Penn station layout new york city weather,ho scale train power supply voltage,marklin roundhouse - Plans Download

10.06.2015
Yesterday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie viewed the Gateway announcement as a vindication of his decision to cancel ARC, but as Steinemann explains in the post below, Christie is off base. If anything, the chart is a testament to just how beneficial the ARC Tunnel promised to be, noting, for example, that ARC promised to connect commuters to the subway lines at Herald Square. In addition, Gateway’s new Penn Station South adds four new platforms serving seven tracks underground between 30th and 31st streets from 7th Ave. A critical benefit of Gateway, that is not being widely touted, is the system redundancy that the connectivity to Penn Station provides. The price comparisons between Gateway and ARC, reported at $13.5 billion and $10 billion respectively, are also misleading. The 63rd street tunnel was prefabricated and lowered into a trench on the bottom of the east river, while the proposed Hudson tunnels will be constructed with tunnel boring machines due to the longer distance and deeper channel.
Build the tracks to Penn, lose the Penn South, and have NJ Transit joint operate a few LIRR lines, such as Woodmere or Port Jefferson. That said, SF actually needs some sort of parallel line or secondary platform, when theres delays during rush hour, Embarcadero can reach dangerous levels of crowding on the platform very quickly. Forgive as I’m not a BART expert, but isn’t this an apples and oranges type comparison?
BART has service patterns typical of an S-Bahn, track infrastructure typical of a subway, and station surroundings typical of American-style commuter rail.
You might be able to picture it if you think of a setup where all of the Bronx IRT lines ran deep into Westchester County, and ran only on the Lexington Ave Local in Manhattan. It is also somewhat similar to how Metro North RR and current LIRR run, in stretches during rush hr (I.E. While the Park Ave tunnel was built with local stations at 59th, 72nd, 86th and 110th, the stations at 59th and 72nd were never used in regular service. Building a 1-seat ride would once again turn the Transfer into a boondoggle that costs NJ Transit more than it could bring in to support the operating costs and debt repayment that is an ongoing drain to the agency.
North Jersey riders aren’t getting a one-seat ride, but that means that Secaucus remains viable and not the boondoggle that it has been since the outset. Um, as an Amtrak intercity rider I’d like a decent station, rather than a hole in the ground.
As a frequent user of Amtrak myself, I would like a railroad that runs on time and a station that’s convenient to get into and out of.
Now couple the news of this project proposal with the timing of Obama’s push for $52 billion in new HSR funding over 5 years. A very large fraction of the money would go to California HSR, whose current problem is funding and not NIMBYism.
That could leave one train per hour on each of the New Haven and Hudson lines, if Lautenberg’s site means only six trains per hour, three each way (or two each if it is six trains per hour each way). Honestly, with track connections to the LIRR tracks, and Metro-North Access, this will hugely benefit New York as well.


Alt G is still the right idea, but this project actually is Alt G compatible, unlike NJT’s. In the 1960s, as demand for rail travel fell, Penn Station went into disrepair and critics argued that its eight acre footprint would be better used for other purposes. Despite the chaotic transit dance that occurs every rush hour in Penn Station, NJ Transit still claims an on-time performance rate of 91% along the Northeast Corridor.
The biggest difference between the two projects, however, are the compromises that Gateway requires of NJ Transit. Whereas ARC mentioned it as a possible future project, new access for Metro North at Penn Station is a full component of Gateway.
The Gateway Tunnel also includes the Portal Bridge Replacement project, which ARC critics demanded should have been considered part of ARC’s total cost. The new option that would allow the two new tubes at least some sort of East River connection via the southernmost LIRR tunnels means the new tubes can be beneficial as part of an overall high-speed rail corridor from Washington to Boston. When I look at the double track Embarcadero BART in San Francisco, compared to the 20 tracks of NYP, its amazing how much they get done during rush hour, and how NYP is such a glutton for platforms due to their old-timey railroad orientation.
Penn doesnt have this problem because passengers typically arent waiting on the platform itself. So on the one hand it’s primarily suburban, with multiple lines converging to create a single high-frequency urban line, just like the Munich S-Bahn. Only he explains it with analogies that are a lot more comprehensible to New York railfans. Off-peak trains are limited on the North Jersey train lines, and parking is the single biggest impediment to greater commuter train usage.
Before then, Secaucus was a billion dollar boondoggle because the transfer traffic wasn’t there.
NJ Transit, if it built the loop connector, would be cannibalizing ridership from Secaucus, and riders from North Jersey would still be faced with increased commute times (5-7 minutes each way) to Hoboken as has been the case since the track realignment and opening of Secaucus (most folks still ride the train to Hoboken for transfers to Lower Manhattan and Midtown below 34th Street).
Fortunately, it’s a stub-end that allows trains from either the new or the old tunnel to access both the new and the old tracks. For most of the way, the people along the line support construction because they want the jobs and the access to LA and the Bay Area.
Its my understanding that many foreign systems (RER, S-Bahn) operate more in this fashion as well. Assuming that when the Empire Corridor gets upgraded and electrified, it would need two frequencies per hour each way. Most riders could be intercity passengers heading to Penn Station to connect to Next Gen Acelas going to Boston or DC. Now New York and New Jersey can benefit equally; hopefully Christie will use that thick head of his and actually work with others to get this done! He’s going to track the progress of the Gateway Tunnel there, and he is allowing me to post some of his analysis here as well.


For passengers on trains from Bergen, Passaic, Rockland and Orange Counties on the Main-Bergen and Pascack Valley lines, Gateway will not provide the long-promised, one-seat ride to Manhattan (at least not at first). In fact, a presentation on Lautenberg’s site promises capacity for six hourly trains on Metro North’s New Haven and Hudson Lines. Finally, Amtrak’s proposal also suggests extending the 7 train not westward but eastward from its future terminus at 34th St. If, for some reason, a train dies in one tunnel, as happens frequently now, the Gateway tunnels will provide a back-up. Like ARC and the Portal Bridge projects, Gateway will double the right-of-way from Newark Penn Station to New York Penn Station from two to four tracks. The more federal funding that is sought, the more it helps to have House and Senate members in states besides New York and New Jersey who can see a benefit from a Hudson River tunnel project. But unlike an S-Bahn, it’s entirely greenfield, and incompatible with mainline rail, raising the costs of everything.
Where is NJ Transit going to get the funds to operate 12 additional trains into Penn Station, let alone the 25 claimed under ARC (and Amtrak gets an additional 8-12 trains – so the total capacity is actually close to the same number as under ARC, but with the added benefits to HSR on the NEC). It’s now utilized for additional traffic from the parking lot and those who would use the station to attend events at the Meadowlands via the spur line that opened last year.
For Penn Station, there was access to Sunnyside Yards, while there was no such access for ARC, which meant that the trains had to go somewhere (back into New Jersey?) that would reduce the actual capacity. Unfortunately, it’s still unnecessary infrastructure and still costs about five times what most Continental European cities would be spending on the same project. The billion(s of?) $ being wasted on Mohnihan, which will in no way improve mobility,* could go to straightening tracks, improving signals, investing in constant tension catenary, electrifying commuter rail, or any number of worthy local transit projects.
The NIMBYs are cocooned in the Bay Area demagoguing about how grade-separating the local commuter line and running high-speed trains on it at low speed will be the end of the world.
The details of the Gateway operating arrangement are not clear, but improvements over the current arrangement are essential. Due to the complicated nature of the train platforms underneath Moynihan station, however, it seems impossible for NJ Transit and Amtrak to utilize three of the four tunnels for peak-directional flow as the LIRR currently permits in its four tunnels under the East River. Any changes to the connection between the Northeast Corridor and NJT’s Morris & Essex and Montclair Lines (located just west of the Portal Bridge) remain unclear at this time.
And the dominance of parking lot stations in the suburbs, with very little development, is inexcusable.
These other systems are commuter rail that put multiple stations within the CBD as well as through-running. Finally, as I noted yesterday, Gateway increases NJ Transit’s peak train capacity by only 13 additional trains, as opposed to ARC’s 24 additional trains.



Model trains ebay australia jobs
Bachmann train and trolley set kinder



Comments to «Penn station layout new york city weather»

  1. nata writes:
    Not only disturbed the Park's characteristic muffin's Trains is all about sharing the new.
  2. sex_ustasi writes:
    Every single train lovers' requirements created of higher standards and expense a tiny fortune, the American cars.