• Article relating to RVL

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

  by timz
 
So about this pocket track-- I guess it would be around Manhattan Transfer? No room for it except east of the curve east of Harrison station? So RVL trains would run "against the current" for a mile or so eastward from Newark Penn?

Also, why's it have to be 1800 feet long?

  by Irish Chieftain
 
Tom wrote:Actually the Port Authority is aggresively planning to extend PATH service to the Newark Airport Rail Link Station
Perhaps I should have said "no plans to expand within Hudson County". Either way, no effect on the RVL in general.
Mark wrote:I have had just a great time on a number of occasions lugging all my stuff across Paris or London just because I needed to get from one train station to another! That just further illustrates my point
No it does not. You're not supposed to treat railroads like airports. What's the purpose of going around major endpoints when it comes to business travel, especially with high-speed rail? I think you just described a very uncommon travel pattern right there.
As you show, we do not need to build a super terminal, we already have one in GCT. If NYP was in part through station to GCT some of the capacity issues there would be mitigated
Only some? I believe that this particular Access to the Region's Core project (unsupported by NY, which led to its abandonment) had in mind the complete elimination of Hoboken Terminal eventually. I further suspect that the RVL would yet be a loser in that deal and not be extended to Manhattan.

Also worth mentioning yet again that GCT is unique in size—no other single rail terminal on the entire planet is as large. Quite the irony that this terminal, designed for long-distance travel, is now strictly a commuter endpoint.
Also, Hoboken had and has sufficient capacity so there is no need for a Jersey City terminal
There are some people who work the Hoboken Division that would be willing to debate the point. Either way, Hoboken is not currently the permanent RVL terminal.
Last edited by Irish Chieftain on Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

  by nick11a
 
^Plus, wouldn' a trip to the CNJ terminal have less traffic than a trip to Hoboken for the RVL? So having less traffic for RVL trains to and from the CNJ would equal faster timetables for RVL passengers. So thus, the CNJ terminal would be a terminal for RVL and West Trenton Passengers and with not going on the NEC at all or not having to go to Hoboken via the waterfront would equal faster service to NY (via ferry). Or so I should think.

  by Irish Chieftain
 
The southern waterfront terminals had a very strategic placement at one time, what with being right across the river from the Wall Street area. If CNJ Terminal and Exchange Place were still open, I'd expect that there would even be trains to Washington departing from there nowadays, or people clamoring for such a service. But that's a bit off-topic...

  by Lackawanna484
 
Irish Chieftain wrote:The southern waterfront terminals had a very strategic placement at one time, what with being right across the river from the Wall Street area. If CNJ Terminal and Exchange Place were still open, I'd expect that there would even be trains to Washington departing from there nowadays, or people clamoring for such a service. But that's a bit off-topic...
--------------------------

NJT could run trains through Oak Island, over the LV bridge at Greenville and up the National Docks to Liberty Science. That's a 1/2 mile walk to the NY Waterway ferry to WFC and Pier 11. If NJT built a lead and two tracks into the (former) CNJ, the walk would be a few dozen feet.

NJT should be able to restore 2,000 feet of track and two leads in about 25 to 30 years, I'd say. It's quicker because the state already owns the land, so they only need to do the engineering...

  by Irish Chieftain
 
I wasn't thinking of having all trains stay on the LVRR east of Aldene of course; hope you realize that. :)

  by Mark Schweber
 
Irish Chieftain wrote: You're not supposed to treat railroads like airports.
Why not. If governments in the U.S. was as willing to spend as much money building/expanding rail terminals and intrastructure as they are airports we could have a world class rail system.

  by Irish Chieftain
 
That would be redefining "world-class" relating to the terminals...the current highest class right now is the one that consists of traditional terminals and high-speed lines. Nonetheless, I agree with the sentiment.