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

Last report I saw had the yard on the site of the former Kopper's Coke plant, due southwest of Secaucus Junction, and very close to, if not on, the west bank of the Hackensack River.

timz wrote:why do they say the climb to a bridge 180 ft NW of the current alignment would be 700 ft longer than the climb on the current alignment? 100 ft looks more like it, if the new bridge is 180 ft NW of the present one.

The ramp to the new bridge would be 180 feet away at right angles to the present track. The river doesn't flow at right angles. When it is 180 feet away from the present tracks, it must also be 700 feet farther away from Swift. The river is flowing in 2 dimensions, not just 1. Are you seasick, yet?

JimBoylan wrote:When it is 180 feet away from the present tracks, it must also be 700 feet farther away from Swift.

Yes, that's what they seem to be saying, which is wrong. Looking at the map/pics, 100 ft looks better.

So why can't they stay on or near the DL&W main until they've passed beneath the PRR main, as eastward Midtown Direct trains do now?

Not sure what you're asking here. As far as I know, the Midtown trains will go under the NEC with the latest Portal design.

The report says "It would be preferable to construct this “flyover/duck-under” west of the Hackensack River, adjacent to, or at, the site of existing Swift Interlocking." And (elsewhere) it seems to imagine the climb from this duckunder to a high-level Portal bridge might be too steep. But of course it wouldn't be too steep, if Midtown Direct trains crossed under the NEC at the same place the eastward ones do now, next to the DL&W main. So what's the objection to that?

Alright, that's a little clearer. The new alignment, that will carry trains to the new Manhattan terminal, is due south of the current NEC ROW, and will apparently be at or close to the site of the current Portal bridge, at the same height. In other words, I believe the "too steep" reference probably pertains to the new 3-track high-level bridge only, and not the lower 2-track bridge located to the south.

jb9152 wrote:I believe the "too steep" reference probably pertains to the new 3-track high-level bridge only, and not the lower 2-track bridge located to the south.

It seems the "new 3-track high-level bridge" won't be used by Midtown Direct trains. And that bridge won't connect to the new yard, either-- so it's a mystery why they claim its grades are any problem at all.

To say the least that part is confusingly worded. I think all that it is trying to say is that the design of the interconnect between the NEC tracks and the new South pair at Swift will have to take into account the need for the tracks to be able to climb to the height needed to cross the Hackensack River. The issue is not just of what the Midtown Direct does, but also how crossover tracks from NEC to the new South pair are designed. These tracks will be used by RVL and possibly other dual-mode trains from NEC to get to the 34th St. tracks.

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008
4:00pm - 8:00PM

Presentation/Public Comments - 4:30PM
Encore Presentation/Public Comments - 6:30PM

Purpose: To present the results of the DEIS to the public.

Hudson County Administration Annex
Freeholder's Chamber
567 Pavonia Ave - 3rd Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07306

Hi;
I'm trying to find out what is happening with the Portal Bridge capacity enhancement project. NJT has a link, but it takes me to a site that I have read several times since 2007, and I find nothing new here today.
Has a design been submitted yet?

IMO, the new bridge should not be moveable. It should be high enough to allow marine traffic to pass underneath without disrupting rail traffic above.
Do you think the grade from SEC JCT to the new higher bridge would be feasible?

FW

The new bridge is expected to be four tracks and higher. Likely a fixed truss or concrete span.

This project seems ever changing and more twisted as years go by. There's a couple of plans for Portal bridge from what NJT is passing out in literature and speaking about. One option is what is mentioned - total replacement with four tracks. But another opion that emerged is upgrading the current Portal bridge and then building a new span adjacent to it that is just two tracks (but also higher so it wouldn't have to open. I don't know how such would work considering the "clearance" needed to "open" Portal bridge.

But this whole project really needs to be tied into the plan to expand capacity between Newark and NYC, which includes a new Hudson River tunnel to increase capacity and four tracks between Newark and New York City. But now Amtrak is getting upset - and rightfully so - in that NJT is trying to design or increase Hudson River tunnel capacity (by two additional tracks) that totally go to a seperate sation that doesn't tie back to the NEC once on the NYC side (i.e. into NY Penn Station and continuing on to Boston etc.). So it would be a NJT only two track tunnel. And NJT would still need to use the current Amtrak tunnel in order to reach its new East Concourse in NY Penn Station. Amtrak now feels slighted that such a plan is not allowing enough flexibility so the new tunnel can also connect into the existing NYP station tracks etc. Complicated enought?

But they still plan to break ground within the next year on this project. Perhaps around the same time the Atlantic City multilevel service will startup between New York City and Atlantic City via the NEC and Atlantic City Line. Another project that has been delayed.

I will say that the engineering plans (or track plans) I saw over a year ago, did have ONE connecting track into the existing NEC track infrastructure at NYP after coming out of the new two track tunnel that's to be built. But supposedly the tunnel now needs to be deeper so as to not interfere with NYC subway and other infrastructure near the Hudson River or rather West Side of NYC. As such this "connecting track" can't be tied in.

Who knows what will happen. All I know is my commute has increased at least by 10 minutes between Newark and NYC since at least Secacus Junction has opened up. And that's on a good day! It's nothing but a bottleneck during rush hour between Newark and New York City.

I do know that trains slow down and even stop at Secaucus but why do through trains slow down when they pass through Secaucus?

Trains slow down going through Secaucus station for safety reasons. When the station first opened, there weren't any speed restrictions for thru-trains (that I know of), and there used to be trains passing through at 60mph. I personally witnessed a waiting passenger nearly get his head blown off by an express train. He was standing very close to the edge of the platform (where he wasn't supposed to be) when the train approached, and sounded it's horn. The guy jumped back very quickly, as the train ran by at 60mph.

IMO, when Secaucus station was built, express bypass tracks (at least two) should have been built to completely bypass the station.
Another method to prevent accidents would be to wall off the platform so that the doors open up only when a train is stopped at the station.
I guess we should be happy that we got Secaucus Junction at all, considering the tight budget.

FW