MOM Rail Service

The NYMTA is secretive and devious. NJT, however, seems to just make stuff up on the fly and act like a fantasy is a fact, such as the nonexistent and not-even-designed equipment that would somehow allow a DMU to end up in NYP (or at least in Macy's Basement.) We're lucky that NJ-ARP is calling them on it, but shouldn't a public agency be politically and even legally accountable for making stuff up and pretending it's true?

Neither the NYMTA nor NJT has anything resembling real leadership.

Neither Trenton nor Albany wants to get involved.

Passengers feel powerless to change anything.

Taxpayers lose.

Welcome to public transit in the US.

Irish Chieftain wrote:24 slots an hour where...? Not even that many trains on that High Line in one hour during the rush hours. 24 trains per hour means a train every 2½ minutes.

Depending on what source you believe, any new slots in NYP will be absconded by Metro-North from both the Hudson and New Haven Lines, or will go to those dual-mode Main-Bergen trains operating via the "cloverleaf" rail interchange at Secaucus...

Actually, the High Line operates at 23 TPH during a couple of "peak of the peak" hours in the AM.

The extra slots under the ARC plans (and they are plans, not schedules) would be handled with the new 34th Street Station, which connects directly to THE Tunnel. Access to PSNY is also envisioned from THE Tunnel with a connector that would allow simultaneous moves into PSNY with the North River Tunnel.

The High Line was not designed for a train every 2.61 minutes, which we all know—it's a mess up there, and very slow. A new tunnel won't provide relief, not without full quadruple-tracking all the way back to DOCK (yes, that means no bottlenecks west of SWIFT). And eight tracks (34th Street, if it's ever built) will merely provide relief for the present-day load of trains—no more trains can be added, not unless you want them to run at under 50 mph instead of the customary 90 mph that the High Line has always enjoyed.

Better hope that Washington DC comes through, because they've been known to cut funds for projects in times past. And if NYC continues to go in the direction indicated in this article, demand for commuter travel to the Big Apple will be taking a downward turn...

Irish Chieftain wrote:The High Line was not designed for a train every 2.61 minutes, which we all know—it's a mess up there, and very slow. A new tunnel won't provide relief, not without full quadruple-tracking all the way back to DOCK (yes, that means no bottlenecks west of SWIFT). And eight tracks (34th Street, if it's ever built) will merely provide relief for the present-day load of trains—no more trains can be added, not unless you want them to run at under 50 mph instead of the customary 90 mph that the High Line has always enjoyed.

Unfortunately the High Line forever henceforth is doomed to run at 60mph or lower. It will never ever run at 90mph again. That is what all the "plans" are apparently premised upon. So yes, they will be shoving 23-24 tph down each Eastbound track in the morning. The design is being changed out from underneath us as we watch.

Irish Chieftain wrote: Better hope that Washington DC comes through, because they've been known to cut funds for projects in times past. And if NYC continues to go in the direction indicated in this article, demand for commuter travel to the Big Apple will be taking a downward turn...

Yep, anything can happen. We'll just have to wait and see what does. At present nothing is funded so cutting funds that are yet to be funded is a bit premature. Of course unless NJ and PANYNJ between them can come up with the local component of the funding there will be no federal component to talk about anyway.

Unfortunately the High Line forever henceforth is doomed to run at 60mph or lower. It will never ever run at 90mph again

Time to abandon the impossible project then? This is fixing what isn't broken, and I always thought so. Average speeds are going to take a big hit yet again—and the complaints thereof are validated in this. I always said that you cannot fit the capacity of five waterfront terminals into NY Penn—and herein is the proof. Going backwards, not forwards.

I think it is doomed even if ARC does not happen. We are already almost there.

The icing on that cake involves squeezing more trains into NY after everything's built.

Remember, though, that the speed that maximizes line capacity is not necessarily the highest civil speed. Higher average speeds mean that you need longer signal-system enforced "wakes" out in front of trains because they take a longer distance to stop from those speeds. Longer wakes = longer headways = less trains.

So, ironically enough, 60 MPH enhances capacity on the High Line by shortening headways. No fun if you're used to sailing through at 90 MPH, but it's certainly not a tragedy for capacity. While higher speed certainly makes the trip more attractive, right now that's overshadowed by the need to get as many trains into PSNY as possible, so capacity wins out over reduced trip times. The tension is between pushing as many seats across the High Line as safely possible in a given time period versus pushing a fewer number of seats at a slightly higher average speed, and at this point in history the number of seats is the priority.

Also - remember that all of this new traffic is not going to PSNY; much of it will be going to the new station at 34th Street (so there's, what...maybe two out of the five waterfront terminals?).

The High Line, under optimal conditions, can support up to 25 TPH - but it's a house of cards; one thing goes wrong and the pooch has been screwed. So 23 TPH is about the limit that Amtrak and NJT are willing to schedule through the North River Tunnels right now.

jb9152 wrote: Remember, though, that the speed that maximizes line capacity is not necessarily the *highest* civil speed. Higher average speeds mean longer "wakes" out in front of trains because they take a longer distance to stop from those speeds. Longer wakes = longer headways = less trains.

So, ironically enough, 60 MPH maximizes the capacity on the High Line by minimizing headways. No fun if you're used to sailing through at 90 MPH, but it's certainly not a tragedy for capacity. If anything, the 60 MPH speed allows the High Line to handle more traffic.

That is correct, and the cost in running time over a 10 mile stretch in going from 90mph to 60mph assuming constant speed running over the entire length is 3 mins. Of course, on the High Line one cannot constantly run at 90mph since there is a speed limit lower than that on the Portal bridge.

jb9152 wrote:Also - remember that all of this new traffic is not going to PSNY; much of it will be going to the new station at 34th Street.

Roughly speaking the existing 23tph will stay at the old station, and the additional 24tph on the new track through the new tunnel will go to the new station, well at least 20 of them will, the remaining 4 may go to the old station.

jb9152 wrote: The High Line, under optimal conditions, can support up to 25 TPH - but it's a house of cards; one thing goes wrong and the pooch has been screwed. So 23 TPH is about the limit that Amtrak and NJT are willing to schedule through the North River Tunnels right now.

At the Millburn meeting Warrington did state the 23tph number as something that they handle today on the High Line during the morning rush hour.

So, ironically enough, 60 MPH maximizes the capacity on the High Line by minimizing headways

That's not supposed to be the goal. The NEC is a high-speed railroad, not a subway. The slower you make the trains, the less attractive they become, and people will say "why bother, when the trains are getting just as slow as driving, and the fares keep going up and become unaffordable anyway?"

That's the source of much of the objections.

Elder commuters will tell you of how more efficient the service to the waterfront terminals was, especially compared to the prospects of squeezing 10 lbs of sugar into the 5-lb bag, as has happened with "Midtown Direct" and "Montclair Direct" on top, and then Secaucus Bottleneck over all. Fixing what is not broken will result in something that is broken by design...

Irish Chieftain wrote:That's not supposed to be the goal. The NEC is a high-speed railroad, not a subway. The slower you make the trains, the less attractive they become, and people will say "why bother, when the trains are getting just as slow as driving, and the fares keep going up and become unaffordable anyway?"

Trains getting slower is indeed a bad thing, I agree. But to fix that we need to fix the scheduling and operating skills of NJTransit and Amtrak, and have NJT make rational equipment choices and rational station designs. It did not take a High Line running time addition of 2 minutes to cause NJ Transit to add 18 to 22 minutes to the running time of a stopping train from Dover to Hoboken. That they managed to do just on their own, including a 7 to 10 minute "Shirley" time between BNW and HOB.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Elder commuters will tell you of how more efficient the service to the waterfront terminals was, especially compared to the prospects of squeezing 10 lbs of sugar into the 5-lb bag, as has happened with "Midtown Direct" and "Montclair Direct" on top, and then Secaucus Bottleneck over all.

In balance I think Midtown Direct was the right thing to do even if it involves a bit of squeezing into NYP. The explosive growth of ridership upon the introduction of Midtown Direct is testimony to the rightness of it in some sense. Afterall the same riders were able to go to the waterfront and chose not to before Midtown Direct was introduced.

Of course it would have been even better if the equipment of choice were light-weight modern EMU equipment with fast accelaration/deceleration instead of the lumbersome push-pulls. It would have also helped if they chose to put in high platforms at all stations like LIRR to minimize ingress/egress times from the trains, not to mention simplify the lives of the train crew.

Of course it would have been even better if the equipment of choice were light-weight modern EMU equipment with fast accelaration/deceleration instead of the lumbersome push-pulls. It would have also helped if they chose to put in high platforms at all stations like LIRR to minimize ingress/egress times from the trains, not to mention simplify the lives of the train crew

The Hoboken Division was a system with all low platforms prior to any moves being made towards this Midtown Direct thing. The problem is not low platforms, but having lines that use two kinds of platforms. Railcars already exist that can allow "level boarding" at low platforms; and there are hoggers on here that will tell you that the ALP-46 evens the acceleration gap between EMUs and push-pull.

The LIRR converted their system from low platforms to high over several decades, and had a more reliable funding stream than NJDOT/NJT had. However, the LIRR ought not be the benchmark to compare NJTR with.

Given how much money was spent on the "new Lehrter" Main Station in Berlin Germany, the money they are looking for to build THIS Tunnel (pardon the pun) would probably be sufficient for a terminal downtown, linking the Hoboken Division with LIRR's Atlantic Avenue branch. Pity our politicians are so corrupt though...

And oh yes, let's get back on-topic. Any more posts in this thread should be about MOM per se, not THAT proposal.

JPhurst wrote:How about studies as to ridership other than from home to Manhattan? How about people who may commute to New Brunswick?

Hey, I'm all for relieving congestion from the commute to NYC. But how about making the immediate region itself more commuter friendly and transit friendly?

NJT Rail Organization is unfortunately very NYC oriented in its thinking. It has been quite a struggle to get them to account for intra-state travel on MOM in their traffic projections. They also appear to be able to conjure up numbers that suppport whatever their pet route of the month is. They somehow managed to convince themselves that the Matawan routing would produce the highest ridership.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Given how much money was spent on the "new Lehrter" Main Station in Berlin Germany, the money they are looking for to build THIS Tunnel (pardon the pun) would probably be sufficient for a terminal downtown, linking the Hoboken Division with LIRR's Atlantic Avenue branch.

And what would make us believe that THAT tunnel would cost any less than THIS tunnel? Of course then there are others who believe all along that THE OTHER tunnel should be aimed squarely at 42nd St or further uptown and not towards downtown or 34th street at all. Indeed it has always seemed to me that Alternative G was sort of a compromise thing between the THIS and THE OTHER tunnel supporters. Oh well..... Back to MOM

All this is NYP discussion is very much related to MOM, as NJT is now going to be revising its ridership numbers for direct rides into NYP via dual modes -

Monmouth and Ocean counties were screaming for a recount of NJT's ridership numbers, and now NJT is redoing them via NYP, instead of via Hoboken, as they were originally.

Which if you recall showed the Matawan routing the best routing....