Portageville Bridge Replacement, Future Tier Traffic

Being not quite as experienced with railroad restrictions as some of y'all, I wonder how fast loaded freights (especially double stacks) could really take the turn just west of the gorge? Seems pretty tight to my untrained eye (as in, they'd have to slow down quite a bit anyway)

Hypothetically it seems like a better idea to eliminate both curves just to the west and lay new ROW across the middle falls instead, but I know that will never happen between environmental concerns and the sheer cost of laying new roadbed/tracks.

ctclark1 wrote:Being not quite as experienced with railroad restrictions as some of y'all, I wonder how fast loaded freights (especially double stacks) could really take the turn just west of the gorge? Seems pretty tight to my untrained eye (as in, they'd have to slow down quite a bit anyway)

Hypothetically it seems like a better idea to eliminate both curves just to the west and lay new ROW across the middle falls instead, but I know that will never happen between environmental concerns and the sheer cost of laying new roadbed/tracks.

middle fall is lower than upper falls.. and NS would have to build much taller and longer bridge to go across the gorge, as well as over couple of cabins/campgrounds, i believe that's where the older and bigger cabins/cottages are...

Hence why I said "hypothetical" - mostly in reference to the track speed limitation of that turn, which I found the answer to my own question in the DOT Scoping document:

The existing track geometry limits the train speed to 35 MPH. However, due to the condition and age of the bridge, trains currently operate at approximately 10 MPH over the bridge.

It would indeed be a much longer bridge and impact much more of the park, I think the only benefit that could come from that would be an improvement over the 35 mph limit around the S-type curves on the west side of the park.

According to another document that shows the "Avoidance Alternative" they would end up building about a 5000' long bridge if they were to go around the south end of the park, this would also do away with the 35mph limit in the area however, but again would be an extremely large structure.

ctclark1 wrote:Hence why I said "hypothetical" - mostly in reference to the track speed limitation of that turn, which I found the answer to my own question in the DOT Scoping document:

The existing track geometry limits the train speed to 35 MPH. However, due to the condition and age of the bridge, trains currently operate at approximately 10 MPH over the bridge.

It would indeed be a much longer bridge and impact much more of the park, I think the only benefit that could come from that would be an improvement over the 35 mph limit around the S-type curves on the west side of the park.

According to another document that shows the "Avoidance Alternative" they would end up building about a 5000' long bridge if they were to go around the south end of the park, this would also do away with the 35mph limit in the area however, but again would be an extremely large structure.

yeah why hurry by going at 60 mph but end up sitting in siding hours for a meet...

What was the consensus regarding the original routing (i.e., using a wider curve)? I can't recall if the problem was high grade, drifting snow, or something else. I've never been out to Letchworth, but it sure looks like the logical solution on satellite.

I have to agree with the original routing sentiment because it is a much more gradual curve to approach the bridge at Portage. I hike this area a lot and I have been to all parts of this original alignment and it is still pretty much intact. To reuse this area there would have to be a lot of clearing of brush and trees and also the issue of draining the water that has been using part of this cut in Letchworth as drainage, I feel this would be the way to go, to pick up speed before crossing the bridge in an East bound direction. I am not sure how fast they could go though because on the East side there is another curve to deal with so speed would depend on how safely the trains could navigate that curve. We have discussed this in the past on this thread so if anyone wants more info on that I'm sure you can find plenty here on this discussion.

As a side note, if anyone wants to see a section of this original alignment in Letchworth I highly recommend parking at the Trestle parking lot and following Trail #2 up into the woods until it drops back down to the old rail bed surface. Follow that rail bed straight up a hill and you will find a dam in the woods at the end of the cut, where the railroad used the cut for a reservoir after they changed the alignment to the S curves. There is a 1/2 mile long deep cut you can follow that takes you to an old road that used to be used to enter Letchworth Park. I hike this trail and marvel at the work that was done here in the early 1850's quite often.

-Paleoman52-

Is any of the "S" to the west of the bridge superelevated?

Have to agree with the earlier post that increased speed does you no good if you ultimately end up sitting somewhere. Besides, taking the bridge at 35 mph is 3.5 times faster than currently allowable.

Poppyl

poppyl wrote:Is any of the "S" to the west of the bridge superelevated?

I do not believe there is superelevation at those curves.

Charlie

charlie6017 wrote:

poppyl wrote:Is any of the "S" to the west of the bridge superelevated?

I do not believe there is superelevation at those curves.

Charlie

Thanks, Charlie, for the information. I looked again at the aerial of the curves and the "s" may be too tight for superelevation as a way of increasing speed through the area.

Poppyl

Paleoman wrote: As a side note, if anyone wants to see a section of this original alignment in Letchworth I highly recommend parking at the Trestle parking lot and following Trail #2 up into the woods until it drops back down to the old rail bed surface. Follow that rail bed straight up a hill and you will find a dam in the woods at the end of the cut, where the railroad used the cut for a reservoir after they changed the alignment to the S curves. There is a 1/2 mile long deep cut you can follow that takes you to an old road that used to be used to enter Letchworth Park. I hike this trail and marvel at the work that was done here in the early 1850's quite often.

I remember about 10-15 years ago I walked along something that distinctly seemed like an ROW within the park, it may have been in the MJ trail area, but I was thinking further north for some reason... Are there any remnants of the tracks or equipment or something there? I'm thinking that would be the only reason at the time I would think it was an ROW...

As for taking it back to the old ROW, I can't see them spending the money to re-base the trackbed and put in new tracks... Though it would also be an idea for increased speeds (which as so many of you point out aren't necessary since they'll just wait on a siding anyway) At the same time there are things standing in the way of that ROW - as someone mentioned a few pages back there is a house right next to it outside of the park, whose driveway is smack dab in the middle of it. Additionally, just north of where it crosses the current tracks there's about a 30ft deep ravine (I assume drainage?) that would probably require a small bridge of sorts as well. I think there would also be land issues with the park/state for NS to acquire the old ROW.

Where is the first meeting point on the east side? On the west side I know of the sidings at Silver Springs and the RSR junction, I assume those sidings get used more for storage of and switching of RSR cars, in which case the next double track section I know of would be farther up from Molasses Hill Rd and into Attica... Then again starting east of Alden... I'm not the best at RR ops and logistics, but that seems like plenty of places for meets which, if its planned correctly, shouldn't have to hold too many trains at a stop for meets. Plus I would think if they lifted the weight limit on the Portage bridge then they could run fewer individual trains and therefore fewer meets, right?

Additionally, just north of where it crosses the current tracks there's about a 30ft deep ravine (I assume drainage?) that would probably require a small bridge of sorts as well. I think there would also be land issues with the park/state for NS to acquire the old ROW.

I know this area of which you speak, there is a stone arch tunnel in that ravine and is still in place and in remarkably good shape or the age of the structure. The old rail bed travels right over this tunnel and it is intact. The only problem I really see with replacing the tracks to the original alignment is the home that borders the section where the tracks would follow their current driveway. I know this family and I am sure they wouldn't want the trains flying by their house at 50 MPH. As far as the State Park goes that is another issue that might be challenging.

All this is mute though because it really won't happen and hasn't even been suggested by the engineers that planned the bridge replacement as an option. I did hear a rumor about a week ago that the project may begin this year. A good friend of mine is an iron worker and told me he wants to get the job hanging the steel across the gorge. He heard that it might be going out to bid soon. I was in the trestle area Tuesday and there is no sign of activity yet.

-Paleoman52-

does anyone know when work starts on the new bridge? I hope the old one doesnt fall down with all the new trains comming!!

railbird steve wrote:does anyone know when work starts on the new bridge? I hope the old one doesnt fall down with all the new trains comming!!

Could the bridge construction be the reason why the new Buffalo-Sayre job won't be instituted for a few months?

Any new news or updates on the portageville bridge replacement? It has been pretty quiet lately. My wife and I usually stay at the park and rent a cabin for a week on the east side of the river. We are trying to decide when to go and maybe get to see some construction going on. I just love chasing trains from the park to Corning.
Bruce

obienick wrote:he one time I was at Letchworth I saw people walking across it. Could the replacement bridge have a pedestrian path attached? Can't be that much more expensive than a full railroad bridge.

If left to its own devices NS is not going to consider public access. I completely understand their position. There is another point to consider. I visited Harper's Ferry several years ago, and a rail bridge across the Potomac River had a pedestrian walkway attached. It was fenced 360 degrees (or close to it) so there was no access to the tracks and no one could jump/fall off of the bridge either. Harper's is a federal park, so this can be done in today's litigious society. This type of walkway can and IMHO should be done on the new bridge. The old bridge should come down.
I would respectfully propose that if public money is used for this project, then SAFE limited public access (like Harper's Ferry) should be required as part of the project. If NS builds it on their own dime, then they get to do whatever they want. This is something that we could talk to our elected officials about.