NYP Penn Station South

There has been discussion in the past about Penn Station South becoming EITHER a 6,7, or 8 track station immediately south of the existing Penn Station, or a deep-level Station for future service. My question is, though, if only a 6 track station gets built, will that still enable 24 new trains per hour, or will additional capacity have to be scaled back to 18 trains per hour, at 3 trains per track per hour?

There has been discussion regarding Penn Station's future which would involve building a 6, 7, or 8 track station to the South of the current Penn Station. My question is, though, if a six track station gets chosen to get built either immediately south of the existing station or for a future deep-level station, would that only enable 18 trains per hour, at 3 trains per track an hour, instead of 24 trains per hour?

Thomas wrote:There has been discussion regarding Penn Station's future which would involve building a 6, 7, or 8 track station to the South of the current Penn Station. My question is, though, if a six track station gets chosen to get built either immediately south of the existing station or for a future deep-level station, would that only enable 18 trains per hour, at 3 trains per track an hour, instead of 24 trains per hour?

You seem to have answered your own question. Congratulations.

Fan Railer wrote:ou seem to have answered your own question. Congratulations.

That is not true. I still would appreciate an honest answer if 24 trains can realistically be served on 6 tracks?

Thomas wrote:

Fan Railer wrote:ou seem to have answered your own question. Congratulations.

That is not true. I still would appreciate an honest answer if 24 trains can realistically be served on 6 tracks?

If you want to impose a 20 minute turn around time as a standard, then no. If you want to impose a 15 minute turn around time, then yes. Is it realistic to impose a turn around time shorter than 20 minutes? That's something that someone else is going to have to answer; that's also the question your'e really asking, so try asking that instead.

Fan Railer wrote:f you want to impose a 20 minute turn around time as a standard, then no. If you want to impose a 15 minute turn around time, then yes. Is it realistic to impose a turn around time shorter than 20 minutes? That's something that someone else is going to have to answer; that's also the question your'e really asking, so try asking that instead.

Has NJ Transit done 15 minute "turn around time" in Penn Station during Peak Hours?

Thomas wrote:There has been discussion in the past about Penn Station South becoming EITHER a 6,7, or 8 track station immediately south of the existing Penn Station, or a deep-level Station for future service. My question is, though, if only a 6 track station gets built, will that still enable 24 new trains per hour, or will additional capacity have to be scaled back to 18 trains per hour, at 3 trains per track per hour?

I assume this is talking about NY Penn Station (not Baltimore, Newark ect....). I would read the extensive Monihan station thread. Basically, all the questions you just asked are really up in the air at this point and the project won't happen in the next 10 years (if you ask me).

Came across this article in Newsday

New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday unveiled plans to add eight tracks at Penn Station by acquiring the block just south of the Manhattan transit hub.

The announcement highlighted Cuomo’s 2020 Infrastructure and Transportation agenda, which he detailed at a Manhattan meeting of the Association for A Better New York, a business group.

Cuomo said various plans underway to expand Penn over the years, including the ongoing construction of a train hall at the Farley Post Office building across the street, have been limited by the inability to add tracks at Penn.

https://www.newsday.com/news/new-york/c ... 1.40324743

Don't we all?? but at what cost, and if it won't benefit NY tax payers, who will pay for it??

This is essentially the Penn Station South proposal which was originally part of the Gateway program. I feel this is a great improvement for Penn Station and passenger rail in general. It gives more room for NJT and southbound/westbound Amtrak trains.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:28 pm Don't we all?? but at what cost, and if it won't benefit NY tax payers, who will pay for it??

I don't know why I bother but I'll repeat myself again. New York is the only state that benefits from bringing in commuters from New Jersey. Those commuters pay income tax to Albany. Not Trenton. They pay state income tax to Albany. They also pay millions of dollars in sales tax on their breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and everything else they buy in the city because they don't have time to run errands at home. And all those tourists packing the trains on the weekend with thousands of dollars each in American Girl crap are also paying into the New York economy. Tell me, how does New Jersey benefit from these tunnels and tracks? Do they get income tax? No. Do they get sales tax on purchases? No. Does the state (NJ) have higher property taxes because the only way to support the local schools is through property tax since the state doesn't get any income tax from the local residents? Yes.

Pensyfan19 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:29 pm This is essentially the Penn Station South proposal which was originally part of the Gateway program. I feel this is a great improvement for Penn Station and passenger rail in general. It gives more room for NJT and southbound/westbound Amtrak trains.

It is Penn South - interesting that now it's being bundled into this Penn Station building improvements project. Honestly, it makes sense to do this when the facilities are being upgraded so it's all integrated.

If this all gets done, it's going to result in a huge, confusing complex a couple of blocks long. But chances are it won't all happen, at least not in my lifetime.

This smells just as bad as ARC project,a very bad pipedream to boot.

Fake news. Perhaps someone should pay some attention to the 110 year old rotting, leaking tunnels first.