The New New York Station

[jis]

The NJT dual modes are going to be faster under electric, and their diesel engines are intended to be used only where no catenary exists.
Thus, they are unalike. The Genesis dual modes are dual mode, primary diesel. The AdTranz dual modes are dual mode, primarily electric.

While I've no doubt that the units will indeed be faster under the wire, than under diesel power, if these units were designed to be primarily electric, then NJT has made a major mistake. It doesn't need electric engines. It needs diesel engines that can also operate under electric power.

No they are not designed to operate primarily in electric mode. However, they are specified at least to operate at a higher max speed with greater power output, in electric mode, which is necessary to make them fit well in traffic flow on the NEC for trains like the Bay Head expresses and Atlantic City expresses - hence the original requirement for 125mph in electric mode. They supposedly will be pretty good performers even in diesel mode, but they will never ever need to go faster than 80mph in diesel mode since NJT does not have any trackage with MAS greater than 80mph in diesel territory, though they will be capable of at least 90 if not 100. If they live upto what their design is claimed to be they will be considerably peppier beasts than either the P32ACDMs or the LIRR DEs in both diesel and electric modes.

The point I was making is that they are not designed to be a standard diesel-electric engine with a little electrical gear thrown in to run short distances on electric mode with inferior and marginal performance. They are designed more as starting from a core electric engine (an ALP46 like engine to be precise) with a pair of high speed lightweight diesel engines running alternators which feed the DC link through rectifiers and beyond that it is the same electric gear used for electric traction that is used for traction, to allow them to operate very nicely in either mode. The design philosophy is fundamentally different from the classic dual-modes. As for how successful they will be in what is being attempted, only time will tell.

I suspect that GML was trying to say something similar and that is what I agreed with.

The way I see the justification of the design as specified, I think your criticism Alan about these being inappropriately specified for the needs of NJT are a bit off the mark.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Yes, what JIS is saying is what I intended to say.

 

[AlanB]

The point I was making is that they are not designed to be a standard diesel-electric engine with a little electrical gear thrown in to run short distances on electric mode with inferior and marginal performance.

The P32-ACDM doesn't just have a little electrical gear thrown into the engine. There is a reason that it's called a P32, and that's because the prime mover is a smaller 12 cylinder 3,200HP engine. That's as opposed to the 16 cylinder, 4,000 HP engine found in the P40 and the 4,200HP engine found in the P42. The empty space vacated by that smaller engine, along with other nooks and crannies, was taken over by the considerable electronic gear required to operate the engine off of third rail power.

In fact the P32-ACDM actually converts the DC power first to AC and then back to DC for the traction motors, which takes considerable equipment to accomplish. And while the P32-ACDM may not be able to obtain its top running speed on third rail, it can move at a decent clip on third rail power. It's not running in a pony mode for example. I believe that it doesn't have the same get up and go that it has on diesel power, which is why the crews on MN switch over rather quickly to diesel.

The way I see the justification of the design as specified, I think your criticism Alan about these being inappropriately specified for the needs of NJT are a bit off the mark.

My criticism is not directed at the engine, it's directed at the idea espoused by GML that this engine was designed primarily to run in electric mode. This engine was designed to be able to haul trains in diesel territory and electric territory as needed. If this engine was designed to run primarily in electric mode between say Trenton and NYP, then NJT has wasted its money. It already had the engine it needed for that run. This engine was designed to fill the need to haul a train from diesel territory into electrified territory and provide a one seat ride for the lines that currently don't have that luxury.

 

[jis]

In fact the P32-ACDM actually converts the DC power first to AC and then back to DC for the traction motors, which takes considerable equipment to accomplish. And while the P32-ACDM may not be able to obtain its top running speed on third rail, it can move at a decent clip on third rail power. It's not running in a pony mode for example. I believe that it doesn't have the same get up and go that it has on diesel power, which is why the crews on MN switch over rather quickly to diesel.

Your last sentence is what I was alluding to in my statement about a little electric attachment. It has never proved to be truly usable in the electric mode in main-line assignments.

Also, why would it covert the AC back to DC when one of its redeeming features is that it has AC motors (GEB15 AC, axle suspended motors)? Or did you mean that it takes in 750DC converts it to AC to up the voltage to whatever is the DC link voltage, then converts it back to DC to connect into the DC link and that is what drives the AC traction system?

My criticism is not directed at the engine, it's directed at the idea espoused by GML that this engine was designed primarily to run in electric mode. This engine was designed to be able to haul trains in diesel territory and electric territory as needed. If this engine was designed to run primarily in electric mode between say Trenton and NYP, then NJT has wasted its money. It already had the engine it needed for that run. This engine was designed to fill the need to haul a train from diesel territory into electrified territory and provide a one seat ride for the lines that currently don't have that luxury.

Yeah I believe he mis-spoke, and he has pretty much said so. Given that interpretation of GML's statement your criticism was justified.

 

[AlanB]

Also, why would it covert the AC back to DC when one of its redeeming features is that it has AC motors (GEB15 AC, axle suspended motors)? Or did you mean that it takes in 750DC converts it to AC to up the voltage to whatever is the DC link voltage, then converts it back to DC to connect into the DC link and that is what drives the AC traction system?

Sorry, guess I had that backwards. It's the diesel that produces AC, which is converted to DC, and then back to AC. This allows the DC third rail to follow the second part of that step to power the traction motors.

My criticism is not directed at the engine, it's directed at the idea espoused by GML that this engine was designed primarily to run in electric mode. This engine was designed to be able to haul trains in diesel territory and electric territory as needed. If this engine was designed to run primarily in electric mode between say Trenton and NYP, then NJT has wasted its money. It already had the engine it needed for that run. This engine was designed to fill the need to haul a train from diesel territory into electrified territory and provide a one seat ride for the lines that currently don't have that luxury.

Yeah I believe he mis-spoke, and he has pretty much said so. Given that interpretation of GML's statement your criticism was justified.

Thank you. And that is what I was getting at. If we accept that this new engine needs to work in both electric and diesel territories, then at least on paper it would appear to be perfectly designed. Hopefully it works as well as expected.

But if we were to say that this engine was really designed to work in electric territory only, with an occasional trip into diesel territory, then NJT has purchased the wrong engine for that job.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Thank you. And that is what I was getting at. If we accept that this new engine needs to work in both electric and diesel territories, then at least on paper it would appear to be perfectly designed. Hopefully it works as well as expected.
But if we were to say that this engine was really designed to work in electric territory only, with an occasional trip into diesel territory, then NJT has purchased the wrong engine for that job.

I concede that I was less than clear, but man, I said it was a dual mode, primarily electric. It is, primarily, an electric engine with the equipment needed to let its electric systems be charged by a diesel engine- it is an electric engine that is generating its own electricity, in essence. Which is confusing because to some extent, thats what all diesel locomotives are.

But what I mean is that it is, essentially, an ALP-46A, an electric engine, with the equipment added to let it run on diesel fuel. It is primarily an electric. It works better as an electric than as a diesel.

The P32ACDM is, essentially, a Genesis, a diesel engine, with equipment needed to allow for running by picking up the power from a third rail rather than generating it onboard with a diesel engine. It is, as you said, happier running on diesel then on third rail.

I'm not suggesting that the new NJT Dual Modes are like the Turboliners, limping along on a mode they are not really intended to run on. In theory, it should serve the requirements of both sections as good as possible. I doubt that it will be as effective in diesel mode as a PL42- but thats the nature of any hybrid product.

The P32ACDM has more in common with a diesel than an electric. The NJT dual-mode has more in common with an electric than a diesel.

Nothing that I said suggested that I felt the new NJT electrics would be limping along in diesel mode, that I can see, even having read over my post looking for that.

 

[jis]

Here we go again!

Moynihan Station Pact Reached.

This time it is Amtrak that is one board to occupy the Moynihan Concourse. Thank god looks like at least NJT is off the hook that Warrington (may his soul rest in peace) hung it onto. Well, since Warrington already has a plaza named after him in Hoboken I guess no harm is done to his posterity

 

[Bob Dylan]

Here we go again!
Moynihan Station Pact Reached.

This time it is Amtrak that is one board to occupy the Moynihan Concourse. Thank god looks like at least NJT is off the hook that Warrington (may his soul rest in peace) hung it onto. Well, since Warrington already has a plaza named after him in Hoboken I guess no harm is done to his posterity

Thanks Jis, this is a good idea in my opinion, our first city should have a first rate rail facility and NYP (and MSG) is a dump!!!Also good use of stimulus money, I know being NY it will end up costing 5 times what they say but @ least well get some good out of the deal!!

 

[jis]

Thanks Jis, this is a good idea in my opinion, our first city should have a first rate rail facility and NYP (and MSG) is a dump!!!Also good use of stimulus money, I know being NY it will end up costing 5 times what they say but @ least well get some good out of the deal!!

The one big problem with it, which made it remarkably unsuitable for NJT's use is that it is further away from almost anywhere that people arriving into New York want to get to, than the current station. With Amtrak at least the NEC passengers will face the same issue. The few LD passengers presumably won't care. The only close subway line will be the 8th Ave Line. Fortunately, hopefully Amtrak will not totally abandon the current station, and clearly trains will remain accessible from the current concourses anyway. So the damage done will be minimal for those that actually use trains, while all the egos and edifice complexes will be satisfied by the new concourse. Personally I think on the whole it is a huge waste of public funds to provide help to the real estate interests in New York, funds that could have been better utilized elsewhere. But that is just my humble opinion on this matter

 

[railiner]

Thanks Jis, this is a good idea in my opinion, our first city should have a first rate rail facility and NYP (and MSG) is a dump!!!Also good use of stimulus money, I know being NY it will end up costing 5 times what they say but @ least well get some good out of the deal!!

The one big problem with it, which made it remarkably unsuitable for NJT's use is that it is further away from almost anywhere that people arriving into New York want to get to, than the current station. With Amtrak at least the NEC passengers will face the same issue. The few LD passengers presumably won't care. The only close subway line will be the 8th Ave Line. Fortunately, hopefully Amtrak will not totally abandon the current station, and clearly trains will remain accessible from the current concourses anyway. So the damage done will be minimal for those that actually use trains, while all the egos and edifice complexes will be satisfied by the new concourse. Personally I think on the whole it is a huge waste of public funds to provide help to the real estate interests in New York, funds that could have been better utilized elsewhere. But that is just my humble opinion on this matter

I don't see how the new station be accessible from the current concourses, as the eigth avenue subway would block this. It would be possible to connect via the long center platforms which pass under the subway, but that would be inconvenient having to go down, across, and then back up again. So Amtrak to and from LIRR trains would be much harder from the new station.

 

[jis]

I don't see how the new station be accessible from the current concourses, as the eigth avenue subway would block this. It would be possible to connect via the long center platforms which pass under the subway, but that would be inconvenient having to go down, across, and then back up again. So Amtrak to and from LIRR trains would be much harder from the new station.

There is already a pretty hefty pedestrian tunnel under the 8th Ave subway that connects the LIRR concourse to the west end platform access corridor for LIRR, which is to the west of the 8th Ave subway. So getting to LIRR platforms from the Moynihan concourse should not be any problem at all.

As a matter of fact the plan is to extend the west end platform access corridor to cover all Amtrak platforms. This will involve building additionalgangways that will have to pass under the 8th Ave subway to connect to some of the shorter platforms like platforms 7/8 and below. The plan is to prvide direct access from the Moynihan concourse to all platforms without having to go to the main concourse at all.

 

[zoltan]

Given the fact that diesel is not forbidden in Penn Station, and locomotives start running on diesel power as soon as they exit the tunnels, it seems somewhat unnecessary to add 30 minutes to journey times with a locomotive change in Albany.

 

[jis]

Given the fact that diesel is not forbidden in Penn Station, and locomotives start running on diesel power as soon as they exit the tunnels, it seems somewhat unnecessary to add 30 minutes to journey times with a locomotive change in Albany.

It is actually quite a mystery why it takes 30 minutes to change engines in Albany. Actually I think it has more to do with padding.

Just because diesel is not illegal in Penn Station does not make it a wise thing to start running them in there. It is a fact that PRR of its own accord decided not to operate diesels through those tunnels and its successors have continued to follow that tradition. Maybe they had a reason? At least on some occasions people should be doing the reasonable and prudent thing even when their keeper is not forcing them to do so IMHO.

Besides for a train that has hours of padding all over, we are worried about 15 minutes extra time in Albany? Afterall it is going to make a 10 to 15 min stop there anyway even if no change was involved.

 

[AlanB]

Given the fact that diesel is not forbidden in Penn Station, and locomotives start running on diesel power as soon as they exit the tunnels, it seems somewhat unnecessary to add 30 minutes to journey times with a locomotive change in Albany.

It is actually quite a mystery why it takes 30 minutes to change engines in Albany. Actually I think it has more to do with padding.

Just because diesel is not illegal in Penn Station does not make it a wise thing to start running them in there. It is a fact that PRR of its own accord decided not to operate diesels through those tunnels and its successors have continued to follow that tradition. Maybe they had a reason? At least on some occasions people should be doing the reasonable and prudent thing even when their keeper is not forcing them to do so IMHO.

Besides for a train that has hours of padding all over, we are worried about 15 minutes extra time in Albany? Afterall it is going to make a 10 to 15 min stop there anyway even if no change was involved.

Zoltan,

While you are correct that they do start running on diesel within a few minutes of leaving NYP, you're forgetting that every train arriving or departing Penn Station also travels through the East River tunnels to Sunnyside yard. So staying on diesel power would smoke up those tunnels quite nicely and of course a train like the LSL that can linger at NYP for 30 minutes or more would pump quite a bit of smoke into the station and platform area during that time.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Given the fact that diesel is not forbidden in Penn Station, and locomotives start running on diesel power as soon as they exit the tunnels, it seems somewhat unnecessary to add 30 minutes to journey times with a locomotive change in Albany.

It might not be forbidden, which I doubt, But have you ever smelled the inside of Chicago Union Station? It smells awful. Multiply that by a factor of 10 and you'd have what Penn would smell like if they started regularly running diesels from the Empire Corridor into Penn. At which point, laws would go on the books requiring them to not do it anymore.

This setup gives them leeway to run them into Penn that way if they really have a need to, without incurring wrath from people who probably aren't aware it ever happens.