Empire Service Electrification? Penn Station NYP - Albany

amtrakowitz wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:Not strictly Amtrak (since they don't own most of it) but NYS has been trying to get a new powerline down to NYC from upstate for awhile now.
The most recent plan I believe still involves burying a cable in the Hudson.

I've suggested it be run along the air-rights above Empire Line... and use this infrastructure to eventually electrify it.

For how many trains? Twelve in each direction per day?

Plus MNRR re-electrification to AC north of Spuyten Duyvil, yes.

But the source of this breakout discussion was the state's studies for bolstering the upstate-downstate power grid with another set of high-tension trunk lines along the Hudson, and where to put them. So this general-purpose grid megaproject if planned proactively may end up placing source power in plug-in distance the whole length of the Hudson Line, making the economies of biting the bullet on complete electrification to Albany considerably more favorable than neutral. The thread presumes the eventual existence of this great big feeder in spitting distance as a necessity in its own right, so if the feeder were designed from Day 1 to facilitate tapping 25 kV power to the adjacent ROW (either from towers along the riverbank or if routed via underwater cable) NYHSR could save a ton of up-front costs by not having to construct new feeders from hodgepodge of power sources elsewhere. Sans those further-flung costs and with a project area now limited to pretty much the ROW-proper, barrier for entry on ALB electrification becomes low enough to plausibly float the north-of-POU traffic levels. Where it arguably wouldn't if the project were saddled with constructing further-flung feeders from other offsite sources.

This thread takes the presumption that this feeder is eventually going to be a thing, and takes the testable theory that its proximity moves the needle on electrification economics into much more favorable territory than the 'neutral' conditions in the max-build NYHSR study. So...we're drilling into discussion on nutsy-boltsy technical topics of on-line 25 kV infrastructure, MNRR rolling stock needs, and timing issues for MTA procurements and cooperation and how those affect cost/benefit and windows of opportunity. As well as the institutional hurdles in seeking out those timing synergies and hitting the optimal windows of opportunity. All of that nutsy-boltsy fodder hangs its hat on that feeder megaproject happening, and serving up its cost-saving synergies with the adjacent ROW. Obviously if the feeder doesn't happen or gets radically re-routed miles further from the river, NYHSR is back at less favorable 'neutral' conditions and there isn't nearly as much testable economy-of-scale theory backing up the rest of the discussion.

Add to that excellent response, that the State's stated goal over the years has been greatly increased service between NYP-ALB.

If I may, the power comes from Niagara Falls? Would it not be easier for National Greed to keep in on the west side of the Hudson to say Kingston where Con-Ed will take into the Metro NYC area via NJ.

As for cat poles and wire I can think of at least two small towns and a few counties where this will be tied up for years quite possibly to the point where the cost out weighs the means. Clearance issues from Terrytown to Castleton are not an issue but I believe there are at least two bridges north of the Castleton cut off( CSX Schodak Sub) that would have to be either under cut or jacked up. Now onto the geological stuff there are numerous spots of close clearance areas with cuts and sections of the river on both sides of the rail. In order to get the proper clearance from the rail there will be a small mountain of rock to be moved. Another law suit for the tree huggers to waste NYS money.

Lastly for you research types look for the study the NYCRR did on hanging wire from Harmon to Buffalo, they didnt do it back then when labor was cheap and NIMBYS had yet to be born. Must have been the $$$, as it is today

bdawe wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:In an age of 125mph passenger diesels, let alone 125mph dual-mode diesels, I can't see overhead electrification happening wholesale on a 125mph-max legacy railroad.

As for third rail, why is it a problem to use a lot of substations? The substations between (let's say) Schenectady and Poughkeepsie don't need to be anywhere near as large or expensive as the grand NYCRR structures of yore, since solid-state converters take far less space than rotary and they don't need to be manned. South of Poughkeepsie, those structures and the supply network already exist anyway; it's just a matter of upgrading the stations and supply network. I think it's worth examining just how fast a train can reliably operate on third rail.

Just because a diesel can top-out at 125 mph doesn't mean that it provides equivalent performance, cost, or reliability to 125 mph electrics.

Fastest I know of in regular service actually top out at 148mph; 125mph is operating speed. And they must be fairly good in terms of performance, cost and reliability since they've been in service since the 1970's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterCity_125

And, despite the existence of quality high speed diesels, Great Britain continues to electrify

who cares what Great Britain does ?? you drink warm beer too ?

People who are aware that the US has comparatively unsuccessful passenger railroading?

DutchRailnut wrote:who cares what Great Britain does ?? you drink warm beer too ?

Warm, no. Room temperature, yes-- if it's the right kind.

Anyway, my point was that "diesel" doesn't necessarily mean "slow."

Some timings from the land of warm beer .
England's Rail Express magazine has a regular monthly column where they time different trains from 0 to 60 mph.

The original 125 HST does it in 96 seconds.(possibly downrated)
The fastest electric loc0 does it in 87 seconds.
The fastest diesel loco does it in 76 seconds
The fastest 3rd rail EMU does it in 70 seconds.
The fastest DMU does it in 53 seconds.
The fastest EMU does it in 38 seconds.

so your basically saying electrification would save 3 to 4 minutes between Spuyten Duyvil and Renselear if electrified.

True high speed operation anywhere between New York and Albany is not likely no matter whether it be with a diesel or electric on the head end. There are too many curves, too many other trains including commuter trains and still a fair number of road crossings that will not allow any running over 110 MPH. Diesels can do the job.
Noel Weaver

DutchRailnut wrote:so your basically saying electrification would save 3 to 4 minutes between Spuyten Duyvil and Renselear if electrified.

Not saying anything , just thought the comparison might be of interest to some.

well as retired engineer I say that 4 minutes is already to much, never mind the capital spending for electrification.
Tthis entire tread is about as stupid as raising New Rochelle to New Haven to 100 mph, which after you deduct permanent restrictions and bridges wich comes out to about 3 minutes and 45 seconds

If you think the thread is so stupid, you don't have to read it.

I find it an interesting discussion, and I'm sure other people do too.

I'll say it's NOT just about speed (though honestly, I think it would be a huge boon for the capital district to be connected to NYP in under 2 hours. But that's more than just electrification as mentioned above.

It's also about reducing carbon-footprint (something that's going to become increasingly important over the next few decades), especially if, as NYS wants, they add capacity.
It also potentially adds flexibility, such as options of ALB-NYP (reverse) to PHL or even WAS. Imagine adding to Keystone Service (since they are already in a configuration to do so) of running to NYP, reverse and running south.

Or run through service to Boston (since through the Berkshires are a huge limiting factor).

It's not just about the next 5-10 years, but next 50 and what options we want.

But, a lot of this goes back to the fact that there is already movement to bring in a 1 Megawatt line along the Hudson and if possible to leverage that.
On the downside, that line is planned for DC, so that actually makes it less usable for this service.

Think of it this way, how many decades did it take to get New Haven-BOS completed?
Some of us are in for the long view.