NJT distortion on T.H.E. Tunnel
March 4th 2008 03:44 pm
In a recent article about delays at NY Penn Station, NJ Transit spokesman Dan Stessel made the following statement:
“The incidents on Tuesday and Thursday could not have come at a worse time or in a worse location,” Stessel said. “Any time there’s an interruption in the normal two-track flow in and out of Penn Station during the peak period, we feel the pain for the entire rush hour. Of course, this is exactly why we need a new tunnel to supplement the existing infrastructure. It’s also why we’re moving so aggressively to get shovels in the ground.”
That statement seems fine at first glance. But the problem is that after T.H.E. Tunnel and the bunker station beneath 34th Street are built, there will be no direct connection to NY Penn Station. The nearest connection will be in Kearny, NJ, about 8 miles from NYC. Trains from NY Penn Station will still go through the same two tunnels as they do now. So if a train breaks-down in the tunnel from NY, it will still interrupt “the normal two-track flow in and out of Penn Station during the peak period” and you’ll still “feel the pain for the entire rush hour”.
The only advantage will be that people using the 34th Street bunker station, e.g., Midtown Direct passengers, won’t be directly affected. But if a train breaks-down in their tunnel, they’ll be delayed just as much as if they were riding from NY Penn Station.
If NJT really manages to double capacity once the 34th Street bunker station is built, a break-down in either the old or new tunnels will affect just as many people as today. You’ll just have a 50-50 chance that it will be in your station/tunnel combination.
MainLiner responded on 05 Mar 2008 at 3:44 pm #
Does anyone know if NJT has a plan for rescuing disabled trains from the new tunnels, particularly in the event of a power problem (damaged catenary or whatever)? It seems to me that they will have fewer options for doing so than in the old tunnels, what with limited storage and operational flexibility in the deep cavern terminal on the NY side. I sure hope they’re not counting on their mystical-magical super-duper dual-mode locomotives to be able to power a train out of any situation!
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 05 Mar 2008 at 4:45 pm #
Stessel has some nerve. I suppose the comment was meant to target those with minimal knowledge of the project?
I never understood the “double the capacity” hyperbole. Basically, it translates to “Penn Station will be just as jammed as today, and the new station will be even more jammed.” It also has high implications for yet slower average speeds.
Joe Versaggi responded on 05 Mar 2008 at 6:57 pm #
EKML: I think you are giving them too much credit. This will be the New Jersey equivalent of the LIRR Atlantic Branch (2 tracks) to Flatbush Terminal, a 6 track stub terminal, but is entirely an EMU operation requiring trains to back-out to get to a yard. The very idea that it has the same capacity as the LIRR portion of NYP is laughable.
Unlike NJT, the LIRR has never insulted our intelligence to suggest such a thing, and it has never in 103 years been anything but an unpopular secondary terminal. That is despite rather easy connections to both IRT main lines and a little farther walk to both the Brighton and Fourth Avenue BMT.
Clark Morris responded on 07 Mar 2008 at 5:49 pm #
As I said in my comment on the DEIS for the Portal project, this version of the THE is a waste of money as is the current plan for the Long Island East Side Access. However, there are two alternatives that warrant consideration.
1. Assuming that bringing the tunnel into the current Penn Station is a non-started because it offends the sensitive (well heeled) real estate interests, divorce the THE completely from the current Penn Station and keep it as a double track line that connects with the Long Island East Side Tunnel via Grand Central or whatever route works best for the East Side Access with 2 track 3 platform stations at locations that benefit the most commuters on both lines. This would mean simpler stations since there would be only 1 track level and no termination since the equipment would be designed for through running. The mezzanine and accesses to the street could be located where the real estate interests would accept them and maybe even pay for them to get the increased pedestrian traffic. It may be interesting to design a car that can operate with pantographs retracted in the Long Island 63rd Street tunnels but I am assuming adding 1 or 2 motorized trailer with both third rail shoes and the appropriate AC equipment to enough current M7 sets to allow for 24 trains each way between New Jersey and Long Island points is not impossible. The institutional barriers are the main concern but the musings of the current MTA head give some hope in this regard. My hope is that enough money will be saved by the simplification of the stations (at least 1 West Side and 1 East Side) to pay for much of the connecting tunnel. This still leaves the problem of vulnerability to foul up as stated by the other posters but the system should be able to handle 24 trains an hour each way based on the Munich S-Bahn operation. The presumed stations for this line could be left at Grand Central on the East Side and between 6th and 8th Avenues on the West Side but the untying of the THE from the existing Penn Station gives flexibility.
2. If the new tunnels can be connected to the existing Penn Station, extend tracks 1 - 4 so they are no longer dead-end and add a combined LIRR NJT station at Kips Bay (between 2nd and Park Av.) again with complete through running with the MTA so that no train terminates in Penn Station. This gives greater flexibility and redundancy when things go wrong at the cost of poorer East Side access for NJT customers. With this plan, getting the MTA to make better use of Grand Central should eliminate the need for the ultra low-level station so that some of the lower level tracks could be turned over to the LIRR. GCT should not be a lay-over yard for mid day trains. The upper level alone probably should be able to handle 60 trains an hour (30 per pair of tracks on the viaduct), especially if someone worked out how to have exits on the north end of the platform. Some of the New Haven Region trains could be rerouted to Penn Station again to be through routed with NJT trains assuming that the catenary is converted from 25 cycle to 60 cycle AC. There are massive institutional problems with this but again the MTA chairman is “talking” about this sort of thing so the opportunity is there. This also gives the opportunity to speed things because there would be no reversing moves and to eliminate the need for the West Side Yard because all trains would be through routed.
There are a number of technical and institutional problems that would have to be solved. It will be the institutional problems that sink either solution because the technical problems should be surmountable. The union problems may be the most difficult.
I believe that as an adjunct to any solution should be the following basic design principles.
1. All service that can be through service should be.
2. All service should be regular interval, peak and off-peak with repeating patterns of stops (the Swiss Takt FahrPlan sp?).
3 There should be a common zone fare structure or integrated set of structures for the region that encourages transfers.
4. Suburb to Suburb and non-New York City service should be available in both directions during the rush hours. No more being unable to easily commute from many shore points to Elizabeth and similar idiocies on the Long Island.
5. Equipment can and must be maintained a reasonable cost to operate in a reliable manner.
Joe Versaggi responded on 08 Mar 2008 at 10:24 am #
No, I’m sorry, nothing with a even a retracted pantograph or roof hump will fit through 63rd Street. Notice the M-7’s has flush-mounted AC and 10 seats near the engineers cab taken up with electrical lockers ? That’s because nothing with the slightest bulge will fit, not even the Metro North M-7’s, which are customized with a short air-intake stack on the roof.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 08 Mar 2008 at 1:44 pm #
Calling this the equivalent of the Atlantic Avenue Branch (which, IIRC, once extended to the waterfront; consider the tunnel that Bob Diamond claims to have “discovered”) gives NJT too much ammunition, because while operationally it would indeed be like that branch, physically it would be within Manhattan and NJT could still use that as a selling point. I would not attempt to attribute undue credit to NJT for any reason, rest assured. (The LIRR also has “unpopular” secondary/tertiary terminals, at Long Island City and Hunterspoint Avenue respectively; these are necessary to sustain continued non-dual-mode diesel operation, but given their relative proximity to Manhattan, they could be made into “popular” terminals if LIRR would invest in them beyond what they usually do.)
Incidentally, in renewed defense of the erstwhile (?) Alternative G, I have come across this page, which features diagrams of the cross-sections of the Park Avenue Tunnels, all of which are coverings of the original trench (including the arched sections). Seems to me that there is some existing clearance that would allow for AC catenary wire operation. This is separate to the fact that the lower level of GCT has copious amounts of overhead room for catenary wire installation. Such an installation would be necessary for the proposals of having trains operating via the Alternative G to exit via the Park Avenue Tunnels and operating further north/east; however, it would be a boon for Metro-North’s mechanical department also, since the third-rail equipment on the M2, M4, M6 and M8 EMUs (shared with Connecticut DOT) could be deprecated and they could go to all-overhead operation. (Amtrak could also divert off the Hell Gate line in a pinch and operate through service between Boston and Washington DC.)
Clark Morris responded on 08 Mar 2008 at 6:29 pm #
What is the clearance in the 63rd street tunnel?
Does having a deep 3rd level station at Grand Central Terminal make sense as opposed to making better use of the existing two levels at Grand Central Terminal? I realize that the LIRR overrunning third rail is incompatible with Metro North under running and that the LIRR must have exclusive use of its tracks.
Looking at Metro North schedules, it looks like a grade separation in the Bronx is needed to get the best throughput because the combined Harlem/New Haven traffic is too much for just two tracks and any sharing with the Hudson on the other two involves conflicting moves. Overall, I would like to see the ability to put 90 trains an hour into Grand Central (60 from the viaduct and 30 from the 63rd street tunnel) using just the 2 levels where I see creating exits at the north end of the platforms as less costly than the third level. .
Joe Versaggi responded on 09 Mar 2008 at 3:29 pm #
Metro North operates the Park Avenue line “3 and 1″ in the rush. Any significant run-through operation with NJT as reverse peak trains would be impossible, to say nothing that the majority of MN trains are 3rd rail EMU’s.
I don’t know what the lower level 63rd Street clearances are in feet and inches, but I do know it was built to accommodate an M-1, nothing more, and anything whatsoever on the roof is out of the question. They are preparing specs for a couple of 63rd Street rescue engines that will be long slung, probably of GenSet technology, or maybe something like the TA or PATH has. The Harold interlocking SW1001 yard switchers simply will not do.
I also think the LIRR should arrive on the 5 most western tracks of the GCT upper level and come back on the outer loop track, converting those tracks to over-sliding 3rd rail. But MTA insists the capacity of that alternative would be just 24 TPH, not 28, the excuse being ridiculously low speed limit around the loop of 10MPH. But it would have saved about $800 million. Regardless, a rectifier car would never fit into the western most Flatbush tunnel. No way will LIRR maintain a separate Brooklyn MU fleet and restricted equipment cycles. They are already unhappily dealing with the incompatible M-3 / M-7 situation, the former being rarely seen in weekend service anymore. LIRR also does not ever turn their married pairs, the shop lines are set up that way, and would not be thrilled with looping their trains around GCT.
The M-2/4/6/8 do/will not have transformers to accommodate ex-Pennsy 25-cycle catenary. The New Haven line is now 60 cycles. MN refused to design M-8 transformers that can handle both cycles, as they would have been too heavy and of no use to them. They are GCT-only cars. They will never see NYPS either in imaginary Plan G or over the Hell Gate. The cycle conversion occurs about a mile east of Harold. Whatever Conn-DOT, under Governor Rell’s insistence, is planning, either they will use oversliding Genesis, a small isolated fleets of MU’s that can handle 25 cycles, or NJT engines.
Eine Kleine Multi-level responded on 14 Mar 2008 at 2:21 pm #
I don’t think Rell will get any trains other than Amtrak from Connecticut into Penn. The Long Island RR, I am led to understand, is retaining all of its slots in Penn.
Joe Versaggi responded on 15 Mar 2008 at 10:44 am #
That’s what the LIRR says for now since the ESA date keeps sliding back. Slots cost money, their operating plan is changeable given diversions from NYP to ESA, Flatbush and Hunterspoint to ESA and NYP, and some new trains.
Jishnu Mukerji responded on 23 Mar 2008 at 12:16 pm #
But LIRR has purchased the slots that it has at NYP from Amtrak. It does not cost them any more money to just hold onto them.
I agree that the only practical way that M-8s will ever get into NYP is when/if NYP is converted to 60Hz. Meanwhile creative people will do a few more rounds of convertible third rail shoes and what nots in their fertile imagination and burn a few million dollars in the process if someone is stupid enough o grant them that.
As for electrifying the Park Ave. tunnels, notwithstanding the document mentioned above, I understand from communicating with a few MNRR folks that there are tunnel sections, specially the two outer tunnels, where they will need to be rebuilt to make clearance for catenary, a rather expensive proposition. And then there is the issue of either maintaining both 3rd rail and catenary fleets or incurring the huge expenditure of converting/ replacing the third rail fleet. Why that makes any logical sense is beynd me.
One of the flaws in the Alternative G proposals is that no one has really worked out any feasible operating plans AFAIK beyond the wave of a hand estimates in the MIS. Or at least if such exists I have not seen it.