by F-line to Dudley via Park
Let's not forget there's a whole ton of capacity enhancement going on as project prereqs for this that benefit MNRR service levels a whole lot.
-- Contiguous tri-tracking to Poughkeepsie.
-- Rebuilds of all 2-track MNRR platforms from 6 to 10 cars tied to the tri-track.
-- High-density signaling extended from Croton-Harmon through diesel territory.
-- Full EMU access to Penn Station.
-- Easy vector for executing Rhinecliff extension and as-needed building intermediate stations if NYHSR tri-tracking + hi-dens. resignaling pre-preps POU-RHI in a lump with the project while trackwork economy-of-scale is at its greatest.
-- Unified Hudson fleet for better vehicle scale than the current split between DC EMU's and push-pulls. (Added to NHV Line fleet scale, ends up being far more total systemwide EMU's capable of Hudson assignments than today).
-- As noted, *minor* performance increase EMU vs. diesel. But this is less about schedule savings than the ^^whole package^^ of improvements mainly boosting service density.
And again, the whole point of this nuts-and-bolts discussion is the state's likely build of that major general-purpose 2000 MW electrical grid feeder down the full length of the Hudson from ALB to the NYC area to bolster the whole region's somewhat brittle power grid as its own separate and necessary megaproject that has nothing in and of itself to do with rail. This is the electric transmission equivalent of Water Tunnel 3 (albeit waaaaayyyy less expensive and time-consuming than that drinking water 'grid'-booster megaproject). You can do with a couple Google clicks an afternoon's worth of reading on doomsday scenarios for the Northeast's aging grid and likelihood of more NYC blackout events from cascading failures if the states and feds don't bolster their trunk interconnections with more big, fat feeders. Massachusetts has funded a similar long-term project through the next 10 years for augmenting its trunk feeds out of its huge Ayer, MA interconnection node to the Quebec grid. The Hudson-shore lines and/or underwater cables are a similar resiliency effort from the Albany node that's the major power pipe from the St. Lawrence region.
The existence--one way or another--of this major high-capacity trunk in spitting distance of the whole length of the Hudson Line makes the barrier of entry to 25 kV electrification just about the lowest overall in starter cost for any new mainline rail electrification scheme in the Eastern U.S. It takes away the arduous expense of constructing grid feeders off the ROW to the east to tap lines capable of supplying a 25 kV load...the property acquisition for laying/erecting the lines, the permitting, the community input, and the construction cost that must be coordinated with the utilities. Should this new feeder be proactively planned to allow hook-ins to the 3-4 Hudson substations you instead have your supply right freaking there in eyesight with thorniest costs and 95% of the permitting carried by the utilities alone.
The usual thresholds for what's a go-for-it on railway electrification and what isn't don't apply in this scenario where the feeder is going to be built right freaking there by the ROW. It's a much lower barrier for entry...both on MNRR traffic and north-of-POU Empire traffic. The threshold for diesel vs. electric is a lot lowered. How much it's lowered is a good next place to take this nutsy-boltsy discussion. But we're not talking 'neutral' conditions like cost/benefit on today's Hudson Line where that feeder doesn't exist...or the Springfield Line, or Washington-Richmond, or Harrisburg-Pittsburg. Note well: the whole existence of this thread is predicated on what the value proposition is in glomming onto this grid project, with assumption that the grid megaproject is going to happen purely for general grid reasons. And with that assumption...all of the outflow topics:
-- How would the setup and rolling stock work at a technical level?
-- How to make it worth MNRR's while? Institutionally and for their long-term service needs. What are the synergies to exploit?
-- What kind of planning would maximize the economy-of-scale for all stakeholders (commuter rail, intercity, freight capacity, and the utilities)?
-- How do you get the institutions on the same page, when they're rarely on the same page?
-- How do you make this self-contained enough to pass muster with the villages that have a NIMBY hair-trigger?
...and, yes, now that it's been brought up:
-- What compare/contrast can we do with other electrification schemes and the diesel vs. electric performance dilemma to pinpoint how much the barrier of entry is lowered by exploiting ^^all of the above^^ synergies, and whether that's enough to net a clear win on cost/benefit.
Those are the sorts of parameters that are guiding the discussion. We're sticking tight to those parameters re: synergies to the grid feeder project to keep this thread carefully foam-free and rooted in some real-world cost/benefit calculations. The same boundaries a feasibility study would adhere to without getting into excessive spitballing and hot-takes. So far seems to be working quite well, as this is one of the meatiest brand new discussions on the whole site. If you don't agree that these parameters are worth anything...you're free not to participate. But don't assume this is some sort of breakout of foam-spraying that's going to get carried away and start metastasizing across the forum like foam is wont to do when it gets carried away. The thread's taking great pains not to go there...and that's probably why it's been such a fascinating discussion so far.
-- Contiguous tri-tracking to Poughkeepsie.
-- Rebuilds of all 2-track MNRR platforms from 6 to 10 cars tied to the tri-track.
-- High-density signaling extended from Croton-Harmon through diesel territory.
-- Full EMU access to Penn Station.
-- Easy vector for executing Rhinecliff extension and as-needed building intermediate stations if NYHSR tri-tracking + hi-dens. resignaling pre-preps POU-RHI in a lump with the project while trackwork economy-of-scale is at its greatest.
-- Unified Hudson fleet for better vehicle scale than the current split between DC EMU's and push-pulls. (Added to NHV Line fleet scale, ends up being far more total systemwide EMU's capable of Hudson assignments than today).
-- As noted, *minor* performance increase EMU vs. diesel. But this is less about schedule savings than the ^^whole package^^ of improvements mainly boosting service density.
And again, the whole point of this nuts-and-bolts discussion is the state's likely build of that major general-purpose 2000 MW electrical grid feeder down the full length of the Hudson from ALB to the NYC area to bolster the whole region's somewhat brittle power grid as its own separate and necessary megaproject that has nothing in and of itself to do with rail. This is the electric transmission equivalent of Water Tunnel 3 (albeit waaaaayyyy less expensive and time-consuming than that drinking water 'grid'-booster megaproject). You can do with a couple Google clicks an afternoon's worth of reading on doomsday scenarios for the Northeast's aging grid and likelihood of more NYC blackout events from cascading failures if the states and feds don't bolster their trunk interconnections with more big, fat feeders. Massachusetts has funded a similar long-term project through the next 10 years for augmenting its trunk feeds out of its huge Ayer, MA interconnection node to the Quebec grid. The Hudson-shore lines and/or underwater cables are a similar resiliency effort from the Albany node that's the major power pipe from the St. Lawrence region.
The existence--one way or another--of this major high-capacity trunk in spitting distance of the whole length of the Hudson Line makes the barrier of entry to 25 kV electrification just about the lowest overall in starter cost for any new mainline rail electrification scheme in the Eastern U.S. It takes away the arduous expense of constructing grid feeders off the ROW to the east to tap lines capable of supplying a 25 kV load...the property acquisition for laying/erecting the lines, the permitting, the community input, and the construction cost that must be coordinated with the utilities. Should this new feeder be proactively planned to allow hook-ins to the 3-4 Hudson substations you instead have your supply right freaking there in eyesight with thorniest costs and 95% of the permitting carried by the utilities alone.
The usual thresholds for what's a go-for-it on railway electrification and what isn't don't apply in this scenario where the feeder is going to be built right freaking there by the ROW. It's a much lower barrier for entry...both on MNRR traffic and north-of-POU Empire traffic. The threshold for diesel vs. electric is a lot lowered. How much it's lowered is a good next place to take this nutsy-boltsy discussion. But we're not talking 'neutral' conditions like cost/benefit on today's Hudson Line where that feeder doesn't exist...or the Springfield Line, or Washington-Richmond, or Harrisburg-Pittsburg. Note well: the whole existence of this thread is predicated on what the value proposition is in glomming onto this grid project, with assumption that the grid megaproject is going to happen purely for general grid reasons. And with that assumption...all of the outflow topics:
-- How would the setup and rolling stock work at a technical level?
-- How to make it worth MNRR's while? Institutionally and for their long-term service needs. What are the synergies to exploit?
-- What kind of planning would maximize the economy-of-scale for all stakeholders (commuter rail, intercity, freight capacity, and the utilities)?
-- How do you get the institutions on the same page, when they're rarely on the same page?
-- How do you make this self-contained enough to pass muster with the villages that have a NIMBY hair-trigger?
...and, yes, now that it's been brought up:
-- What compare/contrast can we do with other electrification schemes and the diesel vs. electric performance dilemma to pinpoint how much the barrier of entry is lowered by exploiting ^^all of the above^^ synergies, and whether that's enough to net a clear win on cost/benefit.
Those are the sorts of parameters that are guiding the discussion. We're sticking tight to those parameters re: synergies to the grid feeder project to keep this thread carefully foam-free and rooted in some real-world cost/benefit calculations. The same boundaries a feasibility study would adhere to without getting into excessive spitballing and hot-takes. So far seems to be working quite well, as this is one of the meatiest brand new discussions on the whole site. If you don't agree that these parameters are worth anything...you're free not to participate. But don't assume this is some sort of breakout of foam-spraying that's going to get carried away and start metastasizing across the forum like foam is wont to do when it gets carried away. The thread's taking great pains not to go there...and that's probably why it's been such a fascinating discussion so far.
