West Shore restoration (aka "real" River Line)

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

Moderators: Tadman, Kaback9, nick11a, ACeInTheHole

West Shore restoration (aka "real" River Line)

Postby braves » Sat Sep 04, 2004 6:55 pm

It looks like the West Shore rail project is gone in favor of the Northern Branch, is this true.
braves
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:31 pm

Postby BlockLine_4111 » Sat Sep 04, 2004 7:43 pm

These are two parallel, competing lines, in close proximity to one another.

The West Shore also is a parallel competing line to the PVL.

Given the mega freight density of the West Shore and that it is not of ERIE heritage naturally the Northern Valley would get the go-ahead to restore commuter service.
BlockLine_4111
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Northern NJ

Postby wantsrail » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:02 pm

The decision favoring the Northern was made on May 30, 2002.

Even if NJ Transit could get agreement to use the CSX tracks, there would not be enough room on the trains into Penn Station to carry riders transfering from the West Shore.

The West Shore will need to wait until the new tunnel is built.
Albert F. Cafiero
wantsrail
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:53 pm

Postby Irish Chieftain » Sun Sep 05, 2004 11:09 pm

No...the error is in assuming that a transfer at Secaucus is necessary. The mess that is at Secaucus now proves that it is more prudent to avoid that station altogether and route the line directly into Hoboken.
Irish Chieftain
 

Postby MickD » Tue Sep 07, 2004 5:55 pm

I don't see direct WS sevice into Hoboken happening. There would have to be a connection built to BC/ML through Croxton now that HBLR will be running on old NJ Connecting Railroad. NJ would probably built connector to proposed Xanadu before this would ever be considered. Although looking at recent political developments, it should be interesting to see how fast Xanadu moves along. Too bad, as I stated in old forum I feel WS should have been a priority years ago.
MickD
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Dennisport,Ma

Postby Irish Chieftain » Tue Sep 07, 2004 6:21 pm

BlockLine_4111 wrote:These are two parallel, competing lines, in close proximity to one another.

The West Shore also is a parallel competing line to the PVL.

Given the mega freight density of the West Shore and that it is not of Erie heritage naturally the Northern Valley would get the go-ahead to restore commuter service.

These are not "competing lines". The PVL, West Shore and Northern do not serve the same municipalities—only if they did would they be "competing lines" per se. NJ Transit is not in competition with itself; it is there to run a service. The PVL does not serve Teaneck, Bergenfield, Dumont, Harrington Park; nor does the Northern Branch (just as on the same token the WS does not serve Leonia, Englewood, Tenafly et al). Just to note—in the past, the old CNJ and Reading lines in NJ (which would consist of the RVL and West Trenton line today) used to be considered a "competing" line to the NEC—but in modern terms, that is no longer accurate.
Mick D wrote:I don't see direct WS sevice into Hoboken happening. There would have to be a connection built to BC/ML through Croxton now that HBLR will be running on old NJ Connecting Railroad

The Bergen Arches are lying idle. Plenty of room to widen either the Northern Branch or the NYSW between there and North Bergen. To route pax service via Secaucus would be the gravest error at this point, given the current conditions at Secaucus.
Irish Chieftain
 

Postby MickD » Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:14 pm

The Arches.That's agood point as light rail comes into Hoboken on a flyover.I've only been on LR into Hoboken once during dayliight&I was sitting on opposite side from The Arches east end portal.Is there room enough still to bring access track into the terminal?
MickD
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Dennisport,Ma

Postby BlockLine_4111 » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:05 pm

Fact: North Hackensack station (on the PVL) draws in riders from Bergenfield.

An article in the Bergen Record (eons ago) favored NV restoration over the West Shore. This was because the latter can have the potential to "cherry pick" PVL riders who reside outside of PVL communities (e.g. Bergenfield).

With service on both the PVL and NV, people inbetween can still use the train but do not have the luxury to walk.
BlockLine_4111
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Northern NJ

Postby braves » Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:33 am

When did the Bergen Record did this article on the Northern Branch replacing the West Shore rail line.
braves
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:31 pm

Postby BlockLine_4111 » Wed Sep 15, 2004 9:44 am

braves wrote:When did the Bergen Record did this article on the Northern Branch replacing the West Shore rail line.


Early-mid 1980s.
BlockLine_4111
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 5:58 pm
Location: Northern NJ

Postby Irish Chieftain » Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:59 pm

Fact: North Hackensack station (on the PVL) draws in riders from Bergenfield

Two strikes against that: that station isn't in Bergenfield, plus the limited PVL service. By comparison, Elizabeth used to draw passengers from Union, but not as many now with the Townley station open.

Articles in the Bergen Record lack credibility, especially from the mid 1980s. Restoring the Northern Branch plus increasing PVL service will not relieve the Washington Avenue/Teaneck Road/Queen Anne Road corridors enough; their greatest effects will be on corridors such as Kinderkamack Road, Piermont Road, Knickerbocker Road and possibly the Palisades Parkway; but nowhere near what a fully-restored West Shore Line could handle.
Irish Chieftain
 

Postby braves » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:49 pm

Will the West Shore rail line be restored when Phase II of the Meadowlands Rail Spur is built (if it gets built)
braves
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 2:31 pm

Postby Irish Chieftain » Wed Sep 15, 2004 11:23 pm

Phase II...? Wasn't aware that the rail line into the Meadowlands was being built in "phases".

Again, the West Shore project is strictly on the "Wish List" for now. Consider it to be the same as asking a question like "Will the former CNJ Southern Division be restored between Red Bank and Winslow Junction so you could ride a train from New York to Atlantic City quicker than the short-lived Amtrak service"...
Irish Chieftain
 

There are other routes to Selkirk

Postby 2nd trick op » Mon Oct 04, 2004 10:40 pm

Present West Shore freght traffic can be diverted----via the former Erie to Binghamton or, if from further south, via Reading & Northern or the CP/NS Sunbury Line, then the former D&H via Oneonta.

In addition, freight traffic could be restricted to limited night operation, as is currently the case on parts of the NEC.
User avatar
2nd trick op
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Mon May 31, 2004 7:40 pm
Location: Nescopeck, PA ..... NS Sunbury Line MP 715

Re: There are other routes to Selkirk

Postby Lackawanna484 » Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:38 am

2nd trick op wrote:Present West Shore freght traffic can be diverted----via the former Erie to Binghamton or, if from further south, via Reading & Northern or the CP/NS Sunbury Line, then the former D&H via Oneonta.

In addition, freight traffic could be restricted to limited night operation, as is currently the case on parts of the NEC.


----

CSX might have something to say about this idea. It likely wouldn't be favorable. Especially after they've spent money to add siding length, improve the right of way.

It would take a billion dollars to bring the Bingo to Port Jervis line up to the current River Line standards and you add two pusher districts for freights (Deposit to Susquehanna, and east out of Port Jervis.) which current Chicago Line plus River Line trains don't have.
Lackawanna484
 

Next

Return to New Jersey Transit NJT Rail and Light Rail LRT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests