Railroad Forums 

  • Connection between ESA and diesel country

  • Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.
Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

 #1563341  by Kelly&Kelly
 
There are plenty of Facebook sites for folks who complain to each other about the Long Island Rail Road and its employees. This site tends to be more technically oriented, so the OP may not find the commiserating here that would espouse elsewhere.

To answer the OPs question, transfers from diesel trains to electric trains into ESA will be the same as it is today when transferring to Penn Station electric trains. Depending on schedules and preferences, you will change trains at Jamaica, Huntington, Hicksville or Mineola.

I believe the 3,600 Port Jefferson diesel passengers and 3,360 Montauk diesel passengers did not warrant a design and construction expenses to permit dual mode operation into ESA, along with the 40 diesel passengers on the Main Line. Today, those numbers total less than 450 people.

Contrary to the belief of many buffs and commuters, some cost/benefit analyses come into play when planning billion dollar improvements.

In the big scheme of things, an economical decision could be to up your game and move to Port Washington. Or you might consider joining the same employees who gave you those silly answers in 1996 -- in retirement.
 #1563349  by Head-end View
 
Photobug56: Back to the 63rd St. tunnels/ESA for a minute here. When that tunnel was being designed in the 1960's, LIRR's "long-range" future as everyone understood it (at that time) was the new M-1 fleet that was going to revolutionize the antiquated LIRR. That was the spec. that LIRR's tunnel was designed for. The idea of using bi-level cars didn't come until the 1990's.
 #1563373  by photobug56
 
Kelly&Kelly wrote: Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:43 pm There are plenty of Facebook sites for folks who complain to each other about the Long Island Rail Road and its employees. This site tends to be more technically oriented, so the OP may not find the commiserating here that would espouse elsewhere.

To answer the OPs question, transfers from diesel trains to electric trains into ESA will be the same as it is today when transferring to Penn Station electric trains. Depending on schedules and preferences, you will change trains at Jamaica, Huntington, Hicksville or Mineola.

I believe the 3,600 Port Jefferson diesel passengers and 3,360 Montauk diesel passengers did not warrant a design and construction expenses to permit dual mode operation into ESA, along with the 40 diesel passengers on the Main Line. Today, those numbers total less than 450 people.

Contrary to the belief of many buffs and commuters, some cost/benefit analyses come into play when planning billion dollar improvements.

In the big scheme of things, an economical decision could be to up your game and move to Port Washington. Or you might consider joining the same employees who gave you those silly answers in 1996 -- in retirement.
Where do I begin? Passengers on the PJ line who wish to go to and from Penn have, except on direct trains, long, slow commutes. For my station, direct in the morning on a good day is about 60 minutes for the 40 or so miles, though the trains are nearly always late at my station and then Penn. In the evening, same distance direct is about 70 minutes. But if I miss the 2 pre rush hour direct trains, I can expect 90 or more minutes for the same 40 or so miles.

As to GCT, we have no way of knowing where, other than Jamaica, the transfer points will be because LIRR won't say.. I'm assuming Jamaica, because that involves the fewest schedule changes, but again, we don't know how diesel to GCT transfers will be done. For that matter, we don't know how diesel Penn changes will be made - assumptions don't cut it.

As to getting diesels into GCT, why not? MN long has, why not LIRR? Sure, we do have the obvious problems of the C3 cars being a few inches too tall for the under the river tunnels built decades ago, apparently (as noted) designed for M1 cars. But LIRR and MN are designing new double D cars now, and nothing is stopping them from designing ones that fit into the ESA tunnel system, or at least give it a good try. If they succeed, that could greatly increase LIRR flexibility for future operations. Diesel passengers have long been treated as 2nd class citizens - and there is no excuse for that.

Hmm - I should move to Port Washington? Are you planning to pay for my move, the extra taxes, the cost of a decent size house?
 #1563377  by MattW
 
There's also no reason not to just order single-level coaches. M9 body shell on un-powered trucks? Siemens Venture? Considering most of the system is single-level EMUs, it's not like you're losing a lot of capacity, and the diesel lines are lower capacity anyways. Then you have the issue of the locomotive sure, but why not bid an ESA-compliant dual mode locomotive? Of course the ideal answer would be a dual mode M9/10/11/infinity.
 #1563383  by Kelly&Kelly
 
In reply to the OP's second post.

You will be changing trains at Jamaica. Your Port Jefferson train will connect with an MU at Jamaica. That is not an assumption. You will likely arrive on Track 1, your MU will be on Tracks 2 or 3. But you knew that.

The LIRR's ESA , as you also know, is into dedicated platforms being constructed under GCT. New diesels and dual mode engines can be designed and purchased that would fit in these tunnels and station. As it stands, the MTA determined that to be unnecessary, as the minimal diesel use is less than four percent of ridership and no benefit exists to justify the added expense. Yes, diesel passengers have received less attention and investment than MU passengers. That has been policy for many decades. The Agency's notion is that a change at Jamaica is a reasonable accommodation.

I won't buy you a home elsewhere. I'm retired and assume you'll continue to support the LIRR, funding my pension whether changing at Jamaica or not; a cost/benefit decision on my part. You can write to the MTA or Secretary Buttiguig with your concerns. They are the only ones in a position to tax the public $250,000,000 for a new fleet so you don't have to change at Jamaica, or buy you another house, or provide a limo.

I understand your frustration, but capital costs must be justified and often economic decisions made that support the taxpayer over customer convenience.
 #1563386  by photobug56
 
MattW wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:38 am There's also no reason not to just order single-level coaches. M9 body shell on un-powered trucks? Siemens Venture? Considering most of the system is single-level EMUs, it's not like you're losing a lot of capacity, and the diesel lines are lower capacity anyways. Then you have the issue of the locomotive sure, but why not bid an ESA-compliant dual mode locomotive? Of course the ideal answer would be a dual mode M9/10/11/infinity.
My preference is to have double decker coaches hauled by electric and / or dual mode locomotives from a reliable manufacturer, no homegrown SuperSteel creations, units also utilized by MN and / or Amtrak potentially in somewhat different configurations. That way cars are not specific to diesel or 3rd rail (or pantograph) territory. This would be a lot like what I see of NJT in Penn or at Sunnyside.

BTW, consider that with much more reliable equipment, eventual dual tracking and electrification, 'diesel' country could become far more passenger dense over time. Better speed would be needed - for instance, an evening east bound run of 40 miles should never take 90 minutes or more. The 3rd track project could be of immense help, and as annoying and obnoxious as the Brooklyn shuttles are to their passengers from out east, that could speed trains through Jamaica, the biggest time killer. Diverting some trains to GCT may also take some pressure off LIRR Penn capacity. If LIRR ever gets decent 'transit times' to/from certain points farther east, ridership could go way up.
 #1563402  by photobug56
 
Kelly&Kelly wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:08 am In reply to the OP's second post.

You will be changing trains at Jamaica. Your Port Jefferson train will connect with an MU at Jamaica. That is not an assumption. You will likely arrive on Track 1, your MU will be on Tracks 2 or 3. But you knew that.

The LIRR's ESA , as you also know, is into dedicated platforms being constructed under GCT. New diesels and dual mode engines can be designed and purchased that would fit in these tunnels and station. As it stands, the MTA determined that to be unnecessary, as the minimal diesel use is less than four percent of ridership and no benefit exists to justify the added expense. Yes, diesel passengers have received less attention and investment than MU passengers. That has been policy for many decades. The Agency's notion is that a change at Jamaica is a reasonable accommodation.

I won't buy you a home elsewhere. I'm retired and assume you'll continue to support the LIRR, funding my pension whether changing at Jamaica or not; a cost/benefit decision on my part. You can write to the MTA or Secretary Buttiguig with your concerns. They are the only ones in a position to tax the public $250,000,000 for a new fleet so you don't have to change at Jamaica, or buy you another house, or provide a limo.

I understand your frustration, but capital costs must be justified and often economic decisions made that support the taxpayer over customer convenience.
You are making a lot of assumptions about future LIRR management behavior, let alone what various funding sources will require. And you are very forgiving of many decades of LIRR incompetence, mediocrity, and treating passengers from farther out east as cast-off, and unimportant. Public policy is not just about highest efficiency, and never has been. Plus, with LIRR, and the many changes in priorities that happen when a given boss leaves and is replaced, you cannot know for sure how they will handle certain issues. In fact, applying logic to LIRR makes little sense, let alone thinking truth is real. Schedules that have a certain amount of BS built in, for instance. Like trains that never depart the origin point less than 90 seconds late. Or on platform displays of 'lateness' that are often pure fiction (like train is on time according to display yet you are soaking wet in the rain 10 minutes after the train was supposed to DEPART your stop.
 #1563424  by Kelly&Kelly
 
There are plenty of "I hate the LIRR" facebook sites that will welcome derogatory discussion of this nature. You asked a technical question, and were provided a technical response.

Your bashing and criticizing the LIRR and its employees may yield greater commiseration elsewhere.
 #1563434  by photobug56
 
This is not about hating LIRR, but rather getting them to listen to their passengers in general, and specifically to diesel country passengers. Mr. Eng, BTW, lives East of me on the PJ branch, he and I have talked a number of times in a warm, friendly manner, and I often participate in LIRRCC meetings. Before I moved to Long Island I was a Community Board member in Manhattan heavily involved in transportation issues, and one of the first things I learned was to never settle for whatever the current status quo was. And I got a lot accomplished. That you choose to ignore or twist what I'm saying, plus that you are willing to settle for mediocrity is quite sad - and useless. In this particular situation, many thousands who don't know how to express themselves to LIRR / MTA will be affected by the decisions made in the coming months, and it is most appropriate to talk about all of this in such an open forum. I'm trying to intelligently discuss the issues to see what makes sense before LIRR makes decisions that are locked in for decades.
 #1563460  by njtmnrrbuff
 
Even if the Pt. Jefferson Line east of Huntington gets any sort of augmentation in service, even if its just shuttle trains, that's something which is better than nothing. Even if you still have to do the change at Jamaica whether you like it or not, I think that it will just be a matter of walking across the platform from your NYC Penn Station bound train to the one heading to Grand Central terminal. I don't remember off the bat how many trains will run from all of the electrified endpoints to Grand Central Terminal but what I do know is that weekdays during the rush hours will feature electric trains heading to both NYP and GCT. During off peak hours and weekends, I think that the trains that presently run on the Far Rock Branch and Hempstead Branch will run to Grand Central Terminal instead of going to Atlantic Ave. Yes during the off peak hour and on weekends, there will probably be two seat transfers for people boarding or heading to any station in diesel territory from Grand Central. Remember that Grand Central and the LIRR wing of Penn Station aren't all that far from each other so a passenger who might live in Kings Park or Patchogue and is heading to 5th Ave near 34th Street will probably still end up traveling to Penn Station. I know that when East Side Access starts up and I am heading to any LIRR station in dieseland along the Pt. Jefferson and Montauk Line during off peak hours and on weekends, then I will likely still pick up LIRR at NYP. I live in Montclair, NJ presently and will be living in that vicinity for a long time and coming from there to Penn Station doesn't require me to have to take any subways or even walk several blocks.
 #1563464  by Head-end View
 
Photobug56, why do you consider a cross-platform transfer to be such an insult? Passengers on all branches of the LIRR have been doing that at Jamaica for a hundred years. Even those who ride the Far Rockaway Branch from the affluent Five-Towns area and the Hempstead Branch from affluent Garden City usually have to change-at-Jamaica for a Penn Sta. train. So why is it such an inconvenience for you in particular?
 #1563468  by photobug56
 
If I'm commuting to a point that is a 2 block walk to Penn, and the hours work, I take the morning early rush hour direct to Penn arriving about 7:24 (the usual 3 to 4 minutes late). But I spent 10 years working just north of Grand Central, and the 20 minutes on a good day getting from Penn to GCT is a true PITA (each way). Part is the hassle, part is having to add in the subway fare, part is the 40 or so minutes wasted daily. Now when I was younger and in good enough shape, I didn't mind going E/B to HPA to catch a train there, hoping of course that the #7 didn't have one of its numerous evening rush hour break downs. Nothing like getting to HPA much later than expected and missing the last connection to PJ, of course. Or getting to HPA in either direction and discovering that you have a couple hundred feed of ice to traverse to make the transfer, or perhaps be up to your knees in slush.

Of course, to save subway fare, if commuting to a point near GCT it would be nice to get there via LIRR. But as I've already said, if the connection between the GCT train and the diesel is not time matched, and is up and over (as I experienced many times over the years) and ends up taking 20 odd minutes because there isn't enough time or something's broken, that makes for a very painful transfer. What I'm asking is for LIRR to tell us what they are planning to make the diesel GCT combo viable.

And as noted, not all transfers are at Jamaica. The nightly Hicksville EB transfer is an example, but don't forget that you can easily wait 20 to 30 minutes for the diesel to show up if indeed it does show up. Or xfer at Huntington, where maybe the diesel pulls in after the electric finally pulls out after 1 to 20 minutes. Or, as sometimes happens, the diesel doesn't show up until sometime after someone goes and wakes up the crew in that siding west of the station. Of course, these things seldom happen during good weather. FYI, I've commuted on and off from Huntington or farther for about 20 years total, survived the old diesel rust bucket fleet plus the Bitanic plus the current DE/DM + C3 disaster fleet and its constant breakdowns along with the frequent switch and signal breakdowns.
 #1563469  by photobug56
 
Head-end View wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:31 pm Photobug56, why do you consider a cross-platform transfer to be such an insult? Passengers on all branches of the LIRR have been doing that at Jamaica for a hundred years. Even those who ride the Far Rockaway Branch from the affluent Five-Towns area and the Hempstead Branch from affluent Garden City usually have to change-at-Jamaica for a Penn Sta. train. So why is it such an inconvenience for you in particular?
A cross platform transfer, if setup properly, is fine. 2 not over crowded trains pull in about the same time and exchange about the same number of passengers, there's enough time so you don't have to run for your life to get over and get in and get a seat, that's the way it should be. It's just not what I experienced over the years. Say a 12 car MU with people transferring to a 3 car DE-C3 train that's pulled (going EB) as far east on say track 8 as it can, lots of people from the MU train won't even make the transfer, let alone get a seat. It doesn't help when the conductor keeps the MU right side doors closed until time is just about up to switch.

I expect and prefer cross platform. I just want it done properly. I want conductors to let us know where the train we are transferring to will be, and let us exit soon enough to do so.

Lots of things sound good and normal, and when properly planned and executed, work out well. Not always the case on LIRR.