Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm just curious as to how much greater peak frequency the Main Line can handle and what are the current constraints on the infrastructure and what projects can be reasonably be done to lift some of those constraints a bit.
A rough breakdown for common capacity limits are:
- terminal capacity which is how much room at terminal berths there is to unload and load trains to head back from the terminals
- yard capacity as in places to store and maintain traincars
- track capacity which is how many more trains can be run on the tracks safely; this is a few things and it can be the maximum potential track capacity if everything is in a state of good repair or track capacity taking in things like slow zones for tracks that need work
- the related bottlenecks at certain junctions
- competing "slots" from other services such as any freight line and Amtrak services
- funding / demand limits as in there aren't enough funds or demand to run and service any more trains even if the infrastructure is in place
- rolling stock limits, related to funding capacity, which is there simply aren't enough trainsets at the moment even if the fixed infrastructure can allow for more
I'm curious as to what are the limits on the current system and what can be done to lift the lowest / closest constraints to run more.
Is peak frequency for Main Line train service already constrained at its hard infrastructure capacities which are the first four of terminal, yard, and track capacities or specific bottlenecks? If so, what and is where is that limit coming from?
I know that there's the East Side Access project under construction at Grand Central terminal and some trains will be diverted to Grand Central, but what's the net addition of the number of peak services running into Manhattan once this is up? What are the different bottlenecks now especially the current most limiting factor? If it's the number of terminal berths at Penn Station, what is the next closest bottleneck once East Side Access finishes?
There are at least seven questions in the original post. OyCrumbler has often posted on this board, so he can be confident that he will get some partial answers, but those questions might require a thousand lines of replies. First, thanks for using the term Main Line rather than Ronkonkoma Branch, as Greenport to Harold, Long Island City or thereabouts is the Main Line, not a branch. On public timetables, the railroad wisely uses the expression Ronkonkoma Branch for clarity.
---
To me the answer is not just in trackage capacity but also in administrative choices. For about sixty years, fares to Penn Station were higher than fares to Brooklyn. The present MTA leadership keeps discouraging people from using Atlantic Terminal, soon requiring a time-consuming transfer at Jamaica. That's an administrative choice, not a given. Woodside, Hunterspoint, Long Island City, and Flatbush Avenue should no longer be charged Penn Station fares.
---
It looks as if capacity might be hampered by the lack of an island platform at Mineola. The administrative choice seems to be to have Oyster Bay shuttles obstruct the free flow of trains on one of 3 tracks there.
There are at least seven questions in the original post. OyCrumbler has often posted on this board, so he can be confident that he will get some partial answers, but those questions might require a thousand lines of replies. First, thanks for using the term Main Line rather than Ronkonkoma Branch, as Greenport to Harold, Long Island City or thereabouts is the Main Line, not a branch. On public timetables, the railroad wisely uses the expression Ronkonkoma Branch for clarity.
---
To me the answer is not just in trackage capacity but also in administrative choices. For about sixty years, fares to Penn Station were higher than fares to Brooklyn. The present MTA leadership keeps discouraging people from using Atlantic Terminal, soon requiring a time-consuming transfer at Jamaica. That's an administrative choice, not a given. Woodside, Hunterspoint, Long Island City, and Flatbush Avenue should no longer be charged Penn Station fares.
---
It looks as if capacity might be hampered by the lack of an island platform at Mineola. The administrative choice seems to be to have Oyster Bay shuttles obstruct the free flow of trains on one of 3 tracks there.
It’s definitely a question that beggars more questions!
For your followups, what’s made the most sense to me through the years is to not make East Side Acces as it is in its current form, but to be more like the similarly priced and far more useful Crossrails project in London which madea through-running route. Instead of a massive and complex interlocking and a deep and massive underground boring of two giant chambers with two levels each deep underneath Grand Central, East Side Access should have been a continual running of the tunnel boring machirn down Manhattan to the Financial District and then to Atlantic Terminal with a few stations along that line and letting trains go back to Jamaica over the Atlantic station branch. That massively simplifies both construction and operations while reducing the number of transfers to Manhattan jobs for a massive swath of Long Islanders. There was/is even a way to do in parts that make sense in making the system more resilient by doing phases with first making a simple station in a single level and single tunnel chamber undeneath Grand Central with crossovers before the GC tracks and a longer tail end slightly past GC also with crossovers. Trains could have served near peak capacity for the current GC station plan much earlier and meanwhile have gone on completing the full run and stations to the current Atlantic terminal.
Nothing will change...the same as we have only 3 major highways heading to to the city. It’s pathetic how LI never made changes for its explosion in growth.
It’s definitely a question that beggars more questions!
For your followups, what’s made the most sense to me through the years is to not make East Side Acces as it is in its current form, but to be more like the similarly priced and far more useful Crossrails project in London which madea through-running route. Instead of a massive and complex interlocking and a deep and massive underground boring of two giant chambers with two levels each deep underneath Grand Central, East Side Access should have been a continual running of the tunnel boring machirn down Manhattan to the Financial District and then to Atlantic Terminal with a few stations along that line and letting trains go back to Jamaica over the Atlantic station branch. That massively simplifies both construction and operations while reducing the number of transfers to Manhattan jobs for a massive swath of Long Islanders. There was/is even a way to do in parts that make sense in making the system more resilient by doing phases with first making a simple station in a single level and single tunnel chamber undeneath Grand Central with crossovers before the GC tracks and a longer tail end slightly past GC also with crossovers. Trains could have served near peak capacity for the current GC station plan much earlier and meanwhile have gone on completing the full run and stations to the current Atlantic terminal.
There is some ancient law on the books saying commuter rails cant past Grand Central. If the LIRR gave a crap about the riders the new station would be at Fulton st or a bit further downtown. This would eliminate the need for Lirr and MN commuters to use the subway.
Nothing will change...the same as we have only 3 major highways heading to to the city. It’s pathetic how LI never made changes for its explosion in growth.
There've been some incremental construction projects that added a bit of capacity, though I think there was first a rapid cutting back during the mid to late 20th century. This third track and grade crossing elimination program is supposed to add some capacity which I take to mean that the East Side Access project with its new Grand Central terminal isn't going to be a zero sum game with the current Penn Station terminal, but rather an actual boost in peak frequency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gx89
There is some ancient law on the books saying commuter rails cant past Grand Central. If the LIRR gave a crap about the riders the new station would be at Fulton st or a bit further downtown. This would eliminate the need for Lirr and MN commuters to use the subway.
Wow, I've never heard of this law. I know there was the JFK to downtown Manhattan plan that was going to use LIRR tracks, but perhaps that wasn't going to be LIRR run?
Yea, I think commuter rail going past Grand Central is essential. The giant interlockings and terminals don't make much sense and are exorbitantly expensive as opposed to tunneling and then making small stations along the way. The giant interlocking and terminal is so you can turn trains back, but it's crazy to do that in the most expensive and tightly compacted area of the entire country. Instead, the trains should do through-running where it goes into the city and then keeps going until it's out which NYC and LIRR actually has the lucky ability to do because there's the Atlantic terminal station in Brooklyn.
If instead of the massive interlocking and terminal under Grand Central, LIRR just kept continuing down as a set of two tracks with a few small stations along the way to Atlantic terminal (which would no longer be a terminal) via downtown Manhattan, then there's a much more useful system for everybody and would likely have cost the same or less than the East Side Access project as it is today. I'm really hoping that there's a shakeup of sorts that shifts East Side Access towards that while there's still a lot of the project uncompleted.
There've been some incremental construction projects that added a bit of capacity, though I think there was first a rapid cutting back during the mid to late 20th century. This third track and grade crossing elimination program is supposed to add some capacity which I take to mean that the East Side Access project with its new Grand Central terminal isn't going to be a zero sum game with the current Penn Station terminal, but rather an actual boost in peak frequency.
Wow, I've never heard of this law. I know there was the JFK to downtown Manhattan plan that was going to use LIRR tracks, but perhaps that wasn't going to be LIRR run?
Yea, I think commuter rail going past Grand Central is essential. The giant interlockings and terminals don't make much sense and are exorbitantly expensive as opposed to tunneling and then making small stations along the way. The giant interlocking and terminal is so you can turn trains back, but it's crazy to do that in the most expensive and tightly compacted area of the entire country. Instead, the trains should do through-running where it goes into the city and then keeps going until it's out which NYC and LIRR actually has the lucky ability to do because there's the Atlantic terminal station in Brooklyn.
If instead of the massive interlocking and terminal under Grand Central, LIRR just kept continuing down as a set of two tracks with a few small stations along the way to Atlantic terminal (which would no longer be a terminal) via downtown Manhattan, then there's a much more useful system for everybody and would likely have cost the same or less than the East Side Access project as it is today. I'm really hoping that there's a shakeup of sorts that shifts East Side Access towards that while there's still a lot of the project uncompleted.
There is a bunch of infrastructure in the way going south of GC... Good luck tunnel thru and around that
Would seem to me the archaic signal system is the bottleneck. We have what four tunnels under the river, however, it seems to me that if our airports can cycle out what a takeoff and landing more frequently than what one per fifteen minutes (my experience on Ronko line in Penn, why can't MTA. We'd be better served with two people one on the platform in Penn and one at the end of the tunnel with a radio. But hey I'm not a MTA expert, i'm an idiot spending $3.6K a year to commute
Secondly, recent press release on supporting the what $16billion expenditure for Grand Central extension, if I recall correctly said that 50% of riders go to the east side. Now it would seem to me, therefore, the most reasonable approach to this would've/would be to have the trains stop in Woodside --- the 7 train goes to Grand Central. Alas, NOPE. (But they all seem to stop in Hillside for the employees) My point being they're in business to serve their employees
There is a bunch of infrastructure in the way going south of GC... Good luck tunnel thru and around that
It’s true that it’s somewhat difficult, but London has done so through the heart of the city with Crossrail which was about the same time as East Side Access and also meant to extend the reach of its commuter rail system. The tunneling is ultimately easier than the massive interlocking and terminal berths excavation that East Side Access requires. Costs go up exponentially with how large an area you need to excavate but linearly with length. Given how much, much more utility a through-running tunnel gives the system and how it’s likely cheaper operationally than two separate tunnel terminals with each one having bilevel berths, it seems like a a grave mistake to not have gone with the through-running tunnel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beachcomber11
Would seem to me the archaic signal system is the bottleneck. We have what four tunnels under the river, however, it seems to me that if our airports can cycle out what a takeoff and landing more frequently than what one per fifteen minutes (my experience on Ronko line in Penn, why can't MTA. We'd be better served with two people one on the platform in Penn and one at the end of the tunnel with a radio. But hey I'm not a MTA expert, i'm an idiot spending $3.6K a year to commute
Secondly, recent press release on supporting the what $16billion expenditure for Grand Central extension, if I recall correctly said that 50% of riders go to the east side. Now it would seem to me, therefore, the most reasonable approach to this would've/would be to have the trains stop in Woodside --- the 7 train goes to Grand Central. Alas, NOPE. (But they all seem to stop in Hillside for the employees) My point being they're in business to serve their employees
Are you saying that you think all trains should stop at Woodside so a transfer can made? I don’t think that’s a bad idea overall, but the 7 train is very much at capacity for peak directions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
