Newark Broad Street track/platform realignment

Tri-State Tom wrote:Wasn't the old [EWR] terminal building like 200 yards long with a cathedral ceiling about 3 stories high?

You're thinking of the circa-1953 terminal, which is gone. He must be referring to the older "terminal" from 1935 or so, which is still there.

tim -

I am indeed....haven't been over to the old area in decades and didn't know it had been leveled. That was a neat old place when I was a kid. It was great to be able to go outside on the 2nd level 'decks' to watch planes land and take-off !

I do remember the building Jlo referenced but had forgotten it preseeded the larger terminal....

Jlo -

That one looks right outta the set for 'Cassablanca' !!

to bring this back on topic...
the new signals were "cut over" this past weekend. Rule 261 in effect between Broad and Roseville Ave on all 3 tracks.

Thanks for the update grave....

Looking ahead, sans any new crossovers just west of the station, I'm trying to figure out how an eastbound Montclair-Boonton train would be routed over to station track #3 under Rule 261.

The M-B line is set-up for 261 between Roseville and 'CLOVE' ( the crossovers just east of the new Montclair State U. park & ride complex ). There is a new set of crossovers on that line just west of Roseville ( can't recall the designation ) where a normal running eastbound train on track #2 can be routed over to track #1. As things stand today, it would proceed to join the Morristown line's main track #3 at Roseville and run all the way into the station.

This seems operationally inefficient as such a move would block track #3 for quite a distance between Roseville and Newark-Broad preventing any westbound moves on either the Morristown or M-B lines.

And if Rule 261 only is in effect as far west as Roseville, how would an eastbound train on the Morristown line access track #3 ?

Anyone have a comment ?

timz wrote:the older "terminal" from 1935 or so, which is still there

I had a summer job as an engineering intern in 1970 and spent several weeks at Port Newark. One day we went over to the 1935 terminal and we managed to get up into the very old and dusty tower on the building. Most all the old weather indicators, communications, etc. was still there, plus an old Linl trainer.

There were also six murals painted by the expatriate artist Arshille Gorky in the 1930s. During the war the murals were plywooded over and forgotten.

As plans were made to move the terminal in the 1990s, the works were uncoverd and carefully removed to the Newark Museum. The 1935 terminal was moved a few hundred feet to accomodate progress.

I remember having dinner in the Newarker restaurant of the 1953 terminal. Third floor up, views of the runways and docking areas, it was designed to look like an ocean liner.

Tri-State Tom wrote: Looking ahead, sans any new crossovers just west of the station, I'm trying to figure out how an eastbound Montclair-Boonton train would be routed over to station track #3 under Rule 261.

The M-B line is set-up for 261 between Roseville and 'CLOVE' ( the crossovers just east of the new Montclair State U. park & ride complex ). There is a new set of crossovers on that line just west of Roseville ( can't recall the designation ) where a normal running eastbound train on track #2 can be routed over to track #1. As things stand today, it would proceed to join the Morristown line's main track #3 at Roseville and run all the way into the station.

This seems operationally inefficient as such a move would block track #3 for quite a distance between Roseville and Newark-Broad preventing any westbound moves on either the Morristown or M-B lines.

And if Rule 261 only is in effect as far west as Roseville, how would an eastbound train on the Morristown line access track #3 ?

Anyone have a comment ?

Tom:

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on this stuff, so others who are feel free to correct me.

Initially in the Broad Street station project, track 3 will be out of service. After the new track 3 is in place, and a platform in place, track 1 and track 2 will be out of service (Not at the same time - and I don't know in which order, but I'm guessing 1 first, then 2) to allow full completion of the center island platform, and then construction of the side high level platform on the south side of track 2. So I think the need and value for Rule 261 on these tracks comes into play over the life of the project, not necessarily day 1.

During the time period when just two tracks are available for use, if one should become blocked, having Rule 261 on the "other" track would allow many operations to continue without needing Form D's, etc. We see this often between Millburn & Summit and also at times between Denville & Dover.

Ampere is the interlocking just beyond Roseville Ave on the Montclair Line.

Green is the interlocking just west of Roseville Ave on the Morristown Line. The set up here would allow an eastbound M&E train operating on Track 1 to cross over to track 3. I'll let the operating types speak to the "Rule 261" issue here; it would seem to me that Green and Roseville are adjacent interlockings with no intermediate signals.

I think it is a very good idea to install three high level platforms at NWK Broad St. Here are the benefits.

1. Express trains heading to Dover via the M&E could stop on the middle track without having to cross over. Bascically, it can just accelerate quickly
2. three trains could serve the station at the same time. However, if you have two trains stopping there heading east. Acually one of the trains would have to wait for the other one to clear.
3. I'm sure transit could bring the time between NYC and Broad to 15 minutes.

There are two platforms currently and after the re-alignment of track #3 there still will be two....one new high-level center island platform between tracks 3 & 1 and a remaking of the existing eastbound low-level into a high-level platform serving track #2.

How about just two high level platforms at newark, each with two tracks?

EB
Platform
Center track
Platform
WB

That way, you could do across the platform transfers like Jamaica.. It would also eliminate the extra move that Montclair trains need in themorning to cross over to the eb track for their newark stop.

Got the money for that? Not to mention that you end up disrupting the "historic" integrity of the station further.

Lackawanna484 wrote:EB
Platform
Center track
Platform
WB

I don't see the advantage. Eastward Montclair trains can unload on the center track in either layout, and three trains in the same direction are never going to stop simultaneously in Newark. Even if there were a need for that, it would be too much of a nuisance to schedule it.

Especially with a double track bridge one way and three tracks the other.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but the big expense is ripping down the westbound waiting room /platform at Newark and building a foundation for the new westward track.

The cost of the high level platforms (1 or 2) will be minimal in comparison to the demo work

Lackawanna484 wrote:The cost of the high level platforms (1 or 2) will be minimal in comparison to the demo work

I would generally agree with the caveat being building/digging a new stairway down to the patron tunnel under the present ROW of track #3 for access to the new center island high-level platform. And I'm wondering if that will be the only way to gain access to this new platform ( or exit from it ) or if an overhead walkway, ala the new MSU/Bay Street stations, will go up on the western end to connect over to the track #2 platform.

Additionally, how NJT contructs a new high-level platform over the existing low-level for track #2 to gain access to the station will be interesting to watch. Seems to me it would make sense to add a set of stairs and an ADA elevator to street level to an area just west of the main station building.

We'll see....