At the risk of rambling on and on about how terribly the LIRR's service to the Hamptons implodes each weekend for the rest of the summer, I have setup the following spreadsheet below that lists all of the different weekend Hamptons trains this summer and OTP/consist information about each train. On-time performance information is indicated for each individual day and individual train is indicated at the bottom of each column and the end of each row (historical OTP information for previous years is also included for select trains so you can compare performance).
Some remarks about the information included below:
- On-time performance and consist length data in bold represents official LIRR data. All other information is unofficial, preliminary, and subject to revision.
- Late train information is typically made available at 12:01am one week later. Preliminary OTP information is derived from alerts issued through the LIRR's Customer Advisory System and TrainTime.
I'll update the spreadsheet a couple times each weekend so you can see how things are progressing, but keep an eye out for alerts if you intend on traveling. The full spreadsheet is embedded below, you can view the spreadsheet in a separate window
at this link. Feel free to post any other comments or observations in the comments below.
This service also cuase delays throughout the system. For example, the 3:40 from Hunterspoint to Port Jeff was cut a car or two, on a busy get away weekend and the train was slammed. Standing room only with associated delays. I was off but had to drop someone at Northport for the reverse trip and the people just boiled out of the short train. Even when it disgorged all those passengers there were not enough seats. As you have been mentioning. The LIRR fleet does not really have the rolling stock to support all the service the rail road wants to provide
ReplyDeleteI would think the LIRR would run into a significant amount of trouble if it tried to shave off its diesel services. I doubt LIRR ridership to the Hamptons during the summer is going to dwindle any time soon, and I don't think the railroad could come to terms with losing all that revenue. Additionally, the roads out to the Hamptons are congested enough already during the summer, imagine what a few thousand more cars might do to that mess! There are certain parts of the LIRR's system they will not be able to abandon, so the question becomes is it worth it to electrify or keep the diesels going as is.
ReplyDeleteusually, sometimes 5 but mostly 4. However, the train is usually full on weekdays and standing room on Fridays (lots of trade workers with a party in the last car). Like everybody else Port Jefferson riders sometimes like to leave early on summer Fridays. This adds additional riders. The days before the Memorial Day, Labor Day and 4th of July weekends are particularly bad as shown by last Fridays over crowded train
ReplyDeleteBefore the C-3 cars came along, that train was 7 P-72's.
ReplyDeleteI did the seat math once comparing the old diesel fleet to the new, and there was about a 20% reduction in total seat inventory.
None of this surprises me. They did not calculate market growth nor Friday and Sunday summer into their equation, bought a custom fleet, then had Jamaica Station rebuilt to accommodate Airtrain, but were so addicted to replicating the old station's architecture, they did not raise clearances a few inches to allow other commercially available locomotives to run on the LIRR, except for the GE Genesis, which are no longer produced.
Diesel fuel is not a bargain even over LI power rates. The MTA diesel fuel budget in the recent past has even reached near equivalence of the electric budget which is used by thousands upon thousands of MTA EMUs.
ReplyDeleteAs for electrical consumption? Electric trains use a few megawatts. Power plants generate a couple of hundred. Penny pinching over a few megawatts isn't a viable strategy.
As Mr. Versaggi mentioned, that train is only scheduled for 4 cars (though its average weekday load can fit on one and a half C3's). If my calculations are correct, that train ran with 5 cars last Thursday and 3 last Friday.
ReplyDeleteAnd with the Hamptons service, the demand is going to keep growing, and there is unfortunately little the LIRR can do within its control to reduce demand to the Hamptons. They can't raise fares, and reducing supply won't even work too well--they can just cram them in. It's an uncomfortable situation they're put in each year.
I think the real value of overhead electrification would be the possibility of through running Penn Station. You only have to look back to the merging of the M with the V to see that through running on a residential -> CBD -> residential works well.
ReplyDeleteIf nearly all of Penn Station's traffic was through run, much of the switches could be simplified resulting in higher traversal speed of say 35-45 mph and ultimately even higher throughput.
I'd say that grade separation should coincide with electrification should they decide to place stations in trenches or completely underground; if the tracks are simply elevated, then electrification can wait. If the Montauk branch should be electrified, then I would recommend having a full second track to Speonk and grade separate. This may also lead to slightly longer platforms, probably somewhere between Pinelawn and Murray Hill.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of dual mode trains, I actually like the concept of the MU design; however, I feel it should only be used to expand the diesel/dual mode stock. The current stock should be replaced by stock of fairly similar design.
Contrary to what you claim, simply discarding the third rail is not economic by any means. That would require removing everything pertaining to the third rail, which would include substations, every stretch of the third rail, and the third rail shoes for all rolling stock equipped with it. This would also mean having to create new supports for overhead wires, equipping the stock to handle these wires, and removal of nearby trees to reduce the chances of them destroying the wires (which is much easier for them to do than destroying the third rail). If lightning strikes, a power surge can easily bring all trains to a halt. Third rail, which is only slightly above the ground, is far less likely to have this problem; also, rather than affecting an entire system, it would only affect a small portion if lightning were to strike it.
ReplyDeleteMaintaining overhead electric wires also means that the tunnels with existing service must also be wide enough to actually support their use (which is probably not the case on the Atlantic Branch). Some unnecessary reconstruction of infrastructure may be necessary to facilitate the wires.
LIRR equipment is designed to work with 750 V DC currents, meaning that part of the work that would have to go into the trains would be accommodation of 25,000 V currents. There's really no need for these modifications; with the way the system is designed, no train needs to hit 100 mph, much less anything greater.
Port Jefferson riders don't have to stand for as long as Montauk line riders. It makes more sense to have standees on the shorter Oyster Bay and Port Jefferson lines than on the Montauk line.
ReplyDeleteCatenary electrification is significantly cheaper. If i recall correctly from Alon Levy's blog, the number is 3 million a mile Going off the Double Track project, it looks like roughly 15 million a mile for 3rd rail. There's about 150 miles of unelectrified track. At 3 million a mile, electrifying with catenary would run 450 million which is a sum the LIRR could handle. Electrifying with 3rd rail would run 2.25 billion which is along the lines of a massive capital project.
ReplyDeleteDepends on how you look at it. The average monthly Port Jefferson rider pays about $4,000 a year to the LIRR. The Average Canonball rider may ride a couple of times a summer and pay $200 to the LIRR. To the poor working guy that rides the train day in and day out the thought of some Hamptons vacationer getting their seat may sting a bit.
ReplyDeleteWho says Montauk line passengers do ? There are a lot of Fire Island tourists on most Montauk trains, and their rides are shorter than the outer Port Jeff.
ReplyDeleteOne could look at it that way, but if you evaluate it on a per-trip basis, the Montauk rider is paying $27 for their ride and the zone 9 Port Jefferson commutation ticket holder is only paying $7.75
ReplyDeleteYou missed the point. If it was used initially, it wouldn't be a problem; as it hasn't been, it's been rendered completely impractical. The third rail would first have to be removed from existing points of electrification (meaning majority of the system); to add to that, existing stock would either have to be retrofitted with equipment compatible with overhead catenary while removing the third rail-based equipment -- which also means that they would have to be modified to work with much higher voltages (up to 25,000 V as opposed to 750 V) -- or scrapped entirely, thereby requiring an abnormally large order of new trains at whatever high cost. Substations would have to be removed entirely as well as many trees. Tunnels may require modification just to allow for the wires. Provisions exist for third rail protection from the elements; overhead catenary has no such protection. This means there is a considerable likelihood of a crippling power surge during a storm if using overhead catenary.
ReplyDeleteThere is literally no need for overhead catenary. No trains have any real reason to attempt to run at 100 mph or greater. Claims of through-routing as a logical choice are used to dismiss several things. For one, no agencies serving Penn Station are under the same jurisdiction. LIRR is only serving Penn Station because Amtrak's receiving rent from the agency. What works for one system may be detrimental to another. In terms of through-routing service through Penn Station by an agency that's not Amtrak, I don't see it working. The needs of people are simply too different. If we're to begin doing that, then we may as well have a merger between NJT and MTA, since they both run buses and trains. Oh, wait, that's not a logical claim.
I didn't claim full replacement was the way to go. Electrifying the diesel territory with catenary and using m8 style EMUs to replace the diesel fleet would be relatively affordable and the benefits of electrification are worth it.
ReplyDeleteEMU acceleration vs diesel acceleration could cut trip times of Montauk trains by 30 minutes and Port Jefferson trains by 15 minutes. EMU service is also significantly cheaper. The improvement in service generates the "Sparks" ridership effect.
If through-routing doesn't work then why was Thameslink such a success in London? If terminating in the CBD is better, why is the New York City subway such a success? Aren't the needs of people in Brooklyn different from those in Queens?
http://i.imgur.com/YpM1DgZ.jpg
But what does that have to do with electrifying the extremities of the diesel branch with overhead wire? We're not really going to be having 10 Greenport/Montauk to Trenton trains an hour at any point in the next half century. If through running's your ultimate goal, there's no law stating that you have to have both electrification systems on your railroad to purchase a fleet that can work on both...
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, nearly everything in Penn Station is through-run during the rush hours already, so you wouldn't gain very much peak-direction capacity at all by doing through-running. And higher speeds through places typically require longer signal blocks, which can also reduce capacity more than allow for the expansion of it.
ReplyDeleteWhere do you get the $15 million a mile figure from? The total cost per mile for phase 1 is about $32 million, so nearly half the money is going to electrification? $15 million a mile sounds high.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, is the initial cost savings by electrifying with overhead wire instead of third rail really more than the additional expense that would be required at that point, and at every point in the future, to purchase a fleet of MU's that can work on both overhead wire and third rail? The M8's were much more expensive than the M7's and they have much lower MDBF's. Would keeping a uniform electrification system for the entire railroad be such a bad idea?
So just buy off-the-shelf equipment to handle the runs that don't have to go to Jamaica.
ReplyDeleteGreenport trains don't seem to ever go revenue west of Ronkonkama and half the Montauk line trains seem to just stop at Babylon as a shuttle.
Those two runs could be covered with a few store-bought locomotives from elsewhere as long as adaptors are made for the oddball connectors... though with the equipment shortage those could be consists of non-standard cars.
When they go to the shops to get worked on, they could use the freight bypass around the station platforms. I mean, it's not pretty to have to do that kind of thing but it's something that could be implemented quickly.
If we were really, really interested in improving railroad service, we'd fix 2 platforms at Jamaica to just have higher clearance so that we could make the cheapest moves to improve service.
Contrary to what many think, the DE's and DM's can get up to track speed quite quickly. There have been a number of occasions where DM's have stood in for MU trains and they have no problems keeping the schedule. Electrifying and bringing MU's to the Port Jefferson branch will only help so much considering the line is very curvy, and there are so many curve related speed restrictions".
ReplyDeleteBut it is certainly possible to electrify without grade separating at the same time. Insisting on full elevation with electrification would only add substantially to the costs, and make the idea of electrification less appealing. The MTA quite frequently makes up its own obstacles to impede the progress of projects or improvements. It's like Belmont Park--people think that the MTA can't improve service there until they put a high-level platform in, but in reality it's a non-issue entirely. The lack of high-level platforms in no way precludes service improvements to Belmont Park just like the lack of money or will to grade separate should be able to preclude electrification expansion. It's making mountains out of molehills.
ReplyDeleteBut there are a number of problems to what you want to do:
ReplyDelete1) the Jamaica canopies are by no means the only restricted clearance area on the railroad. There are dozens of other locations on the railroad where clearance is limited. The Jamaica canopies are only one of them. There are also weight restrictions, loading gauge restrictions, you would need 2 locomotives for every train, they would need to get the LIRR's cab signaling system installed, etc.
2) no such equipment exists. They tried putting out a RFEI back in October for alternate diesel equipment that didn't have to fit the LIRR's most restrictive clearance profiles but they didn't get any responses, as no such "store-bought" equipment currently exists.
I'm assuming there's some issue with NJT/Amtrak/MNR equipment running weekend LI specials. Is this limitation equipment availability, clearance, or just good old fashioned inter-agency non-cooperation?
ReplyDeleteHigher speeds through switches do not reduce capacity. The capacity at this point is not governed by stopping distances anyway, so signal blocks do not actually need to be lengthened. What you're saying about signal blocks could be true if we were talking about a speedup from 160 km/h to 200 km/h (the original impetus for LZB), but when we're talking about speeding up a 40 km/h switch to 70 km/h, it is not terribly relevant. On the contrary, being able to clear switches faster means there's more time to reset the switches before the next train runs on them, which allows more capacity rather than less. To say nothing of the basic fluid dynamics concept that capacity is proportional to speed times cross-section: whenever the limiting factor is a slow, wide-cross-section segment, speeding it up will increase capacity, even on the fast, narrow-cross-section segment.
ReplyDeleteAlso, technically trains run through Penn Station, but they dwell much longer than necessary, because of the "crew must ensure all passengers left the train" rule. When the next stop is a passenger stop, the crew can make it passengers' own responsibility to get out, just as it is on the subway at Times Square and Grand Central, on the LIRR at non-terminus stations, etc.
Most "foreign" equipment does not meet LIRR clearance profiles, and no other equipment is equipped to receive the LIRR's cab signal codes, so no other engine would be able to lead on LIRR territory without prior (and often difficult) modifications.
ReplyDeleteThe MBTA loco-hauled consists lose 70 seconds accelerating to 60 mph. Silverliner Vs lose about 14. Deceleration adds another time penalty to diesel trains, since they don't have as much traction, but it's at least a smaller penalty than the 56-second acceleration penalty.
ReplyDeleteSlow zones for curves actually make electrification more important: not only can modern EMUs run safely at (slightly) higher cant deficiency than high-center-of-gravity American diesel locos, but also EMUs can recover from the slow zones better given their vastly superior acceleration profile. If diesel locomotives can maintain the schedule of an EMU on a line with more than a handful of stops, then either the EMUs are terrible or the schedule is extremely padded and could be tightened.
The M8s are an FRA-tastic disaster. Good enough to keep until they finish their useful service life, not good enough to ever be the model for a future purchase. Ditto the M7s, which are heavier than they need to be and slower-accelerating than you'd expect based on their power-to-weight ratio.
Also, through-routing between different railroads is practiced thousands of times a day around the world. If SNCF and RATP manage to make it work on the RER B, the Jersey intransigents and the Long Island ones can make it work at Penn Station.
SunRail had a $10 million a mile cost for the following.
ReplyDelete"
Work would include double tracking the existing line; the installation of new wayside signals; improvements to existing grade crossings; construction of the station platforms, canopies and adjacent parking areas"
Long Island, I figured has a cost premium over Florida so i tacked on 5 million, for a total of 15 million for 3rd rail and 15 for the track itself.
Ideally it would be best to have one uniform electrification system that runs on every branch, but waiting decades upon decades for 3rd rail expansion to get to that point seems unsatisfying when electrification brings down the cost of service so dramatically. The faster it can be done the better. 3rd rail's current loss sounds like a lot of power is wasted to entropy, so catenary should also have energy savings over waiting to build a 3rd rail.
Additional expense has to be spent on having dual modes to support diesel and 3rd operation, so there's no savings there.
It's not fair to compare M8 MDBF to the M7 MDBF since the M7s are a mature fleet while the M8s are still being delivered and broken in.
The costs do work
It's never rolling stock thats
Fareb
it seems completely unsatisfying old or dead.
There's no silver bullet perfect
EMUs are always better than at acceleration than diesel locomotives. Now on a Jamaica-Babylon express run, no stops in between, a diesel can stand in for an EMU since a minute or two difference from an acceleration advantage isn't a big deal. But on all stops local, those minutes add up very quickly.
ReplyDeleteBetter acceleration on curves is especially valuable since it's easier to recover from a speed hit. This isn't a factor for the Jamaica-Babylon run, but on the infamously curvy New Haven line where Amtrak is subject to MN's speeds, the Acela gains all of it's time advantage over the Northeast Regional from it's acceleration advantage.
In the case of NE regional 175 and Acela 2171, the difference is 8 minutes and both only stop at Stamford between New Haven and Penn.
The only hope I see is the Bombardier MLV cars now being built for MARC. If MTA could order another 10, and spec out whatever customizations needed for the LIRR: MU cables, communication lines, door controls to make compatible with the existing fleet.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say makes the cannonball so popular?
ReplyDeleteIf it's so successful, would it plausible to run 2 cannonballs on Friday, or is there still too little equipment to do that? Pity we don't have some spares of anything, even if it were to be an oddball (but matched) set.
And while obviously incompatible with the existing fleet, do you have any ballpark idea what this would cost?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sterlingrail.com/classifieds/classified.php?id=3038
4 coaches, 1 cab car of ex-NJT comet cars. I understand 3-2 seating wouldn't fly too well out there, but I figure you guys would be able to educate me on these things.
Note, re: train 8710(69/14). Train operates in two sections due to an earlier train with equipment problems. Train operates with 3 DE between Jamaica and Speonk where all passengers transfer to an 8 DM set for the rest of the trip to Montauk.
ReplyDelete