Third Rail Vs. Catenary Wires

[Nathanael]

I don't think New York city has the jurisdiction to permit or not the replacement of third rail by catenary or vice versa.

It is all a question of money and even there it is not New York City's jurisdiction since MTA is not not part of New York City jurisdiction. It is a State organization.

NYC does have 42% of the state's population, and that's not counting the rail-served suburbs, and the upstate cities are capable of agreeing with a vision of better rail transportation -- this isn't Georgia. I do realize that our state legislature is a disaster and is frequently very unrepresentative, but if there were vision coming from NYC, it should be possible to get elected and implement the far-sighted planning at the state level. It's happened before, though not in *my* lifetime.

 

[jis]

Usually New York City opposes funding suburban railroads and supports funding subways and buses. I don't think that attitude has changed much. So I would not hold my breath for New york City to develop a sudden urge to fix LIRR and MNRR. LIRR and MNRR gets funding and gets fixed when the suburbs develop a vision for them.

 

[Nathanael]

The age-old problem in New York: it's not culturally unified. Upstate, the NYC "commuter belt" (inlcuding all of Long Island), and NYC often act like they're three different states, or perhaps different countries. (Upstate has its own divides, but they're less geographically-based; the cultural difference between Jamestown and Lake Placid, or between Buffalo and Albany, is a lot smaller than one might imagine or expect.) The Erie Canal was supposed to tie the state together, and I suppose it did, for a while, but since the demise of frequent train service from NYC to most of upstate, the divide seems to have widened. The expressways don't seem to be doing the job.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The NY turnpike is doing more harm than good for the people of upstate New York. Once the toll road becomes a freeway, growth will follow. However since the turnpike is hiding a huge amount of debit, it will not happen soon.

One of the changes that will occur is simple more exits. That in it self will improve our upstate growth.

 

[Andrew]

If the Empire Corridor does not generate enough traffic for electrification, than why was the Keystone Corridor electrified?

 

[John Bobinyec]

If the Empire Corridor does not generate enough traffic for electrification, than why was the Keystone Corridor electrified?

Different millenium.

jb

 

[jis]

When the PRR Main Line was electrified it was part of a larger plan to electrify all the way to Pittsburgh that eventually never materialized. The electrification also was for both passenger and freight. That is unlikely to be the case in any new electrification at least in the near to midterm future.

 

[Eric S]

The NY turnpike is doing more harm than good for the people of upstate New York. Once the toll road becomes a freeway, growth will follow. However since the turnpike is hiding a huge amount of debit, it will not happen soon.

One of the changes that will occur is simple more exits. That in it self will improve our upstate growth.

Are there plans to actually remove tolls from the New York State Thruway?

And wouldn't any development driven by more interchanges just be highway-oriented sprawl, perhaps just shifting development from existing communities to their edges rather than actually encouraging a net increase in development?

 

[jis]

The NY turnpike is doing more harm than good for the people of upstate New York. Once the toll road becomes a freeway, growth will follow. However since the turnpike is hiding a huge amount of debit, it will not happen soon.

One of the changes that will occur is simple more exits. That in it self will improve our upstate growth.

Are there plans to actually remove tolls from the New York State Thruway?

And wouldn't any development driven by more interchanges just be highway-oriented sprawl, perhaps just shifting development from existing communities to their edges rather than actually encouraging a net increase in development?

I don't see tolls removed from the Thruway in my lifetime, unless of course it is downgraded and becomes part of the federally proposed Highway to Boulevard Program As it is Thruway Tolls are insufficient to carry out all the maintenance that the Thruway needs.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

The thruway just had it lease renew a few years back, so that was a missed chance.

The tolls may or may not cover the cost of the maintance. The thruway is used to move debit off the state books, so nobody know what the true cost is. Thruway also runs the canal and I84. So the books are just as readable as the one at Amtrak.

As for upstate growth. Nobody like big truck going thur small town American. Open more exit will bring easier access to areas for development. Too many times I have to driven several miles between exits to a customer that is located next to the Thruway but no direct access but for a exit.

There is several long area on the thruway with out a exit.

Out west, south of Buffalo the state is getting pushed to make Rt20 four lanes. Or we could save some money and make the thruway a freeway add some exit. Problem solved.

 

[George Harris]

What part of "there is insufficient overhead clearance in Grand Central" do people not understand? I think at one time, maybe still, there were short segments of overhead bars over double slips and the short switch engines were equipped with small pantographs so they would not be left without power through these things, but this was 600 volts, not 25 kV.

The Swiss have used rigidly mounted overhead in some tunnels to reduce the needed clearance, but you still have to deal with the basic overhead electrical clearance, and I seriously doubt you could lower the track in Grand Central and approaches sufficiently to get it. Who knows? There may have been a study done on the subject. Do a web search using key words that should be in it and see if anything turns up.

Maybe after you get out of the low clearance areas you could switch from third rail to overhead, but there is little point in it unless the overhead is going to extend a lot further than the current limits of the third rail electrification. To make that change would be spending a lot of money for very little benefit. Any sort of benefit to cost study would sink this thought without a trace.

 

[Nathanael]

Maybe after you get out of the low clearance areas you could switch from third rail to overhead, but there is little point in it unless the overhead is going to extend a lot further than the current limits of the third rail electrification.

It should extend at least to Albany. Diesel prices are going up a lot faster than electricity prices.

 

[jis]

New York State DOT Rail Division has an EIS in process ready for vetting by the FRA. It has one option that involves electrification. That is the 125mph option on substantially new ROW west of Schenectady since CSX will not allow any practical use of its ROW for such speeds. NYS has already ruled out the 160mph and the 220mph options as cost prohibitive. They were there in the initial screen but are absent in the final screening process. All the other alternatives are 110mph or less and do not include electrification. We will see what gets selected as the LPA. At present that is the only practical way in which any electrification will happen on the Empire Corridor. It is highly unlikely that any piecemeal electrification inspired by either MNRRR or Amtrak will take place. They simply do not have the financial wherewithal by themselves to make it happen.

 

[Nathanael]

New York State DOT Rail Division has an EIS in process ready for vetting by the FRA. It has one option that involves electrification. That is the 125mph option on substantially new ROW west of Schenectady since CSX will not allow any practical use of its ROW for such speeds.

NYS usually does things badly, of course. Hopefully some vision will start coming through....
CSX shouldn't own the NY Central right-of-way at all; it only owns it due to the laziness and ineptitude of multiple generations of NYS governments, who passed up the opportunity to buy it on multiple occasions. Ideally NY would just buy the ROW; it would be cheaper to buy CSX one of the nearby mostly-abandoned ROWs for its freight, because its freight doesn't care nearly as much about curves, or indeed station locations. But a mostly-new ROW for passengers would be an OK solution too.