Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

Adirondacker wrote:

Thomas wrote:1. If property acquisition ends up being a big problem in Block 780, what are alternative ways of increasing capacity into and out of Manhattan?

2. If property acquisition ends up being a big problem in Block 780, what are alternative ways of increasing capacity into and out of Manhattan without forgetting the tunnel box?

Build a deep cavern station under Macy's basement?

That we can run NJTransit owned Turboliners into?

Adirondacker wrote: Build a deep cavern station under Macy's basement?

Greg Moore wrote:That we can run NJTransit owned Turboliners into?

The 6 track cavern station underneath 34th Street--not Macy's-- could work if diverging tunnels were built from near the middle of the Hudson River to the current Penn Station via the Tunnel Box/ Concrete Casing.

18 Trains an hour (during rush hour) could easily serve the new 34th Street Cavern (8 NJCL, four express, four local, and 10 M/E, Montclair trains); this works out to 3 trains per Cavern track during the heart of rush hour.

Then, Amtrak and NJ Transit's NEC/Raritan line trains could use the current Penn Station, and Amtrak trains could use the diverging tunnels during tunnel problems, etc.

Requiring each track to receive and dispatch 3 trains an hour is not a realistic expectation. That means 20 minutes from the time an EB train comes within sight of the outermost distant signal until that signal can be cleared for the next EB move; during that time the EB train must proceed to its track, come to a stop, discharge passengers, make the required tests (no time to pick up newspapers and trash and clean up unspeakables), receive passengers, get the signal, then 2 to go, depart, and clear the west limits of the interlocking -- in no more than 20 minutes. One glitch -- and there will be glitches -- and you lose time you won't recover until well after rush hour, and until then trains will be stacking up among the bulrushes waiting to enter the tunnel. This of course messes up the WB traffic for quite a while. I can't prove it, but I think I've heard that an operation the size of NJTRO will experience at least one medical emergency a day involving a passenger. Imagine somebody falling or passing out in the evening rush hour, effectively taking one track out of service until EMS is finished doing what they have to do. Then imagine the dust-up when the tabloids -- and the New York Times -- pick up on the fact that the tunnels can handle 18 trains an hour but the expensive new station can't.

ExCon90 wrote:Requiring each track to receive and dispatch 3 trains an hour is not a realistic expectation. That means 20 minutes from the time an EB train comes within sight of the outermost distant signal until that signal can be cleared for the next EB move; during that time the EB train must proceed to its track, come to a stop, discharge passengers, make the required tests (no time to pick up newspapers and trash and clean up unspeakables), receive passengers, get the signal, then 2 to go, depart, and clear the west limits of the interlocking -- in no more than 20 minutes.

I think that it is doable. After all, East Side Access is supposed to have 24 trains per hour on eight tracks--which is also three trains per track hour (similar to ARC's original plans).

If it was up to you folks--still assuming a track connection into Penn Station--would you guys prefer the Block 780 Station or the ARC Cavern for additional train capacity?

I think that it is doable. After all, East Side Access is supposed to have 24 trains per hour on eight tracks--which is also three trains per track hour (similar to ARC's original plans).

If it was up to you folks--still assuming a track connection into Penn Station--would you guys prefer the Block 780 Station or the ARC Cavern for additional train capacity?

Thomas wrote:

ExCon90 wrote:Requiring each track to receive and dispatch 3 trains an hour is not a realistic expectation. That means 20 minutes from the time an EB train comes within sight of the outermost distant signal until that signal can be cleared for the next EB move; during that time the EB train must proceed to its track, come to a stop, discharge passengers, make the required tests (no time to pick up newspapers and trash and clean up unspeakables), receive passengers, get the signal, then 2 to go, depart, and clear the west limits of the interlocking -- in no more than 20 minutes.

I think that it is doable. After all, East Side Access is supposed to have 24 trains per hour on eight tracks--which is also three trains per track hour (similar to ARC's original plans).

If it was up to you folks--still assuming a track connection into Penn Station--would you guys prefer the Block 780 Station or the ARC Cavern for additional train capacity?

Block 780. ARC Cavern is a non-starter. It was a bad idea when NJ Transit wanted to do it, it's still a bad idea now.

3 tph/track is a pretty standard timing for stub ended terminal operations, especially in the northeast. Scheduling strictly on those absolute minimum timings would not be a smart thing, ahd hopefully NJTRO will not be running into NYC at 100% as soon as these tunnels & station are ready.

My concern is whether it is doable 3 times per track per hour, through two daily rush hours, day in and day out. That's so tight that one glitch can cause delays for the rest of the rush hour at least, with ripple effects as far as Bay Head and Dover. If that happens, say, twice a week, the OT performance will not be satisfactory and there will be a lot of disgruntled commuters. How many uninterrupted days without glitches can be expected? And the most likely glitch is failure of an eastbound train to arrive precisely at its allotted time in order to be slotted in and make its scheduled arrival at the platform.

Why are we even speculating about this here?

The Gateway Tunnels as planned by Amtrak will feed into the throat of the existing station.

Amtrak's goal is to also build more stub tracks at Block 780. These are extremely useful with Gateway, but not 100% required. Gateway serves more purposes than simply adding capacity, it also adds redundancy and flexibility.

Amtrak has expressed zero interest in building an ARC "Macy's Basement" station.
(they have suggested a 2nd, deeper tunnel for a future HSR, but that's pure speculation)

ExCon90 wrote:My concern is whether it is doable 3 times per track per hour, through two daily rush hours, day in and day out. That's so tight that one glitch can cause delays for the rest of the rush hour at least, with ripple effects as far as Bay Head and Dover. If that happens, say, twice a week, the OT performance will not be satisfactory and there will be a lot of disgruntled commuters. How many uninterrupted days without glitches can be expected? And the most likely glitch is failure of an eastbound train to arrive precisely at its allotted time in order to be slotted in and make its scheduled arrival at the platform.

Greg Moore wrote:The Gateway Tunnels as planned by Amtrak will feed into the throat of the existing station.

Amtrak's goal is to also build more stub tracks at Block 780. These are extremely useful with Gateway, but not 100% required. Gateway serves more purposes than simply adding capacity, it also adds redundancy and flexibility.

Amtrak has expressed zero interest in building an ARC "Macy's Basement" station.
(they have suggested a 2nd, deeper tunnel for a future HSR, but that's pure speculation)

That is why the trains are maintained very well to reduce the number of glitches and to keep them at a minimum.

Also, these trains are built with high-performance acceleration and high-performance braking to enable trains to get to fast speeds and stop in very short periods of time. Do not also forget high-density signaling that can enable trains to run very close together.

Thus, it appears that the ARC 34th street cavern is an unlikely solution for the Gateway Project. Amtrak's Tunnel Box will eventually get extended to serve Penn Station's throat--but do not be so sure about the Upper Level Option regarding Block 780. Razing an entire city block within Manhattan is not going to come easily. It will be expensive and likely cause a lot of disruption to surface level. Thus, I believe that Amtrak has proposed the Deep-Level "High Speed Rail" Station as a back-up in the chance that the Upper Level does not get chosen--which would also serve NJ Transit commuter trains.

If this happens, then the Tunnel Box will become a "Penn Station Connector" since it will enable trains to travel to/from the new Gateway Tunnels to the current Penn Station.

Thomas wrote:

ExCon90 wrote:My concern is whether it is doable 3 times per track per hour, through two daily rush hours, day in and day out. That's so tight that one glitch can cause delays for the rest of the rush hour at least, with ripple effects as far as Bay Head and Dover. If that happens, say, twice a week, the OT performance will not be satisfactory and there will be a lot of disgruntled commuters. How many uninterrupted days without glitches can be expected? And the most likely glitch is failure of an eastbound train to arrive precisely at its allotted time in order to be slotted in and make its scheduled arrival at the platform.

Greg Moore wrote:The Gateway Tunnels as planned by Amtrak will feed into the throat of the existing station.

Amtrak's goal is to also build more stub tracks at Block 780. These are extremely useful with Gateway, but not 100% required. Gateway serves more purposes than simply adding capacity, it also adds redundancy and flexibility.

Amtrak has expressed zero interest in building an ARC "Macy's Basement" station.
(they have suggested a 2nd, deeper tunnel for a future HSR, but that's pure speculation)

That is why the trains are maintained very well to reduce the number of glitches and to keep them at a minimum.

What trains are you talking about? We're talking about reality here, the current crop of Amrak, NJT and LIRR trains going in and out of Penn Station.
They have failures now. That's not magically going to change.

Thomas wrote:
Also, these trains are built with high-performance acceleration and high-performance braking to enable trains to get to fast speeds and stop in very short periods of time. Do not also forget high-density signaling that can enable trains to run very close together.

Again WHAT trains are you talking about? The majority of the trains that will operate in and out of these new tunnels will most likely be the existing trains. And we want a smooth ride, not a subway ride.

And even with higher acceleration, you can only navigate the throat and tunnels so quickly.

Thomas wrote:
Thus, it appears that the ARC 34th street cavern is an unlikely solution for the Gateway Project.

It's unlikely because I don't think anyone other than you is even discussing it. For one thing it's on the wrong side of the current station to meet the Box.

Thomas wrote: Amtrak's Tunnel Box will eventually get extended to serve Penn Station's throat--but do not be so sure about the Upper Level Option regarding Block 780. Razing an entire city block within Manhattan is not going to come easily. It will be expensive and likely cause a lot of disruption to surface level. Thus, I believe that Amtrak has proposed the Deep-Level "High Speed Rail" Station as a back-up in the chance that the Upper Level does not get chosen--which would also serve NJ Transit commuter trains.

If this happens, then the Tunnel Box will become a "Penn Station Connector" since it will enable trains to travel to/from the new Gateway Tunnels to the current Penn Station.

Razing blocks happens all the time, and this isn't even that great of a piece of real-estate. Acquiring Bock 780 is hardly the show-stopper you seem to think. Let's worry about the subject of this discussion, the TUNNELS first. That's the show-stopper. That's the one that will be a bear to fund.

As for "will become" yes, because that's the entire point of it, to preserve a connection into the current station.

Everything else here you mention is really just wild speculation until backed up by documents that say otherwise from Amtrak.

Greg Moore wrote: Block 780. ARC Cavern is a non-starter. It was a bad idea when NJ Transit wanted to do it, it's still a bad idea now.

Cheaper quicker to complete and slightly more capacity is bad in what ways?

Greg Moore wrote: Gateway serves more purposes than simply adding capacity, it also adds redundancy and flexibility.

Twice as much in a bigger basket is not always better than half as much in two baskets.

Greg Moore wrote:What trains are you talking about? We're talking about reality here, the current crop of Amrak, NJT and LIRR trains going in and out of Penn Station.
They have failures now. That's not magically going to change.

All trains do have failures at some point, but they--at least in my experience--have been pretty reliable.

Greg Moore wrote:It's unlikely because I don't think anyone other than you is even discussing it. For one thing it's on the wrong side of the current station to meet the Box.

That is why the connection to the Tunnel Box would begin underneath the Hudson River. (The "ARC" Tunnels can still enter Manhattan deep enough to get underneath Hudson Yards and proceed to the 34th Street Cavern. Also, apparently, there was talk in 2007 of having the ARC mezzanine be 115th street below 34th street--instead of 150 feet).

Adirondacker wrote:Cheaper quicker to complete and slightly more capacity is bad in what ways?

Are you saying that you think that the ARC cavern (with a Penn Station Connector) is a better solution than the Block 780 Station?

Adirondacker wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:Block 780. ARC Cavern is a non-starter. It was a bad idea when NJ Transit wanted to do it, it's still a bad idea now.

Cheaper quicker to complete and slightly more capacity is bad in what ways?

When it is "none of the above", then it's bad. Cost overruns were inevitable thanks to all this politicking, and were most likely going to be higher than even what Christie projected.

Just look at the Long Island Rail Road's East Side Access follies and one will get a look at what ARC would have been in for. And LIRR didn't even have to dig any tunnels under the East River for that one.

Greg Moore wrote: Gateway serves more purposes than simply adding capacity, it also adds redundancy and flexibility.

Twice as much in a bigger basket is not always better than half as much in two baskets.

But that is what one argues for with ARC; save that the basket is not big enough for "twice as much" (or as NJT worded it, "double the number of trains to Manhattan").

amtrakowitz wrote:Cost overruns were inevitable thanks to all this politicking, and were most likely going to be higher than even what Christie projected.

But many projects have cost overruns--including the rebuilding of Ground Zero.

Investing in infrastructure projects, such as additional trans-hudson capacity--even if they have cost overruns--are good for long term economic growth. (If you by any chance think that Christie has done a sterling job of growing NJ's economy--think again! The Wall Street Journal has already complained about how New Jersey is near the bottom of all 50 states when it comes to job creation since Christie took office).

I just wonder if there is any chance that--regarding the Block 780 Station--that four deep level tracks get chosen with four tracks at the current level; a multi-level station similar to East Side Access. (The Upper Level can be excavated after a few buildings have been demolished with controlled drilling and blasting from the Deep Level.