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.
So, because I had read about a Crossrails Chicago plan, named after London's Crossrails program which is set to link existing commuter and regional rail tracks through 13 miles of new tunnels in Central London through dense, historic neighborhoods and under a river, I tried a google search for Crossrails NYC and came across this UPenn study which basically takes the LIRR/NJT consolidation portion of things through Penn Station. I'm certainly glad this study exists.
The extension south of Grand Central to downtown Manhattan and to Atlantic Terminal can build off of this and realize a lot of the same benefits, though the cost would be much greater for the additional tunneling necessary. However, if London's willingness to expand its network through a much longer set of tunnels through a dense and historic part of the city, then perhaps NYC can be willing to do the same though without the electrical system standardization system issue.
So perhaps the LIRR/NJT integration first (I believe they have a different kind of electrical contact system, but the same voltage) and then to move toward Metro-North integration since the electrical integration issue would be greater and that cross-operating benefits is more involved since much more new tunneling is necessary to make it effective.
Is there a database of commuter rail systems somewhere that lists the gauge, the electrical system type (how the contact is made and the voltage and type of current) and any other limitations are? Maybe this makes the most sense in trying to consolidate. Certainly, I think the northeast should consolidate as well since these systems are so close to each other.
Yes, because of the electrical systems, right? I'm curious as to if there was to be a standardization for these, which system to standardize to makes the most sense?
Neither; overhead is the best to standardize on, probably Amtrak's 25KV 60Hz system (same as used by NJT... except on the NEC, where it's 12.5KV @ 25Hz. Fortunately multi-standard operation is quite feasible)
Neither; overhead is the best to standardize on, probably Amtrak's 25KV 60Hz system (same as used by NJT... except on the NEC, where it's 12.5KV @ 25Hz. Fortunately multi-standard operation is quite feasible)
Why overhead? My apologies if it's obvious, but I'm still scratching my head on this.
I do agree NJT and SEPTA could better coordinate their schedules on the NJT NEC Line and SEPTA Trenton Line, something they did do a few years ago. (I haven't checked recently if they have restarted that coordination.)
The two schedules are sort of coordinated, for some trains, although I rarely take NJT at rush hour on a weekday to know how efficient that coordination is for regular riders. And SEPTA's interim schedules have made a mess of things. NJT's website will provide trip itineraries; about all SEPTA will do is sell you a NJT ticket.
Oh, and I've seen SEPTA hold a train leaving Trenton if a NJT train is late. While of course that's good business, I also think the conductors must delight in watching everyone bolt up and down the platforms and up and down the stairs.
It touches upon some of the things discussed here, but it looks towards the Bronx instead of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn.
I do like a lot of parts of this plan, especially the Port Morris stretch, which I think was in that Crossrails NY/NJ plan as well. However, I think its incorporation of projects that seem boondoggle-y like the Brooklyn/Queens light rail line and the Airtrain from Mets-Willet Point to LaGuardia*, and the really hard case of trying to close down Rikers and do a landfill from there to LaGuardia, bites off a lot. I also missed any part about what they propose to standardize these different commuter rail lines to. I do like the citing of the RER in Paris as an example of how connecting these different train lines and their termini can make a massive difference. It'd be nice if there was some long term plans to also connect the Atlantic Terminal in downtown Brooklyn and Grand Central in Midtown to something as well (each other would be grand).
*I think an extension through the stubs already present in the Roosevelt Avenue/74th Street subway station north to LaGuardia through a new underground tunnel with one or two stations along the way is better because though it's much more expensive, it's also much more useful since it would give rapid transit access to parts of the densest outer borough neighborhood (Jackson Heights) that doesn't currently have subway access, will have much better connections and potential one-seat or one-transfer rides to and from the airport, and will also allow another additional transit service such as the G train to service a large part of Queens since it avoids the turnaround bottleneck at the end of the IND Queens Boulevard service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler
Third rail requires relatively low voltages, meaning more loss and more substations. Also more problems with "trespasser fatalities".
Ah, I see. Is catenary also more susceptible to damage though? Also, I can see this standardization being a huge problem if there are trains that have to serve tunnels with different kinds of height clearances, no?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-21-2016 at 07:17 PM..
This is a great map for travel time plotted to Manhattan
Interestingly there are many points in the Philly metro actually closer transit wise on CR/RR time wise then many existing NYC CR lines
That is a great map. Imagine that map with that central Manhattan node actually something that trains can travel through from one point to another and with the branch that goes from Queens through Brooklyn to Atlantic terminal and up through downtown Manhattan to Grand Central/LIRR and with a few stops within that Manhattan / downtown Brooklyn zone. This makes standardizing commuter rail for at least the Tri-State area potentially worthwhile along with the savings in bulk orders, standardized repairs and maintenance meaning less needed equipment in stock, and the ability to take some of the pressure off the NYT subway crunch through getting closer to that last mile with commuter rail and potentially having in-city residents take these commuter rail lines (which we can run with much higher frequencies by having through-running tracks) rather than the subway.
Meanwhile, Long Island Railroad cars have a bottleneck where they go into Penn Station, and instead of passing out through to New Jersey, they have to navigate the signaling to turn around and go back to Long Island
If I recall correctly, there is but a single dual-track tunnel connecting Penn Station and New Jersey, and it is already filled to bursting with Amtrak and New Jersey Transit trains. Adding LIRR trains to the mix would overwhelm it to the point of perpetual gridlock.
Now, if you want to plunk down the money to build another tunnel, then your idea makes a lot more sense.
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.
