Metro-North New Haven Line Penn Station Access

If I am interpreting the slide correctly, the proposal is to triple track between Parkchester and Co-op City stations. The two interlockings at both ends of the red line seem very consistent with a third track.

Now, what I do not get is why is Amtrak OK with two tracks at Hunts Point Station if they are making Metro-North go for three at the other stations? And what exactly is the need for Oak Interlocking (I am assuming that it does not exist now, if it did, it would have been a simple interlocking already between the two tracks and what exactly would they need to change it to)?

Edit: To add to the latter question -- there is an universal interlocking between the two Amtrak tracks further south of the Hells Gate bridge after the freight line separates. Why is one needed close to Oak Point Yard?

I think there may be a current, third non-electrified industrial/freight track for that stretch. They'd have to string catenary, and with the AC and substation upgrades, should be able to support that.

You need to figure on what is the "Bay Ridge Secondary" that CSX and P&W use to reach Fremont/Fresh Pond(NY&A)
might be used by MN to reach the "new" stations,so a "new" CP called Oak might be needed.
(There was a former NH tower,known as "OAK" in the PC era)That might be the new access point for CSX/P&W freights
to get to Fremont.

West Farms(Van Nest) will not be enough to power the wire with more trains on the route,the new substations are needed,
with Woodside(LIRR) substation powering the 3rd rail section needed for M8's to access NY Penn

Yep, after reviewing google map images there seems to be an industrial track. It ends just before the Pelham Bay Movable Bridge. South of the Bronx River Bridge it splits into two tracks, for a total of four until Oak Point Yard. It appears that the western of those two industrial tracks can be taken away from the yard and freight use with relative ease without the need to reconfigure the whole yard even though some realignment of the remaining forth track at both ends of the yard might be necessary.

Given that they are not showing new track between what is called Tremont Interlocking and the Bronx River Bridge, one would think that in that section they will use the exiting industrial track. That is weird though -- Four tracks from Oak Point to the Bronx River Bridge, three for a short stretch until Tremont Interlocking and four from there going east/north. I cannot make sense of it. What is the point?

It is quite clear why they are not even thinking of putting a third passenger track on the bridge -- the north approach to the Hell's Gate Bridge for the existing freight track and the long gone forth track is to the east of Oak Point Yard causing any train on that freight track to need to cross the yard and the industrial spurs. The location of Oak Interlocking seems to be as much south as it could be without having to mess with the bridge approaches. And frankly as long as they are not putting a station in Astoria, the way some have proposed, the two tracks on the bridge will be enough.

And Hunt's Point is the last stop before Penn anyway, so the need for a third (station) track on the Hell Gate or Queens viaduct is not critical.

Although it is highly unlikely, they could change the Park Avenue Tunnel a bit. Around 95th street, a new tunnel could have trains going to Penn Station. The tunnel would have to start curving at 93rd street at an incline, going underneath the small Russian Church there. From there, it would then turn down 5th Avenue, avoiding the large reservoir. A new station would have to be built under the 5th Avenue subway station, with a corridor connecting it to the rest of Grand Central. Somewhere around there, it could go farther north than the normal tunnels, therefore connecting it to Penn Station with a possible extension to the Port Jervis and Passack Valley Lines.

They can barely finish ESA; they're not looking to spend another $20bi.

Since CSX had a "messy" derailment near Amtrak's Hellgate mainlines, at Oak Point yard,there should some $$$ spent on the trackage at
Oak Point Yard and the "Freight" track,aka the Bay Ridge Secondary over Hellgate Bridge to cut down the chances of a
freight train derailment disrupting Amtrak,Metro North services.

Here's a link to video recording of an interesting presentation and discussion, on PSAS, from the recent meeting of the MTA Board of Directors' Captial Program Oversight Committee:

https://youtu.be/XyON-1Koue4?t=21m41s
CPOC Committee Meeting | MTA Board of Directors | 12/12/2016

Presentation is quite interesting. A few questions:
- Why is "3rd Rail" work mentioned in the presentation (Metro North under-riding?)? Won't Metro North be using overhead catenary along this route?
- No mention is made of Amtrak's Pelham Bay drawbridge. Is the assumption that this bridge will be replaced by a fixed bridge separately and prior to MN PSAS project?
- Looking at the route map, it's too bad there doesn't appear to be a plan for a MN station in Queens like at Ditmars Blvd (attached photo) or similar location (with La Guardia Airport access). Or access for additional MN trains from CT/Westchester to LIRR Jamaica station. Are these longer term goals for MN?

for MN trains to reach Harold interlocking two tracks of a mile long each have to be equipped with third rail between Harold and Gate, plus a new sub station to feed it.
No M-8 can not use 25 Hz catenary so overhead is useless from Gate to washington DC for M-8 cars
Pelham bay drawbridge is over a navigable waterway , the coast guard would not allow a fixed bridge.

MN does not serve Queens and putting up a station in area would severely hinder the amount of trains that could use the tracks.

In the latest NEC plan, the bridge at Pelham Bay is going to be replaced, and the curve straightened out. When and if there's money, of course.

DutchRailnut wrote:for MN trains to reach Harold interlocking two tracks of a mile long each have to be equipped with third rail between Harold and Gate, plus a new sub station to feed it.
No M-8 can not use 25 Hz catenary so overhead is useless from Gate to washington DC for M-8 cars
Pelham bay drawbridge is over a navigable waterway , the coast guard would not allow a fixed bridge.

MN does not serve Queens and putting up a station in area would severely hinder the amount of trains that could use the tracks.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Re: M-8 not being compatible with 25Hz power, will the cars intended for Penn Station service use over-riding 3rd rail shoes in addition to or instead of under-riding shoes?

WRT to the Pelham Bay bridge replacement, I have read that higher clearance fixed bridge is one of the options Amtrak has considered.

all M-8's have third rail shoes that will work on both LIRR and MNCR third rail, it was factory installed on all the lincoln nebr. build cars.
currently a set of M-8's is in hillside shop for testing again.

as for pelham bridge the USCG requires unrestricted access , so that bridge would need to be higher than for example a crane barge to fix other bridges up river.

What will Amtrak get in return for allowing MN to access Penn Station? Additional train slots on MN?