When the LIRR goes to Grand Central--what about Penna Station?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
Terminal via the 63rd Street Tunnel*. I'm not sure how many trains
will be diverted. But I suspect that, given the very high number of
jobs in the GCT area, a great many commuters will want the service; it
will save them from the overcrowded ride on the E train.
At present Penn is overcrowded and they must shoehorn trains in
whereever they can. Now, given that some LIRR trains will be gone
from Pennsylvania Station, will that free up some track/platform slots
for NJT trains? Remember that there are several tracks in Penn that
are presently shared between the two, that is, some tracks handle both
LIRR and NJT (and Amk) trains.
Would anyone know if there have been any serious planning in this
direction?
I am uncomfortable with NJT's proposed new NYC terminal; I don't like
the idea of it being so deep underground nor its location.
I am not sure how many rush hour LIRR trains GCT can accomodate; I
don't know if there are empty tracks and unused platforms (like the
loop tracks, that can get a train in and out real quick). Also,
capacity is determined by the four track throat and interlockings
along the way. But I think every LIRR train headed to GCT will be
filled because GCT is a more desirable terminal point.
[public replies, please]
Bolwerk
> The NY MTA will soon route some LIRR trains into Grand Central
> Terminal via the 63rd Street Tunnel*. I'm not sure how many trains
> will be diverted. But I suspect that, given the very high number of
> jobs in the GCT area, a great many commuters will want the service; it
> will save them from the overcrowded ride on the E train.
>
> At present Penn is overcrowded and they must shoehorn trains in
> whereever they can. Now, given that some LIRR trains will be gone
> from Pennsylvania Station, will that free up some track/platform slots
> for NJT trains? Remember that there are several tracks in Penn that
> are presently shared between the two, that is, some tracks handle both
> LIRR and NJT (and Amk) trains.
Probably, but remember there's also *talk* of MNRR trains at Penn.
> Would anyone know if there have been any serious planning in this
> direction?
>
> I am uncomfortable with NJT's proposed new NYC terminal; I don't like
> the idea of it being so deep underground nor its location.
>
> I am not sure how many rush hour LIRR trains GCT can accomodate; I
> don't know if there are empty tracks and unused platforms (like the
> loop tracks, that can get a train in and out real quick). Also,
> capacity is determined by the four track throat and interlockings
> along the way. But I think every LIRR train headed to GCT will be
> filled because GCT is a more desirable terminal point.
It doesn't even sound like they plan to run that many trains to GCT. I
seem to remember 18 an hour being the plan a year or so ago, but of
course that could have changed.
> [public replies, please]
What kind do you usually expect?
Jishnu Mukerji
> Now, given that some LIRR trains will be gone
> from Pennsylvania Station, will that free up some track/platform slots
> for NJT trains? Remember that there are several tracks in Penn that
> are presently shared between the two, that is, some tracks handle both
> LIRR and NJT (and Amk) trains.
LIRR is not releasing any slots at Penn Station even when they move some
trains to GCT because they expect to run additional trains between
themselves (and perhaps MNRR though I am not sure about that since I
have not read so explicitly anywhere regarding MNRR) to fill up all
slots that they own. So neither Amtrak nor NJT will get any additional
platform slots at Penn Station.
David Pirmann
>The NY MTA will soon route some LIRR trains into Grand Central
>Terminal via the 63rd Street Tunnel*. I'm not sure how many trains
...
>I am not sure how many rush hour LIRR trains GCT can accomodate; I
The answer is: none. The LIRR will not share the existing GCT.
In fact the plan for LIRR to "GCT" is conceptually similar to the new
NJT Penn plan. The LIRR plan calls for two tube tunnels, stub end,
with a terminal consisting of four tracks on two levels.
See here....
http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/index.html
particularly:
http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/images/gallery/pages/new%20cross%20section_jpg.htm
Jimmy
> The answer is: none. The LIRR will not share the existing GCT.
> In fact the plan for LIRR to "GCT" is conceptually similar to the new
> NJT Penn plan. The LIRR plan calls for two tube tunnels, stub end,
> with a terminal consisting of four tracks on two levels.
>
> See here....http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/index.html
>
> particularly:
>
I wonder how much of the time savings of going to Grand Central versus
Penn Station will be eaten up by the ridiculously long escalator ride
to get to the surface.
Jimmy
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> It doesn't even sound like they plan to run that many trains to GCT. I
> seem to remember 18 an hour being the plan a year or so ago, but of
> course that could have changed.
>
Is there a tentative date for when LIRR service to GCT is due to start up?
If that is the case, then from/to what branch will LIRR trains into GCT run?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
links. I didn't realize it was a new sub-station; I thought from the
MTA sketch today* that the trains would simply get on the trunk and
use whatever slot was available at GCT.
* http://www.mta.info/mta/dailypics/MTACC-ESA%20Map.jpg (picture of
the day).
On Dec 3, 11:55 am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Probably, but remember there's also *talk* of MNRR trains at Penn.
I'm not sure that would be worth the effort since GCT is a better
location than Penn, though I guess from the New Haven Line and Hudson
Line no effort at all is needed--just follow the Amtrak Hell Gate
Bridge route or Hudson River route. Since little or no expense is
needed to do it, I suppose a tryout would be a good idea.
Unfortunately there's the capacity issue. Maybe they could try it on
weekends or midday instead of the evening rush hour.
Would anyone know how well the MNRR trains direct to Secaucus are
being patronized?
(As an aside, the NJT NEC timeable lists in a box a few extra trains
that shuttle between Penn Sta and Secaucus.)
> It doesn't even sound like they plan to run that many trains to GCT. I
> seem to remember 18 an hour being the plan a year or so ago, but of
> course that could have changed.
18 an hour is very nice, that gives the option of every branch getting
at least one train per hour, or frequent connections from a change at
Jamaica, which plenty of people have to do anyway.
But I am disappointed at the idea of a separate terminal station at
GCT.
John W Gintell
I'd assume that a lot of this is being done under the long-temr assumption that
the amount of commuter traffic will increase (goal: less cars, more trains) and
thus more trains and station capacity in NYC is needed by MNRR, NJT, and LIRR.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-will save them from the overcrowded ride on the E train.
1985 I used to take the QM2 to Penn Station to get downtown, the I
realised getting off at 33&Park saved me half an hour waiting in
crosstown traffic. Back then the 6 downtown took more time than the
express bus from NE Queens. Why? It kept stopping.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm http://www.facebook.com/vasjpan2
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-Is there a tentative date for when LIRR service to GCT is due to start up?
THat's what I was hoping to learn.
BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
it comes back?
What's going on with the Wall St LIRR tunnel? When?
Jishnu Mukerji
> *+-Is there a tentative date for when LIRR service to GCT is due to start up?
>
> THat's what I was hoping to learn.
2017 or so is my guess.
> BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
> it comes back?
Was there ever a Port Washington to Brooklyn LIRR service? Which way did
it go? I can't think of any obvious possible route since Port Washington
Line does not pass through Jamaica.
> What's going on with the Wall St LIRR tunnel? When?
Nothing. No such plan at present.
Peter Schleifer
>On Dec 3, 11:55�am, Bolwerk <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Probably, but remember there's also *talk* of MNRR trains at Penn.
>
>I'm not sure that would be worth the effort since GCT is a better
>location than Penn, though I guess from the New Haven Line and Hudson
>Line no effort at all is needed--just follow the Amtrak Hell Gate
>Bridge route or Hudson River route. Since little or no expense is
>needed to do it, I suppose a tryout would be a good idea.
>Unfortunately there's the capacity issue. Maybe they could try it on
>weekends or midday instead of the evening rush hour.
There are new MNRR stations planned in the Bronx, Queens, and the West
side of Manhattan.
--
Peter Schleifer
"Save me from the people who would save me from myself"
Jimmy
> I'm not sure that would be worth the effort since GCT is a better
> location than Penn, though I guess from the New Haven Line and Hudson
> Line no effort at all is needed--just follow the Amtrak Hell Gate
> Bridge route or Hudson River route.
Metro North's trains can't use Penn Station, because the LIRR's
overrunning third rail would get in the way of the trains' third rail
shoes (even if they ran the NH line trains in catenary mode).
Amtrak's Genesis locomotives, which run on the Hudson Line and into
Penn Station, have retractable third rail shoes.
This is not an insurmountable problem, but it would take some small
effort.
Jimmy
Jishnu Mukerji
> Metro North's trains can't use Penn Station, because the LIRR's
> overrunning third rail would get in the way of the trains' third rail
> shoes (even if they ran the NH line trains in catenary mode).
Additionally the new M-8s will be incapable of operating under 25Hz, so
they will not be able to make it to Penn Station.
Bolwerk
> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>> What's going on with the Wall St LIRR tunnel? When?
>
> Nothing. No such plan at present.
Pataki was pushing for an extension of the LIRR from the Atlantic Yards
to somewhere near the WTC, maybe the new PATH station. There was also
talk of AirTrain JFK making this trip.
It never went anywhere before Spitzer decided the state had other
priorities, like SAS, ESA, and replacing the Tappan Zee.
Jimmy
That's unfortunate. Why are they creating yet another incompatibility
with the new equipment, when they should be taking the opportunity to
add operational flexibility? And isn't it *easier* for modern solid-
state electronics to switch voltages and frequencies on the fly?
Jimmy
Jishnu Mukerji
> That's unfortunate. Why are they creating yet another incompatibility
> with the new equipment, when they should be taking the opportunity to
> add operational flexibility? And isn't it *easier* for modern solid-
> state electronics to switch voltages and frequencies on the fly?
It is ostensibly to save weight on the transformer and some associated
cost. Maybe they just plan to rent trains from NJT to run the service to
Penn Station :)
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> *+-Is there a tentative date for when LIRR service to GCT is due to start up?
>
> THat's what I was hoping to learn.
>
> BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
> it comes back?
>
I don't think that service to Brooklyn service ever existed on that
branch as the junctions for that are way east of where those for the
Port Washington branch.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
What stations in the Bronx or Queens? Would that be for the Harlem River
branch?
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Besides the space at Penn issue, why doesn't MNRR invest in/lease a
couple of electric locomotives?
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
One would think that they would have built them to at least allow a
cycle change, since there has been talk of service into Penn for a while.
Stephen Sprunk
The electronics aren't an issue. The problem is that a 25Hz transformer
weighs _significantly_ more than a 60Hz transformer, and the new cars
are so overweight already they can't afford that unnecessary (for MNRR's
current service) cost.
Of course, if Amtrak would just switch the catenary between NYP and the
Hell Gate to 60Hz, the M8s wouldn't have a problem. Is there any good
reason _not_ to do that, given all the trains operating over that
section today can switch between the two on the fly?
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
J.R.Guthrie
>> The NY MTA will soon route some LIRR trains into Grand Central
>> Terminal via the 63rd Street Tunnel*. I'm not sure how many trains
>> will be diverted. But I suspect that, given the very high number of
None. There will be 24 new trains into the new deep-cavern tunnel under GCT.
>> jobs in the GCT area, a great many commuters will want the service; it
>> will save them from the overcrowded ride on the E train.
Some take the E from the 8th Avenue side of Penn -- as it turns out, it's
faster to Wall Street as well as the East side than going to Brooklyn and
transferring to the subway there, as the Brooklyn service has become rotten
and infrequent in recent years.
Many also take other routes -- some go to Hunterspoint Avenue and take the
#7 to GCT or Fifth Avenue; some others take the #7 to Queensboro Plaza and
take the N/W through the 60th Street tunnel.
>>
>> At present Penn is overcrowded and they must shoehorn trains in
>> wherever they can. Now, given that some LIRR trains will be gone
>> from Pennsylvania Station, will that free up some track/platform slots
>> for NJT trains? Remember that there are several tracks in Penn that
>> are presently shared between the two, that is, some tracks handle both
>> LIRR and NJT (and Amk) trains.
No. In fact, it's a good thing that NY politicians have never understood
that East River Tunnel slots are used by NJT at all. There'd be some
pandering nincompoop, helped along by Newsday -- yelling and screaming that
LIRR commuters have to stand because NJT runs empty trains through the East
River Tunnels. It would be great theater, though.
>
> Probably, but remember there's also *talk* of MNRR trains at Penn.
MN Trains are indifferent to LI trains of course. If there were signs of
intelligent life, there'd be both Hudson Line and NJT trains to Long Island
(and maybe NJT trains to Connecticut) that would replace all those deadhead
movements through the East River Tunnels with through service.
What is hilarious is the NJ-ARP people saying that through service requires
a tunnel to GCT. Not only are NJ commuters apparently incapable of learning
the technical intricacies of using escalators, they can't figure out how to
use a Metro Card to ride the subways. Even funnier is they think New
Yorkers -- having already built subways, should help fund a tunnel so 13,000
riders can get to Grand Central without having to learn how to use a Metro
Card.
[But stay tuned: My lobbyist friend in Trenton says NJ-ARP is about to have
their wish granted with the tunnel/new station project stopped for more
studies]
>> Would anyone know if there have been any serious planning in this
>> direction?
What do you call serious?
>>
>> I am uncomfortable with NJT's proposed new NYC terminal; I don't like
>> the idea of it being so deep underground nor its location.
The LIRR commuters will have a deep cavern, so what makes NJT commuters
special? It brings to mind the old joke: "Did you hear about
the New Jersey Commuters who got stranded on an escalator?" but enough have
used the PATH Hill over the years that maybe they know tech stuff about
moving stairways.
>> I am not sure how many rush hour LIRR trains GCT can accommodate; I
>> don't know if there are empty tracks and unused platforms (like the
>> loop tracks, that can get a train in and out real quick). Also,
>> capacity is determined by the four track throat and interlockings
>> along the way. But I think every LIRR train headed to GCT will be
>> filled because GCT is a more desirable terminal point.
You need to learn about these plans, and definitely might want to learn
about jobs and traffic patterns in NYC.
And then another non-New Yorker asks:
>BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
>it comes back?
There are several Port Washington-Brooklyn runs, but fewer than there used
to be. Most of them run Port Washington-Penn Station-Babylon-Brooklyn or
sometimes Long Beach in lieu of Babylon. It's a long and expensive trip.
Smart commuters get off at Penn and take the subway -- the 2 and 3 trains
are convenient at 7th Ave.
There was once direct Penn Station-Flatbush Avenue service (trains reversed
direction at Ozone Park) but that service only lasted 1910-1912. Of course,
there was service by way of the Rockaways and also via West Hempstead and
Country Life Press for a few years as well.
And another obviously non-New Yorker dixit:
>> What's going on with the Wall St LIRR tunnel? When?
It was abandoned after the 1917 season -- went to Chambers Street. Service
was limited to Rockaway Park and ran summer seasons only.
Newer plans resurface from time to time, but nothing serious. The LIRR has
plans to turn the line to Flatbush Avenue into a simple Jamaica-only shuttle
service after track reconfiguration at Jamaica.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
For MNRR purposes, everything is compatible for present service. It
would be foolish to add on expensive hardware to an entire fleet of
cars for a proposed service that may or not come to be and would be
rather limited.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Of course, if Amtrak would just switch the catenary between NYP and the
> Hell Gate to 60Hz, the M8s wouldn't have a problem. Is there any good
> reason _not_ to do that, given all the trains operating over that
> section today can switch between the two on the fly?
Any kind of conversion involves a cost of equipment, labor, and
passenger inconvenience.
The benefits would have to outweigh the costs.
Converting for a proposed service that may or may not come to be is
not a major benefit.
Phil Kane
>Any kind of conversion involves a cost of equipment, labor, and
>passenger inconvenience.
>
>The benefits would have to outweigh the costs.
>
>Converting for a proposed service that may or may not come to be is
>not a major benefit.
25 Hz is hardly a standard, and even though in the catalog, hardware
requires a special order, whereas 60 Hz hardware is off-the-shelf.
--
"Stand Clear of the Closing Doors, Please"
Phil Kane - Beaverton, OR
PNW Beburg MP 28.0 - OE District
Philip Nasadowski
Phil Kane <Phil...@nov.shmovz.ka.pop> wrote:
> 25 Hz is hardly a standard, and even though in the catalog, hardware
> requires a special order, whereas 60 Hz hardware is off-the-shelf.
I don't think GE even catalogs 25hz anymore. There's very very very few
users of it worldwide. A few mills up in Ontario, and Amtrak. That's
pretty much it. Some of the newer digital relays might do it, but who
the heck makes PTs and CTs for 25hz, never mind breakers (which are
likely darn near impossible to find).
Stephen Sprunk
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 09:57:50 -0800 (PST), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> Any kind of conversion involves a cost of equipment, labor, and
>> passenger inconvenience.
>>
>> The benefits would have to outweigh the costs.
>>
>> Converting for a proposed service that may or may not come to be is
>> not a major benefit.
>
> 25 Hz is hardly a standard, and even though in the catalog, hardware
> requires a special order, whereas 60 Hz hardware is off-the-shelf.
25Hz _was_ a standard, so it's not like the information needed or specs
aren't available somewhere. The volume just isn't high enough anymore
to bother stocking it.
Companies rarely put items they don't stock into their catalog, since
they can't guarantee the cost or delivery time. They'd much rather you
buy high-volume products, and if that's all they tell customers they
sell, that's what most customers will buy. In fact, finding companies
that will even _attempt_ to custom-build products is fairly difficult,
given that few companies in the US make _anything_ anymore. SE Asia has
cheaper labor, sure, but they have massive fixed costs to spin up a new
production line, whether it's for qty 1 or qty 1,000,000.
Peter Schleifer
Hunts Point, Parkchester, Co-Op City in the Bronx. W. 125th & "Upper
West Side" in Manhattan. The map doesn't show anything new in Queens,
but the trains coming over the Hell Gate might be able to use the
Queensboro Plaza station being built for the LIRR.
http://mta.info/mta/planning/psas/
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> No. In fact, it's a good thing that NY politicians have never understood
> that East River Tunnel slots are used by NJT at all. There'd be some
> pandering nincompoop, helped along by Newsday -- yelling and screaming that
> LIRR commuters have to stand because NJT runs empty trains through the East
> River Tunnels. It would be great theater, though.
Thanks for the info.
But aren't the East River Tunnels and the rest of Pennsylvania Station
entirely owned by Amtrak, who got it from the Penn Central? Wasn't
the LIRR only a tenant in Penn, as the New Haven was a tenant in GCT?
If the LIRR owns part of Penn or tunnels, would anyone know what parts
and when it was transferred or sold over to them?
> What is hilarious is the NJ-ARP people saying that through service requires
> a tunnel to GCT. Not only are NJ commuters apparently incapable of learning
> the technical intricacies of using escalators, they can't figure out how to
> use a Metro Card to ride the subways. Even funnier is they think New
> Yorkers -- having already built subways, should help fund a tunnel so 13,000
> riders can get to Grand Central without having to learn how to use a Metro
> Card.
A tunnel for NJT trains to get to GCT would be a good idea. It would
take some load off of the overcrowded subways, freeing space for New
Yorkers to use them. But such a tunnel should be paid for by NJT
since they are the users of it.
> >> Would anyone know if there have been any serious planning in this
> >> direction?
>
> What do you call serious?
What I call "serious" is a study that is expected to be actually used
and implemented, as opposed to merely ending up in the basement of a
college libarry. By "expected to be used" I mean a project that is
reasonably expected to meet a real need, is accepted or even pushed by
politicians, and has a good chance of being funded. There are no
guarantees of course, but some projects are known to be more
significant than others.
> >> I am uncomfortable with NJT's proposed new NYC terminal; I don't like
> >> the idea of it being so deep underground nor its location.
>
> The LIRR commuters will have a deep cavern, so what makes NJT commuters
> special? It brings to mind the old joke: "Did you hear about
> the New Jersey Commuters who got stranded on an escalator?" but enough have
> used the PATH Hill over the years that maybe they know tech stuff about
> moving stairways.
I thought, based on the MTA picture posted the other day (see above
for link) that the LIRR will simply tie into the MNRR trunk and end up
in GCT like any other MNRR train. I didn't realize a separate station
is being dug underneath. Awfully costly.
I haven't heard the escalator joke.
(As an aside, "escalator" was once a trademark brand name for moving
stairs. Is it still?)
Mark Mathu
>A tunnel for NJT trains to get to GCT would be a good idea. It would
>take some load off of the overcrowded subways, freeing space for New
>Yorkers to use them. But such a tunnel should be paid for by NJT
>since they are the users of it.
How much do you think that would cost?
Philip Nasadowski
<0ba8c205-ce86-4efd...@v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> I thought, based on the MTA picture posted the other day (see above
> for link) that the LIRR will simply tie into the MNRR trunk and end up
> in GCT like any other MNRR train. I didn't realize a separate station
> is being dug underneath. Awfully costly.
I believe it's slightly below GCT but using existing space. The trip
out of the LIRR station would not be a 7 story escalator ride like the
NJT station is planned to be, rather it'd be on the order of being
another level somewhat below the lower level (why they don't just
convert part of the lower level into this is beyond me - MN's got plenty
of track space to give up)
> I haven't heard the escalator joke.
It won't be a joke when there's a power outage at NJT's bunker station,
especially if said power outage is combined with something like a fire.
> (As an aside, "escalator" was once a trademark brand name for moving
> stairs. Is it still?)
Otis had it. It's long dead, for that purpose, at least according to a
simple search on the USPTO's site (they warn you this might NOT catch
everything). It's listed as dead for a few other uses (CD label,
vitamin supplements, etc). My guess is Otis gave up suing everyone over
it - Peelle used 'Motostair', wiki says Westinghouse used 'electric
stairway'. At some point, they all became escalators. I believe Otis
had a trademark on elevator, too.
If you don't defend your trademark, it can be lost. Hence those silly
Xerox ads.
Interestingly, the Hells Angels have a number of valid trademarks in the
database. And they sue folks over them. Go figure.
Jishnu Mukerji
> In article
> <0ba8c205-ce86-4efd...@v19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> I thought, based on the MTA picture posted the other day (see above
>> for link) that the LIRR will simply tie into the MNRR trunk and end up
>> in GCT like any other MNRR train. I didn't realize a separate station
>> is being dug underneath. Awfully costly.
>
> I believe it's slightly below GCT but using existing space. The trip
> out of the LIRR station would not be a 7 story escalator ride like the
> NJT station is planned to be, rather it'd be on the order of being
> another level somewhat below the lower level (why they don't just
> convert part of the lower level into this is beyond me - MN's got plenty
> of track space to give up)
THE GCT LIRR station is some 90' to 110' below the current GCT lower
level. As for how slight is around 100' I will leave it upto you to
determine. The concourse for it will occupy space at the current lower
level using some space taken over from MNRR tracks. There will be a
mezzanine between the two track levels connected to the concourse level
using escalator and elevator banks. In that respect the architecture of
the station is remarkably similar to the NJT station, except that this
one has 4 tracks per level whereas NJT has 3 tracks per level. The NJT
one was reduced from 4 tracks per level to 3 per level to fit it within
the footprint of 34th St. above upon insistence of real estate
interests. The similarity is not surprising since both are designed by
Parsons Brinckerhoff.
No need to guess. See:
http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/feisfiles/02_project_alternatives.pdf
Look at figures 2-6 through 2-12.
My vague understanding is that if the NY Water Tunnel 1 issue could
somehow be resolved then the upper level of the NJT proposed 34th St
station could conceivably be connected into the lower level of the LIRR
GCT station. I believe the NJT proposed station is only about 30 feet
deeper down than the LIRR one. I have not looked at this in detail since
the last RCLC meeting of the NJT ARC project in which I gave a testimony
and submitted a written one, so I am writing here from memory and may be
off a bit on details.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
to be opened?
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-> it comes back?
*+-I don't think that service to Brooklyn service ever existed on that
*+-branch as the junctions for that are way east of where those for the
*+-Port Washington branch.
Via Woodside. Or Maybe there was a Woodside transfer?? This is 20yo
memory, so..
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
I've seen the NJT at Sunnyside Yards from the 7
*+-And another obviously non-New Yorker dixit:
*+->> What's going on with the Wall St LIRR tunnel? When?
It was a Pataki plan.
(I have lived in Queens my entire life. Born in NW, moved to NE at 4.)
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
*+-West Side" in Manhattan. The map doesn't show anything new in Queens,
*+-but the trains coming over the Hell Gate might be able to use the
*+-Queensboro Plaza station being built for the LIRR.
That's interesting. Going to Boston I once wondered why I saw Paragon
Honda and realised the Hell Gate route.
Amtrak should stop in Queens and Bronx, too. Boston has three stops.
(If I can get a ride, I find New Rochelle faster than Penn Sta. But
cabs double the fare every time you cross each of two county lines)
Emulating Tokyo's Yamanote Beltway Line, G should continue to
Bronx over Hell gate then to Ft Lee, JC, Wall St, Brooklyn.
Peter Schleifer
<houn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The East Side Access project is due in 2015, though that keeps
changing. The new station is Sunnyside, not Queensboro Plaza.
Jishnu Mukerji
> *+-> BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
> *+-> it comes back?
>
> *+-I don't think that service to Brooklyn service ever existed on that
> *+-branch as the junctions for that are way east of where those for the
> *+-Port Washington branch.
>
> Via Woodside. Or Maybe there was a Woodside transfer?? This is 20yo
> memory, so..
How does one get from Woodside to Flatbush Avenue without going through
Jamaica?
Michael Moroney
The wikipedia article on "escalator" says Otis lost the trademark in 1950
in a lawsuit, pretty much because they didn't defend the trademark properly.
J.R.Guthrie
>But aren't the East River Tunnels and the rest of Pennsylvania Station
>entirely owned by Amtrak, who got it from the Penn Central? Wasn't
>the LIRR only a tenant in Penn, as the New Haven was a tenant in GCT?
IIRC, there's a long-term agreement between the MTA and Amtrak that was
entered into when the state purchased the LIRR from the PRR. It is not the
same tenant relationship as NJT. That's why the control of the station --
from Newark to New Rochelle alternates between LIRR personnel and Amtrak
personnel every six months. NJT is the odd-man out in that arrangement.
>A tunnel for NJT trains to get to GCT would be a good idea. It would
>take some load off of the overcrowded subways, freeing space for New
>Yorkers to use them. But such a tunnel should be paid for by NJT
>since they are the users of it.
No it wouldn't. It would require shutting down the Lex -- the busiest line
in the transit system -- for years. However, a tunnel to the east side, with
maybe a deep tunnel under, say Lexington Avenue south of 42nd is an
excellent idea.
>What I call "serious" is a study that is expected to be actually used
>and implemented, as opposed to merely ending up in the basement of a
>college libarry. By "expected to be used" I mean a project that is
>reasonably expected to meet a real need, is accepted or even pushed by
>politicians, and has a good chance of being funded. There are no
>guarantees of course, but some projects are known to be more
>significant than others.
Most studies that end up in the basement of the college library are accepted
and or pushed by politicians. Tens of millions of dollars go into these
studies so the politician can claim to be "doing something" about
transportation. There are more than 50 years of "studies" on restoring
commuter service on the West Shore in New Jersey, for example -- all
"serious" and none implemented.
Those are differentiated from the blue-sky studies done by government
endorsed groups like the Regional Plan Association. They fill some shelves,
but don't cost as much as the ones the politicos do directly.
Here's a quiz: name any project in the NY area since the end of private
sector transit that has not been a variation on something that does back
decades? I think one might suggest the HBLRT -- but any of the rest? Nope.
And the HBLRT is a combination of commuter lines that once had passenger
service and some trolley lines that once existed - so what's new is merely
restoring a route that was once operated in disconnected segments by
different operators.
Anything else?
>I haven't heard the escalator joke.
You're welcome. It used to be a Polish joke, but it works better for the
condescending attitude taken by some folk regarding NJ Commuters <g>.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Peter Schleifer
7 train, change to the 4 at Grand Central :)
Jimmy
> Some take the E from the 8th Avenue side of Penn -- as it turns out, it's
> faster to Wall Street as well as the East side than going to Brooklyn and
> transferring to the subway there, as the Brooklyn service has become rotten
> and infrequent in recent years.
I haven't noticed any major LIRR service changes since the Ronkonkoma
electrification in 1988, except for the few dual-mode runs to Penn
Station from diesel territory. What's changed with Brooklyn service?
> The LIRR has
> plans to turn the line to Flatbush Avenue into a simple Jamaica-only shuttle
> service after track reconfiguration at Jamaica.
Really? Then where would they send all the trains that currently go
to Brooklyn because there's nowhere else to send them? To GCT?
Jimmy
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> *+-> BTW, when did they stop the Pt Wash to Brooklyn? Is there any chance
> *+-> it comes back?
>
> *+-I don't think that service to Brooklyn service ever existed on that
> *+-branch as the junctions for that are way east of where those for the
> *+-Port Washington branch.
>
> Via Woodside. Or Maybe there was a Woodside transfer?? This is 20yo
> memory, so..
I'm not sure this is relevant, but there was a loop service when there
were trains to the Rockaways. See the book "Change at Ozone Park" for
details.
I understand the Rockaway services were killing the LIRR financially,
partly through maintenance, partly through taxes, and they couldn't
wait to sell the route to the city. Apparently a deal was worked out
in the 1930s but it didn't get done until the 1950s. The Rockaway
Improvement (by Moses) which elevated the tracks apparently was
designed for easy conversion to a subway route. The elevated stations
do look a lot like subway stations.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> . . . this
> one has 4 tracks per level whereas NJT has 3 tracks per level. The NJT
> one was reduced from 4 tracks per level to 3 per level to fit it within
> the footprint of 34th St. above upon insistence of real estate
> interests. The similarity is not surprising since both are designed by
> Parsons Brinckerhoff.
<loud sigh>
Thanks for the references.
This discussion has me a bit confused. Could you elaborate on what
project you would think best--if anything--for NJT and the LIRR coming
into Manhattan?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> > (As an aside, "escalator" was once a trademark brand name for moving
> > stairs. Is it still?)
>
> Otis had it. It's long dead, for that purpose, at least according to a
> simple search on the USPTO's site (they warn you this might NOT catch
> everything). It's listed as dead for a few other uses (CD label,
> vitamin supplements, etc). My guess is Otis gave up suing everyone over
> it - Peelle used 'Motostair', wiki says Westinghouse used 'electric
> stairway'. At some point, they all became escalators. I believe Otis
> had a trademark on elevator, too.
There were old signs in railroad and subway stations that said "Moving
Stairs", not escalators. Some might still be around.
I prefer an escalator to an elevator. At Exchange Place, NJ, PATH
switched from a few elevators to a long escalator when they rebuilt
the station some years ago (pre-9/11).
I preferred the escalators to get to the deep platform at the
Roosevelt Island subway station. But the elevator might be faster. I
missed the train and had a long wait till the next one.
> If you don't defend your trademark, it can be lost. Hence those silly
> Xerox ads.
I don't blame Xerox one bit. Ironically, the Xerox company, inventors
of the process with long experience in office printing and processes,
aren't the market leader as they used to be. Actually, copies made on
Xerox machines back in the 1970s have not lasted so well.
J.R.Guthrie
> I haven't noticed any major LIRR service changes since the Ronkonkoma
> electrification in 1988, except for the few dual-mode runs to Penn
> Station from diesel territory. What's changed with Brooklyn service?
The loss of Brooklyn service has been gradual -- first rerouting of many
trains into Penn Station, discontinuance of through rush hour service (no AM
Peak Babylon trains go to Flatbush anymore). Express trains (skipping
Jamaica) have been gone since the early 1990s.
Off peak and weekend service is down to twice an hour -- one Hempstead, on
Far Rockaway, and wais for connections of more than 20 minutes, in some
cases.
Some of the service has gone away with construction projects -- and then
never restored.
You'll still see trains exchanging passengers -- but in many cases they're
both heading to NYP -- with one stopping at Kew Garens/Forest Hills and
Woodside, and the other running express.
>
>> The LIRR has
>> plans to turn the line to Flatbush Avenue into a simple Jamaica-only
>> shuttle
>> service after track reconfiguration at Jamaica.
>
> Really? Then where would they send all the trains that currently go
> to Brooklyn because there's nowhere else to send them? To GCT?
There's no reason they can't run everything to NYP or the new station under
Grand Central. Certainly sending 24 TPHs to GCT (and opening up some of the
NYP Port Wash slots by sending them to GCT) will take care of the remaining
commission hour Flatbush Ave trains.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> There's no reason they can't run everything to NYP or the new station under
> Grand Central. Certainly sending 24 TPHs to GCT (and opening up some of the
> NYP Port Wash slots by sending them to GCT) will take care of the remaining
> commission hour Flatbush Ave trains.
Sorry to be cynical, but I fear the actual service will be less than
24 TPH.
Peter T. Daniels
On *30 Rock* just now, they had Jack's high school crush going home to
Boston via Penn Station. That's not right, is it?
Joseph D. Korman
can't get a direct train from GCT any more.
--
-------------------------------------------------
| Joseph D. Korman |
| mailto:re...@thejoekorner.com |
| Visit The JoeKorNer at |
| http://www.thejoekorner.com |
|-------------------------------------------------|
| The light at the end of the tunnel ... |
| may be a train going the other way! |
| Brooklyn Tech Grads build things that work!('66)|
|-------------------------------------------------|
| All outgoing E-mail is scanned by NAV |
-------------------------------------------------
Clark F Morris
She could have taken the Senator, the Colonial, the Federal
(overnight) and I think at least one other train. The Senator had PRR
equipment while the Colonial had New Haven equipment. The trains I
mention were Washington - Boston. There may have been others.
Steven M. O'Neill
OMFG.
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
Brooklyn, NY http://www.panix.com/~steveo
Analysis&Solutions
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> On *30 Rock* just now, they had Jack's high school crush going home to
>>> Boston via Penn Station. That's not right, is it?
>And honestly, who in the NY area doesn't know that you can get both
>Acela Express and Acela Regional trains to Boston from NY Penn?
Exactly what I was thinking. It just reinforces the decision I made a
while ago to put him in my news reader's kill file (along with some
other off-topic yamerers).
--Dan
--
T H E A N A L Y S I S A N D S O L U T I O N S C O M P A N Y
data intensive web and database programming
http://www.AnalysisAndSolutions.com/
4015 7th Ave #4, Brooklyn NY 11232 v: 718-854-0335 f: 718-854-0409
Peter T. Daniels
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:31:47 -0500, "Joseph D. Korman"
>
>
>
>
>
> <joe...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 10:26 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 10, 6:55 pm, "J.R.Guthrie" <jguth...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> There's no reason they can't run everything to NYP or the new station under
> >>>> Grand Central. Certainly sending 24 TPHs to GCT (and opening up some of the
> >>>> NYP Port Wash slots by sending them to GCT) will take care of the remaining
> >>>> commission hour Flatbush Ave trains.
>
> >>> Sorry to be cynical, but I fear the actual service will be less than
> >>> 24 TPH.
>
> >> On *30 Rock* just now, they had Jack's high school crush going home to
> >> Boston via Penn Station. That's not right, is it?
>
> >New York to Boston from Penn Station NY, has always been possible. You
> >can't get a direct train from GCT any more.
>
Anyone who (a) has no occasion to go to Boston and (b) has no interest
in choo-choo trains?
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 10, 10:26 pm, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> >> On Dec 10, 6:55 pm, "J.R.Guthrie" <jguth...@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> >> > There's no reason they can't run everything to NYP or the new station under
> >> > Grand Central. Certainly sending 24 TPHs to GCT (and opening up some of the
> >> > NYP Port Wash slots by sending them to GCT) will take care of the remaining
> >> > commission hour Flatbush Ave trains.
>
> >> Sorry to be cynical, but I fear the actual service will be less than
> >> 24 TPH.
>
> >On *30 Rock* just now, they had Jack's high school crush going home to
> >Boston via Penn Station. That's not right, is it?
>
> OMFG.
Ok, you batch of smart-asses.
The train to New Haven is from GCT. Why wouldn't it continue on to the
north?
Jimmy
> And honestly, who in the NY area doesn't know that you can get both
> Acela Express and Acela Regional trains to Boston from NY Penn?
Well, technically, there's no more Acela Regional. They renamed those
trains to Regional, and then renamed them again to Northeast
Regional. And before they were called Acela Regional, they were
called NortheastDirect.
Each of these name changes had a corresponding logo/decor change on
the trains, and you can still find trains in each scheme.
I don't even want to know how much Amtrak has spent on all these
confusing names which nobody uses.
Jimmy
Jishnu Mukerji
> Ok, you batch of smart-asses.
>
> The train to New Haven is from GCT. Why wouldn't it continue on to the
> north?
Because it is a commuter train to New Haven? Is this a trick question? ;)
Peter T. Daniels
Because it can? They haven't torn up all the tracks between, have they?
Jimmy
> The loss of Brooklyn service has been gradual -- first rerouting of many
> trains into Penn Station, discontinuance of through rush hour service (no AM
> Peak Babylon trains go to Flatbush anymore). Express trains (skipping
> Jamaica) have been gone since the early 1990s.
On the Babylon branch timetable, I count 6 westbound AM peak trains
that go to Flatbush Avenue (2 locals, 3 zoned expresses, and 1 short
turn), and 6 eastbound PM trains (all locals). Were there more trains
in the past?
I don't remember any trains that went to Brooklyn but skipped
Jamaica. What were they?
> Off peak and weekend service is down to twice an hour -- one Hempstead, on
> Far Rockaway, and wais for connections of more than 20 minutes, in some
> cases.
What other off-peak trains used to go to Brooklyn?
Jimmy
Michael Finfer
Because it's operated by a different railroad which does not have
trackage rights east of State St. in New Haven, and it's crews are not
qualified beyond there.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Peter T. Daniels
So there's no particular reason a train couldn't go from GCT to
Boston; it's just historical accident that it takes what seems to be a
more roundabout, cumbersome route that presumably adds quite a few
minutes to the trip.
Jishnu Mukerji
Actually it cannot, unless the operating agency of that train gets
additional trackage rights and qualifies its staff on additional territory.
Since service is already provided from New York to Boston by another
agency (Amtrak) out of another station in New York (Penn Station), there
is very little reason for MNRR to to spend the money to try to run its
trains beyond New Haven.
Jishnu Mukerji
> So there's no particular reason a train couldn't go from GCT to
> Boston; it's just historical accident that it takes what seems to be a
> more roundabout, cumbersome route that presumably adds quite a few
> minutes to the trip.
New York GCT to New Rochelle is covered in 31 mins by MNRR.
New York Penn to New Rochelle is covered in 27 mins by Amtrak.
Don't see any evidence of cumbersome roundabout route adding quite a few
minutes there.
Bolwerk
Politically, no, they probably can't. There is no Amtrak train out of
GCT, at least not regularly.
There is a commuter train to New Haven from GCT. It's operated by the
MTA for Connecticut DOT. I rather doubt the Connecticut DOT has an
interest in subsidizing through trains to Boston from NYC.
None of that's to say it necessarily wouldn't make sense to subsidize
through service to Boston from NYC since it might increase fares and
service through Connecticut, but it may not fly politically just like
Philly<->NYC service doesn't fly on NJT.
Steven M. O'Neill
How many more stops does the MNRR make?
Jishnu Mukerji
> How many more stops does the MNRR make?
Usually 3 or 4.
For another comparison
MNRR expresses from GCT to STM take 44 mins with 1 stop (Harlem 125th St).
Amtrak Regionals from NYP to NHV take 48 mins with 1 stop (New Rochelle)
Jishnu.
Stephen Sprunk
MNRR doesn't operate to Boston because nobody is paying them to.
New York to Boston is an intercity trip.
Intercity trains are operated by Amtrak.
Amtrak's only New York station is NYP.
Therefore, all trains from New York to Boston leave from NYP. QED.
FYI, if you were unaware of this, you no longer have _any_ standing to
bash me for not knowing obscure details about rail operations in or
around NYC.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
Stephen Sprunk
> So there's no particular reason a train couldn't go from GCT to
> Boston; it's just historical accident that it takes what seems to be a
> more roundabout, cumbersome route that presumably adds quite a few
> minutes to the trip.
It is not a "historical accident". Unlike at NYP, trains cannot
continue south from GCT, so Amtrak has focused its limited resources on
serving the more useful/capable station.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 11:32 am, ste...@panix.com (Steven M. O'Neill) wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> On *30 Rock* just now, they had Jack's high school crush going home to
> >>> Boston via Penn Station. That's not right, is it?
>
> >> OMFG.
>
> > Ok, you batch of smart-asses.
>
> > The train to New Haven is from GCT. Why wouldn't it continue on to the
> > north?
>
> MNRR doesn't operate to Boston because nobody is paying them to.
>
> New York to Boston is an intercity trip.
> Intercity trains are operated by Amtrak.
> Amtrak's only New York station is NYP.
>
> Therefore, all trains from New York to Boston leave from NYP. QED.
>
> FYI, if you were unaware of this, you no longer have _any_ standing to
> bash me for not knowing obscure details about rail operations in or
> around NYC.
I don't give a flying fuck about rail operations _anywhere_, and I
have never "bashed" you on that score.
What everyone is saying is that there is no reason trains couldn't go
directly from GCT to Boston that are not corporate or political --
that is, due to historical accident.
(Or are you going to claim that subways are "rail operations"?)
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
Are the crews running Shore Line East service qualified beyond State
Street, however?
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
>
> New York to Boston is an intercity trip.
> Intercity trains are operated by Amtrak.
> Amtrak's only New York station is NYP.
Do you mean on the NEC? What about New Rochelle?
Bolwerk
> What everyone is saying is that there is no reason trains couldn't go
> directly from GCT to Boston that are not corporate or political --
> that is, due to historical accident.
Maybe financial too. :-p
Amtrak does seem like the logical agency in this case, either way.
Making MNRR and Amtrak work together seems like a much bigger problem to me.
Many of those people between NYC and New Haven don't have a convenient
trip to Boston because connections to Amtrak from MNRR may not be so
great. THAT's stupid policy.
> (Or are you going to claim that subways are "rail operations"?)
Subways do run on rails, don't they?
They don't fall under Federal Railroad Administration jurisdiction though.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> She could have taken the Senator, the Colonial, the Federal
> (overnight) and I think at least one other train. The Senator had PRR
> equipment while the Colonial had New Haven equipment. The trains I
> mention were Washington - Boston. There may have been others.
According to an 1960s PRR timetable, there were only four through
trains a day out of Pennsylvania Station to Boston. Most New Haven
trains ran to Grand Central.
To this day, most passengers get off the train in New York.
After the Penn Central merger, they decided to run stuff out of Penn
Station through. Thus Metroliners and GG-1s found their way to New
Haven in the 1970s.
Michael Finfer
>
> Are the crews running Shore Line East service qualified beyond State
> Street, however?
It was posted earlier that those trains are operated by Amtrak crews,
and that the through trains to Stamford change crews at New Haven.
Michael Finfer
Bridgewater, NJ
Stephen Sprunk
"New York" above was referring to NYC, not NYS. New Rochelle is not in NYC.
Clark F Morris
Never having watched it, in what year is 30 Rock set?
Peter T. Daniels
2009? Since some of its allusions are _very_ up to date, it's probably
shot the week before it airs.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > What everyone is saying is that there is no reason trains couldn't go
> > directly from GCT to Boston that are not corporate or political --
> > that is, due to historical accident.
>
> Maybe financial too. :-p
>
> Amtrak does seem like the logical agency in this case, either way.
> Making MNRR and Amtrak work together seems like a much bigger problem to me.
>
> Many of those people between NYC and New Haven don't have a convenient
> trip to Boston because connections to Amtrak from MNRR may not be so
> great. THAT's stupid policy.
>
> > (Or are you going to claim that subways are "rail operations"?)
>
> Subways do run on rails, don't they?
So do streetcars, cable cars, and monorails!
Jishnu Mukerji
> Michael Finfer wrote:
>>
>> Because it's operated by a different railroad which does not have
>> trackage rights east of State St. in New Haven, and it's crews are not
>> qualified beyond there.
>>
>> Michael Finfer
>> Bridgewater, NJ
>
> Are the crews running Shore Line East service qualified beyond State
> Street, however?
Yes of course they are, but they are not MNRR crew. They are Amtrak
crew. Amtrak operates that segment under contract from ConnDOT.
Jishnu Mukerji
Ooops, need to correct that last line before Nasadowsk gets on my case
:P. It should have said:
Amtrak Regionals from NYP to STM take 48 mins with 1 stop (New Rochelle)
Talking to a few Amtrak operations people I got the impression that once
all track and electrification work is completed on the Hell Gate Line
this will be reduced by 1 to 2 mins, and once the new Harold
interlocking eleminating a few conflicts with LIRR goes into operation
as part of ESA the scheduled time will be further reduced by a few mins.
wa...@fordham.edu
> north?
What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
involved from Grand Central to Boston?
Michael Wares
Jishnu Mukerji
None at present. I believe when the M8s arrive, they will be able to do so.
danny burstein
>>> north?
>>
>> What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
>> involved from Grand Central to Boston?
Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
just jog my memory as to which type of power is
currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
J.R.Guthrie
> the trains, and you can still find trains in each scheme.
>
> I don't even want to know how much Amtrak has spent on all these
> confusing names which nobody uses.
So -- what time does The Congressional leave NYP these days?
Cheers.
Jim Guthrie
J.R.Guthrie
> On the Babylon branch timetable, I count 6 westbound AM peak trains
> that go to Flatbush Avenue (2 locals, 3 zoned expresses, and 1 short
> turn), and 6 eastbound PM trains (all locals). Were there more trains
> in the past?
There are none listed in the Babylon timetable -- though there may be some
from points further in.
>
> I don't remember any trains that went to Brooklyn but skipped
> Jamaica. What were they?
Express trains to Brooklyn. Years ago, there were expresses from Babylon,
Freeport, Long Beach, Far Rockaway and even one from West Hempstead.
>> Off peak and weekend service is down to twice an hour -- one Hempstead,
>> on
>> Far Rockaway, and wais for connections of more than 20 minutes, in some
>> cases.
>
> What other off-peak trains used to go to Brooklyn?
There were Brooklyn trains from Freeport, Floral Park, East Williston and
Long Beach into the 1970s. Freeport has been pretty much replaced with zoned
trains on the Babylon Line, with All stops locals as well as expresses from
Babylon (the latter often -- but not always -- connecting with
Patchogue/Speonk/East Hampton/Montauk trains). East Williston and Floral
Park slots (save one morning inbound from East Williston) have all had
their slots replaced with Huntington/Ronkonkoma trains to NYP.
At one time, every train from east of Jamaica had an across the platform
Flatbush Avenue/Penn Station connections, except for a handful during the
commission hours. And that didn't mean there wasn't a train waiting across
the platform -- just that there would not be one "held" for a connection.
What was interesting was watching trains pull up in those days -- one
leaving and another pulling in a carlength or two behind running at
restricted speed so there wouldn't be even a full minute without a train
with the doors open to receive passengers.
There was somewhat better commission-hours service to Hunterspoint Avenue
too, so many connections were 3-way. The only innovation (since the 1970s)
in Hunterspoint service is the AM Port Jeff express that skips Jamaica (NY
Passengers change at Huntington). This is the only non-NYP train that now
skips Jamaica.
Cheers,
Jim Guthrie
Bolwerk
>>> (Or are you going to claim that subways are "rail operations"?)
>> Subways do run on rails, don't they?
>
> So do streetcars, cable cars, and monorails!
I would say they're "rail operations" too. Whether they're legally
railroads is another question.
(I could see putting monorails and some kinds of cable cars in another
category to avoid confusion. But most streetcars run on standard gauge
rails more or less the same as a big freight choo-choo - in the case of
HBLR, much of the ROW is former freight track.)
Michael Moroney
>>>> The train to New Haven is from GCT. Why wouldn't it continue on to the
>>>> north?
>>>
>>> What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
>>> involved from Grand Central to Boston?
>Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
700V DC third rail from Grand Central to dunno exactly where
12.5 kV AC overhead from where third rail ends to New Haven CT
25.0 kV AC overhead from New Haven to Boston.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
When are they due out?
I've also read about an M-9 on the way. Can anybody shed any light on that?
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> danny burstein <dan...@panix.com> writes:
>
>>>>> The train to New Haven is from GCT. Why wouldn't it continue on to the
>>>>> north?
>>>> What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
>>>> involved from Grand Central to Boston?
>
>> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
>
> 700V DC third rail from Grand Central to dunno exactly where
The changeover from third rail to overhead wire is at the Pelham - Mt.
Vernon border.
It used to be at the Woodlawn junction, but they moved it northward in
the early '90s.
Stephen Sprunk
>>> What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
>>> involved from Grand Central to Boston?
>
> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
2. 2x12.5kV 60Hz from just east of Mt Vernon East to about a half-mile
north of New Haven-State St.
3. 2x25kV 60Hz from about a half-mile north of New Haven-State St to
Boston South Station.
Notice there is a bit of overlap between 1 and 2 so that trains can lift
their pans and pull in their shoes (or vice versa) while moving.
The change between 2 and 3 is at a phase break in the catenary, which
requires trains to have a multi-tap transformer and sensors to determine
which taps to use after each phase break. That's standard equipment for
Amtrak (and NJT, IIRC) but not MNRR.
houn...@yahoo.co.uk
> danny burstein wrote:
>>>> What current equipment could handle the three electrical systems
>>>> involved from Grand Central to Boston?
>> Could one of the folk more familiar with the systems
>> just jog my memory as to which type of power is
>> currently spec'ed for the various parts? Thanks
>
> 1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
> 2. 2x12.5kV 60Hz from just east of Mt Vernon East to about a half-mile
> north of New Haven-State St.
> 3. 2x25kV 60Hz from about a half-mile north of New Haven-State St to
> Boston South Station.
>
> Notice there is a bit of overlap between 1 and 2 so that trains can lift
> their pans and pull in their shoes (or vice versa) while moving.
EMU-class trains on the New Haven Line that between Pelham and New Haven
State Street cannot pull in their shoes. Also, raised pantographs on
those trains will automatically drop if their shoes come into contact
with a live 3rd rail.
When/if that happens, however, the engineer still needs to switch the
train's power mode from AC Pan Up to DC Pan Down.
Jishnu Mukerji
Haven't heard about M9s. M8s should start arriving next year.
BTW, strictly speaking the P32ACDMs can operate a train from GCT to
Boston, but I assumed that the question was about which electrically
powered train. Still I don't believe the P32ACDMs are not equipped with
ACSES, so they will have to operate only under very restrictive conditions.
Stephen Sprunk
> houn...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>> When are [the M8s] due out?
>>
>> I've also read about an M-9 on the way. Can anybody shed any light on that?
>
> Haven't heard about M9s.
They're still in the specification phase, and they're currently listed
as being for the LIRR. MNRR may end up with an M9A model for their
third-rail-only lines (similar to the M3A and M7A), while the M8 will be
used on the third-rail/catenary lines.
> BTW, strictly speaking the P32ACDMs can operate a train from GCT to
> Boston, but I assumed that the question was about which electrically
> powered train.
That was my assumption as well. The P32AC-DM could obviously do it by
using diesel north/east of Mt Vernon, though the performance/speed would
probably be horrible compared to an HHP-8 (or even an AEM-7) from NYP.
Aside from escaping the overcrowding at NYP, there's no reason to do it.
> Still I don't believe the P32ACDMs are not equipped with
> ACSES, so they will have to operate only under very restrictive conditions.
I can't find any information that says either way. If Amtrak equips
their P32AC-DMs with ACSES, presumably MNRR could add the same parts to
theirs if desired.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> 1. 750VDC third rail from GCT to just west of Pelham
Is the LIRR 600 V or 750 V? If it's 600 V, are there differences
between the two M7 classes to account for the diffrence in voltage?
Wasn't Metro North orgiginally 600 V? When was it raised to 750?
Philip Nasadowski
<9b860ed1-b3b1-4862...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Is the LIRR 600 V or 750 V? If it's 600 V, are there differences
> between the two M7 classes to account for the diffrence in voltage?
750. It was raised in the early 70's as the M-1s came online.
> Wasn't Metro North orgiginally 600 V? When was it raised to 750?
Yes, and around the same time.
Philip Nasadowski
Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote:
> They're still in the specification phase, and they're currently listed
> as being for the LIRR.
Oh goodie, maybe they'll chop the weight down 25,000 lbs while they're
at it. The '7s are too fucking heavy, especially for a DC EMU....
> That was my assumption as well. The P32AC-DM could obviously do it by
> using diesel north/east of Mt Vernon, though the performance/speed would
> probably be horrible compared to an HHP-8 (or even an AEM-7) from NYP.
> Aside from escaping the overcrowding at NYP, there's no reason to do it.
Most stuff I've heard and experienced says a P-32 can't do much better
than 100 with more than 4 or 5 Amfleets, thus you'd need two, or short
trains above New Haven. GEs are also supposedly slow loaders, though MN
seems to do decently with 'em. The initial ommph out of the station
DOES feel slow, but they catch up quick, or as quick as a 3200 HP
locomotive's going to.
The PL-42's supposedly a lot faster, though. It sure is quieter, the
P-32's a LOUD unit, no matter what. Even in E mode. One of the few
things the DM-30s get right is that in E mode, they are VERY quiet, more
so than an AEM-7.