Amtrak/LIRR Moynihan Train Hall

Nasadowsk wrote:

hrfcarl wrote: Is NJT Dual Mode equipment suppose to be 3rd rail or catenary equipped? 3rd rail would be preferable, so if no then for next order.

Hopefully, the next order of dual modes from NJT, they'll opt for the 'diesel delete' option. They should have _this_ time around...

What does that mean?

I'm of two minds on this.

On the one hand, I think that all passengers arriving in NY deserve a better experience than the current rat-maze that is Penn Station. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that commuters deserve better facilities (in terms of layout, good design, etc.) even MORE than the long distance passenger. After all, if you're a daily commuter you're making use of a station like GCT or Penn or Hoboken two times a day, five days a week, fifty-odd weeks a year. Any improvements, on the margin, are better than the current situation: and the Farley building would make a grand gateway for the city.

On the other hand, at the actual track level, Penn Station is clearly inadequate for the current day. The fact is that when the Pennsy built the North River tubes, they never really envisioned Penn as a station for commuters coming in across the Hudson River. Remember, when it was designed in ca. 1905, the bulk of the Manhattan office district was far to the south-- around Union Square and below Canal Street. Actually, as late as the 1950's there was little midtown office space aside from the streets immediately adjacent to GCT, the Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center. And for commuters heading from Jersey to lower Manhattan, it was far preferable to come into one of the waterfront stations (NYC Weehawken, DL&W Hoboken, ERIE Jersey City, CNJ Jersey City, PRR Jersey City) and transfer for the ferry or the Hudson & Manhattan tubes than it was to go to midtown and then cut back south on the IRT or IND.

Writing the sentence above really made me realize the problem here. The various players are trying to get back to pre-1950 service levels, but instead of working with 6 mainline terminals, they're trying to squeeze everything into 2.

I guess my conclusion is that the THE tunnel scheme, while flawed, is necessary. The Farley, though, may wind up being a stopgap, like the 1890's remodeling of the Grand Central Depot that produced the old Grand Central Station (the one immediately prior to the current 1913 incarnation). Perhaps with Cablevision spinning out their Madison Square Garden assets, one of the obstacles to a really full reconstruction of the current site will be removed.

george matthews wrote:

Nasadowsk wrote:

hrfcarl wrote: Is NJT Dual Mode equipment suppose to be 3rd rail or catenary equipped? 3rd rail would be preferable, so if no then for next order.

Hopefully, the next order of dual modes from NJT, they'll opt for the 'diesel delete' option. They should have _this_ time around...

What does that mean?

They buy the normal electrics like they SHOULD have. In this day and age, an operation the size of NJT shouldn't be running diesels except as shuttles on lightly traveled lines...

Moynihan, while very nice, does nothing to solve the underlying problems:

-Penn Station remains a rathole, and while whatever capacity gets shifted to Moynihan gets a nicer place to arrive, it still leaves PSNY. Until MSG gets moved, you are going to be stuck with PSNY (hey, here's an idea.....move it to Madison Square! Well, probably not possible, but I'll take moving it to the yards).

-Moynihan moves arrivals even farther west than they are now. What NJ needs, and Moynihan and THE don't provide, is an east-side terminus. LIRR will get this with ESA. ESA may provide capacity for MNRR to get PSNY access. That will give the two NY agencies (MNRR and LIRR) access to both sides of Manhattan. NJT is still stuck on the West Side. Whatever happened to the RPA's grand scheme of access to the east side for NJT?

-That said, the solution is not some grand connector from PSNY to GCT. Someone earlier posted something about if it weren't for the competing politics of different railroads we'd have that, I point them to North and South stations in Boston. They still foam at the mouth about that project at NCI. Connecting PSNY to GCT has been studied, which concluded (hey, there's lies, dam* lies, and statistics) that it would be slow, extremely difficult if not impossible (even more so than anything else in NYC), and of not much utility.

What NJT needs is not THE on the west side, but a THE to somewhere on the East side, not running through PSNY but direct to the east side.

I don't think MSG is moving anytime soon. Even the WSY isn't really a good place for MSG. And why does everyone think MN trains other than a few New Haven trains. With all of the third rail differences in NYP, why add some totally different third rail, where would you store the trains, etc.,etc. Its not that far/hard a subway ride from NYP-GCT.

Nasadowsk wrote:In this day and age, an operation the size of NJT shouldn't be running diesels except as shuttles on lightly traveled lines...

The costs of electrification are prohibitive, so for many lines, like Port Jervis, it's clear that the choice is between continued diesel operations or no service at all.

This is precisely what happened in the early 80s when SEPTA shift to an all electrified operation - they simply abandoned service beyond the wires.

As ludicrous as it sounds, NYP needs a makeover the way Grand Central was rebuilt into its current form. It's maxed out now. Everything about it is inadequate. It works fine when it works. But when one thing goes wrong, the cascade effect is very great on all of the service there. There need to be more tracks, wider platforms, and a more streamlined way to reach trains. And that is a MASSIVE project. Beyond the scope of what gets conceived nowadays.

Bringing Metro-North in will only add more headaches, too. Regardless of what slots open up when the LIRR adds GCT service, it's still going to be a logistical nightmare.

JamesRR wrote:As ludicrous as it sounds, NYP needs a makeover the way Grand Central was rebuilt into its current form. It's maxed out now. Everything about it is inadequate. It works fine when it works. But when one thing goes wrong, the cascade effect is very great on all of the service there. There need to be more tracks, wider platforms, and a more streamlined way to reach trains. And that is a MASSIVE project. Beyond the scope of what gets conceived nowadays.

Bringing Metro-North in will only add more headaches, too. Regardless of what slots open up when the LIRR adds GCT service, it's still going to be a logistical nightmare.

It is getting makeover of sorts. Though not formally part of Penn Station, capacity is being increased if you include the platforms and tracks NJT is adding.

JamesRR wrote:As ludicrous as it sounds, NYP needs a makeover the way Grand Central was rebuilt into its current form. It's maxed out now. Everything about it is inadequate. It works fine when it works. But when one thing goes wrong, the cascade effect is very great on all of the service there. There need to be more tracks, wider platforms, and a more streamlined way to reach trains. And that is a MASSIVE project. Beyond the scope of what gets conceived nowadays.

Bringing Metro-North in will only add more headaches, too. Regardless of what slots open up when the LIRR adds GCT service, it's still going to be a logistical nightmare.

The real problem is the the mismanagement of the current infrastructure. There's plenty of capacity, but the levels of utilization are very poor.

I have been thinking about the problem of how to redo the whole Penn Station (including track level) from a logistics standpoint. The "classic" approach might be to try and keep it in service while the station is rebuilt. This would be utterly complex and very expensive.

So I want your feedback on this crazy idea: Completely close Penn Station for 60 days and rebuild the entire track level during that "window." Then reopen the stations in phases.

- Step 1: complete East Side Access for LIRR to Grand Central and a new Macy's station for NJT. These don't "replace" Penn Station capacity, by they do offer perhaps 30%-50% or more of the existing capacity. This means that during the closure of the station you only need to accommodate 50-70% of the daily users.

- You would start by tearing out a lot of the above grade super structure while keeping the station operating. Get as far as you can without impact train operations and station function. This is exactly the way that Madison Square Garden was built in the first place.

- Step 2 -- during the closure you do keep the "through operation" for Amtrak at Penn Station -- but trains don't stop. In other words, you can still take a train from Philly to Boston. But Philly to New York will run to Hoboken. And Boston to New York will run to Grand Central. Thus, all the Amtrak travel options are still available. You could even, maybe, have a skeleton Amtrak station at Penn most of the time, but most of the station will have to be closed under this concept.

- Step 3 -- the Ferry "bridge." For 60 days we are going to have a flotilla of ferries. We are going to borrow every catamaran ferry in the world we can for that period and run a major ferry operation between Hoboken and Manhattan. On the Manhattan side we are going to have a "Super BRT" that runs across the island. Two streets will be closed to all other traffic and buses will take over. The lights will devote green time to buses at the Avenues. The net effect of this is that commute times for most commuters will increase by no more than 15 minutes for 60 days during the "ferry bridge" Of course, some customers will use the new deep cavern station. On the LIRR side, a super shuttle operation will use subways and will involve a similar logistical situation.

- Step 4 -- Free transit. Yes, that is right. NJT is free for 60 days to Hoboken to compensate you for your lost time from having to take a Ferry or Path across the water. Similar arrangements for LIRR. This will help reduce the pain.

- Step 5 -- gut Penn Station. Rip it all out -- fast. This means having a fleet of waste barges docked at the river, and closing two streets to traffic so that dump trucks can continuously transport the waste. It can then be carted to NJ, ground up and reprocessed as aggregate for reconstruction. Recycling, so to speak.

- Step 6 -- "the Miracle" Using round the clock construction, build a new working station in 45 days at track level. All the niceties can come later, but this entails the tracks, signals, power supply, platforms, and a temporary mezzanine. The design will have to account for opening in phases, but the goal is to open a phase one station within 60 days (or a similar time frame).

- Step 7 - Reopen the temporary station. It now has a better operating pattern, but the actual station superstructure is not complete. Spend the next year finishing the actual station complex above the brand new "basement."


The potential advantage of a scenario like this is that you get a lot done quickly, and then life returns to normal. You only live with construction for a year, instead of, say, three or four. You don't have to constantly shuffle train schedules and platforms, etc. as you rebuild the guts of the station. Over and done and then you focus on the superstructure.

Rapidfire construction is not a new idea. It is used, for example, during times of war. The enemy blows up the bridge -- you build a new one in a jiffy. What Penn Station would entail is a massive heavy lift to tear it out and rebuild it as quickly as is physically possible.

Okay, hack the idea to pieces!

So I want your feedback on this crazy idea: Completely close Penn Station for 60 days and rebuild the entire track level during that "window." Then reopen the stations in phases.

This is what is called in Britain a blockade.

60 days is unlikely to be enough, even working day and night.

I think what is needed at track level is a great deal more than can be achieved in a short blockade. The plans for Birmingham New Street - a similar type of situation - would cost hundreds of millions and perhaps billions. Which is why of course it doesn't happen but keeps getting deferred.

MudLake wrote:

JamesRR wrote:As ludicrous as it sounds, NYP needs a makeover the way Grand Central was rebuilt into its current form. It's maxed out now. Everything about it is inadequate. It works fine when it works. But when one thing goes wrong, the cascade effect is very great on all of the service there. There need to be more tracks, wider platforms, and a more streamlined way to reach trains. And that is a MASSIVE project. Beyond the scope of what gets conceived nowadays.

Bringing Metro-North in will only add more headaches, too. Regardless of what slots open up when the LIRR adds GCT service, it's still going to be a logistical nightmare.

It is getting makeover of sorts. Though not formally part of Penn Station, capacity is being increased if you include the platforms and tracks NJT is adding.

I think it's misleading to think of the THE tunnel project as part of Penn at all. Better to think of it as a replacement for all those stations on the Jersey side of the river that have closed over the past 50 years-- the NYC's Weehawken terminal and the three Jersey City stations-- CNJ, ERIE, PRR. As I understand it, NJT is not looking to actually move any service out of Penn; they're just going to create new services that use the new 34th Street station (or whatever it's going to be called).

Agree with JamesRR: they need to do a complete rebuild. How they could do that-- and where they could find the $$$$$$$-- is another story.

walnut wrote:I have been thinking about the problem of how to redo the whole Penn Station (including track level) from a logistics standpoint. The "classic" approach might be to try and keep it in service while the station is rebuilt. This would be utterly complex and very expensive.

So I want your feedback on this crazy idea: Completely close Penn Station for 60 days and rebuild the entire track level during that "window." Then reopen the stations in phases.

- Step 1: complete East Side Access for LIRR to Grand Central and a new Macy's station for NJT. These don't "replace" Penn Station capacity, by they do offer perhaps 30%-50% or more of the existing capacity. This means that during the closure of the station you only need to accommodate 50-70% of the daily users.

- You would start by tearing out a lot of the above grade super structure while keeping the station operating. Get as far as you can without impact train operations and station function. This is exactly the way that Madison Square Garden was built in the first place.

- Step 2 -- during the closure you do keep the "through operation" for Amtrak at Penn Station -- but trains don't stop. In other words, you can still take a train from Philly to Boston. But Philly to New York will run to Hoboken. And Boston to New York will run to Grand Central. Thus, all the Amtrak travel options are still available. You could even, maybe, have a skeleton Amtrak station at Penn most of the time, but most of the station will have to be closed under this concept.

- Step 3 -- the Ferry "bridge." For 60 days we are going to have a flotilla of ferries. We are going to borrow every catamaran ferry in the world we can for that period and run a major ferry operation between Hoboken and Manhattan. On the Manhattan side we are going to have a "Super BRT" that runs across the island. Two streets will be closed to all other traffic and buses will take over. The lights will devote green time to buses at the Avenues. The net effect of this is that commute times for most commuters will increase by no more than 15 minutes for 60 days during the "ferry bridge" Of course, some customers will use the new deep cavern station. On the LIRR side, a super shuttle operation will use subways and will involve a similar logistical situation.

- Step 4 -- Free transit. Yes, that is right. NJT is free for 60 days to Hoboken to compensate you for your lost time from having to take a Ferry or Path across the water. Similar arrangements for LIRR. This will help reduce the pain.

- Step 5 -- gut Penn Station. Rip it all out -- fast. This means having a fleet of waste barges docked at the river, and closing two streets to traffic so that dump trucks can continuously transport the waste. It can then be carted to NJ, ground up and reprocessed as aggregate for reconstruction. Recycling, so to speak.

- Step 6 -- "the Miracle" Using round the clock construction, build a new working station in 45 days at track level. All the niceties can come later, but this entails the tracks, signals, power supply, platforms, and a temporary mezzanine. The design will have to account for opening in phases, but the goal is to open a phase one station within 60 days (or a similar time frame).

- Step 7 - Reopen the temporary station. It now has a better operating pattern, but the actual station superstructure is not complete. Spend the next year finishing the actual station complex above the brand new "basement."


The potential advantage of a scenario like this is that you get a lot done quickly, and then life returns to normal. You only live with construction for a year, instead of, say, three or four. You don't have to constantly shuffle train schedules and platforms, etc. as you rebuild the guts of the station. Over and done and then you focus on the superstructure.

Rapidfire construction is not a new idea. It is used, for example, during times of war. The enemy blows up the bridge -- you build a new one in a jiffy. What Penn Station would entail is a massive heavy lift to tear it out and rebuild it as quickly as is physically possible.

Okay, hack the idea to pieces!

It's worth remembering that the PRR managed to demolish old Pennsylvania Station and build the current complex while simultaneously maintaining service.

It's worth remembering that the PRR managed to demolish old Pennsylvania Station and build the current complex while simultaneously maintaining service.

Did they touch the track level? That's the bit that needs most work.

george matthews wrote:

It's worth remembering that the PRR managed to demolish old Pennsylvania Station and build the current complex while simultaneously maintaining service.

Did they touch the track level? That's the bit that needs most work.

The real problem is that the current capacity is poorly managed. Capacity isn't an issue. Management is an issue, and by extension, there are labor issues that stem from bad management. When a train arrives late and uncleaned from Sunnyside Yard, it isn't a capacity issue, it comes down to bad management and bad labor relations.

It's worth noting that the Moynihan station proposal doesn't really add capacity but a larger waiting area, albeit one with potential less convenient and efficient access to the platforms. Arguable, the only current program that would add capacity is the East Side Access that's putting LIRR trains into Grand Central, a facility that is very much underutilized.