To electrify or not to electrfy the Port Jefferson Branch

When you have a line with a number of hills, with the stops close to one another in general, you are better off using MUs. I am not too suprised about the Pt. Jeff, even though I have never ridden it east of Syosset. Look at NJT's Morris&Essex between Millburn, and Chatham, you have many hills. The Arrow IIIs always do well going up the grades there. Locomotives do, but more with the 46s or even some of the diesels.

NIMBYkiller wrote:Actually, we are missing a few of the original lines.

Yeah, sorry about that. I know that bits and pieces of lines have been removed. But for the most part, the railroad lines on Long Island remain intact from 1844. At least compared to the rest of the country.

GUYS: This is one interesting group of posts here! Everything from the PJ Branch itself to labor today in the USA. Staying with the PJ branch,The LIRR should in my opinion should get the third track project for the Main Line west of Hicksville,Double track the Ronkonkoma Branch as much as possible then contend with placement of a new yard somewhere,in that order.Electrifying the PJ branch will be a very expensive proposition with all the infrastructure needed-at least 16 substations for the 24 miles or so of track between HU and PJ,for example. One thing to me that is needed is to relieve the pressure on the use of Ronkonkoma station-The ultimate MAGNET station. The only problem spot in double tracking to Ronkonkoma is the 4 or so miles between CI and KO. This stretch will need new embankments and retaining walls in spots. I know about this stretch because I live nearby.I remember about reading about an idea to extend electrification to Medford or Yaphank to specifically relieve the pressure on KO with a new yard? To me this would be a better idea than electrifying the PJ branch. The C3s and DE/DM30s have a lot of life left and the LIRR need not replace them sooner. East end service is a sore spot for many - Improved service in my opinion has many benefits. The C3s should have been built with low level capability - to me small stations like Southold are too small to justify the expense of the high level platform. I understand placing a yard somewhere is a big problem with NIMBY opposition and all but something should be worked out to satistfy all. Observations by MACTRAXX

I say if they're gonna extend mainline 3rd rail, go to Riverhead. It's already showing signs of suburbia. 3rd track Floral Park to Hicksville, and 2nd track Fdale to Ronkonkoma

Then electrify to Patchogue(or maybe Speonk) on the Montauk.

MACTRAXX wrote:The C3s and DE/DM30s have a lot of life left and the LIRR need not replace them sooner. East end service is a sore spot for many - Improved service in my opinion has many benefits. The C3s should have been built with low level capability - to me small stations like Southold are too small to justify the expense of the high level platform. I understand placing a yard somewhere is a big problem with NIMBY opposition and all but something should be worked out to satistfy all. Observations by MACTRAXX

I think the purpose of electrifying lines like the Port Jeff, the Oyster Bay, and the Main line from Ronkonkoma to Riverhead should be electrified to not only improve service, but to free up the diesel fleet so they can be used elsewhere on the LIRR like on the North and South forks to improve service there (the Greenport line passengers could get a one-seat ride to Manhattan).

Without commenting on all the various aspects that have been brought up in this thread let me start with that in the late 70's there was actually funding passed in Washington by Congressman Bob Mazarek to electrify the Port Jeff branch as far as I believe Kings Park. However, due to the fact as mentioned that it is single track and the fact that would be no area to build a yard in Kings Park the LIRR actually turned the money down.

I agree with that decision for both of those reasons. Without the second track and more importantly the layup yard running MU's would be of no worth to the east end riders.

Because of the inclines and curves the MAS speeds on the branch are low and that's what makes for a long, long ride.

A majority of the fleet is already electric and it would make sense to standarize the equipment for everything from repairs to purchasing, but in the current fiscal climate and with the time it would take to build a second track, electrify the branch as well as Port Jefferson yard (which is where it should end) you won't see it anytime soon. Imagine with the track work needed how much longer a trip to PJ would be.


Service from KO to Greenport is lucky to have the trains they have. There is hardly any ridership there (The scoot runs with one car). While the Montauk line is very busy in the summer and does well to Speonk during the work week, there is really no new service needed.

I agree with the poster that extra equipment is needed (both MU and diesel) because with a high out of service you are left robbing Peter to pay Paul and shorting trains which is not good railroading. As far as employees, it's my opinion that we need more people in hands on jobs out in the field, but we should cut down on white collar jobs that pop up all over the place. Don't cut the crews that are fixing and running your trains, cut the consultants and suits that wouldn't know the difference between a M1 and a M7.

The only reason the main line east of KO has hardly any ridership is b/c service is horrible. That area could definately use the extra service.

The Montauk line needs some more service within the hamptons, especially during the summer.

Agree with you on the Hamptons, but the ridership east of KO to Grrenport has never been big.

Years ago, the LIRR didn't even run trains for the most part, but used the LIRR buses.

Even the weekday rush hour trains do not fill up. The service is "horrible" because there is no ridership demand.

Just like other trains and branches if there was requests, it would probably be entertained.

And suspension of service east of KO is always Item #1 on the budget cutters wish list.

Agree with you on the Hamptons, but the ridership east of KO to Grrenport has never been big.

Years ago, the LIRR didn't even run trains for the most part, but used the LIRR buses.

Even the weekday rush hour trains do not fill up. The service is "horrible" because there is no ridership demand.

Just like other trains and branches if there was requests, it would probably be entertained.

And suspension of service east of KO is always Item #1 on the budget cutters wish list.

BMC,


Sorry, I will have to disagree with you. Every day the Greenport scoot comes past my train club at 7:15 PM. Both cars are packed full when they come by, and they still have a ways to go, since I only catch it at MP56. They would get more riders out east of KO if they offered more service. All of us know that soon every open space on LI will become either a Tanger outlet center, or a developement. I really don't see a reason to shut that branch down. It would only hurt them.

Mike

The POTENTIAL ridership on the Main Line east of KO in the FUTURE is pretty good. If the LIRR does not plan for the future instead of the present, it will miss out on business. Coincidentally, last night I was reading an 1896 timetable, the PJ branch had only two round trips: one from PJ and one from the original Northport. Should the LIRR have ended service then? More importantly, the east end will miss an opportunity to have its main road a little less congested.

Back to the PJ. Rather than electrification I would like to see hourly off-peak service east of Huntington, (and 30min. off-peak service from Huntington west). This would require 3 trainsets, plus changes of equipment etc.

It has been a while since I have modeled this, but I for peak hour I would like to see about two more PJ to Penn trains each way. This would require two MU trains from other branches currently going to Penn to be terminated at Jamaica (or FBA). Admittedly, this would be a hardship for the other lines, but it moves the PJ closer to equity with the other lines. Currently, the electrified lines enjoy a great percentage of their trains terminating at Penn while the PJ (east of Huntington) has only about 15%.
NIMBY had a better solution, but I can't recall it.

BMC wrote:Agree with you on the Hamptons, but the ridership east of KO to Grrenport has never been big.

Years ago, the LIRR didn't even run trains for the most part, but used the LIRR buses.

Even the weekday rush hour trains do not fill up. The service is "horrible" because there is no ridership demand.

Just like other trains and branches if there was requests, it would probably be entertained.

And suspension of service east of KO is always Item #1 on the budget cutters wish list.

I disagree. There is no ridership demand becuse the service is horrible. You would have to be nuts to commute by rail from east of KO. What are you suppossed to do if you get held up at work, get a hotel room? You ain't getting home by train. To accurately determine the demand the RR has to take surveys at KO to find out how many people boarding trains there would have gotten on elsewhere if there was decent service. With all the building going on east of KO the demand will be there if service is improved. At least to Yaphank.

There's probably demand atleast to Riverhead. And yes, the lack of riders is without a doubt b/c of the crappy service and NOT the other way around.

My idea was combining runs that go to NYP with runs that only go to Huntington, Hicksville, or Jamaica. The schedules have changed, but I'll do an example later on today with the current ones of how this can be done.

Just electrify all the remaining track with high voltage AC catenary. It'll be roughly 1/2 the cost of electrifying with 3rd rail, provide greater transmission efficiencies with lower voltage drops, and it'll allow locomotive hauled trains to run at greater speeds than the 3rd rail would support. Start stringing wires at Mineola, Huntington, Babylon, Hicksville and Ronkonkoma and work your way east. It'll cost less to do the entire system now than it'll cost 25-50 years down the line when those lines are exploding and the DM30s are ready to croak. You folks are just lucky that the Pennsylvania railroad took a somewhat long term look at the LIRR's operations and Europe has proved convincingly that the one-time technical barriers that kept locomotives consigned either to AC or DC inputs are now obsolete, and a locomotive which runs off both the NEC's 11.5kvAC catenary and LIRR's 750vdc 3rd rail is not only completely doable, it currently exists in the form of the Siemens Eurosprinter ES64F4. This locomotive forms the basis of Germany's Class 189 quadrisystem freight locomotive and it's Swiss derivative the Re474, as well as Austria and Slovenia's trisystem locomotives. The electronics of the ES64F4 is entirely modular, and due to modern power electronics it is capable of readily having it's DC input bus adapted to handle voltages as low as 600vdc and currents as high as 1500-2000amps from the current 1500vdc and 1000 amps. I have dubbed such a tri-system locomotive the 'ALP48' since it could concievably bear a striking resemblance to the highly successful import locomotives which NJT recently recieved, although an MN model running on the New Haven line would do better to be called the EP-6. Bombardier, the maker of the NJT ALP46 could just as easily create a locomotive of similar capabilities as the Siemens ES64F4 out of their Traxx line of modular locomotive, and it's possible Alstom could do the same thing with their Prima line of locos (even though they've had problems lately), so by no means would this end up a single supplier contract or something otherwise troubling.

With such a locomotive, capable of 8000hp on the catenary and at least 4000hp on the 3rd rail, LIRR would be able to electrify the distant diesel branches, ridding themselves of the troublesome DMs (which would likely do well stripped of their 3rd rail equipment and sold to someone like Nashville, TRE, Metrolink, or VRE), begin a transition to a more universal and more efficient electric transmission medium, and yet not need to buy new MUs to cover the newly electrified sections immediately. The C3s are extremely well built and useful commuter coaches, and to replace them with MUs so early in their life would be a mistake, and best of all they could just as easily be pushed or pulled by tri-voltage locomotives as by the DM30ACs. Indeed because the locomotives could run on the Amtrak catenary from Harold to NYP only one locomotive would be neccesary on runs into the city, potentially allowing less than 30 electrics to do the work of 46 DM and DE30ACs. If the catenary were extended over LIRR to Jamaica then superior performance could be had on rush hour express trains around Jamaica in addition to eliminating the danger of the locomotives gapping out on the 3rd rail and the possibility for NJT and Amtrak trains to terminate at Jamaica if turning facilities were provided.

Sure it will cost money now, but it will cost less money than extending the 3rd rail incrementally for the next 50 years. If you think for a moment that LIRR funds it's own capital expenditures then you're sadly mistaken. Get the FTA to give a portion of the money for conversion of the diesel lines to electric and you'll have it set. LIRR may be broke when it comes to their operating budget, but the M7s and the ongoing construction on the ESA project shows that their capital budget still has funding. It would be in LIRR's interest to eliminate the diesel fleet, since once ESA is finished and peak hour slots open up at NYP they'll no doubt be called upon to supply more peak hour trains onto the Port Jeff, Greenport. Montauk and OB lines than the DM30ACs can handle. With only 11 sets of DMs, and allowing for 1 to 2 to be down at any time for inspections and maitenance, that's a mere 4 per line, which likely will not be enough to handle the crowds that will flock to the line once the areas out by Riverhead begin booming. 3rd railing would be nice because it maintains simplicity, but funding it would be difficult, especially when cheaper alternatives exist.