River LINE/Atlantic City connection considered

michaelk wrote:
Is there operationally a reason sides are better than island?

less confusion. one side goes this way and the other goes that. however you would not need to walk far to switch platforms. just a few steps.

electricron wrote:You do know that both rail lines are active, with dozens of trains a day passing by at operating speeds.

Existing Track - New Side Platform - Vacant Land accessible for construction machinery is far easier and safer to construct the new platform versus
Existing Track - New Island Platform - New Track
Then consider that platforms are needed for both rail lines.

Additionally, to just install a side platform at a new station they don't need to add new tracks signals. An island platform on just one line, or both lines, will require new track signals installed, adding to the complexity and expense.

DART added a station to an active light rail line in Dallas last year, and they chose side platforms instead of installing an island platform mainly because they didn't want to move any tracks. Surely, adding an island platform would require adding track, and two turnouts; which surely would effect the existing track for a while. Installing just a side platform means not effecting the existing track at all for both lines.

huh?

first off, i'm only talking about the River Line platforms.

Second, nothing stops you from building a platform exactly as they are doing now, adding a track along the second side of it, and only then cutting in the switches. the only "additional" disruption is when you actually put in the switches. Is it worth it for improved reliability as well as the ability to increase service frequencies in the future, without incurring significantly higher costs? imho, hell yes.

lensovet wrote:Is it worth it for improved reliability as well as the ability to increase service frequencies in the future, without incurring significantly higher costs? imho, hell yes.

I'll agree it would be worth it at the appropriate places if NJT was increasing headways. But they are not. Therefore, it isn't worth it to do so now.

Do you buy a second or third car before you need one? Why should NJT do otherwise?

electricron wrote:

lensovet wrote:Is it worth it for improved reliability as well as the ability to increase service frequencies in the future, without incurring significantly higher costs? imho, hell yes.

I'll agree it would be worth it at the appropriate places if NJT was increasing headways. But they are not. Therefore, it isn't worth it to do so now.

Do you buy a second or third car before you need one? Why should NJT do otherwise?

what a terrible analogy.

a more appropriate question would be, "do you buy a two-seater when you plan to have a kid in 2-5 years?" the answer to which would, of course, be "no", because you bother to think a couple of years ahead.

clearly NJT has no plans to increase headways now. what about in 5 years? 10?

lensovet wrote:clearly NJT has no plans to increase headways now. what about in 5 years? 10?

Then NJT should build enough double tracks needed to support those headways they wish to do in 5 or 10 or 15 years, etc, THEN. That may or may not require double tracks at this new station. Let's not assume it will, wasting money for double tracks where and when it isn't needed.

Going back to my earlier "bad" analogy. Let's buy a car, or should it be a truck, for a new baby that's not even born yet. In 16 years, he or she will want one, or maybe not????

Haven't you ever heard this wise advice; Don't count your chickens before they hatch?

Why not just double track the entire rail corridor now, just in case? Or why not build an entire new HSR corridor on this line so Amtrak can move off the existing NEC? Maybe NJT will want to run faster trains on this corridor in the future.

My suggestion so as to keep future budgets and projects on track, build what you absolutely need for this rail corridor and service, and not any more. Overbuilding has been, is, and will always be inefficient and wasteful.

progress update

electricron wrote:

lensovet wrote:clearly NJT has no plans to increase headways now. what about in 5 years? 10?

Then NJT should build enough double tracks needed to support those headways they wish to do in 5 or 10 or 15 years, etc, THEN. That may or may not require double tracks at this new station. Let's not assume it will, wasting money for double tracks where and when it isn't needed.

Going back to my earlier "bad" analogy. Let's buy a car, or should it be a truck, for a new baby that's not even born yet. In 16 years, he or she will want one, or maybe not????

Haven't you ever heard this wise advice; Don't count your chickens before they hatch?

Why not just double track the entire rail corridor now, just in case? Or why not build an entire new HSR corridor on this line so Amtrak can move off the existing NEC? Maybe NJT will want to run faster trains on this corridor in the future.

My suggestion so as to keep future budgets and projects on track, build what you absolutely need for this rail corridor and service, and not any more. Overbuilding has been, is, and will always be inefficient and wasteful.

your suggestion is what in some parts will be called "short-sightedness". i tend to agree with that assessment.

none of the examples you provided are relevant here. my point was that the marginal or incremental cost of doing this now, at this location, is lower than doing it later, because construction is already taking place and the startup costs have already been expended. double-tracking the entire corridor has nothing to do with this - if NJT was relaying track on the entire corridor, then yeah, maybe at that time it would make sense to double-track it entirely. but they are not. HSR corridor? you missed the point.

the car analogy is still bad, because it takes about 2 hours to buy a car and 0 minutes after that to start driving it, and car ownership costs have decreased, rather than increased, as time has passed. you can't add a passing siding, signals, etc and increase headways in two hours, and the cost for infrastructure projects has increased over the years.

lensovet wrote: my point was that the marginal or incremental cost of doing this now, at this location, is lower than doing it later, because construction is already taking place and the startup costs have already been expended.

My point was that you haven't proved that double tracks must be needed here; now, in the near future, or ever. Nice to have, I grant you that, but not MUST have.
Even if it must be needed in the future, when will that be, 10, 100, 1000 years from now?

electricron wrote:

lensovet wrote: my point was that the marginal or incremental cost of doing this now, at this location, is lower than doing it later, because construction is already taking place and the startup costs have already been expended.

My point was that you haven't proved that double tracks must be needed here; now, in the near future, or ever. Nice to have, I grant you that, but not MUST have.
Even if it must be needed in the future, when will that be, 10, 100, 1000 years from now?

afaik neither of us are transportation planners so can't say how far in the future. but did NJT even consider this option? my guess is no.

Can someone remind me again why it's going to take until 2013 to build 2 platforms, one of which is already pretty far along in mid-2011?

two platforms on the acl, two elevators, and a parking lot that is that ungraded plot of dirt in the foreground

Update on Aug 7: not much new.

nomis wrote:two platforms on the acl, two elevators, and a parking lot that is that ungraded plot of dirt in the foreground

I haven’t seen much discussion on this: Why are two platforms being built along the ACL alignment?
(I looked at the project map on the NJT website and it does indeed show two platforms: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/pennsauken ... nt%20A.pdf)
I believe NJT currently only owns the northern track of the two tracks from Pennsauken to “Shore” and that the southern track is owned by CSAO. To my knowledge NJT never uses the Conrail track unless there is trackwork being done on their track. So does this mean NJT is going to start operating southbound trains over the Conrail track once this station is complete? Also why would they need to do so unless they are going to increase frequencies on the ACL?

NJrailfan wrote:

nomis wrote:two platforms on the acl, two elevators, and a parking lot that is that ungraded plot of dirt in the foreground

I haven’t seen much discussion on this: Why are two platforms being built along the ACL alignment?
(I looked at the project map on the NJT website and it does indeed show two platforms: http://www.njtransit.com/pdf/pennsauken ... nt%20A.pdf)
I believe NJT currently only owns the northern track of the two tracks from Pennsauken to “Shore” and that the southern track is owned by CSAO. To my knowledge NJT never uses the Conrail track unless there is trackwork being done on their track. So does this mean NJT is going to start operating southbound trains over the Conrail track once this station is complete? Also why would they need to do so unless they are going to increase frequencies on the ACL?

presumably because there isn't enough space for an island platform?