NEC capacity

[jis]

Are all of the locomotives and EMUs operating in 25Hz land capable of operating on 60 Hz, or do NJT and/or SEPTA have equipment that requires 25 Hz? (I'm wondering if it would be possible to ``just'' rip out all the 25Hz infrastructure and convert it to 60 Hz to make these dual mode locomotives easier, though I realize that conversion would still be a bunch of cost and work.)

All equipment capable of running under 25Hz that are currently on-line, can run on 60Hz as well and can change over from one to the other on the fly.

One of the big problems that can come up when converting things that dissipate lots of power to transistors is that you need to get rid of the heat somehow; you often can easily shrink things a lot with transistors if you ignore the heat dissipation problem, but not getting the heat away from the transistor can fry the transistor rapidly. In amateur radio, a lot of the 1.5 kilowatt RF power amplifiers still use vacuum tubes for the final amplifier stage, usually with some transistorized control circuitry, and I think a lot of that is because just using a single vacuum tube is simpler than carefully matching up an array of several transistors and making sure they're well attached to a big metal heatsink.

Of course heat dissipation has to be accounted for. They have to do that anyway at the low voltage half of the drive, since that is already all solid state. At the high voltage end the heat dissipation issue should be less daunting since smaller amounts of current are involved as heat generation is proportional to I^2*R.

It's rare to have transistorized power supplies even be 90% efficient. So it's likely that in whatever space you put the power conversion equipment, you have wasted heat equal to at least 10% of the energy the engine is using to pull the train, and you have to get that heat out of that area somehow.

Yet that is what is exactly used in the modern AC drive locomotives. So they may have figured out ways of making them dissipate less in high power circuits. I am sure they are aware of this issue and do handle it to their satisfaction. In today's electric locomotives, the only non-solid state component in the power supply chain in the locomotive is the big-a$$ main transformer and the the main HV circuit breaker.

I believe at 25 kV, the amount of space you need isolating things to prevent arcing is a lot larger than at 600V, which probably limits how much you can shrink things in volume to some extent.

Yes, good heat conducting electrical insulators are naturally in great demand

So there's probably a limit to how small a space that equipment can fit into, but using modern technology to reduce weight may well still be possible.

Yes

 

[George Harris]

Two other little things to think about:

The third rail system used by the Long Island Railroad and the third rail system used on Metro North are incompatilbe. The system used by the LIRR and run into Penn Staiton is a top contact third rail. The ex New York Central third rail used in Grand Central and north thereof is a bottom contact system. If there is such a thing as a vehicle or contact shoe system that can handle both I have never heard of it, and am not sure that it is even possible to build one.

The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.

 

[jis]

The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.

That is what is done with bi-level (actually tri-level) equipment that is used in the North East Corridor. The boarding level is the middle level with steps going up to the upper level and down to the lower level. The vestibule is at the middle level. Examples of such are used by MBTA, LIRR NJTransit and MARC. All except LIRR also have traps at least at some of the doors for use at low level platforms.

 

[George Harris]

The whole northeast corridor from Washington to Boston is based on the primary use of high level platforms and equipment to match. Hence, even with adequate clearances it is not practical territory for superliners. It is relatively easy to have steps in cars for high level boarding so they can be used at low level platforms, but the opposite is not the case. When you open a superliner door at a high level platform, the platform is waist high to the car floor. In other parts of the world where be-level equipment is used with high level platforms, the doors are at or near the ends at a level to match the high platform and you must go down steps inside the car to get to the middle portion of the car.

That is what is done with bi-level (actually tri-level) equipment that is used in the North East Corridor. The boarding level is the middle level with steps going up to the upper level and down to the lower level. The vestibule is at the middle level. Examples of such are used by MBTA, LIRR NJTransit and MARC. All except LIRR also have traps at least at some of the doors for use at low level platforms.

True for that equipment, but not for the superliners.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I can't imagine there would be an incredible amount of difficulty to build one platform in an as-yet unbuilt station to accommodate Superliners, so thats not really an issue.

 

[AlanB]

I can't imagine there would be an incredible amount of difficulty to build one platform in an as-yet unbuilt station to accommodate Superliners, so thats not really an issue.

Well it's really not a big deal to do it, in fact it's probably cheaper.

The question is, "why would NJT do it?"

They don't need a low level platform. In fact a high level platform is in their best interests, since they can get people on and off the train two or three times faster than with a low level plat. That means that they get the trains on and off the plats faster, which is critical during rush hour.

Next, Amtrak wouldn't want them to do it, since it would be useless to Amtrak. They won't be able to service the train in the station, and they can't send the train to Sunnyside for servicing. So that means that the train would go right back out without any servicing. It also doesn't help Amtrak who will have all their ticketing still in the old Penn Station and probably anger a bunch of people, since they now have to walk a block to board their train.

It simply doesn't make sense in so many ways.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

If you're talking about the unbuilt Penn Station extension, there's the question of what trains would operate Superliners into it if there were such a platform and NJT did want to share with Amtrak and Amtrak did want to get involved.

I suspect the station extension is going to be too low to have a reasonable grade to get to the Empire Connection. And it's not going to have a connection to the east (at least not in the near term), so no trains to Boston.

If you did have one Superliner platform in the station, you could use it for trains going towards DC. However, do the stations on the way to DC that you'd want to stop at also have low level platforms available? For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?

Also, how do you get the Superliner train between Sunnyside Yard and the station? Or is there some other yard to use instead?

When the Superliner III cars get built, I wonder how hard it would be to provide a vestibule at the right level for a high level platform, on both sides of one end of each car, narrow enough so that the hallway on the upper level of the car could pass through the space between the two vestibules. That's obviously not sufficient for Amtrak's limited mobility customers, but you could probably build a small elevator into the middle of platform that would normally be level with the rest of the platform, but that could be lowered to the height of the low level doors.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You know, with a little space robbery, it probably could be done, albeit only on one side of the car, on the stairs.

Actually, I can think of a reason to do this, Alan. And that would be to utilize off-the shelf Bombardier bi-levels, but that would imply that it was running on an only low-platform route, of which I don't think their are any on the NJT system. I'd assume Bombardier bi-levels are somewhat cheaper than the custom-designed NJT bilevels.

 

[Rafi]

For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?

This was actually discussed a few years ago. I think the consensus was that a Superliner, IF it could clear the tunnels, would only be able to really stop south of New York in Philly (questionable), Wilmington, Baltimore, and DC.

Here's the thread.

Rafi

 

[jis]

For the Cardinal, for example, do Newark NJ, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilimington, and Baltimore have compatible platforms?

This was actually discussed a few years ago. I think the consensus was that a Superliner, IF it could clear the tunnels, would only be able to really stop south of New York in Philly (questionable), Wilmington, Baltimore, and DC.

Here's the thread.

Rafi

The northbound/eastbound low level platform at Wilmington now has a temporary-permanent high level platform. It is used by SEPTA trains.

 

[AmtrakCrescent20]

IIRC Trenton also has one low level platform on track 3, the easternmost track, which is usually used for NJT storage.

 

[MetsFan]

The connection to queens from THE tunnel's tracks would be to let those trains continue on to sunnyside yard, it has nothing to do with LIRR, though in theory you could run a LIRR train from the proposed GCT connection (east side access) through to THE tracks, but since LIRR equipment depends either on 3rd rail or diesel it would stop at the western edge of the 3rd rail zone just west of penn station. In other words, you could not cross the hudson with said train unless it was pushed/pulled by amtrak or njt electric loco's

- Andy

 

[MetsFan]

IIRC Trenton also has one low level platform on track 3, the easternmost track, which is usually used for NJT storage.

There is a low level platform on the other side of track 2, marked by a bus stop style shelter, however the other side, on the other platform, next to track 5, is simply a lay up area with no platforming capability as it is directly next to a concrete lined creek that drains into the delaware river and some sort of piping that looks like it has to do with the switches and signals. The low level platform looks as if it can only be accessed through an employee only area with both NJtransit, and amtrak marked vehicles as well as unmarked station employee vehicles. Will toss in a photo or 2 to show you what i mean.

Standing next to track 5 looking over to the lay up track (no platforms).

Looking from the window of a train sitting on track 2 over to the low level platform with aforementioned shelter.

- Andy

 

[AlanB]

The connection to queens from THE tunnel's tracks would be to let those trains continue on to sunnyside yard, it has nothing to do with LIRR, though in theory you could run a LIRR train from the proposed GCT connection (east side access) through to THE tracks, but since LIRR equipment depends either on 3rd rail or diesel it would stop at the western edge of the 3rd rail zone just west of penn station. In other words, you could not cross the hudson with said train unless it was pushed/pulled by amtrak or njt electric loco's
- Andy

Well since there are no plans at present to extend The Tunnels' tracks to Sunnyside, along with the proposed GCT connection, it's all academic.

And actually the LIRR can get under the Hudson and into NJ on its own. Third rail extends almost to the mouth of the tunnels in New Jersey. They'd die very quickly after reaching the mouth, but they could run under the Hudson River.

Ps. Nice pictures.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

As currently envisioned, the new station will have tail tracks that will allow NJT to store a few trains beyond the station under the 6th Avenue area. But there are no plans to build beyond that point at this time. Not withstanding the added cost, I suspect that part of the problem is the ever ongoing debate about connecting to Grand Central. And then if you did go under the East River, where do you come up and how much work would be needed to tie things into Harold interlocking, which is already slated for major changes to permit the East Side Access.

Some potential benefits I could see to tracks connecting Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal include:

NJT would have a way to get passengers directly to GCT.

Amtrak could run Empire Corridor trains through to WAS if the right tracks at NYP were connected to the right tracks at GCT.

If trains regularily ran to one station and then continued to the other, instead of having a particular train destined for either one station or the other, passengers will typically end up experiencing more frequent headways for the trains that will get them to their destination. (Strangely, people who plan mass transit service often don't seem to think frequent headways are important, at least not to the extent I do.)

Potential issues / downsides I see:

If lead track capacity is strained, running some trains to only one station or only the other station maybe would help with that.

The capital cost of building such a connection would be nonzero.

Are there other downsides I'm missing in connecting NYP to GCT?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Joel, the Empire Corridor and Lake Shore Limited trains run to Penn. I'm pretty sure they are serviced at Sunnyside and can pass through A-interlocking, and thus head on to WAS.

 

[AlanB]

Joel, the Empire Corridor and Lake Shore Limited trains run to Penn. I'm pretty sure they are serviced at Sunnyside and can pass through A-interlocking, and thus head on to WAS.

Yes, Empire Corridor trains can reach Sunnyside and are indeed serviced in Sunnyside. In fact that's where the cafe cars are restocked now.

However, an Empire Corridor train cannot come off the Empire Corridor and "just" head west to DC. It must go into Penn at least and then a change of end would be required and that assumes that a cab car was on the train. Otherwise either the train would have to have an engine added or the current engine would have to run around, or the train would have to run out to the Sunnyside loop first, before returning to NYP and points west.

One other small problem would be that the P32 diesel would run out of third rail before it could actually switch on the prime mover, so you'd either have to coast a bit or fire up the prime mover while still in the tunnel on the NJ side.

 

[PaulLev]

Some potential benefits I could see to tracks connecting Penn Station to Grand Central Terminal include:
NJT would have a way to get passengers directly to GCT.

Amtrak could run Empire Corridor trains through to WAS if the right tracks at NYP were connected to the right tracks at GCT.

If trains regularily ran to one station and then continued to the other, instead of having a particular train destined for either one station or the other, passengers will typically end up experiencing more frequent headways for the trains that will get them to their destination. (Strangely, people who plan mass transit service often don't seem to think frequent headways are important, at least not to the extent I do.)

Potential issues / downsides I see:

If lead track capacity is strained, running some trains to only one station or only the other station maybe would help with that.

The capital cost of building such a connection would be nonzero.

Are there other downsides I'm missing in connecting NYP to GCT?

Local hotdog vendors from 34th Street to 42nd Street would lose business?

More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.

By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.

 

[PaulLev]

Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.

The Boston commuter line has already extended pretty far south, and there's a proposal to extend it further to Wareham. But it needs to go the next step to Hyannis, and connect to the main Amtrak line in Providence.

 

[Tygercat]

By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.

Er, not quite. There are two subway lines that run north from NYP to Times Square, and there you can get the shuttle to GCT. So the subway trip involves a transfer, there is no direct line.

Having said that, I don't know that I would care to do this if I was hauling luggage. DH and I took the shuttle from GCT to Times Square to the 1 train while carrying some bulky camera gear, and it was a serious squeeze. OK, it was rush hour- probably not the best time to be there- but it was not a real pleasant trip.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.
By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.

One other potential issue is how close the stations are, what the relative elevations above/below sea level the existing tracks are, and whether a reasonable grade can connect them. There are probably ways to work this out, and maybe the details turn out to be such that this isn't a major problem, but I'm not sure.

(But GCT's headhouse appears to be roughly 2000 feet or maybe a bit more from the eastern tracks out of NYP; at a 3% grade, which may be more than the railroads might prefer, that only lets you have a 60' change in altitude. There's slop in all sorts of directions in my guesses here; I didn't measure all that precisely, and I don't know where the GCT tracks are relative to the GCT headhouse. But there may well not be enough room for the new NJT tracks to connect to tracks just below the street level at GCT without building a horribly indirect and therefore expensive tunnel, for example. Then again, connecting the upper levels at GCT to the upper levels at NYP and the lower levels at NYP to the lower levels at GCT might well work out just fine.)

I'm just feeling baffled that whether a GCT<->NYP track connection would be valuable is something that could be the subject of debate, which makes me suspect there must be some downside I'm missing. Or maybe people are just allergic to spending money on infrastructure?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.
The Boston commuter line has already extended pretty far south, and there's a proposal to extend it further to Wareham. But it needs to go the next step to Hyannis, and connect to the main Amtrak line in Providence.

Aside from the really obvious funding issues, and the need to work things out with the railroad on Cape Cod, a couple of other subtle issues there:

The right way to do BOS-Hyannis, I think, involves the MBTA running separate local and express trains on the Middleboro line. Track capacity may be an issue in various places of the system, especially at, for example, JFK/Umass where the commuter rail system has single track which is shared between the Greenbush, Plymouth, Kingston, and Middleboro trains. The current South Station is also near its capacity limit. So any BOS-Hyannis plan may run into issues with track capacity to the north of Middleboro that need to be included in the costs of making it work.

That said, I hear there's lots of automobile traffic congestion going to Cape Cod, at least at some times of year and days of the week, and some of those times may even be at times which are not otherwise peak MBTA times.

NYP to Hyannis probably would annoy the very same people who don't want certain existing tracks used for Fall River / New Bedford commuter service. (And it requires a locomotive switch somewhere; New Haven or PVD strike me as the likely locations.) I keep wondering if rail along the 495 corridor from the Providence Line to the Middleboro Line could give everyone what they want; such a track would also be useful for getting people from Old Colony land to T F Green Airport.

 

[PaulLev]

Er, not quite. There are two subway lines that run north from NYP to Times Square, and there you can get the shuttle to GCT. So the subway trip involves a transfer, there is no direct line.

Yep, you're right. I was speaking too loosely.

 

[PaulLev]

Also on the subject of the NEC, I'd love to see the train to Cape Cod - from NYP to Hyannis (and, for that matter, from Boston to Hyannis) reinstated. It ran again briefly in the early 1990s.
The Boston commuter line has already extended pretty far south, and there's a proposal to extend it further to Wareham. But it needs to go the next step to Hyannis, and connect to the main Amtrak line in Providence.

Aside from the really obvious funding issues, and the need to work things out with the railroad on Cape Cod...

There was definitely track that ran Amtrak trains to Hyannis in the early 1990s. From what I know of the Cape - I spend most summers there - people would be delighted to have a railroad that really went somewhere again...

 

[PaulLev]

More seriously, I see only upsides. Including LIRR passengers being able to connect directly with MetroNorth and 4 and 1 subway lines at GCT, and vice versa.
By the way, technically there are tracks that already connect the two stations. There's a shuttle NYC subway train that runs on them. I have no idea how much it would cost to replace them with Amtrak usable tracks, but at least the tunnel is already there.

One other potential issue is how close the stations are, what the relative elevations above/below sea level the existing tracks are, and whether a reasonable grade can connect them. There are probably ways to work this out, and maybe the details turn out to be such that this isn't a major problem, but I'm not sure.

(But GCT's headhouse appears to be roughly 2000 feet or maybe a bit more from the eastern tracks out of NYP; at a 3% grade, which may be more than the railroads might prefer, that only lets you have a 60' change in altitude. There's slop in all sorts of directions in my guesses here; I didn't measure all that precisely, and I don't know where the GCT tracks are relative to the GCT headhouse. But there may well not be enough room for the new NJT tracks to connect to tracks just below the street level at GCT without building a horribly indirect and therefore expensive tunnel, for example. Then again, connecting the upper levels at GCT to the upper levels at NYP and the lower levels at NYP to the lower levels at GCT might well work out just fine.)

I'm just feeling baffled that whether a GCT<->NYP track connection would be valuable is something that could be the subject of debate, which makes me suspect there must be some downside I'm missing. Or maybe people are just allergic to spending money on infrastructure?

Thanks for the analysis - it does put this in better technological perspective.

As far as not wanting to spend money on infrastructure in NYC, we have the sad case of the Second Avenue subway line, under construction for 70+ years. It's been stopped and started again almost as many times as there are stations on the Lexington Avenue line.