Gateway Project/New York Penn Station capacity improvement

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Which Gateway document said that--can you share it?

And are you saying that only two additional trains per hour would be able travel through the Hudson Tunnel Project segment or the future four track segment between Kearny Junction and Manhattan?

https://walkableprinceton.com/2023/...pand-track-capacity-at-new-york-penn-station/
Go down to the end of the 3rd paragraph. Click on the link to full document. Focus on pages 4 and 5 of the 58 pages downloaded of the pdf.
 
Last edited:
https://walkableprinceton.com/2023/...pand-track-capacity-at-new-york-penn-station/
Go down to the end of the 3rd paraagraph. Click on the link to full document. Focus on pages 4 and 5 of the 58 pages downloaded of the pdf.
Interesting document, but I don't see anywhere that it answers the questions Andrew posed. The linked PDF, in the intro mentions the total number of train moves every day, but not what the peaks are (I'm sure it would be much easier to add more New Jersey trains at 3 AM, but that wouldn't be very helpful!) It also doesn't (that I could find) mention what the capacity improvements after the new tunnels open, just that they would be limited by the number of tracks and existing narrow platforms at Penn and the limited access to those platforms (stairs, escalators and elevators that limit how quickly passengers can get off and board the trains, and thus how much platform time each train needs.

Because the PDF is not searchable, I had to skim it looking for relevant numbers, but really couldn't find anything to justify the claim that the new tunnels (presumably after the existing tunnels are refurbished and reopened, so when there are four Hudson River tunnels in use) would only allow 2 more trains per hour. Could you point to the specific page and paragraph?

The claim doesn't sound unreasonable given the other bottlenecks at Penn Station, but I would like to see some sort of analysis and not mere opinion.
 
I can't find where I read it was two. It was some years ago. But the implications in this document is close to zero, which is probably not right, but it won't be much, definitely not in the high teens.

So essentially what you are saying is that The Hudson Tunnel Project will increase rush hour capacity without Penn South?
 
So essentially what you are saying is that The Hudson Tunnel Project will increase rush hour capacity without Penn South?
As soon as the present tunnel bores are completely refurbished and back in service. However, it may be a slight increase oaf capacity with just the new tunnel bores if capacity can be slightly better than present bores maybe by traveling thru new bores at slightly higher speeds or better signaling???
 
As soon as the present tunnel bores are completely refurbished and back in service. However, it may be a slight increase oaf capacity with just the new tunnel bores if capacity can be slightly better than present bores maybe by traveling thru new bores at slightly higher speeds or better signaling???
At least it will not have the current single-tracking every weekend.

People tend to forget that just adding two tubes without the planned additional tracks east of A Interlocking does not decongest A interlocking, which at present already is a bottleneck.
Are there more details on this? Is there a construction timeline?
 
Are there more details on this? Is there a construction timeline?
This is what the NY Penn Station South is all about. There is no fixed timeline for this yet.

The two new tunnels will be connected into the Penn Station platforms tracks by a single ladder track across A interlocking. So access to tracks 7 and above IIRC will be through this single ladder track from the new tunnels. Eventually the design assumes that the new tunnels will mainly feed tracks below 7 and the 4-5 tracks in the Penn Station South extension, while the original tunnels will feed track 8 and above or some such. So the single ladder track will be used very sparingly.

This will make A interlocking much more fluid as the terrible conflicts that exist between NJT terminating trains and Amtrak +NJT through trains at A interlocking will be essentially removed completely as the terminating trains will arrive and depart through the new tunnels to/from the South side platforms, while the through trains will arrive and depart through the old tunnels to/from the middle platforms, without crossing each others path. LIRR/MNRR will remain on the North side platforms not interfering with anything like now as the leads to the West Side Yard do not conflict with any Hudson Tunnel tracks from that end of the station.
 
Penn South is not funded. That and all the real estate development has been put on ice for 7 years.

New tunnels with no station addition means more cross over conflicts. Some trains in Legacy Penn would crossover to the south for the new tunnels. With adding station tracks A thru H, there would be less with new tunnels using new station much of the time. As it is, the 4 stub track departures are often delayed a couple of minutes. The thru running fans hate cross over conflicts, but do not comprehend they are making the problem worse playing Block 780 NIMBY at the same time fantasizing that Amtrak and MN per the Hell Gate Line and the LIRR have rolled out the welcome mat.
 
Of course, those of us in the know can avoid the cattle lines by boarding at the old Penn Station or the West End concourse.

Another option to avoid the cattle line for those who want to use the lounge is the elevators from Moynihan. When I get the track assignment in the lounge I just head straight for the elevator and take it to track level. Works every time.

They got their Moynihan Concourse, which ought to be enough, and that has increased dwell time of thru Amtrak trains since it encourages west loading/unloading of trains, the sheeple following Amtrak e-ticketing instructions. With westbound trains having first class, business class, and sleepers at the east end of consist, more time is spent hoofing it up and down the platforms.

In fairness some of us who board from Moynihan just find the Amtrak level at legacy Penn Station to be a dump and Moynihan to be a more pleasant place to wait and board from. For some I’m sure it doesn’t matter preferring function and transit connection convenience over form which is fine. But I find the lounge and other amenities are value added especially when I’ve purchased a sleeper ticket. It does involve some walking when I board a sleeper but that doesn’t really bother me and I doubt it really had any impact on dwell times for the LD trains. Acela first is always on the west end of the trains so that’s a non issue.
 
Last edited:
How many additional (Raritan Valley Line) trains per hour could travel into and out of Penn Station if just the new Hudson Tunnels get built?
 
https://www.northjersey.com/story/n...al-bridge-project-design-lawsuit/72484911007/

New update...he is suing NJT for his firing and claiming extreme deficiencies with the bridge design and that it may impact the current bridge. He told Amtrak and an employee responded:
By August of 2023, Nasim alleges, his concerns had reached Amtrak, which owns and operates the current Portal Bridge, and an Amtrak employee sent him a letter that allegedly said, “'The magnitude of movement and the neglect to address this issue is alarming’ and that continuing with the original Portal Partners’ design ‘poses a significant risk to the safety of passenger trains.’”
 
Last edited:
The animation and some drawings show old PRR style variable tension catenary supports. I would hope that the approaches would use constant tension catenary in any new construction.
Actually there is absolutely nothing that prevents the hanging of constant tension catenary from those structures. That is close to what has been done between County and Ham in NJ. The posts and cross beams pretty much resemble the old structures except the base of posts are more modern detachable variety. The catenary has been hung from those. Some of the original posts and cross beams have been used too. New posts were needed mainly because there was a desire to reduce the span, not because the original posts were unusable.

But all in all I would not try to surmise what sort of catenary will be used based on a animation video of this sort.
 
Last edited:
Actually there is absolutely nothing that prevents the hanging of constant tension catenary from those structures. That is close to what has been done between County and Ham in NJ. The posts and cross beams pretty much resemble the old structures except the base of posts are more modern detachable variety. The catenary has been hung from those. Some of the original posts and cross beams have been used too. New posts were needed mainly because there was a desire to reduce the span, not because the original posts were unusable.

But all in all I would not try to surmise what sort of catenary will be used based on a animation video of this sort.
I was actually referring to the structures on the new section of approaches to the bridge which would presumably be new construction and could use a more modern type of catenary support as on the New Haven to Boston electrification. I suspected that this was an artists conception rather than what would actually be built.
 
I was actually referring to the structures on the new section of approaches to the bridge which would presumably be new construction and could use a more modern type of catenary support as on the New Haven to Boston electrification. I suspected that this was an artists conception rather than what would actually be built.
And my point was that there is no need to have a short segment with different structures from the rest around it. Either structure would work just fine. And as both of us have said artists conceptions are not the best guide either way, ;)
 
Portal Bridge North: Why only two tracks?
Budgetary constraints
Will there be a new Portal Bridge South?
Portal South is in the overall Master Plan and will be built when traffic justifies it. It will be associated with additional platform tracks through Secaucus and will be part of the full quadruple tracking between Newark and Secaucus Jct.

There was once an idea of keeping the current Portal Movable Bridge operational until Portal South is built but the cost of doing so was considered to be unjustifiable, as it requires major work to be kept viable. In some sense all that money would come out of the funds that could go towards building Portal South sooner rather than later.
 
What happens to the tunnel boring machine once it gets through ? Do they pull it out or bury it in the bedrock, which is what I think they did to LIRR Grand Central Madison.
Usually pulled at an endpoint (some, I think, can be disassembled). Off topic, but they developed a TBM that could do rectangular sections for a project in Hong Kong recently.
 
What happens to the tunnel boring machine once it gets through ? Do they pull it out or bury it in the bedrock, which is what I think they did to LIRR Grand Central Madison.
Sometimes they abandon them underground, but more often they disassemble them and retrieve them for use elsewhere.

For example in the boring of the East-West Green Line of the Kolkata Metro, they retrieved most boring machines and some were redeployed elsewhere in the project.

One was a particularly strange case. Between Esplanade and Sealdah at a place called Bowbazar, an area occupied by many over 100 years old ramshackle buildings, one of the boring machines struck a massive aquifer, which drained into the bored tunnel until they managed to seal it behind the boring machine. But enough water pored into the tunnels to cause subsidence above which brought down about a dozen buildings over a period of time. All the residents were rescued and housed in temporary housing while they started cleaning up the mess underground. Eventually they dug down a shaft from above and retrieved the entire boring machine, and deployed another one from the other end to dig to the shaft. It took two years to rescue the tunnel which was completed recently. Ironically, the original plan was to place the tunnel under a road on the surface, but the local residents for whatever reason rose up in arms and prevented that and forced it to be routed under a residential area, which of course finally all collapsed into the subsidence. People need to think hard about what they are doing before forcing technically unsound courses upon projects as such can come back to bite one in their own rear ends.

You can see the block that was wiped out by subsidence and is now occupied by the rescue shaft which is about to be filled in after the tunnel underneath is completed and the second boring machine coming in from the other end is disassembled and pulled out through the shaft. It is the empty block marked "Metro Work in Progress (Green Line)":

https://www.google.com/maps/place/B....5668237!4d88.3614764!16s/m/02z9k9x?entry=ttu

Hopefully nothing like this will come to pass in digging the new tunnels in New York. Incidentally while digging the original tunnel;s there were a case of a blowout or two when the roof of the tunnel gave way, but each was sealed and the project rescued. The new tunnel ceilings are much deeper down from the river bed than the original tunnels. That is why the big curve was required to give more liner space to hold the gradients within limits.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top