidence that New York local politics will take kindly to it. Afterall these are the same chaps that are loudly complaining about a single fan plant for the 34th St station!

As you can see there are multiple dimensions to this issue

 

[jis]

That being said, I think the way that ARC is planned and structured is so misguided and badly executed that it basically is an open license for anyone objecting to it, and, more pointedly, NJT as a whole, to start taking pot shots at everything. I think that ridership growth over the next 20-30 years, given current realities, does not at all dictate either 780 or 34th street. At present, anyway.
The tunnel itself is the bigger and more important thing, and even at present level the supplemental capacity is useful, if not desperately needed yesterday. I'm of the "Penn Station First" mentality, by which I'm hoping the tunnels should be built going into Penn, but with an alignment that would allow construction of both 780 and/or a separate terminal a la 34th street at a later date if and when they become needed.

I further think that with those tunnels in place, any capacity problems for the next 10 years or so could be taken care of by simply improving access (both passenger and train) to the platforms and tracks that currently exist.

That being said, I am not of the LC's perspective that 34th St. must be killed at any and all costs, up to and including termination of the entire ARC project. We will need the capacity of additional tunnels, and I know enough about the politics to know if ARC dies completely, it will be decades before anything ever gets built.

My friend, you and I agree on the basic elements more than you might imagine. I afterall gave deposition with Joe and others on exactly what your para 2 above says. Indeed the tunnel should be built with both options kept open but the first connection should be to Penn Station. Unfortunately, I don't think they have done any planning at all about how to stage the tunnel connection work into Penn Station at A interlocking, since they abandoned that connection, so the earliest such a project could be completed is already 2019/20.

IMHO in an ideal world, the tunnel should be built together with the bellmouths to build a future additional deep station should the need arise and should 780 get politically blocked. I think the idiotic issue of saving 100 year old pile of rotting wood known as the bulkhead should be gotten rid of and like the Israelis do, after the tunnel is built we should simply build a new replica of the bulkhead on top of it.

The huge , massive fly in the ointment though, is that we do not live in an ideal world. The questions to address is what is pragmatically achievable to move forward from the juncture that we are at. I wish us rail advocates would start addressing that rather than being singularly focused on one single issue. I have a problem believing, like apparently you do, that killing off ARC in its entirety at this point would be the best outcome,though it might look like a huge victory for the rail advocacy leadership in NJ, it could turn out to be a very hollow victory IMHO.

I agree that significant additional capacity won't be needed before 2020, at least none that cannot be met by judicious lengthening of trains and careful scheduling and providing better egress from NYPS platforms. I don't think the universal through running proposed by the RRWG actually gains as much capacity as they claim with a wave of their magic hands. And of course no one is suggesting that anyone attempt to start building 780 today. We would be better off concentrating instead on a single universal fare collection system covering all five agencies (MTA Bus, MTA LIRR, MTA MNRR, PATH and NJT (both Rail and Bus Operations)) in the NYC area.

The problem that I see is that at the rate we are going in lock step, the rail advocates, the obtuse NJ political machinery and the dysfunctional NJT management, it is more likely that nothing will be built by 2020. Witness the fact that Mr. Simpson has signed on the dotted line on the 2030 NEC Plan and yet he is not willing to do anything at all to bring more rationality to NJT's plan or fix the dysfunctional management. I wonder how he rationalizes this obvious inconsistency in his own behavior in his mind.

As a side note, I don't know how many are aware of this, but a section of the rail advocacy community were partially responsible for holding up electrification to Boston for over 15 years by trying to hold out for a straighter inland route as part of the same deal. So what we have as a result is the same old route electrified but 15 years later and no sign of a straighter inland route. Unintended consequence? Worth keeping in mind.

Oh well.... off the soap box again for a bit

 

[MrEd]

this might be unrealted to tunnel project, but it also might be related..

\....................

The chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will also join the board that governs Amtrak following a unanimous vote in the Senate Tuesday.

Anthony Coscia of North Caldwell has overseen the bistate transportation agency, which runs the region’s bridges, tunnels, airports and the PATH subway system, since 2003. He was nominated in October to the board that oversees Amtrak, a corporation whose stock is owned by the federal government.

Amtrak has received a major infusion of federal funding over the past two years after a long period of minimal investment as the former Bush administration argued for privatization.

At a hearing in November, Coscia said he believed the railroad’s management could improve efforts to provide transparency to the public.

...

http://www.northjersey.com/news/transporta...trak_board.html

 

[jis]

This news of Coscia joining Amtrak Board may be quite relevant since Coscia apparently is personally a huge supporter of ARC in its present form, and has been instrumental in lining up the enormous amount of PA funding for it.

I have met him and chatted with him a couple of times at various meetings. Interesting conversations regarding PA's original charter to build rail infrastructure for New York City and environs and such. They of course proceeded to build roads instead and took the trouble to make sure that the design of the terminal buildings at Newark Airport would make it quite difficult to bring PATH in there. A remarkable set of bone-headed wrong strategic choices - with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of course

 

[Gratt]

Would it be hoping against hope that these new tunnels would be able to service superliner train sets? Not that their is any to spare but it would be nice if there was a tad bit of uniformity in Amtrak's fleet if/when they ever get the funding to buy new trains.

Not to mention the added revenue on the NEC.

 

[jis]

Would it be hoping against hope that these new tunnels would be able to service superliner train sets? Not that their is any to spare but it would be nice if there was a tad bit of uniformity in Amtrak's fleet if/when they ever get the funding to buy new trains.

No Superliners. It is all high platform.

As a matter of cats unless something changes, there will be no Amtrak trains running through the new tunnels. It will only be NJTransit trains. And anything using the new tunnels will have to be either push-pull or EMUs.

 

[AlanB]

Would it be hoping against hope that these new tunnels would be able to service superliner train sets? Not that their is any to spare but it would be nice if there was a tad bit of uniformity in Amtrak's fleet if/when they ever get the funding to buy new trains.

No Superliners. It is all high platform.

As a matter of cats unless something changes, there will be no Amtrak trains running through the new tunnels. It will only be NJTransit trains. And anything using the new tunnels will have to be either push-pull or EMUs.

Even if something where to change and either Amtrak's dreams of a new tunnel was realized or NJT's new tunnels were to connect with Penn, it still wouldn't matter if they cleared Superliners.

In addition to the platform issue mentioned by Jishnu, the East River tunnels leading to Sunnyside yard won't clear a Superliner. Neither will the tunnels in Baltimore. And then there is the potential issue of the Superliners being to close to the catenary in many areas too.

 

[abcnews]

So no Silver Star/Meteor Superliner anytime soon?

 

[afigg]

Even if something where to change and either Amtrak's dreams of a new tunnel was realized or NJT's new tunnels were to connect with Penn, it still wouldn't matter if they cleared Superliners.
In addition to the platform issue mentioned by Jishnu, the East River tunnels leading to Sunnyside yard won't clear a Superliner. Neither will the tunnels in Baltimore. And then there is the potential issue of the Superliners being to close to the catenary in many areas too.

One would hope if that they are building the first new rail tunnels under the Hudson River in a 100 years, that they would provide for a higher plate clearance so as not to preclude running larger train cars someday. They should be looking 30-50 years down the road (or track). The B&P tunnel in Baltimore will get replaced sometime in the next 10-15 years. One of the options is to build a tunnel and tracks which will also provide a route for running double stack freight cars through Baltimore. They won't be running Superlines to New York City area any time soon, but someday after several decades of upgrades to the NEC, catenary, and tunnels, there may be a route.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

One would hope if that they are building the first new rail tunnels under the Hudson River in a 100 years, that they would provide for a higher plate clearance so as not to preclude running larger train cars someday.

Who cares about plate clearance? One would hope that if they were building rail tunnels under the Hudson for the first time in 100 years, they would give two **** about simple things like interoperability or even a somewhat coherent plan for the transportation infrastructure of the most transit-dependent city in the US.

But it doesn't. If we can get there, I'll worry about trivia like the tunnels clearing something taller than a NJT multi-level.