Electrification around NYC

RandallW wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2024 7:43 pm The Infrastructure Asset Line Appendix to Amtrak's 2024-2029 5 year plan lists 37.6 miles of third rail electrification owned by Amtrak, but also seems to suggest they don't own any of the power distribution to it.

That is quite a bit even adding in the 3 various tunnel mileage it does not come up to that figure. Unless mistaken isn't track 1 - 4 not have 3rd rai installed?

That would make sense, actually. They would own the third rail adjacent to their track, but wouldn't need to own the systems supplying power they're not using.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2024 1:10 pm That would make sense, actually. They would own the third rail adjacent to their track, but wouldn't need to own the systems supplying power they're not using.

The only power Amtrak would be using is the 3rd rail for Albany dual mode locos.

IMO just leave the 3rd rail situation alone. Each system is very imbedded and any conversion would be counter productive. The use of battery in the NY City area has many problems. One problem is using any battery that is Lithium based is a fire hazard. Let us remember the EVs that got exposed to salt water and caught fire because of Helene. Even salt mist is dangerous or just plain water.

Now about CAT.
1. MBTA is going to install 60 hZ CAT sooner or later. Their units will not be able to enter the PRR type 25 hZ,
2. Amtrak is probably going to install 60 hZ CAT on the west side line. It would never consider 3rd rail there.
3. NJ Transit already has some routes that are 60 hZ. AFAIK all their EMUs and locos have a 25 / 60 hZ transformer. However, there are some that cannot change on the fly from the NJT 25 kV power to 12 kV.
4. The MN RR EMUs that use CAT are all 60 hZ only. It has been reported that a 25 / 60 hZ transformer is too heavy in them to operate on the Park Ave viaduct. No indication if the viaduct rehab will remove that restriction.
5, There may be other commuter lines in the future that will use 60 hZ connecting to the NEC.
6. Once HSR starts being installed all the CAT will be 60 hZ, Some HSR trains will need to go last miles onto the NEC.

What if there is some kind of incident that requires 60 hZ equipment to be needed on the NEC? Certainly any 60 hZ only equipment would not be useable.
Now are all new USA train routes going to need 25 / 60 hZ ? That really seems a waste of weight, time, and money. It would seem better if Amtrak starts a slow conversion of approaches to NY City to 60 hZ. Especially around NY City and WASH and maybe PHL.

I think Amtrak would have gone with third rail APVs if didn't want out of some arrangement related to using power off the third rail in NYP.

west point wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 11:12 pm What if there is some kind of incident that requires 60 hZ equipment to be needed on the NEC? Certainly any 60 hZ only equipment would not be useable.
Now are all new USA train routes going to need 25 / 60 hZ ? That really seems a waste of weight, time, and money. It would seem better if Amtrak starts a slow conversion of approaches to NY City to 60 hZ. Especially around NY City and WASH and maybe PHL.

The question I have right now is, can all equipment use 60 Hz AC power? That includes MARC HHP-8's and SEPTA's EMU fleet. Because there's cost benefits to going 60 Hz (eliminating conversion equipment and that maintenance). If the commuter rail can do it, just move the whole mess to 60 Hz and put to rest 25 Hz.

west point wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 11:12 pm Now about CAT.
1. MBTA is going to install 60 hZ CAT sooner or later. Their units will not be able to enter the PRR type 25 hZ,
2. Amtrak is probably going to install 60 hZ CAT on the west side line. It would never consider 3rd rail there.
3. NJ Transit already has some routes that are 60 hZ. AFAIK all their EMUs and locos have a 25 / 60 hZ transformer. However, there are some that cannot change on the fly from the NJT 25 kV power to 12 kV.
4. The MN RR EMUs that use CAT are all 60 hZ only. It has been reported that a 25 / 60 hZ transformer is too heavy in them to operate on the Park Ave viaduct. No indication if the viaduct rehab will remove that restriction.
5, There may be other commuter lines in the future that will use 60 hZ connecting to the NEC.
6. Once HSR starts being installed all the CAT will be 60 hZ, Some HSR trains will need to go last miles onto the NEC.

What if there is some kind of incident that requires 60 hZ equipment to be needed on the NEC? Certainly any 60 hZ only equipment would not be useable.
Now are all new USA train routes going to need 25 / 60 hZ ? That really seems a waste of weight, time, and money. It would seem better if Amtrak starts a slow conversion of approaches to NY City to 60 hZ. Especially around NY City and WASH and maybe PHL.

3. Only "original" PRR is 12KV/25Hz, so the NEC only, plus PRR-CNJ coast line from Rahway to South Amboy, later extended a few miles to east of Aberdeen-Matawan. The Arrow IIIs are the last ones unable to change voltage on the move. That's why you typically find them on Gladstone or NEC service (and part of the coast line) since those services only (or typically) terminate/originate at Hoboken and New York, respectively. Put another way, Arrow IIIs can't cross at Swift/Hudson (Kearny Connection and Waterfront Connection) and can't cross the area between Aberdeen-Matawan and Hazlet.

4. 25Hz transformers require greater weight for the same capabilities as a 60Hz transformer, so that's correct. I've never heard of the Park Ave viaduct being the specific issue but it's possible. I think shoving even larger transformers in these multiple units that are also equipped for DC third rail is impossible. I don't think voltage is otherwise a problem because transforming from a lower primary voltage would just require you to use a smaller section of either the primary or secondary side.
This is actually one of the problems where frequency is a huge issue.

SEPTA Silverliner IVs only handle 12kV 25Hz. Silverliner Vs are dual voltage and dual frequency. When the holdouts like the Arrow IIIs are gone (or somehow changed) we can then talk about converting to 60Hz. I emphasize that only MNRR is the big issue here because of its DC 3rd rail and apparent restrictions on the Park Ave viaduct. Of course, many parts of the 25Hz system like Delaware - DC only run compatible equipment and are "ready" for conversion.

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:08 am I think Amtrak would have gone with third rail APVs if didn't want out of some arrangement related to using power off the third rail in NYP.

I really don't think that Amtrak think about the 3rd rail. They have catenary @nyp. I really don't see a reason that Amtrak should buy an Battery-Diesel/Electric Airo except when Amtrak want to use the batteries to supply extra power when an train is starting, for reduced fuel comsuption. For al other case they should buy the Electric-Diesel/Electric variant.

SRich wrote: ↑Thu Oct 10, 2024 3:31 pm

RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Oct 06, 2024 5:08 am I think Amtrak would have gone with third rail APVs if didn't want out of some arrangement related to using power off the third rail in NYP.

I really don't think that Amtrak think about the 3rd rail. They have catenary @nyp. I really don't see a reason that Amtrak should buy an Battery-Diesel/Electric Airo except when Amtrak want to use the batteries to supply extra power when an train is starting, for reduced fuel comsuption. For al other case they should buy the Electric-Diesel/Electric variant.

Amtrak currently has 17 locomotives that use 3rd rail power in and around NYP and the east river tunnels to meet local pollution regulations that are being replaced with the battery electric locomotives. They do think about the 3rd rail and decided not to use it (otherwise I think they would have bought Airo coach sets and the MNR Charger variant which is 3rd rail capable).

west point wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 10:21 pm 3rd rail seems to have limitations that cannot be readily overcome.
1. MNRR limits dual mode locos to 60 MPH when running off 3rd rail. Could that be to limit current draw on the 2 pickups?? Have no idea. EMUs spread out the current draw as they have much lower max current draw.

Yup. EMUs are the answer.

2. Are engineers limited to amount of throttle on dual mode they can use in E mode? That if true would make for slower acceleration.

LIRR trains basically run at half power/acceleration, accelerating at 1.5m/s/s instead of 3m/s/s since the substations can't handle the M-7/9 cars at full power. MN limits trains north of NWP to 6 cars due to lack of power, not sure what acceleration rate they use. This is a pretty simple fix that no one wants to pay for, more and/or larger substations.

3. Is it true that present locos cannot regenerate when in E mode?

Probably. The current substations cannot invert the power back into AC to feed back to the grid. This theoretically wouldn't be hard, but to retrofit the whole system would probably cost a fortune.

4. Overhead CAT at 12.5 kV has no current draw limitations as it is the high voltage that reduce current draw.

It has current draw limitations, the current in fact is likely lower than 3rd rail, but due to the higher voltage, you still have way more power.

12. how much more weight of 25 / 60 transformers are in each piece of equipment? What is the additional ROW and track maintenance that is caused by additional weight.?

Not that much, but it's enough to make the M-8's too heavy for the Park Ave Viaduct if they had been equipped with 25hz transformers.

The 25 NEC may have been one factor of CA HSR and Amtrak going separate ways for rolling stock.

There's a MUCH larger issue with bespoke equipment than 25hz. The larger transformer probably has a negligible impact on design, and agencies that don't need it could just order the same car with a smaller transformer for 60hz only.

I'm not convinced that converting from 25hz to 60hz has that big of an impact on anything. I think the capital cost would be much better spent on about 100 other projects. The 25hz railroads also have ACSES II instead of I-ETMS, and while virtually every railroad in the rest of the country is cleared to at a bare minimum 16'2", many of the 25hz railroads are 15'6" or less. So the NEC stuff is all sort of bespoke anyway, and adding 25hz transformers to it is a relatively negligible cost in the whole scheme of things.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 7:52 amBenefit: you'd be able to have a single-MU fleet that could run anywhere with a single-type shoe.

The M-8 fleet has double-sided shoes and will be using both types of 3rd rail, potentially in the same day when PSA opens, so it's sort of a nothingburger.

west point wrote: ↑Sat Oct 05, 2024 11:12 pm 1. MBTA is going to install 60 hZ CAT sooner or later. Their units will not be able to enter the PRR type 25 hZ,

Depends if they have 25hz transformers or not.

However, there are some that cannot change on the fly from the NJT 25 kV power to 12 kV.

Old EMUs. All the newer stuff like the ALP's can convert on the fly.

4. The MN RR EMUs that use CAT are all 60 hZ only. It has been reported that a 25 / 60 hZ transformer is too heavy in them to operate on the Park Ave viaduct. No indication if the viaduct rehab will remove that restriction.

That was correct. With the revised FRA crash standards, I would suspect that a clean-sheet M-10 design could probably have a 25hz transformer due to not needing to be quite so absurdly overbuilt like the M-8 cars that meet the old crash standards that are based on running into a coal train at track speed (or something like that).

I've long thought about electrification around NYC. I will mention a few other projects, since they impact electrification, but focusing on electrification East-of-Hudson, the following is what makes sense:

1. Electrify New Haven to Springfield 25kV/60. It's right on the line for electrification, but MN and SLE are, so it makes sense. I'm kind of torn about doing Springfield-Worcester. It's WAY below the threshold where electrification makes sense, but it would allow for an all-electric inland corridor route.

2. Electrify the Danbury to a service extension at New Milford.

3. Upgrade the Harlem Line infrastructure for full 12-car trains to Southeast with full acceleration. Keep 3rd rail.

4. Convert the Hudson Line to 25kV/60 overhead with the 3rd rail switch located at Highbridge, which allows for Harlem Line EMUs to get to Yankees/E153rd, and continue AC electrification to Poughkeepsie on MN and Albany on Amtrak. It doesn't look too hard to do if the 19'0" autorack clearance could be abandoned up to Albany and dropped to Plate F, but it would be even easier if the Cross-Harbor freight tunnel were in with at least Plate F, if not Plate J or Plate H clearance first, so that the Harlem Line would no longer be needed for freight except for HAZMAT that can't go through the tunnel, and the clearances could be abandoned down to Plate C, which is more than adequate for tank cars with HAZMAT. This would also provide an overhead AC connection through the Empire Connection to NYP and up to Albany for Amtrak.

5. Fully electrify and upgrade LIC as part of an upgrade and rebalancing of LIRR traffic.

6. Upgrade existing LIRR substations for full 3m/s/s acceleration of M-7 and M-9 12-car sets throughout the system.

7. Extend LIRR electrification to Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, and Patchogue, as well as restoring the Central Branch, Hempstead loop, and Rockaway Beach Branch, all with standard LIRR 3rd rail. The LIRR can't get away from 3rd rail, so they may as well embrace it everywhere and keep the single standard fleet. Beyond Ronkonkoma and Patchogue, DMUs or HMUs should be utilized to offer more frequent service. A few diesel trains could provide summer Cannonball-like service out of LIC/Jamaica without having to maintain a dual-mode fleet at all.

8. As part of the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel project, build the TriboroRX with 25kV/60 at Plate H clearance, and have 2/3 of the trains turn back at 31st Ave with 1/3 continuing up the Hell Gate under 12.5kV/60 power to an elevated branch to serve Co-Op City. Operate it as a MN branch with railroad-like service and a unified ticket price for all railroads within city limits. As part of the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, take the 4th track for PSA/TriBoroRX from CSX at Oak Point, being a fully 4-tracked railroad from where the Bay Ridge joints the New York Hell Gate Line until Co-Op City.

TriBoroRX and the PSA should use standardized AC EMUs that could also be shared with NJT for through-running via NYP. PSA is about 1/3 the traffic that NJT runs in, but it's better than nothing. LIRR through-running is too technically difficult and costly, as while technically feasible, a far more expensive AC/DC EMU wouldn't fit into GCM due to the lower tunnel clearances (~13'), so it would effectively fork the fleet. Although pure AC EMUs do fork MN's fleet to an extent, having AC EMUs for NYP thru-running, SLE, Springfield, and TriBoroRX would be worthwhile.

I'm not as familiar with NJT's system, but any lines with direct service to NYP should be electrified.

Things get even more interesting when you look at freight rail electrification.

The NY Cross-Harbor Tunnel would allow for electrified freight from Oak Island to Cedar Hill and Hartford, as well as Davisville. The largest demand would be for shuttling traffic from Oak Island over to the NY&A at Fresh Pond, where it would continue on under diesel power, since third rail is not adequate for modern freight use.

When you zoom out, though, it gets even more interesting. The main East-West CSX intermodal route is Chicago-Albany-North Jersey, which should be electrified at Plate H as an Iron Interstate. Norfolk Southern's main East-West route from Harrisburg to Chicago should also be electrified, and the connections between the NYC (now CSX to the east and NS to the west) mains in Cleveland, as well as PRR to the east (NS) and B&O to the west (CSX) would be relatively easy.

So back to the NEC. The NJT Raritan Valley Line needs a proper connection with a flyover to the NEC, and it would be an easy target for electrification along with the CSAO Lehigh Line in order to electrify at Plate H clearance the NS route from Harrisburg to North Jersey via the Reading. NS would also need electrification at Plate H to Morrisville via Norristown. This creates a bit of a problem, as the route briefly crosses over the SEPTA Morristown Line, which is 25hz Reading electrification and likely not capable of handling electrified freight. So if this short section to the end of the Morrisville Line were converted over to the 25hz PRR system, with the entire PRR freight cutoff from Glen to Norristown (at sub-Plate H) and Norristown to Morrisville (at Plate H), it would work. The NS Port Road should also be re-electrified to reach Baltimore with electrics.

For passenger service, an inland route between West Trenton and the Raritan Valley Line should be electrified at 25kV/60. Part of this route is shared with CSX, and would require Plate H clearances (more on CSX in a moment). It looks like Amtrak equipment that clears North River would clear Suburban Station, so that would provide another potential Amtrak route that rejoins the NEC at HUNTER (which as mentioned above needs a flyover to be a proper junction).

So this leaves CSX. It's clear that CSX should be electrified at 25kV/60 with Plate H clearance from the north into North Jersey, and the Cross Harbor Freight Tunnel would get CSX or CSAO at least Plate F up to Oak Point Yard including the interchange at Fresh Pond, and Plate C to Cedar Hill, Davisville, Hartford, and onward via diesel to West Springfield and Worcester.

This opens up a really interesting possibility. With no 3rd rail and Plate C clearance, it is possible to operate COFC, but TOFC is too tall at 17'0" or 17'3" depending on who you ask. The solution is TOWC, or Trailer On Well Car, which gets you a height of about 14'8", allowing for both trailers and containers within Plate C clearance.

CSX's network roughly forms a triangle from JAX to Chicago to North Jersey/Albany. FEC has a ton of traffic in South Florida, so it makes sense to electrify that up to JAX. CSX should electrify from JAX to Chicago via the western leg of the triangle, and their main East-West route from North Jersey to Selkirk and Chicago (as mentioned above). The eastern leg of the triangle should be electrified from JAX to DC. Interestingly, there isn't actually a lot of tonnage moved on CSX north of DC to NJ, but there is a lot of demand for North-South intermodal.

CSX's B&O line is a clearance nightmare and they are just getting it cleared to Plate H, including the Howard Street Tunnel to get Plate H access from the B&O main via Cumberland and this route likely doesn't have enough traffic to warrant electrification. The B&O from DC to North Jersey would be prohibitively expensive to electrify at Plate H clearance.

As part of this national freight rail electrification, the railroads are going to need to do some trading/purchasing/dealing of trackage rights, and the most efficient way, by far, to get an electrified North-South intermodal route for CSX would be to lease/sub-let overhead trackage rights from NS/Amtrak on the NEC. They already have the ex-PRR southern connection from Pot Yard in DC, and they could run right up the NEC, over a re-electrified Shellpot Secondary to avoid Wilmington to Philadelphia and North Jersey, connect to Oak Island, and then continue to points north all under electrification using COFC and TOWC that would also be capable of going to Connecticut and Rhode Island under Plate C restrictions.

Adding only a few more miles of electrification, it would likely be possible to connect CSX in Philadelphia to the West Trenton route and back to the CSAO Lehigh Line, allowing them to avoid the busiest part of the NEC while still having an electrified route that doesn't screw up their Plate H clearances in Baltimore for Midwest traffic.

CSX's B&O line would still handle HAZMAT to keep it off of the NEC, local traffic, double stacks from the Midwest via Cumberland, and other traffic, with the North-South intermodal traffic shifted to the NEC. Likely as part of the deal, NS would also get to access the same right via CSX in Virginia and DC, so that both could serve the northeastern markets along the way. Buying overhead rights from G&W/P&W would allow for a direct connection to Davisville, RI.

As for local freight service, electrified interchange tracks at Fresh Pond on the Bay Ridge and in Metuchen would allow those transfer jobs to run electric as well.

So finally, to get back to NJT, I don't know the system as well, but it is an overhead AC electrified system, so third rail is not part of the discussion, making things a lot simpler. Any significant amount of new electrification would logically be 25kV/60.

Let's just ignore (mostly) the Atlantic City Line. That's more like a DMU/HMU kind of line with increased service out of 30th street, and may be slot limited at 30th street at some point.

The River LINE should just be electrified already, but that's temporally separated light rail. Seems like a cut corner there, but that has nothing to do with FRA heavy rail electrification.

NJT needs to build full connectivity between it's lines, with the loop to get from the main line to the NEC, and the other half of the Waterfront Connection so that additional service can be added and rebalanced.

I've covered the Raritan Valley Line a bunch since it affect freight rail electrification, and is also probably the most interesting NJT line as a result. Most of the service ends at Raritan. It needs a proper Hunter Connection (mentioned above) and a double-track CP Aldene. It should be electrified out to Raritan with increased service and then a DMU shuttle Raritan with more frequent service to the end of the line.

I don't see a great argument for NOT electrifying all the way out to Hackettstown so that you have a pure electric route into NYC.

There's not much of a compelling argument for electrifying past Bay Head on the NJCL. This is another case where more frequent DMU/HMU service makes the most sense as a shuttle.

So that leaves the Main, Bergen, and Pascack Valley Lines, which should all be electrified including MN WoH to Spring Valley. However, the Port Jervis Line is part of the Main Line, and that is clearly not a good candidate for electrification. Under the current setup, it could just run diesel under the wire to Hoboken, or better yet, once the ALP-45DPs are freed up by other electrification projects, they could be used there.

Another project that would be hugely beneficial would be an I-287 corridor railroad from Suffern to Port Chester on/over I-287. Everyone gets hung up on the physical connection at the Hudson Line, when in reality it makes MUCH more sense to connect to the Harlem Line at White Plains. These trains would be 25kV/60 and be able to switch to 3rd rail to run down the Harlem or 12.5kV/60 to go to Stamford, i.e. they would be the same M-10 cars for the New Haven Line and the Hudson Line.

Given the rail link directly to NYC from Suffern, it may make sense to turn the Port Jervis train into its own service that connects to either the NJT Main Line with loop service to NYP or to the I-287 train with service to GCT.

And all that, folks, is why railroads around NYC are so fascinating.

What is needed is multi ways to access Manhattan, LIRR has it from the east. NJT, PATH, & Amtrak provides from across the Hudson. However, from the north and NE it is very limited to only one path from origination points. Hell Gate for MNRR will be somewhat an exception in the future however needs special 3rd rail shoes and is acceleration limited.

Now what is needed is the West side tracks be all 2 main tracks with 12.5kV/60hZ to past Spuyten, Spuyten swing bridge replaced with a fixed flyover. Restore the SE WYE leg at Spuyten with 12.5/60 over head to the present end of the CAT from New Haven. Add CAT from that line from Spuyten to connect to the Hell Gate line. So, in the case of a failure of either Park Avenue, Hell Gate line, or West side lines some service can still be maintained into Manhattan NYP or NYG that otherwise would terminate service on the affected line.

This proposal to be completely effective calls for SSY, NYP, and tunnels to NJ to convert to 12.5/60. For regular service that way MNRR could run M-8 type equipment as thru service from Hell Gate / New Haven to POU. There would be no reason for MNRR to worry about third rail shoes around NYP. Yes, the limited number of trains would be very crowded but at least no route would be without service, Harlem Line trains could add wyes to connect to line from Spuyten if using M-8 type equipment. This will give alternate access for riders from the north and NE.

A thought, if Amtrak could find enough riders a New Haven - NYP - Albany train would be possible even now with Airo train sets.