Subway Extension to Secaucus (Flushing #7 or L Canarsie)

JLo wrote:Interesting. The key difference is a tunnel under nothing but river mud as opposed to a tunnel that has to go through the Palisades. I wonder if there is a depth problem with such a tunnel? It probably has to be significantly shallower to give access to HOB.

Probably the same as the PATH Exchange Place station in Jersey City. As mentioned the PATH tunnels are in the river mud.

Watch out, this isnt NJT related, so Otto is going to lock it like he did the other thread!

From the article;

What the Secaucus No. 7 idea suggests is that we can double the capacity for NJ Transit passengers using the subway – instead of actual NJ Transit trains. While the No. 7 could terminate anywhere, it was suggested to be at Secaucus. The problem for NJ Transit is that Secaucus lacks the ability for them to double capacity of service heading into New York City. coming some of its most congested lines.

Without the added NJ Transit service feeding the No. 7 subway, the goal for doubling capacity will fall short of expectations

The basis of the article is wrong, they're asserting that NJ Transit cannot add service to Secaucus but they can add service to Hoboken without major modifications. That's incorret, fact is NJ Transit cannot add NEC, RVL or additional NJCL trains to Hoboken without significant expansion and improvements to the waterfront connection. Second Main line/Port Jervis/Bergen and Pascack valley line trains already pass through Secaucus on their way to Hoboken, increasing service on those trains to Hoboken would conversely increase service to Secaucus.

When weighing the pros and cons of Secaucus over Hoboken Secaucus comes out on top;

Secaucus has service to all NJ Transit lines (save the RVL, ACL), Hoboken Terminal has limited NJCL service and no NEC or weekday RVL service. The NEC is NJ Transit's busiest line, and there's no connection to the NEC South of Newark to Hoboken. Also Secaucus is designed to accomodate transfers better than Hoboken terminal, Hoboken terminal is flat and provides only for linear connections while Secaucus jct is multi level with escalator banks to accomodate verticle connections.

Tom V wrote:or weekday RVL service

The RVL hasn't had ANY service to Hoboken, weekday or weekend, since May of '08. (Save for non-revenue movements)

CNJGeep wrote:

Tom V wrote:or weekday RVL service

The RVL hasn't had ANY service to Hoboken, weekday or weekend, since May of '08. (Save for non-revenue movements)

Not quite true - train 2406 goes to Hoboken from Raritan in the early AM. It used to be 2706 and went from High Bridge to Raritan, but was cut back I think during the second to last round of service cuts on the RVL.

5733 I believe leaves from Hoboken, but doesn't take any passengers.

There is one RVL train during the week from Raritan to Hoboken, train # 2406. Theoretically having the 7 train to Hoboken Terminal would be desirable *if* more trains could access the Terminal via the Waterfront connection. Those trains would also need to operate at higher speeds , the NJCL trains crawl between Newark and Hoboken. The travel time between Newark Penn and Hoboken is double the time for trains between Newark Penn and Secaucus jct.

The problem with the Waterfront connection is twofold: there is the obvious capacity problem of a single track. However, the real trouble with using the connection is the speed. The Waterfront trains (going to NWK at least) crawl because they need to have a clear window to perform the cross-plant move through the busy NEC choke between NWK and SEC. If they could find a viable place for a second connection emerging on the outbound side of the NEC, the connection would be far smoother, but with the Hoboken Division lines and the PATH, finding that is a bit tough.

I think we are missing the point here. This isn't a debate about how many Waterfront Connection trains are running at this moment; the argument is that the cost of the modifications that would be needed dwarf the whole ARC Tunnel. Single track connection? That can't be fixed?

There is spare capacity in Hoboken these days. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Trains spend the whole day in the terminal instead of the day yard. Which makes it possible for "Eastside Connection" or "The Rest of Manhattan" trains to go to Hoboken, instead of Secaucus, where the 7 train could connect all over the city without a transfer or a taxi.

I realize the know-it-alls have a million reasons why this can't be considered, but then there are still people who believe the world is flat.

If the PA "just"extended the PATH line north from 33rd street to 45th street, there wouldn't be much advantage to running the 7 train to Hoboken.

Extending PATH north from 33rd is nigh impossible, and the costs would dwarf anything we can imagine, as it would require completely rebuilding the Sixth Ave line. As for the capacity issues at Hoboken, didn't someone around here say the reason trains hangout on the terminal tracks is because there's no more room in the yard?

keithsy wrote:Also, cross state lines, you have to meet FRA standards

Arlington wrote:I'll cite WMATA (DC Area Metro) which crosses two state lines (MD & VA) and is not encumbered by FRA standards (for example, its rolling stock is very light).

I'll add Philadelphia's PATCO and St Louis's Metrolink which also cross state lines. I'm pretty sure the deciding factor of if the FRA gets involved has much more to do with how they intermingle with existing FRA dominated operations than it has to do with if they cross state lines.

Tom V wrote: Hoboken Terminal seems like a long shot for three reasons;

It would be a longer, more circulous route to Secaucus
It would have to be a deep cavern station so close to the River
It would compete with the PATH

PATH itself doesn't have a deep cavern station even though they're close to the river. When I was very young it mystified me until I looked at their maps and saw that PATH takes a circuitous route, its tunnels cross the river south of Hoboken and turn north.

oknazevad, I think I remember at least one The Tunnel thread had at least one post that said Hoboken yard is full but

Idiot Railfan wrote: There is spare capacity in Hoboken these days. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.

Whom should we believe, idiot railfan or the posts that say there's no more capacity?

jimzim66 wrote:Watch out, this isnt NJT related, so Otto is going to lock it like he did the other thread!

A fair warning! Since the 7 train is an NYCTA operation, this thread has been moved to the correct forum.

See http://railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=76884

PATH itself doesn't have a deep cavern station even though they're close to the river. When I was very young it mystified me until I looked at their maps and saw that PATH takes a circuitous route, its tunnels cross the river south of Hoboken and turn north.

That's because it doesn't go under the river from Hoboken, it goes South to Jersey City before crossing under the Hudson at a deeper depth. To keep a 7 train station shallow at Hoboken terminal it would have to Head North under Washington or Hudson streets from Hoboken terminal before turning under the Hudson somewhere near 14th street.

More trains go into Hoboken in the AM than go out during the day during off peak times. They hang out in Hoboken so they are there for the PM rush. Trains sit in the in the deopt mainly because there is no room out in the yard to keep them. There might be some open tracks in the yard, but that doesn't mean that the trains thta are in the depot could fit on them. (for example, the 7 car Comet 1 set always sat in the depot) Trains have to be sent over to the fuel pad and serviced, so there is a train over there too.

The Hudson Line is VERY busy during the day with moves in and out of the MMC mostly RVL trains. Any kind of increase in service to Hoboken would require the not built westbound waterfront connection to be built,which has some interference with the westbound PATH trains.

Also, West End interlocking is very slow, which can realy slow things down a little bit.

Hoboken would be a great location for a station for the 7 train and would be great for RVL trians to be extended to, but its a tall order.

As much as this is a MTA project, there are some major NJT/NJ issues with this in capacity constrants and service patterns/changes, among other things, and it sure seems to me that there should be a disucssion going on over there as well with this project, instead of clogging up the MTA subway forum with NJT/NJ issues............