• Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 2181 posts
  • 1
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 146
  by mmi16
 
Nasadowsk wrote:
EuroStar wrote:Unfortunately this is not going to change no matter how much you or I do not like it. .
Then suck up and deal with the fact that the country doesn't want to pay 15 billion for 4 miles of tunnel?
And we wonder why the Japanese, Chinese and Europeans have nice things and we don't!
  by Tadman
 
Hawaiitiki wrote:
JoeG wrote: For instance, the Lackawanna would run its electric MU trains from Hoboken to Summit. Then part of the train would run to Gladstone and the rest to Dover. The return trains would be re-assembled at Summit. This seemed to me like a great system. Perhaps it is no longer done because of time-consuming FRA rules. I don't know enough to know for sure.
Combination of some now archaic FRA safety checks and the more complicated coupling that goes along with more complicated equipment these days.

That being said, that process takes place on regularily scheduled trains in Europe allday/everyday, on both rapid-transit and suburban services...with more modern equipment than in the US...in the 5 minute range you speak about. Sooo...yea. Have to throw my hands up sometimes.
Maybe we should part this off into a new topic, but did this rule change stem from an actual incident(s) with peer reviewed evidence behind the report or is it another example of the FRA Little Old Ladies Knitting Circle getting worried about a what-if?

(I'd suggest that all gov't offices mandated to have a bottle of Dulco-Lax, might take care of their constipation over everything - how's that for a regulation?)
  by JoeG
 
Tadman said
(I'd suggest that all gov't offices mandated to have a bottle of Dulco-Lax, might take care of their constipation over everything - how's that for a regulation?)
That's a wonderful idea, Tadman! :-D
  by ExCon90
 
As to Tadman's comment above about the knitting circle, I get the impression that the FRA is simply trying to guard against the consequences of the dumbest guy in the world doing the dumbest thing imaginable, with the result that everything is held to that level.
  by ExCon90
 
R36 Combine Coach wrote:
ExCon90 wrote:There would be a lot of freight-train "interference" between Cranford and the east end of the bridge. What I'm really concerned about is the sheer volume of passengers to be handled--it would tax any of the existing ferry terminals. I wonder how many North Jersey passengers and New Yorkers using the Port Jervis and Pascack Valley services would choose the new TZB to Tarrytown on the Hudson Line? Capacity and parking problems there too, of course.
Already RVL operates on Conrail trackage, with freight having priority.
But RVL doesn't need to go through Oak Island.
  by east point
 
All these ideas are important and if Congress has it way about the need for a standby plan is one or both tunnels bores fail hopefully they will all be considered and maybe even some lead work done that can be applied for other services? There is always the possibility tat the GW bridge or the Lincoln or Holland tunnels would need to be shut down. We an all imagine that a major fire or unspeakable worse items might shut one of them down for a time.

One item that PATH might be able to do is add high density signaling to its most heavily used route segments. That might allow a 10 - 20% capacity increase ?
  by Tadman
 
ExCon90 wrote:As to Tadman's comment above about the knitting circle, I get the impression that the FRA is simply trying to guard against the consequences of the dumbest guy in the world doing the dumbest thing imaginable, with the result that everything is held to that level.
You know, I get that impression, but it's hard to reconcile. For example, a dumbest guy could easily swing open a Superliner window at speed and hang out like a surfer. A dumbest guy could easily unlatch a sleeper berth and crack themself on the head. A dumbest guy could easily jump off a platform in front of a speeding train. But then you have some other situations where we "have to protect against the dumbest guy".

You're never going to idiot proof a railroad. Forever, passengers and bystanders must apply some semblance of order, direction following, and common sense. There is just no way to idiot proof the railroad. Similar to a water. There is no way to idiot proof water if you can literally drown in an inch of water.

That's why I get so irritated at the FRA Old Ladies Knitting Circle. In order to prove they aren't asleep on the job, they pic one inane problem each year and make a stink about it. No data, no problem, just put the little old lady hat one and start dreaming and worrying.
  by David Benton
 
Sometimes , regulations seem over the top, but when you look at the reasoning behind them, you learn something . I find that with Electrical regs , or more that it exposes holes in my knowledge. Sometimes it is a over the top reaction , but most rules are based on something that has happened. Its more a case of not communicating the reasons behind a reg, and workers not willing to question the reg due to not wanting to seem dumb or incompetent.
In the FRA 's case , it seems to me there is a slowness to look at alternative methods of reaching the same level of safety. But maybe as above, its a case of designers / engineers not asking the question , why can't we do it this way ?
  by ExCon90
 
Yes, almost all railroad rules resulted from a specific incident that would not have happened had the rule been in existence. I've sometimes wondered whether it's standard in rules classes, when teaching a particular rule, to explain what the actual occurrence was which led to adoption of the rule. It could lead to a lot better understanding of why the rule is there.
  by mtuandrew
 
I’m often surprised that the FRA, AAR, and the unions haven’t pushed for a fully-common rule book. I know there are a few that are used widely but not exclusively, and that a few roads (LIRR) have their own entirely - but it seems like an expense and a risk that all roads could agree to reduce and share equally.
  by STrRedWolf
 
Isn't the rulebook tied to the signaling systems used? If I remember correctly, the LIRR doesn't use the same system Amtrak/CSX/etc uses.
  by mtuandrew
 
STrRedWolf wrote:Isn't the rulebook tied to the signaling systems used? If I remember correctly, the LIRR doesn't use the same system Amtrak/CSX/etc uses.
It is - speed signaling vs route signaling, plus the type of dispatch which could be everything from Timetable & Train Order to full Automatic Train Operation. The trick would be in writing a model rulebook that addressed both Speed Signaling and Route Signaling as well as the different types of dispatch, getting all major players to agree to it, then slowly changing the training & physical railroad characteristics to conform to one or the other type of signal. And to do it before Congress does

To real railroaders out there: apologies if I mischaracterized anything and please do correct me.

Mods, sorry this is far removed from Gateway - can you put it somewhere else?
  by EuroStar
 
The Gateway Development Corporation has officially acknowledged that they are looking into the methods envisioned for rehabilitation of the L tunnel of the subway. This happened during the April 2nd board meeting. Here are some details: https://www.crainsnewyork.com/transport ... ad-new-one with a quote:
With key federal funding nowhere in sight for a new $13 billion rail tunnel between New York and New Jersey, project organizers said Tuesday they are taking a hard look at whether to shift focus to performing major electrical repairs to the 108-year-old tube.
It's an approach similar to the one taken by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo with New York City's L subway line connecting Brooklyn and Manhattan, which had been scheduled for a lengthy shutdown this year. In January, the Democrat announced a plan to keep the line open by changing the nature of the repairs to the Canarsie Tunnel, which runs under the East River.
It will be interesting to see if they will reach the same conclusion as the MTA and move ahead with this. The article does make a point that there is a difference between the cables used for the L subway and here. Specifically, the cables for the existing tunnels are much thicker due to the higher voltage necessitating thicker insulation (12kV vs 625V for the subway). The currents are smaller though, so the copper core is smaller, but overall I still expect Amtrak's cables to be more difficult to deal with.
  by WhartonAndNorthern
 
Specifically, the cables for the existing tunnels are much thicker due to the higher voltage necessitating thicker insulation (12kV vs 625V for the subway).
Aside from the catenary itself, how many 12kV circuits are in the tunnels? The PRR standard was a substation every 8 miles with substations feeding one section on each side. Do they mean that the signal cables need thicker insulation to shield against higher voltages?
  by east point
 
The problems with the cables for AMTRAK is: Power is supplied from SSY thru the tunnel for 25 Hz some where near Newark. Now in a pinch Mutchen can provide power to the west portal but for what ever reason that is not preferred, Cannot remember exact figure but believe it is 8 12 Kv cables thru the North river tunnels. Now if each tunnel has that number it would seem that the "L" solution is not feasible. Remember that there is also signal power and operational cables. Then there are telephone, radio communication, fire warning and fire pull cables, fire pump controls and power cables and other cables. Ain't it grand?
  • 1
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 146