Does Penn Station 'through running' make sense? More data is needed.

Do the “through running” proposals that would have Amtrak and New Jersey Transit provide service beyond Penn Station trains to Long Island make sense? Right now, it’s wise to be a skeptic.

Through running looks good on paper — why not just extend Long Island Rail Road trains to Trenton, or run NJT to Port Washington? The tracks are already in place. It remains to be seen if it’s worth implementing, and if there is a market for such travel. I do not believe through running will benefit most LIRR riders. And one potential plan’s stated intention to reduce the station’s total tracks from 21 to 12 is not just counterintuitive, but illogical when one considers future demands, including bringing Metro-North’s New Haven Line into Penn in 2028.

None of the three train operators — LIRR, Amtrak or New Jersey Transit — has ever developed even a draft plan to explain how one would create some through-running schedules that serve significant travel demands. Those demands have increased over the years — but for travel to and from Penn.

The LIRR has eight branches that provide direct electric train service in and out of Penn — Babylon, Huntington, Port Washington, Ronkonkoma, Long Beach, Far Rockaway, Hempstead, and West Hempstead. In addition, these trains provide connections for diesel service to/from Port Jefferson, Greenport, Patchogue-Montauk and Oyster Bay.

NJT has five major services in and out of Penn — Northeast Corridor, North Jersey Coast, Montclair-Boonton, and Morristown and Raritan Valley. No one has presented a detailed, branch-by-branch analysis of how to connect LIRR and NJT into one operation. The LIRR and NJT travel patterns are driven by regular commuters and people visiting Manhattan for nonwork purposes. How many people want to travel, for example, between Hicksville and Newark on a regular basis? The current hub-and-spoke setup works, if not as well as some people would like.

Through running also opens many institutional and technical questions that its proponents have not answered publicly. Conductors and engineers must be completely knowledgeable about the signals and track layouts of any railroad where they operate trains. The rolling stock has different characteristics — such as LIRR third rail versus NJT overhead catenary. Plus, the all-important signal systems are not compatible across the board, requiring cars and locomotives to be equipped with multiple signal technologies.

Before 1987’s opening of the West Side Yard just beyond Penn Station, LIRR trains had very limited storage space there, and most had to deadhead to Jamaica and points east for midday storage. The yard allows for about 30 trains to be stored just outside Penn between rush hours, meaning that if a service disruption affects westbound service into Penn, there are some trains available to cover eastbound rush-hour schedules. Requiring LIRR trains to travel to Trenton or Morristown, for example, removes this advantage. Crews and train equipment will not always be positioned to make quick turnarounds back to Long Island. Through running is a potential detriment to LIRR customers.

Thus, until there is a detailed and objective analysis of these issues, I am unconvinced that through running is a panacea. The new and improved Penn Station amenities, such as the renovation of the LIRR concourse and the new Moynihan train hall, are certainly welcome. But through running needs much more serious study before it can become reality. Taking away nine of the current tracks borders on irresponsibility.

Are there any consultants out there looking for new and challenging work?

This guest essay reflects the views of Andrew Sparberg,  a retired LIRR manager, transportation historian, and adjunct lecturer at CUNY.