NEC Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, gprimr1, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby bleet » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:23 pm

It's 2 from the saw tooth bridge to the portal bridge i believe.
bleet
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby ExCon90 » Thu Oct 02, 2014 1:29 pm

The 4 tracks through Secaucus Junction are to permit trains to make a station stop without slowing down the nonstops. The extra track capacity is essentially eaten up by the increased time taken by stopping trains.
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Greg Moore » Mon Nov 17, 2014 11:15 pm

A more article on the Portal Bridge.

I'm starting to wonder if Amtrak is getting better at media relations and just slowly, but continually getting more noise about this and Gateway.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby ExCon90 » Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:13 pm

This is the first I've heard of Joseph Clift, quoted in the news story as saying the new tunnels are more important than Portal Bridge; I'd be interested in knowing how the trains are supposed to get to the tunnels if something isn't done about Portal Bridge.
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Greg Moore » Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:32 pm

I suspect the idea is two-fold:
1) The talk is all about the tunnels failing sooner rather than later due to Sandy.
2) Worst case, I suppose you could still run trains to/from Seacacus if the Portal Bridge gets stuck open.

(and other than falling down, a Portal bridge outage is probably measured in hours or days, not months or years like a tunnel failure).
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby ApproachMedium » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:38 pm

2) No, because you need Portal to get to Secaucus.
No good deed goes unpunished.
User avatar
ApproachMedium
 
Posts: 5615
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 9:44 pm
Location: From here to There

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Greg Moore » Tue Nov 18, 2014 10:03 pm

I don't think I was clear, sorry. You can still run trains from NYP to Secaucus and still serve a large number of NJ passengers even if Portal is out of commission.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby 25Hz » Wed Nov 19, 2014 6:35 am

Matt Johnson wrote:At one point at least the plan was for two new 2 track bridges:


No, one was 3 tracks and one was 2. One would be higher than the other and related to ARC/gateway, and the other one would connect directly to the existing tracks at each end. That has all changed, and we'd need a funded gateway project plus a new 4 track dock upstream lift span to get that second 3 track bridge now. I think we may end up with two separate 2 track bridges, one totally new new for gateway alignment, and one to replace portal.
Next stop the square, journal square station next!
User avatar
25Hz
 
Posts: 4625
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: Newtown, PA (or PATH towards WTC)

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Wed Nov 19, 2014 9:54 am

I am also wondering how many tracks the potential span would bear. However, the article mentions that the design work is done. Does anyone know what was designed in terms of number of tracks?

I have no idea why Clift would take the view, effectively, that Portal is the enemy of Gateway. If he is taking the view that no capital spending shoudl occur unless it's for the tunnels, then literally every bit of rolling stock purchased by NJT was in vain, the storm resiliency yard work makes no sense, and why even do track work. The cost of Portal is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of Gateway, and the speed increase and reliability improvements make the bridge a key project that can stand on its own in any event. I would be very disappointed if a new bridge couldn't at least accommodate 3 tracks.
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby Greg Moore » Wed Nov 19, 2014 10:30 am

I think this reflects an unfortunate reality of current politics, it's nearly impossible to get funding for large scale infrastructure projects.
The stimulus package was the last big national hurrah in this area.

Heck, here in NYS they're STILL arguing over how to fund the Tappen Zee bridge replacement. But that they've started, even if they're not sure how they'll pay for it.

For the NEC, there's several costly infrastructure projects that are to me no-brainers.
Check out QuiCR, Quick, Crowdsourced Responses for businesses.
Greg Moore
 
Posts: 4940
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 12:15 am

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Wed Nov 19, 2014 11:08 am

Roughly one billion dollars, design work and permitting done, so it's "shovel ready", four year project, so it's roughly $250mm per year for four years. Gosh, in a 3 trillion annual federal budget or 12 trillion over the 4 years, this is tiny. It would be nice if the local politicians would horse trade to get this fully funded.
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby bleet » Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:25 pm

JCGUY wrote:I am also wondering how many tracks the potential span would bear. However, the article mentions that the design work is done. Does anyone know what was designed in terms of number of tracks?

I have no idea why Clift would take the view, effectively, that Portal is the enemy of Gateway. If he is taking the view that no capital spending shoudl occur unless it's for the tunnels, then literally every bit of rolling stock purchased by NJT was in vain, the storm resiliency yard work makes no sense, and why even do track work. The cost of Portal is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of Gateway, and the speed increase and reliability improvements make the bridge a key project that can stand on its own in any event. I would be very disappointed if a new bridge couldn't at least accommodate 3 tracks.

The bridge, which NJT designed, was for 2 tracks. (I'm pretty sure Cruiser said that back in the day when he contributed.)
bleet
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby philipmartin » Sat Nov 22, 2014 3:57 pm

This article I'm posting the link to says the proposed Portal fixed bridge would be fifty feet above high water. The Pennsy's lift bridges in the area, Dock, Hack and Bay can all go to 135 feet above the water (I've worked them all.)
That NY Times article that started the thread has some good photographs, the train derailment, and fenders burning at Portal. Transit had a derailment there too, when a wheel came off a car.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bane ... e-26937437
User avatar
philipmartin
 
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 3:42 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby 25Hz » Mon Nov 24, 2014 6:23 am

bleet wrote:
JCGUY wrote:I am also wondering how many tracks the potential span would bear. However, the article mentions that the design work is done. Does anyone know what was designed in terms of number of tracks?

I have no idea why Clift would take the view, effectively, that Portal is the enemy of Gateway. If he is taking the view that no capital spending shoudl occur unless it's for the tunnels, then literally every bit of rolling stock purchased by NJT was in vain, the storm resiliency yard work makes no sense, and why even do track work. The cost of Portal is a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of Gateway, and the speed increase and reliability improvements make the bridge a key project that can stand on its own in any event. I would be very disappointed if a new bridge couldn't at least accommodate 3 tracks.

The bridge, which NJT designed, was for 2 tracks. (I'm pretty sure Cruiser said that back in the day when he contributed.)


As i said before, the ARC portal replacement was one 3 track bridge, and one 2 track bridge.

Image

I would settle for one 3 track bridge for a one to one replacement for portal, and a second 2 track bridge to be built in conjunction with gateway. After all, 2 new tunnels are going to need 2 new tracks.
Next stop the square, journal square station next!
User avatar
25Hz
 
Posts: 4625
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: Newtown, PA (or PATH towards WTC)

Re: Portal Bridge article

Postby JCGUY » Mon Nov 24, 2014 2:51 pm

I love the look of that design, simply gorgeous. Now, is that a yacht depicted sailing under the bridge? I can just imagine the Sultan of Brunei enjoying a cruise up the Hackensack River in the Kearny/Secaucus area to pass the time between meetings with asset managers on his trips to New York...
JCGUY
 
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 7:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Amtrak

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ericofmaine and 14 guests