Through Running Instead of Penn South?

The speed limits are around the maximum output of the electric motors on those units and the amount of weight they are hauling. They will literally just die at higher speeds.

That and the rails and switches themselves are simply not designed for high speeds because it makes no sense there. Who's going to be speeding through Penn at 50 mph?

I read “Modernizing New York Commuter Rail: A Report by the Effective Transit Alliance” (which has a lot of emphasis on through running) and had some thoughts about it. What I put together was too long for a comment on this site, so I uploaded it as a web page on my own website at http://www.stevedunham.50megs.com/Moder ... mments.htm.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 7:32 pmUltimately, you're talking about potentially billions in spending to replace working infrastructure to compensate for the fact that three different railroads, who had no interest in through-running with each other decided 100 years ago to each use their own preferred version of what (at the time) was brand new technology.

If you're referring to Hudson line AC electrification, then it actually works against the through-running, which would work better with third rail to Croton-Harmon, as they could theoretically through-run with LIRR.

There are a few benefits to Hudson line AC electrification:

1. AC electrification could be extended to Poughkeepsie, Albany, and beyond for Amtrak to Albany, and then shared with freight west to Chicago.

2. MN would have electrification and elimination of dual-modes to Poughkeepsie, although this alone could be accomplished with an isolated section of 25kV/60 from Croton Harmon to Poughkeepsie, with M-8 and M-10 cars switching to DC power to Croton Harmon.

3. If the switchover were moved to Highbridge, CSX would have a path clear of third rail into Oak Point and onwards to Long Island that could handle intermodal well cars, which would be able to haul truck trailers within Plate C clearance.

west point wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 9:45 pmWhat is most likely obsolete? IMO it is the 25 Hz system. Amtrak rightly feels that it can live with 25 Hz for the foreseeable future as other items are much more needed. It would be informative what extra Amtrak has to spend each year to purchase replacement 25 Hz equipment or more likely very expensive dual 25/60Hz equipment.

You're right in the long run, but I'm not sure it has a material impact on anything. Even if the railroads would work on the freight electrification that they should be doing nationwide, you still basically need two different standards for locomotives, one at Plate C 15'6" clearance, ACSES II, and 25hz in addition to the standard I-ETMS and 60hz power, with the "standard" locomotives in the rest of the country being able to be at least 16'2" tall.

On the passenger side, MN could already run with NJT-style overhead EMUs or push-pull that will run on 25hz or 60hz. LIRR should probably just stay their own little world, and the Harlem line is likewise basically isolated from anything else. It's the Hudson Line that's really the big question, everything else has a clear choice for additional electrification.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 8:37 pm

jamoldover wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2023 7:32 pmUltimately, you're talking about potentially billions in spending to replace working infrastructure to compensate for the fact that three different railroads, who had no interest in through-running with each other decided 100 years ago to each use their own preferred version of what (at the time) was brand new technology.

If you're referring to Hudson line AC electrification, then it actually works against the through-running, which would work better with third rail to Croton-Harmon, as they could theoretically through-run with LIRR.

No they can't. One is top-contact third rail (LIRR) and one is bottom-contact third rail (MNCR). Equipment designed for one can't be used on the other because of how the shoes are mounted. While there theoretically have been "dual-sided" shoes, the springs and other parts of the system needed to keep the shoe in contact with the rail haven't been able to make that idea work despite multiple attempts.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Dec 03, 2023 8:37 pm 3. If the switchover were moved to Highbridge, CSX would have a path clear of third rail into Oak Point and onwards to Long Island that could handle intermodal well cars, which would be able to haul truck trailers within Plate C clearance.

They don't need to use well cars in order to haul trailers to Long Island. The Oak Point link was built with enough clearance to run conventional TOFC - that was part of the original plan for the Harlem River Yard. It just never ended up happening. Whether or not there's enough trailer business to justify it is a separate question.

jamoldover wrote: ↑Tue Dec 05, 2023 7:02 pmNo they can't. One is top-contact third rail (LIRR) and one is bottom-contact third rail (MNCR). Equipment designed for one can't be used on the other because of how the shoes are mounted. While there theoretically have been "dual-sided" shoes, the springs and other parts of the system needed to keep the shoe in contact with the rail haven't been able to make that idea work despite multiple attempts.

The M-8's for Penn Access beg to differ, they will have both and will run interchangeably in and out of both GCT and NYP. This is a solved problem.

They don't need to use well cars in order to haul trailers to Long Island. The Oak Point link was built with enough clearance to run conventional TOFC - that was part of the original plan for the Harlem River Yard. It just never ended up happening. Whether or not there's enough trailer business to justify it is a separate question.

Interesting. Looks like they do have Plate F into Maspeth/Fresh Pond area. So that may not be as much of a selling point, but the Amtrak electrification still supports the use of AC from Highbridge to Albany.