• The East Side Access Project Discussion (ESA)

  • Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.
Discussion of the past and present operations of the Long Island Rail Road.

Moderator: Liquidcamphor

  by harryguy082589
Platforms, not tracks. My mistake.

None the less: my point still stands. GCT has much more rail space than Penn and shares it with nobody.... can't they leave the trains in the terminal when during the day?

  by DutchRailnut
nope, you can't inspect or service cars inside the terminal.
Inspection and servicing can on the few yard tracks in existance tracks 1 tru 10 and 52 tru 60 on lower level 131 tru 134 and 118-119 and 120 tru 125 the last 5 tracks will become the ESA terminal hall soon.

track 200 is loop, 101 is loading dock 117 is E cleaning.
On upper level there is no track 12 , 17 or so is garbage track no tracxk 22 no track 31 last two are north side acces walk ways
  by Terrapin Station
35dtmrs92 wrote:As many know, the proposed East Side Access plan calls for a new station under the current Grand Central Terminal. I am curious why the tracks could not have connected to the current Metro-North tracks under Park Avenue leading to the existing terminal. I am thinking that grades or some other issue with the terrain of Manhattan had to do with it. Someone confirm this, please.
If you read the FEIS, you will have the answers to many or all of your questions.

  by hrfcarl
Before I start, I want to state that I am a newbie who knows nothing. I am hear to learn, so please bash me in positive way. :)

Staying at the level of the East Side Access tunnel, can Grand Central Station be connected with NY Penn Station? The ESA tunnel would continue under Park Ave until NYP East tunnels, where they would turn west to NYP under those existing tunnels. The idea would be to make the ESA to GCS a shared stop for both LIRR & MNRR which would then continue to a new level at NYP. The 3rd rail differences between LIRR & MNRR would need to be resolved with standardization - should be done regardless for two MTA branches. On ths board I have read that NJT wants to add new tunnels under Hudson River to new terminal near NYP and this connecting tunnel and new level under NYP could allow them access to GSC and still use SunnySide yards. This would spread the cost among at least 3 agencies, maybe 4 if Amtrak interested in NYP to CGS connection.

Another idea: At least one of the tunnels to this new NYP level should be made big enough for freight service between NJ & LI - another tunnel under East River to Main Line or LIC terminal.

  by checkthedoorlight
even if the tunnel could be extended to NYP, having NJT go to Grand Central won't work because the tunnels aren't tall enough for catenary (they also aren't tall enough for the C3's). They also wouldn't be able to run freight through it because like all other river tunnels in NYC, diesel is forbidden to run through sealed tunnels.

Standardizing third rail is not going to be an issue, since there's no physical connection between Metro-North and LIRR at GCT.
  by henry6
Underground is decieving. On a flat map there is a short, straight line between NYP and GCT. ALso between LIC and anywhere in nearby Manhatten. But once you go undeground it isn't so simple with stations at different levels, subways one on top of the other; and the same with sewers, water, steam heating pipes, and all kinds of other utilities. Plus the hard rock, the mud and quicksand, and whatever other geological things there might be. All these factors and features make the job a lot more difficult than just digging in a straight level line.

  by cpontani
M1 9147 wrote:It has to do with third rail issues primarilly. Metro North uses under-running third rail where the shoes of each car goes underneath it, where as LIRR uses over-running third rail where the shoes go over it. Also to do a connection, there are 2 levels of Grand Central, and that would mean massive excavating of the existing tunnel(s) which would interfere with the levels of Metro North Services, rather than building a new level and station to the existing one where it totally makes sense. Similar work is supposed to be done at Penn when new platforms and and tunnels will be built to accomodate NJ Transit Trains right underneath 34th St.
If there were to be a theoretical overlap of LIRR/MN Service, can there be a theoretical third rail that is supported from the side and comes to a sloping point to the middle so the shoe can pick it up from the top or bottom?

  by jersey_emt
What are the heights of the two types of third rails as well as the shoes on the two types of cars? If you attempted to run a MN train on a track with LIRR 3rd rail (or vice versa), would the shoes be ripped off the train because the 3rd rail is at a different height? Don't know if there is a height difference, or if there is, whether the shoes are at a 'bad' height where they could be damaged by running on track with the 'wrong' type of electrification.

How about lining this GCT-PSNY connector track with both types of third rail, the MN under-running on one side of the track and the LIRR over-running on the other? There's shoes on both sides of the trains, correct? Can the shoes on one side be retracted?

  by hrfcarl
Hit submit twice in error. See below
Last edited by hrfcarl on Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by hrfcarl
Forgiving my ignorance, but at NYP do not LIRR & NJT share tracks (13-15) as well as the east side access tunnels? Why is it possible there and would not be possible at GCS?

I know there is no existing or planned connection between LIRR & MN at GCS, but in this extension of ESA to NYP, there should be. In general thought, should not 2 divisions of the same company try for compatability to cut down costs overall? Able to buy bulk of one type of shoe for both divisions, hopefully at savings? Could a common 3rd rail be developed (as some already asked) or one division switch type?

As to the route, I was not planning a straight line between NYP and GCS. IIRC, the current ESA plan puts those new tunnels under the current MN tunnels under Park Ave North terminating under GCS's north side. At the depth these new tunnels are at, can they continue south under Park Ave South until reaching the East side access tunnels to NYP, which they would follow under to a new terminal level at NYP? Still too many obsticles.

As to the diesels in tunnels, can hybird or electric/diesel combo (something like LIRR DE30AC) engines be used?

  by Crabman1130
I don't think the cost of changing the third rail of one RR to match the other is woth it so that some people don't have to change trains at Penn.

  by Jumpshot724
They also wouldn't be able to run freight through it because like all other river tunnels in NYC, diesel is forbidden to run through sealed tunnels.
Then how does Amtrak get their P42s into NYP? From Sunnyside yard into Penn?

  by DutchRailnut
Amtrak does not run P42's into NYP only P32acdm's and if a substitute P42 is used its towed with electric engine from empire connector into NYP and on to sunnyside.
and same for outbound trains if poerd by p42 its towed by electric engine

  by Jumpshot724
Oh....I didn't know that. What's the main difference between P32acdm and P42? Obviosuly power plant but what about it since the empire service is only about 1/2 electrified. I didn't know there were two different ones they look exactly the same lol

  by DutchRailnut
Thew P32acdm runs off third rail as electric locomotive or as diesel
The P42 can only run as diesel.
Not to many differences other than numbers the P32acdm's are in 700 series the P42 are numbered 001 to 207 or so.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 68