All Things Portal Bridge: Amtrak and NJT Status and Replacement Discussion

The coast guard won't let them lock it in place. There is still ship traffic that goes up and down the Hackensack; mostly oil shipments to the Hess facility in Bogota.

I think the idea is to raise it so high that they can lock it? That would make for some interesting grades though, I guess.

If they are going to raise it so high to the point that they can lock it, then you might as well have a fixed span. I'm not sure that will work, because a grade that steep would have to start right out of Secaucus and westbounds that stop at Secaucus may stall climbing such a grade.

Page 13 is very interesting. Says in 2025, 21 trains will use the BCL / ML / PVL and PJL with 11 going into NYP. With that you'd probably have something like:

• 4-5 PVL
  4 BCL (locals)
  4-5 ML (locals and NYSW expresses or locals on the ML)
  4 Port Jervis
  4 ML/BCL (expresses)

Now if that also includes potential West Shore trains you're probably talking:

• 4 PVL
  3 BCL (locals)
  3-4 ML (locals and NYSW expresses or locals on the ML)
  3-4 Port Jervis
  3 ML/BCL (expresses)
  4 West Shore

Bay Head Local wrote:a grade that steep would have to start right out of Secaucus and westbounds that stop at Secaucus may stall climbing such a grade.

They don't seem to stall when they get stopped at the signal on Track 6, the climb from the Lackawanna main up to the PRR at Kearny/Swift. That's maybe…1.5 percent? And the climb to a high Portal span probably wouldn't exceed 1 percent, if it did start at Secaucus. Secaucus to the river is a mile, and they wouldn't need to raise it more than fifty feet, would they?

(Well, okay, the vertical curves complicate matters—but I'll bet 1 percent will suffice. And nobody will hesitate to use such a grade on a passenger-only line.)

Of course, it might actually be cheaper to LOWER the Hackensack River, walling off half the channel into a low level water passage with locks on both ends. Yes, it would slow barge traffic, but not impede it — but who cares? Actually, I think Moran might support it…increased tow time = increased revenue

hahahhah - now thats thinking outside of the box!!!!

Coming from a family with a LONG history with Moran Tugs, i can say for certain, they would LOOOOOOOVE that!!!!!!!!

Bah! I say dig the new T.H.E. tunnel from Harrison to New York Penn. Just dig underneath everything! (In my dreams)

Digging THE tunnel that far would probably be better for NJT anyway…

As a designer I also agree with that!

Well? Heck, have it go down right after newark, make it a straight shot to the new station. 100mph. Or more No draws, no Amtrak, no Sec. Use it for NJCL, NEC, RVL. Put the rest into Penn via the existing tunnels. You'd save big time for the first three lines, have capacity for the others. Dump the stupid loop loop loop, make Hoboken a diesel line / emergency electric terminal.

You'd have to electrify the RVL and NJCL for the above, assuming you'd want 100mph in the tunnel, and why not, if it's straight enough?

Well, you know what? Out there it could be done with a trench and pre-formed sections brought forward on the rails until it hit Bergen Hill and it would probably go pretty darn quick with basically no demolition to do.

Has Amtrak considered a replacement for Portal Bridge. I seem to remember a fire on the bridge a year or two back that stopped trains until the fire could be extinguished and then inspected.

With NJ Transit and Amtrak both using the bridge, there would be some real traffic headaches if a barge hit it, or maybe damaged from a brush fire. Maybe the powers to be (yeah right) might consider re-opening DB crossing as an insurance policy.

How long would it take to put in a temporary span over the river?

dave

Part of the plan for "THE Tunnel" or the larger ARC plan (I forget which one addresses Portal; I think the ARC plan) concerns Portal Bridge, and there were recently (in the last few months) scoping meetings for the Portal Bridge capacity enhancement project. It doesn't (yet) offer any detailed plans, but would be looking at supplementing Portal with a second bridge, replacing Portal completely, and the required "no-build" alternative of leaving Portal as-is.

DB is dead. It requires rebuilding from the ground up.