Railroad Forums 

  • Connecticut River Bridge Replacement Project

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1542319  by Jeff Smith
 
Remember, where navigable waterways are concerned, the USCG reigns supreme. That said, it looks like from that picture that it wouldn't take much of an elevation to reduce closings. Interesting note on the second pier. IIRC, there was one other bridge replaced in eastern CT where the replacement was floated in, and didn't take the NEC out of service for too long. And, there's always the inland route :wink:
 #1542323  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Smith, I believe the bridge in question is that over the Thames, some twenty five years ago.

Now had that bridge been "done right" and replaced by a fixed span with 135' MHW clearance, that would have made not only the Fairfield Navy happy, but also the REAL Navy, as in US. The Sub base is, lest we forget, upstream.
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Mon May 11, 2020 8:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
 #1542328  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Well Mr. Train Guy, with a ruling grade of 2% - perfectly reasonable for an electrified passenger train - that would have meant a 6750' approach on either side, I defer to you as to how that would go down with the NIMBYs and rare species crab lovers. National Security always could be used to have shut them up.

Funny how when the (what I always knew as) New London Bridge (sure it's now named - in the Connecticut tradition - for one "pol" or another) was opened during 1940 (predating me), it of course was fixed. One would have thought that when the New Haven's bridge needed replacement, it too would follow suit.
 #1542337  by shadyjay
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 8:52 am Funny how when the (what I always knew as) New London Bridge (sure it's now named - in the Connecticut tradition - for one "pol" or another) was opened during 1940 (predating me), it of course was fixed. One would have thought that when the New Haven's bridge needed replacement, it too would follow suit.
Oh that's funny. We always called it the "Groton Bridge". Now its the Gold Star Bridge, or the "US Submarine Veterans World War II Memorial Bridge".
Well, at least its not the "Lowell P Weicker Bridge" or the "John G Rowland Bridge".
 #1542343  by bostontrainguy
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 8:52 am Well Mr. Train Guy, with a ruling grade of 2% - perfectly reasonable for an electrified passenger train - that would have meant a 6750' approach on either side, I defer to you as to how that would go down with the NIMBYs and rare species crab lovers.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. The bypass would have been pretty much in the median or alongside Route 95 which crosses the river at a much higher elevation. That approach you mention would not have been necessary and a simple sleek arch bridge across the river at the same level and next to the highway would have looked aesthetically pleasing and not effected the local crab habitat at all.
 #1542344  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Off topic; accept if killed.

Funny how the I-95 bridge over the Mianus was not named until after '83 when it decided it was time to have some unfortunate souls take a swim.

"I was out" that particular day; and "was it ever sport" getting to LGA and a flight home.

But guess no surprise when rebuilt, that bridge was named for Albert P Morano, a Congressman when I was a kid from the District comprising Greenwich.
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Mon May 11, 2020 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
 #1542356  by bostontrainguy
 
I remember when they were discussing the bypass the replacement bridge was going to angle to the northeast a lot more and reduce the curvature at the west end. If you check out Google Earth you will see that there is a pretty sharp curve approach at that end. I wonder if they are going to try to build a new bridge south of the existing one with more gradual curving approaches to the center lift span. I can't find much info except for the two option types being discussed (bascule vs. lift).
 #1542376  by J.D. Lang
 
georgewerr wrote: Sun May 10, 2020 11:36 pm
dgvrengineer wrote: Fri May 08, 2020 6:28 pm I would think with an electrified line and very little freight, they could built a higher bridge with a steep approach(2 or 3%). That would shorten the length of the approach and hopefully eliminated the need for a lift bridge. The long term cost saving would be enormous.
Or raise it some that most boats would not need it raised but not so much that it raises the cost substantially. If they could reduce the impact on boating traffic and get the coast guard off of there back
I agree with this. If you could get it up to 40ft. above MWL that would take care of most recreational boat traffic. My dad used to have a boat docked in Deep River and most of the recreational sailboats masts didn't up to 40ft. Less lifts would be a good thing.
 #1542441  by west point
 
The question becomes " What is the I-95 clearance over the river.?" That will probably establish what clearance is needed ? However most boats will clear 40 feet unless there are a lot of Yachts that are higher. Now if there are a lot of sailboats they will often clear higher. A lift bridge would appear more in line as it would only need to rise above any item on a boat. Can return to rail traffic faster. The track on the Old Lyme side will need rising on land but other side depends on how the clearance becomes ? Question is the present open clearances meet present coast guard requirements ? Many places it I 300 feet wide. What is the new walk bridge going to be ?
 #1542444  by Riverduckexpress
 
west point wrote: Mon May 11, 2020 6:57 pm The question becomes " What is the I-95 clearance over the river.?" That will probably establish what clearance is needed ? However most boats will clear 40 feet unless there are a lot of Yachts that are higher. Now if there are a lot of sailboats they will often clear higher. A lift bridge would appear more in line as it would only need to rise above any item on a boat. Can return to rail traffic faster. The track on the Old Lyme side will need rising on land but other side depends on how the clearance becomes ? Question is the present open clearances meet present coast guard requirements ? Many places it I 300 feet wide. What is the new walk bridge going to be ?
I-95 over the river (the Raymond E. Baldwin Bridge) is approx. 82 feet tall per this old NY Times article and pg. 158 of this USDOT/Coast Guard reference material.
 #1542453  by Backshophoss
 
Walk is a pivot span,to become a vertical lift span bridge, might become the "Prototype" for MN's New Haven line bridges.
If Amtrak rebuilds Conn River as a 41 ft min clearance at the moveable span, should cut down on the openings for sail boats.
The vertical lift span seems to be Amtrak's "go to" choise.