Through Running Instead of Penn South?

While I agree with the concept of through running, in terms of Penn capacity, aren't trains through running already? I know any NJT trains on tracks 1-4 have to turn on the platform, but don't a lot of them already run through to Sunnyside yard? Don't most of the LIRR trains go up to Westside yard and turn there instead of on the platform?

The issues brought up about demolishing MSG to speed up the movement of people, the power issues, etc are all relevant.

LIRR's lack of operational efficiency is another problem, and they need to re-balance traffic relatively equally between their soon-to-be four western terminals, and add ferry service, electrification, and a new station at LIC. Jamaica should be LIRR's bottleneck, not Penn. They also need to turn and burn the equipment, and avoid throating, which causes massive equipment imbalances in the system. The third track, unfortunately, is going to do little to help this, they really need to restore the line from Garden City through Levittown and Farmingdale, and re-configure how that merges into the mainline, taking pressure off of the Babylon and Mainline branches, eliminating throating, and allowing for trains to turn and burn, and not get stored in New York, although that doesn't do a whole lot to help Penn.

For through-running, LIRR isn't the focus. The MN Penn Access could through-run with NJT if the proper equipment (25 hz capable locomotives or EMUs) were used, although that's probably a drop in the bucket. Eventually, the Empire Connection, Hudson Line, and Empire Service to Buffalo should be converted to 25kV overhead, which would allow for some more through-running, but again it's limited by the Penn Access side. There are more possibilities to through-run from New Jersey or Poughkeepsie if the NEC were converted to 60hz power, but even then it seems like it would be a nightmare logistically for most applications.

I gave this some more thought, and I came to the conclusion that the idea of through-running itself may not be that crazy, but the gains are going to be modest, and cannot replace the three core projects needed to unclog Penn:
1. Demolish MSG, fix pedestrian flow
2. Add more tracks to Penn
3. Track, station, and electrification projects so that all NJT and LIRR lines equally feed LIC/Hoboken and Penn with improved ferry service

The through-running would technically work with one of two scenarios:
1. Convert the NEC to 60hz, allowing M-8/M-10 cars to run through
2. M-10 cars with European crash standards might free up enough weight for 25hz transformers

The problem is, there are trade-offs. Even if the various agencies could cooperate in sharing equipment at that scale, LIRR then ends up with a forked fleet of third-rail-only and overhead/third rail cars just for run-through. And I may be mistaken, but I believe that the M-8 cars will not fit into one (or both?) of Atlantic Terminal or LIRR ESA. So LIRR's fleet uniformity goes down the drain. And LIRR gets stuck with overhead wire equipment they don't need, and NJT gets stuck with third rail equipment that they don't need. How many billions of dollars does that add to maybe save building a couple of tracks at Penn?

Even if a common design car for the M-10/M-11 were created, an NJT version could have the 25hz transformer, but no third rail equipment. LIRR and Harlem Line cars wouldn't need any overhead wire equipment at all, sort of like the M-7 and M-8 designs are today. MBTA or other agencies could get a version that's even lighter, with no 25hz transformer.

With a modest amount of through running for Penn Access from New Haven and NJT, they could have fleet uniformity of locomotives with MLs or 25hz capable EMUs with no change to the infrastructure.

The Amtrak to Ronkonkoma is probably the only practical run-through on LIRR, and that would be best done with a dual-mode locomotive that would just have to stop at HAROLD, switch to diesel, and continue under diesel power to Ronkonkoma for a couple of trains per day.

Do dual modes have to stop to change from electric to diesel mode? Or do they do it at speed?

It can be done at speed in some of the newer models, but I believe operationally they do it at station stops. M8's will change on the fly between Pelham and Mt. Vernon.

Where would be a convenient place to stop at Harold?

BobLI wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 11:16 amDo dual modes have to stop to change from electric to diesel mode? Or do they do it at speed?

So in the Amtrak example, those are future overhead wire-diesel dual modes. The only current overhead wire-diesel dual mode in North America, the ALP-45DP, has to switch at a stop, and it takes approximately 90 seconds to switch, so it is done at a station. This isn't to say that a future dual mode couldn't switch on the fly, however.

I don't know if the DM30ACs or P32ACDMs can switch on the fly, or if they have to be stopped. In theory, a third rail-diesel dual mode like the P32ACDM could limp its way out to Woodside or even Jamaica on electric power before switching.

Overhead wire-diesel dual modes make the most sense for Amtrak, the commuter railroads need to lose the dual modes and electrify the routes. While the P32ACDMs limp along with very limited electric capability, the ALP-45DPs are basically 70% of an electric locomotive and 80% of a diesel locomotive. The possibilities for Amtrak are quite significant for services that run on and off the corridor, running fully electric while on the main electrified corridor or other electrified lines. They'd probably want to switch to pure diesels for long-distance trains, but for trains that continue a few hundred miles or less on diesel, dual-modes could really streamline and speed things up, and open up a bunch of new route possibilities.

Without getting into a bespoke fleet of a few locomotives just for Ronkonkoma run-through, the Amtrak Ronkonkoma service presents the most awkward power transition probably in the whole country.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 9:36 pmWhere would be a convenient place to stop at Harold?

Nowhere.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Wed May 12, 2021 3:27 pmIt can be done at speed in some of the newer models, but I believe operationally they do it at station stops. M8's will change on the fly between Pelham and Mt. Vernon.

That's not really a dual-mode, as its electric to electric, but you make a good point that you can put pantographs up at speed without anything horrible happening, as they switch from DC to AC at speed coming Eastbound. In theory, a new overhead wire-diesel dual-mode should be able to do the same.

Although unique for Ronkonkoma in that they'd be running diesel in electrified territory, that would open up a ton of other possibilities for Amtrak to go off-corridor with various services.

With the LIRR dual modes, I believe they switch at Jamaica on the westbound trip. That way if there's a problem with the mode change, the train can be cancelled at Jamaica. I believe they switch on the fly at Harold on the eastbound trip.

I think the easiest through running opportunity is the New Haven Line trains to Penn Station running through to New Jersey. My idea is to have all of the New Haven Line trains to Penn Station use NJT equipment like the football train. ALP-46/A locomotives can already change voltages on the fly, and if additional multilevel EMUs are ordered, it will free up some electric locomotives for this service. The M8s would continue to be used on trains to Grand Central. This would barely cost anything to test out, and I think there are large benefits to having through service between the New Haven Line and most likely the NEC, but any of the electrified lines would work on the NJ side.

Anything else is far more complicated. Even Amtrak's proposed through trains to Ronkonkoma would need to switch locomotives. Most of LIRR's equipment is 3rd rail M3s, M7s, and M9s, so they can't go into NJT territory at all and NJT has nothing that uses third rail. The only way to do it would be to use an ALP-45DP and stop in the Harold Interlocking to change modes. Basically, you're looking at billions to replace or modify equipment to be compatible on the other agency's network.

How about MNRR trains continuing up the west side line to SD. Would require CAT once out of NYP and a second main track to SD ? That is if there is enough passenger demand.

trainbrain wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:35 pmI think the easiest through running opportunity is the New Haven Line trains to Penn Station running through to New Jersey. My idea is to have all of the New Haven Line trains to Penn Station use NJT equipment like the football train.

Agreed. And it avoids the hare-brained idea of extending the PRR third rail to use the M-8s, which are a bespoke and highly complicated solution for Grand Central access from AC electrified territory.

Anything else is far more complicated. Even Amtrak's proposed through trains to Ronkonkoma would need to switch locomotives. Most of LIRR's equipment is 3rd rail M3s, M7s, and M9s, so they can't go into NJT territory at all and NJT has nothing that uses third rail. The only way to do it would be to use an ALP-45DP and stop in the Harold Interlocking to change modes. Basically, you're looking at billions to replace or modify equipment to be compatible on the other agency's network.

Yes and no. They would theoretically work with P32AC-DMs, except that there aren't enough of them and they would be too slow to run on the NEC.

The whole third rail dual mode locomotive idea is stupid. It was a McGinnis creation to run long distance through trains all over the New Haven system, and never should have been used for commuter rail or corridor type services. For third-rail powered commuter rail, the right solution is electrification to Oyster Bay, Port Jefferson, Patchogue, Poughkeepsie, and Danbury/New Milford, and live with a few trains a day running diesel through electric territory to reach White Plains, Stamford, and Long Island City from the outer edges of the system.

What does make sense is an overhead wire dual-mode that unlike the P32, which is a lousy diesel and a barely functioning electric, should be able to be a decent diesel and a decent electric like the ALP-45DP, but with the ability to switch on the fly. While commuter lines are quite finite in their size, and should just be electrified, potential Amtrak routes are seemingly infinite, and while a national electrified freight rail system makes sense in it's own right, you can't electrify every route to every possible place that wants a train or two a day, and there are places where the passenger and freight routes diverge. In the Northeast, there are also routes where commuter/regional rail electrification could leave weird gaps in otherwise mostly electrified routes like the NEC inland route through Springfield, or service to points north of electrification. In all these instances, an overhead wire dual-mode would serve both NYP, and open up a LOT of possibilities for new routes for Amtrak that run on the NEC and then diverge to various locales that would be well suited to rail service.

west point wrote: ↑Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:47 pmHow about MNRR trains continuing up the west side line to SD. Would require CAT once out of NYP and a second main track to SD ? That is if there is enough passenger demand.

It's an equipment problem. If you use third rail-diesel dual modes equipped with PRR shoes, you're stuck with a diesel almost the entire trip. Nothing else could even run that route. Adding PRR third rail to the Amtrak 60hz system north of GATE is the hare-brained idea that CDOT and MN have to stuff the round peg in the square hole and run M-8's into NYP. If that were done, and the PRR third rail were brought north to meet the NYC third rail at SD, they could theoretically run M-8's, but that would require a double-sided shoe that could switch on the fly, and I don't know how difficult that would be to set up.

The longer term solution is that the Hudson Line and and Amtrak to Albany and beyond should be electrified with 25kV overhead wire, electrifying trains to Poughkeepsie, and using M-8/M-10 style cars to switch at Highbridge, keeping compatibility with the Harlem Line for Yankees games, and providing a path for freight into Oak Point that's clear of the third rail. Amtrak would bring the PRR 25hz overhead system north to meet the new MN 60hz overhead power at some point on the Empire Connection.

The bottom line is that the railroads should get away from weird, bespoke solutions as much as possible. LIRR and MN have to use third rail, and the New Haven Line requires both AC and DC power, so doing the same for the Hudson is not adding any new types of equipment. An overhead wire dual-mode design could handle Amtrak and all other commuter railroads except for MN and LIRR, which just need to electrify. I've said that MN should use NJT or NJT-style electric equipment all along, as it already exists, and it already works with all of the power systems involved.

I didn't finish the thought about Hudson Line Penn Access service. There are a number of impediments, and Penn itself would need to be fixed to add enough capacity for those trains, but with my electrification plan for Poughkeepsie and Albany, that would allow run-through New Haven to Poughkeepsie of MN equipment that is AC-powered NJT-style loco-hauled or EMU trains, either of which could be a shared fleet or separate fleet that is ordered with NJT, or bought used from NJT, as it's technically the same.

Based on the track maps, but depending on how NYP is upgraded/added on to/reconfigured, it appears that the track arrangement is reasonable for this type of thru-running, it's just not practical from an equipment standpoint at this point in time.

My gosh this forum is turning into a joke thanks to one or two users (and you know who you are)...

We need more people "in the know" to counter the foamer/pie-in-the-sky/"I think I know everything" posts here *eyeroll*

For the millionth time if through running was viable for every other reason than freeing up track space in NY Penn it would have been done by now BUT IT IS NOT. This has been studied to death over and over again. Consulting firms and politicians are the only ones benefitting from any of these studies.

You have cab signaling, crew qualifications for various equipment types, what pieces of equipment will/will not work, power supply considerations, and of course the big one: state funding contributions along with the logistical and legal hassles of merging NJT, LIRR, and Metro-North/CTDOT into one Tri-State Area rail authority. All 3 serve different markets and have different needs.

And as pointed out above LIRR and NJT already through run their equipment into their respective yards on the West Side and Sunnyside.

Need I -or others who know their stuff- say more?

So, as much as I like the idea of through running, particularly from a passenger service perspective, I question how much capacity it can actually save at Penn station. The only place I can see it saving capacity is the East River Tunnels, but I gather from this discussion that those aren't a huge bottleneck. The only reason I say this is because Penn has through running already. NJT goes to Sunnyside yard, LIRR goes to Westside yard. The latter doesn't seem to affect station capacity that much that I can tell.

NH2060 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:19 pmWe need more people "in the know" to counter the foamer/pie-in-the-sky/"I think I know everything" posts here *eyeroll*

The problem is, discussions tend to be between dreamers who come up with all sorts of crazy ideas, and the naysayers, often people who work for railroads, who will come up with reasons why even the most simple and obvious improvements are impossible, won't work, and can't work. Cutting a path to reality between those two is the challenge.

You have cab signaling, crew qualifications for various equipment types, what pieces of equipment will/will not work, power supply considerations, and of course the big one: state funding contributions along with the logistical and legal hassles of merging NJT, LIRR, and Metro-North/CTDOT into one Tri-State Area rail authority. All 3 serve different markets and have different needs.

The single factor that determines what routes can through run, and which ones can't is the power/clearance/physical infrastructure factor, which I consider to be one issue, as it's determined by equipment type and capability. This is how you get to the logical conclusion that some limited through running between CDOT and NJT makes perfect sense, and nothing else is practical.

The state funding, cab signals, crew qualifications, whatever, are all solvable problems. There is absolutely a cultural problem among east coast railroads, particularly in New York about each having their own domain and doing things their own way, which makes no sense. Things should be as standardized as possible, like fare structures, ticketing systems, operational practices, etc, up to the point reasonably possible. For example, the three railroads are going to deal with ice differently because PRR third rail, NYC third rail, and PRR/NJT catenary are all quite different when it comes to how they work in bad weather.

Even equipment should be standardized up to the point possible. This has gotten slightly less bad in the past decade, but standard designs for coaches, EMUs, etc, should be used, albeit with several standards due to third rail itself being unique to NYC for FRA heavy rail.

And as pointed out above LIRR and NJT already through run their equipment into their respective yards on the West Side and Sunnyside.

That's not through running. That's deadheading. Some amount of those moves are necessary, but in a modern, fluid, regional rail system, once Gateway is done, most trains should be turning and burning directly into reverse-peak runs, with a relatively small number of peak trains staying in the NYC yards to provide peak directional capacity.

This all gets us back to the three core tenets of what needs to be done to unclog NYP, none of which through-running would accomplish, and through-running even if it were possible would only provide a small fraction of the benefit that actually addressing the core infrastructure and operational problems would. I also apparently forgot that Atlantic Terminal exists in my previous post, so add that to the list for balanced operations along with GCT and LIC on the LIRR side.

AmeriStarRail's proposal also relies heavily on through running as a highly beneficial solution.

https://ameristarrail.com/



Although not exactly the same as Penn Station, I need to add that in Boston through running is a big part of and important reason for building the North-South Rail Link. Seems people can spin things in any direction they want in this matter.

A disconnected rail system is an inefficient rail system. Our stub-end terminals require every train to back out of our downtown stations before another can enter. This process requires extra platform space and wastes a lot of valuable real estate, but it also and wastes the time of crews, equipment and passengers alike, driving up operating costs and suppressing ridership.

By contrast, a unified system in which trains run continuously through the city . . . lets the crews and equipment work more efficiently, earning more revenue with lower operating costs.

A detailed study in 1998 concluded that $62 Million per year could be saved simply by replacing stub end service with run-through service.