Did NYC ever plan to extend its electrification?

Did NYC ever make plans or do studies about extending its electrification past Harmon? Did it ever consider electrifying freight or through passenger service?

Maybe someone else can verify this but I do remember an article about running catenary from Harmon to Buffalo. I think it was in the Central Headlight but I can't remember if it was real story or a ' what if' story. Hopefully this will jar some memories and someone can help.

I believe I read in the Central Headlight quite some time ago that the
West Shore, or at least the road twixt Weehawken and Albany was
going to be electrified with wood poles and overhead. This was just a
cost study I believe.
I think this was about 1927 but all this is foggy memory.

The 4th Quarter 1982 issue of the NYCSHS Central Headlight had an article on proposed electrification of the NYC. It was prepared by GE in 1945. It covered New York City to Buffalo and included the West Shore between Syracuse and Buffalo.

I guess I don't have total C R S , I did read it in the Central Headlight eons ago :D :D

The New York State Rys, an NYC subsidiary, operated interurban lines in the Rochester - Utica area. Part of the service was over the West Shore tracks between Syracuse and Utica and shows up in Mohawk Division timetables (public and employee). The Detroit to Windsor tunnel was also an NYC electric operation.

With the huge cash investment in powerful new steam locomotives from 1927 onward, I would frankly be astonished if any -serious- NYC electric extension plans were made. Aside from conjectural economic analyses, that is. While other roads were making do with less modern power (*cough*PRR*cough*) for psgr. services the NYC was nearly at the top of its game. Give me a Hudson any day. While the steam freight situation may have been less lopsided, I think that a major electric expansion just wasn't needed on the NYC.

Pls doan forget the CUT operation. Don't think that the NYCRR was considering expansion from DETROIT/CLEVELAND/NEW YORK, but the NIAGARA JCT was an aside back then. Regds LARRY BAGGERLY [BTW-EAMAUN MAULIS kept his RR viable vs obvilian]

At the end of WW II it was clear to most railroad managements that stem was on the way out. Diesel technology was new, and electric technology, though well-established, was still developing. Any large railroad that DIDN'T investigate the pros and cons of different motive power strategies would have been foolish.
New York Central was a pioneer with both diesels and electrification, and had good relations with GE: I believe they commissioned a study by GE. (Sounds a bit dangerous to commission a study by an interested party, but remember that GE was in partnership with ALCO in the diesel business: maybe they were fairly unbiased on the electrification versus dieselization question.)
Somewhere along the line an artist's rendition of a proposed New York Central mainline electric was prepared: it was reproduced at the end of Paul Kiefer's little book "A Practical Evaluation of Railroad Motive Power" (the booklet reporting on the comparison between Niagaras and E-7). The proposed locomotive had 2CC2 running gear (like the Cleveland Union Terminal electrics, and like that other railroad's GG-1: also a GE design) and a carbody with cabs resembling those on an Alco PA, down to the curved drip-strip behind the cab door.

I'm just not comfortable with the NYC under wire. Even if it was 3000v DC.

-otto-

OK, I'll bite.

Why did The Central go with a 3rd rail that people could step on and get electrocuted, rather than with overhead that's relatively out of harms way?

Dieter.

Several early "steam road" electrifications used third rail, as well as subways and elevateds, including NYC, LIRR, PRR to Manhattan Transfer, and B&O in the Baltimore tunnel. What they all had in common was that they didn't have long distance lines and had relatively few level crossings where safety would be a concern. When transmitting electricity long distances, high voltage lines lose less power than low voltage lines. However high voltage transmission lines require more expensive voltage changing equipment at both the power house and at the substations. (Railroads had to generate and transmit their own electricity in those days.) So for short electrified lines it was simpler to use lower voltages and simple substations. Low contact wire voltages in DC electric traction use would be around 600 volts, while high voltages would be 2,000 to 3,000. Transmission line voltages would be higher. (I've never heard of an AC system using low voltages.) Early traction motors were designed for 600 volts so if current was picked up at a higher voltage, transformers would be needed to reduce it. This was not a big concern for locomotives but would have been for early MU cars.

For streetcars with their light weights, short train lengths and modest speeds, sufficient current at 600 volts can be carried in an overhead trolley wire. For heavy mainline use, a trolley wire would not be large enough to carry sufficient current at 600 volts. The only alternatives were to use a thick third rail, or increase the voltage, which would reduce the amount of current to what a trolley wire could carry.

Another consideration was the cost of overhead wires and their supports. These can be quite light for streetcars and interurbans, which are themselves fairly light and generally not too fast. For heavy trains at high speed a more substantial catenary structure was necessary both to absorb the stresses from the pantographs, and to support more and larger wires needed to carry greater currents.

There was another reason why longer distance lines would not want to use third rail, apart fro the cost and complexity of machinery to reduce the necessary high transmission voltage to around 600 volts as mentioned above. The other would be the danger of people, animals and fallen trees contacting the third rail in uncontrolled rural areas, together with the cost of constantly patrolling and clearing away debris that could foul the third rail.

If a railroad was going to run a comparatively long distance it would pretty much have to choose catenary. Having done so, it could choose AC or DC. That’s why the NYC chose third rail and New Haven chose AC overhead wires.

This explanation may have missed or misinterpreted some of the physics and electrical engineering involved, but I think it explains the basics.

A feature of the NYC third rail system is the fact that locomotive or mu collector shoes run under the rail, not over it, with the shoe sprung in the opposite direction from a conventional overrunning system. This was no doubt a boon to those working around the track since they could step on the support structure without fear of electrocution.

Third rail did not entirely eliminate the need for overhead contact, however. A limitation of third rail is that it cannot be run through a crossover. For an mu set, this would not be a problem since there would be sufficient length in the train to assure that there would always be a point of contact between the rail and a collector shoe. On the other hand, locomotives would tend to lose contact through a crossover. The solution was to provide overhead, electrified contact plates which would cover the gap in the third rail. Electric locomotives were equipped with small, pantograph-like shoes on top which would make contact, thus maintaining power to their motors.

IIRC, the New York City subways also use underrunning third rail, as does the TTC subway system here in Toronto. I think the Chicago els and subways are overrunning.

cheers,
Ori
VA3ORI

The New York Central (and its Michigan Central tunnel operation) used underrunning third rail. The Long Island, Pennsylvania, Staten Island Rapit Transit and New York City Transit Authority all use/used overrunning third rail. Both Chicago and New York elvated railways and the Chicago, Aurora & Elgin, however, use overrunning third rail with drop shoes, not sprung shoes, hence theirs had no wood covering (just an exposed rail). The Baltimore & Ohio used an overrunning third rail of a different kind.

For your information, SEPTA Market-Frankfurt line and the Vienna, Austria subway use the same under running third rail as the NYC (now Metro-North) used. The remaining Philadelphia lines use the over running third rail as is used on the NYC subway and LIRR