Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, Jeff Smith

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Terrapin Station » Thu Dec 22, 2016 8:32 am

Jeff Smith wrote:Even with a "station" track off the main line, trains entering and leaving stations are going to affect capacity.

Yes, but not necessarily enough to affect planned/actual service levels.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: New Rochelle, NY

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Jeff Smith » Thu Dec 22, 2016 11:15 am

A single frequency by its very nature affects capacity; that's one less train of excess capacity. If you had read up-thread, the proposals are 6-10 peak hour trains, with 4 reverse peak, with two-off peak trains in each direction.

How is that not going to affect capacity?
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Terrapin Station » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:46 pm

Jeff Smith wrote:A single frequency by its very nature affects capacity; that's one less train of excess capacity. If you had read up-thread, the proposals are 6-10 peak hour trains, with 4 reverse peak, with two-off peak trains in each direction.

How is that not going to affect capacity?

For example (and I'm completely making up numbers), if a track has a capacity of 30 trains per hour with no station, or a capacity of 20 trains per hour assuming 5 trains per hour stop at the station, then if the track only sees a total of 15 trains per hour (10 that don't stop and 5 that stop), then the decrease in capacity from 30 tph to 20 tph is not enough to affect the service. In other words, you could run your 15 tph with a station or without a station and it wouldn't make a difference (assuming evenly spaced intervals, etc., etc., etc.).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:36 pm
Location: New Rochelle, NY

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby nomis » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:18 pm

OK, so it affects service. The severity of which, depends on the individual trains in question, and that an adjustment can be made across the Hell Gate, and if said adjustment on this certain section of track is acceptable and ripple effects & slots up and down the line are minimized and mitigated. This holds true for the Mets, the Hell Gate and the NYP complex.

Mod Note: Capacity is affected - got it !
Moderator: Metro-North (with CDOT), Photography & Video

Avatar: An overnight trip on Girard Ave. stumbles upon 6 PCC's and an LRV stuck within two blocks.
User avatar
nomis
 
Posts: 2022
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: MRS 43 (was QA 9 & QB 2)

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Jeff Smith » Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:11 pm

I was trolling the capital dashboard on the MTA site today, and came up with some tidbits:

Rolling Stock $4.85m
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/al ... 9&PLTYPE=5

Yard upgrades (Penn and New Rochelle) $30.6m
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/al ... 8&PLTYPE=5

Hell Gate line stations (Co-Op, Morris Park, Parkchester, Hunts Point) $188m
http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/al ... 7&PLTYPE=5

No dates provided for any of these.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Rockingham Racer » Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:16 pm

With the upgrade of New Rochelle yard--where there's a good amount of room, by the way--it sounds as though at least some trains will terminate / originate for the new service. Track 6 in the station will be busier than ever. The place could use another platform, but there just isn't any room for one without removing a track from service.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Jeff Smith » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:59 am

Track 6 is now actually 4, with 2 platforming on the island as well, after the reconfiguration. Where track 2 was is now just a gap.

If I recall, there's a new interlocking just beyond Shell; I suppose connecting trains could do what inbound NEC trains do, and platform on track 2 for a cross-platform transfer. I believe they could then cross back over to 1 at the new interlocking if necessary (inbound peak service generally uses three tracks anyway; 3, 1, and 2). Otherwise, it's up and over from track 3 to the PSAS shuttle.

The New Rochelle yard is narrow, but long. They could certainly stash enough shuttle sets in there. But I imagine peak service may have a couple direct Stamford expresses making the crossover and a connection stop in New Ro anyway.

Not sure to what extend the yard is electrified. I know some of track 6 (after the new track 4 returns to the original alignment) is electrified from my years there, but some of the tracks are used for storage of MoW equipment.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7443
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby Rockingham Racer » Thu Mar 16, 2017 2:12 pm

I believe there's at least one track in NRO yard that has wire. IIRC, last year during the AM rush, while wait to board a train to Boston, a New Rochelle originator came out and waited at the station on 3 track for its leaving time.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 2886
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Extension To Penn Station

Postby fredmcain » Thu May 11, 2017 11:47 am

Lackawanna484 <cut> I'd doubt MetroNorth would operate into Penn Station. That would require additional staffing, tickets, mechanical support etc in another location. Although top leadership would like more interface between LIRR and MN, it's highly unlikely that MN crafts would willingly accept LIRR people working on MN equipment if it came to that. <cut>

Mod Note: Quote from http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=67&t=5943&start=15, and thread merged with PSAS thread.

Actually, it is my understanding that there *IS*, in fact, a definite plan to bring M-N into Penn Station but that would be the New Haven line, not the Harlem or Hudson line. It is my understanding that they'd like to do that soon but the lack of track space at Penn prevents them doing so. It is my understanding that once the LIRR "Eastside Access" is complete, that will open up track space at Penn to allow some M-N New Haven lines trains to terminate and originate there. We'll see.

However, bringing the Harlem or Hudson line into Penn is more problematic. I'm not sure it's necessary, either. And yeah, I'd like to see some New York - Boston trains leave from GCT, too!

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Last edited by nomis on Fri May 12, 2017 9:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Edited to fix quote & add reference to old thread.
Fred M. Cain,
New Haven Railroad fan
Not afraid to use my own name
fredmcain
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:44 am

Re: Extending service on the Harlem and Hudson lines

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Thu May 11, 2017 3:20 pm

No, there's quite very firm Hudson Line plans too. It's Phase II of the plan, with New Haven Line being the fast-tracked Phase I because of the sky-high Day 1 ridership potential from the new Bronx intermediates if a full schedule slate of Stamford/New Rochelle locals were instituted at first opportunity.. West Side, with Empire Connection intermediate stations at W 125th and W 62nd, is more of a speculative slow-grower that would have a spotty starter schedule becoming very gradually fuller over time (but never coming close to a GCT schedule like the quasi-balance of that one Stamford/New Rochelle--NYP schedule). Advancing the Hudson phase into next stage of design also depends on pinning down how many next-gen coaches and dual-modes the MTA orders in the MNRR/LIRR diesel combo order...unlike the New Haven Line where the supplemental batch of M8's for feeding PSA service are already on-order.

Harlem's the only one shut out of NYP because the Port Morris Branch doesn't join the Hell Gate until after all of the Bronx intermediates, depriving Harlem of most of the new reverse-commute ridership that New Haven's tapping. NYP alone isn't compelling enough for the track miles on the diversion if it can't hit those high-growth spots in the Bronx, so there isn't enough of a "WOW!" hook for bringing Harlem to the party.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Extending service on the Harlem and Hudson lines

Postby fredmcain » Fri May 12, 2017 6:16 am

To extend Hudson line trains into Penn there will be a discrepancy in the third rail connection. Probably they would have to use diesel-electric/electric locomotives for any through Poughkeepsie (or Croton/Harmon) service to Penn Station. That wouldn't be an issue with any New Haven line extension 'cause they could use all catenary.

Personally, I'd like to see M-N get away from Diesel hauled trains but that's only an opinion.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
Fred M. Cain,
New Haven Railroad fan
Not afraid to use my own name
fredmcain
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:44 am

Re: Extending service on the Harlem and Hudson lines

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Fri May 12, 2017 7:38 am

That's exactly the plan. Dual-mode push-pulls on the Empire Connection, not MU's. Because this is the lesser of the two PSA lines, with intermediate stops that are slow-growing, demand isn't high enough for them to need to think about laying third rail on the Empire Connection. It's a relatively minor (but worthwhile) service pattern that can be covered with the Hudson's next diesel fleet.


New Haven Line *will* have to pick up a stretch of third rail into Penn because the M8's are not compatible with 25 Hz overhead. LIRR third rail will be extended 1 mile to the 25 Hz/60 Hz phase break on the Hell Gate, and M8's (already compatible with LIRR over-running third rail) will make the power switch there. Very minor expense, as 1 mile is too short to require any new DC substations.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7184
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Extending service on the Harlem and Hudson lines

Postby DutchRailnut » Fri May 12, 2017 8:47 am

it will need a sub station and since two tracks are involved its not as cheap as you seem to think.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21200
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Extending service Harlem,Hudson & NH lines

Postby fredmcain » Fri May 12, 2017 8:52 am

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: New Haven Line *will* have to pick up a stretch of third rail into Penn because the M8's are not compatible with 25 Hz overhead. LIRR third rail will be extended 1 mile to the 25 Hz/60 Hz phase break on the Hell Gate, and M8's (already compatible with LIRR over-running third rail) will make the power switch there. Very minor expense, as 1 mile is too short to require any new DC substations.


F-Line,

Now you have brought something else up that has always struck me as beyond stupid - and I realize I am drifting off topic here but I will try and get back on. For an Amtrak train to run from Boston to Washington, it has to be able to negotiate *THREE* different kinds of current. 25KV, 60cycle from Boston to New Haven, 12.5KV 60 cycle from New Haven to either New Rochelle or Penn Station - not sure where the break is - then 11K 25 cycle to Washington.

It wasn't supposed to turn out this way. I remember that at one time the ENTIRE Northeast Corridor was to be converted to 25K V 60 cycle. That never happened. Now we have what we have. I'm not sure what would be cheaper. Extending the LIRR's third rail like you mentioned or modifying the M8s to operated on 11KV 25 cycle. Actually, if the 25 cycle stuff starts at Shell, then that would need to be addressed, too, but like I say, I'm not sure any more.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain,
New Haven Railroad fan
Not afraid to use my own name
fredmcain
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:44 am

Re: Metro-North Penn Station Access Study (PSAS)

Postby DutchRailnut » Fri May 12, 2017 2:45 pm

The M-8's were purposely not ordered with the 25 Hz option as transformer for each car would push weight of each car over acceptable limits.
as for duel purpose third rail shoe see file section of this forum.

The 60 cycle to 25 cycle switchover is at CP Gate the LIRR third rail does not start till next interlocking about mile down road and about a mile from Harold interlocking.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 21200
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

PreviousNext

Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests