George Washington Bridge tracks?

nyrmetros wrote:So there were actual plans to have the subway over the GWB ??

Yes, definitively for the lower deck.

Well, sort of. The bridge was engineered to handle trains, but I don't think there was a specific plan for an extension at that time. The various rapid transit plans of the era (like New York's so-called "second IND") didn't include any lines outside of the city limits.

However, it was a far-sighted idea to include those provisions in the bridge's construction, even if they haven't been used yet.

Paul1705, When the GWB was planned, it was at that time, planned to have a lower deck for subways, and the 174th st yard was built specifically for where the turnouts to the GWB would have been. The whole idea lanquished under the depression and mostly because of "King" Robert Moses, who killed the idea totally. When I-80 was planned, the lower deck sprang into action to be added, but for automobiles only with NO provision for any future rail.

I'm going to demand my money back from Circle Line, whose tour guide said there was room for a 3rd deck for trains.

Is the lower level stong enough to have freight trains running on it? As to where in NY the tracks would go - they could go on the West Side line to the West Side Yard and/or the Bronx and Queens, if the bridge can handle it. This could be a less expensive alternative to the long debated cross harbour rail tunnel that still hasn't been built.

Doubtful, and freight trains on suspension bridges has historically been "not a very good idea". Getting from the bottom of the GW to sea level where the West Side line is would be a horrifically expensive undertaking (not to mention getting freight rail to the bridge on the NJ side), and there are no longer any freight-handling facilities along the west side line.

Even if the above two issues weren't problems, any new freight-rail link into NYC would need to accommodate double-stacks. You can build a new tunnel to double-stack clearances. Enlarging the GW's lower level...see above.

---PCJ

The George Washington Bridge was orginally designed for four railroad tracks on the lower level. When the Port Authority decided to build the lower level no railroads were interested so the P.A. built roadways instead. If they had opted to put the tracks in how would they have been connected to the existing rail networks? Any ideas? Wishes? I'm guessing the New York end would've connected to the New York Central lines or maybe the city subway.

The Subway was planned to go across, the station sits right in front of GW bridge.

Robert Moses nixed the GWB subway plan in favor of the cross bronx expressway. It would have been an extension of the IND 8th Ave line (A,C.E). The small 174th Street Yard where the connection would have been lies under Broadway, with two tracks exiting to the south under that roadway. The plan was to build over to Ft. Lee where there would have been a loop to include several area communities.
" When the George Washington Bridge was opened in 1931, the Port Authority had in place plans for four sets of tracks that would occupy a future lower level. By the time the ''Martha Washington'' level was planned in the 50's, the obsession was all with automobile tolls.
Austin Tobin, then the authority's executive director, made the final decision that discarded the two sets of tracks that were to tie in with the IND subway at 178th Street (the original terminus of that line in the planning stage) and two sets of rails to serve a future commuter line from Washington Heights into the Passaic-Bergen area.
That was the era of the Master Builder, Robert Moses, who built brilliantly but whose tunnel vision of road over rail has saddled our area with traffic congestion that appears almost insoluble."

Robert Moses really screwed up NYC by not trying to accommodate rail whatsoever.

RailRide wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2012 10:54 am Doubtful, and freight trains on suspension bridges has historically been "not a very good idea".

Why is having freight trains on a suspension bridge a bad idea?

JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:05 pm Robert Moses really screwed up NYC by not trying to accommodate rail whatsoever.

Yeah he did. Let's not forget that he also set up the LIE so buses couldn't use it, either.
HE was opposed to anything but personal vehicals.
The irony of course is... he never learned to drive.

RailRide wrote: ↑Wed May 23, 2012 10:54 am Doubtful, and freight trains on suspension bridges has historically been "not a very good idea".

Why is having freight trains on a suspension bridge a bad idea?

My guess is the weight is more than passenger trains, and they could set off some bad oscillations , which could lead to a Galloping Gertie situation.

It's not so much that running trains on a suspension bridge isn't a good idea from an engineering point of view (it's been done, and been done successfully multiple times), but that 1) there's a limit to how many places that there's an advantage to having a suspension bridge vs another type, 2) most of those situations aren't ones where a rail line would be able to use the bridge, and 3) where the two occur in proximity, by the time you've strengthened the bridge design to the point where it could support the loads involved, you've lost a lot of the advantages that using a suspension bridge would have.

It also depends on how you define "suspension bridge" - if all that it means is that the deck is hanging from an overhead support structure, the Hell Gate bridge qualifies.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2012 6:45 pm It could probably run as a joint MTA/NJT through service, much like the Port Jervis Line.

I think since Port Authority owns the bridge it should manage the mast transit system that connects two states and runs over the bridge. Maybe it could be a disconnected line in the PATH system. Hopefully it could use that same hardware as PATH so that PA gets an economy of scale...

I think Port Authority could also manage the service directly, kind of like a disconnected PATH line. If the service could use the same hardware as PATH system.

JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Mon Dec 02, 2024 1:05 pm Why is having freight trains on a suspension bridge a bad idea?

Harmonics?

The advantage of a suspension bridge is its relatively light weight, but that comes with the cost of being more flexible. Highly concentrated live loads (such as a 33.5 ton per axle weight) can cause significant stress, and as suspension bridges are less stiff than most other designs, they are less able to spread the stress evenly across the bridge.