MOM Rail Service

When was the Rahway tunnel constructed for the Coast Line? I am guessing it would have been done around the time of the "NEC" line elevation by the PRR. The concrete work looks like it was done 1920-1930 (??). I wouldn't have thought the NY&LB was considered such a busy line/major connection back then to warrant such construction. The Jamesburg line only warranted a Wye connection (atleast I think its a full wye?).

CJPat wrote:The Jamesburg line only warranted a Wye connection (atleast I think its a full wye?).

Not any more. The connection is only Sout/West facing at present.

Tom V wrote:

The "fourth alternative" was the Monmouth Junction "same time" alternative, which reduced the 123-minute Lakewood-to-New York running time to 110 minutes by "improving speed and fewer stops." The study does not say what stops would be eliminated. That alternative gives Monmouth Junction the same 110-minute traveling time as the Matawan alternative.

And how do they propose "improving speed" on an already planned 80 MPH railroad with a lot of curves that limit your ability to reach MAS anyway?

Also - any "improvements" made to the Monmouth Junction alternative will also have to be applied, in good faith, to the other two, which would, presumably, reduce their travel times as well.

Jishnu wrote:

CJPat wrote:The Jamesburg line only warranted a Wye connection (atleast I think its a full wye?).

Not any more. The connection is only Sout/West facing at present.

Correct. And Amtrak would never allow NJT trains operating at low speeds exiting the NEC to cross the entire plant in order to access the branch, so moreso than a wye, a tunnel is necessary to bring westbounds under the NEC. Additionally, some "run up" track needs to be provided for eastbounds to give some distance to get up to track speed after negotiating the curve at Monmouth Jct. before merging into NEC Track 1.

Fair is fair, and NJ-ARP agrees that any right-of-way improvements applied to the true MOM should also be applied to any proposed Red Bank routing.

But we part ways when anyone suggests similar treatment for the "Oops! Where's Matawan?" option, because in our view that option is clearly fantasy.

Two central Jersey rail options are in play. "Oops! Where's Matawan?" isn't one of them. We've yet to meet a single local citizen source that advocates undoing taxpayer-funded bicycle facilities, recently installed, and supplanting it with a single-track railroad that -- incredibly -- some think could be time-competitive with the Northeast Corridor.

We've yet to meet a single local citizen source that advocates undoing taxpayer-funded bicycle facilities

Here's one. But not necessarily for Freehold-Matawan; what with Route 36 getting more congested, I'd vote for the other end of the "Henry Hudson Trail" going towards Highlands…(slightly OT of course)

Douglas John Bowen wrote:Fair is fair, and NJ-ARP agrees that any right-of-way improvements applied to the true MOM should also be applied to any proposed Red Bank routing.

But we part ways when anyone suggests similar treatment for the "Oops! Where's Matawan?" option, because in our view that option is clearly fantasy.

Two central Jersey rail options are in play. "Oops! Where's Matawan?" isn't one of them. We've yet to meet a single local citizen source that advocates undoing taxpayer-funded bicycle facilities, recently installed, and supplanting it with a single-track railroad that -- incredibly -- some think could be time-competitive with the Northeast Corridor.

I don't really have a horse in the race one way or the other, but where is the "single-track railroad" being asked to be time-competitive with the NEC? Both the Matawan and Red Bank routings use the NJCL to get to Newark, correct? The NJCL is, at the risk of stating the obvious, not single track. So where is the single track, aside from the actual MOM alignment itself, which is substantially single track no matter which routing you choose?

where is the "single-track railroad" being asked to be time-competitive with the NEC?

Former CNJ from Matawan to Freehold. Currently part of the Henry Hudson Trail, although not yet paved for bicycle access AFAIK. Limiting factor is joining the NJCL, as already noted.

Earlier claims (studies?) by New Jersey Transit -- including face-to-face discussions between NJT and NJ-ARP -- offered a single-track "Oops! Where's Matawan?" schedule that (NJT insisted) was "time competitive" with MOM via the NEC. The NEC, of course, is a four-track railroad.

NJ-ARP does not consider such a comparison insignificant -- and we'd remind all that we weren't the ones to offer such a comparison.

As to the condition of the Matawan-to-Freehold rail trail, we reprint from NJ-ARP Hotline #513, May 31, 2005.


Matawan-Freehold Rail-Trail Opens June 4


We noted in Hotline #512 that even as NJ Transit pursues its "Oops, where's Matawan?" rail charade, other agencies more grounded in reality have announced the Freehold-Matawan route is nearing its debut as -- a rail-trail. This weekend, in fact.

At least a portion of the designated Henry Hudson Trail "will officially open on Saturday, June 4," the Monmouth County Parks Department announced Monday, May 23. An opening ceremony is tentatively slated for that date at 115 Dutch Lane Road in Freehold Township (northeast of Freehold Borough). NJ-ARP may attend the ceremony, just to see how a one-track rail right-of-way can hold a rail-trail and a railroad (how much capacity? If one believes NJT, comparable to the Northeast Corridor!).

The NEC, of course, is a four-track railroad

It's also signalled for the fastest operation of revenue passenger trains in the 48 states. Not likely that NJT would rebuild Freehold-Matawan for 100-mph operation, to say the very least.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

The NEC, of course, is a four-track railroad

It's also signalled for the fastest operation of revenue passenger trains in the 48 states. Not likely that NJT would rebuild Freehold-Matawan for 100-mph operation, to say the very least.

Or Matawan to Rahway for that matter.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:Earlier claims (studies?) by New Jersey Transit -- including face-to-face discussions between NJT and NJ-ARP -- offered a single-track "Oops! Where's Matawan?" schedule that (NJT insisted) was "time competitive" with MOM via the NEC. The NEC, of course, is a four-track railroad.

...NJ-ARP may attend the ceremony, just to see how a one-track rail right-of-way can hold a rail-trail and a railroad (how much capacity? If one believes NJT, comparable to the Northeast Corridor!).

I'm still not getting how the comparison that you make is appropriate - the "true MOM" alignment that you're advocating is also a single track line, with a connection to the 4-track NEC. The Red Bank and Matawan alignments are similarly single track, with connection to a multiple-track rail line (the NJCL in this case, which of course, itself joins a 6-track NEC at Union).

I think you're being just a tiny bit disingenuous referring to the Matawan alignment as "single track", and comparing it to the NEC, when the Monmouth Junction alignment suffers (?) from the same configuration.

Further to the whole discussion is the underlying supposition that a single track railroad cannot be time-competitive with a four-track railroad (also a bit disingenuous, when you consider that only two of the four are available for travel in either direction at Monmouth Jct.), which is absolutely not true. The number of tracks, unless those tracks are saturated and run at near-capacity (as the NEC is, at times), has little to do with running time. Civil speed limits in place due to curves, signal system configuration, equipment performance, and station stopping pattern, and overall distance have much more to do with running time than how many tracks you have.

Consider that a 5-mile single track line will always offer better running times than a 15-mile six-track mega-line.

We urge skeptics to examine the available rights-of-way. The true MOM route is a one-track railroad, but its right-of-way allows for significant expansion, allowing for expanded capacity, allowing for superior running times.

Deceptive? Let the "Oops! Where's Matawan?" backers -- whomever and wherever they might be -- explain to us just how one will shoehorn in even one track with an existing, active, state taxpayer-funded bicycle rail trail that happens to be -- one rail track wide throughout. THEN explain to us how such limited capacity can handle two-way traffic and offer anything better than a Pascack Valley-model "commuter" rail operation, especially at the rush.

Finally, distance does not automatically equate to schedule times on a one-for-one basis. To suggest such a correlation is, to be polite, a stretch. We offer as an example any trip from Garden State Parkway Exit 131 to Albany Street in New Brunswick. Going via Route 27 is faster than the New Jersey Turnpike? Possible, but not likely, and certainly not guaranteed.

Any capacity overload on the Northeast Corridor, real or pending, becomes more intense the closer one comes to Newark-Penn Station and/or New York.

Given that, alternatives to the true MOM, real or in fantasyland, suffer the same handicap, at the very best, as MOM does.

South of Rahway, we'd continue to argue that a four-track main line offers better options than even a clean, well-run, two-track North Jersey Coast Line does. And then, of course, we get to one-track operation at Matawan.

Red Bank faster? For argument's sake, for now let's say: Not if you're trying to serve New Brunswick. And that, regrettably, is the NJ Transit-proffered bait that too many folks fall for. It's not about just that oh-so-holy "one-seat ride" to New York. It's about serving people, and numerous markets, that include but transcend the 800-pound gorilla.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:We urge skeptics to examine the available rights-of-way. The true MOM route is a one-track railroad, but its right-of-way allows for significant expansion, allowing for expanded capacity, allowing for superior running times.

Capacity does NOT ipso facto equate to running time improvement. You can only use one of the tracks at a time, no matter if you have one or six. Don't be so fast to cast me in the light of "skeptic". I just want it to be clear that some of the arguments that are being advanced to support a particular alignment or another are somewhat deceptive - including equating the presence of extra tracks with an improvement in running time. As I noted, you can only use one at a time; the train does not run faster because there is an adjacent track rather than a cornfield.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:Deceptive? Let the "Oops! Where's Matawan?" backers -- whomever and wherever they might be -- explain to us just how one will shoehorn in even one track with an existing, active, state taxpayer-funded bicycle rail trail that happens to be -- one rail track wide throughout. THEN explain to us how such limited capacity can handle two-way traffic and offer anything better than a Pascack Valley-model "commuter" rail operation, especially at the rush.

Granted. But again, you're mixing apples and oranges. Capacity and running time are separate issues. Related in a peripheral way? Sure. But indisputably different.

And now, to boot, you're changing the discussion to an evaluation of right of way width. Fine. If it turns out to be financially, politically, or otherwise prohibitive to build the Matwawn alternative, then that alternative will, in good faith, have to be thrown out. I don't disagree with you one iota there. But let's be clear about what we're discussing - this has nothing to do with the slashing (by fiat, it seems) of 17 to 18 minutes of run time from the Monmouth Junction alignment with the stroke of a magic pen. It has to do with future capacity and service considerations. And on that basis, I don't disagree with you.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:Finally, distance does not automatically equate to schedule times on a one-for-one basis. To suggest such a correlation is, to be polite, a stretch. We offer as an example any trip from Garden State Parkway Exit 131 to Albany Street in New Brunswick. Going via Route 27 is faster than the New Jersey Turnpike? Possible, but not likely, and certainly not guaranteed.

Absolutely right. However, your example is badly misleading, and you misquote (or at least misunderstand) my point, which is not that distance equates to "...schedule times on a one-for-one basis". I never said that, nor do I think I implied it.

Highway traffic is a MUCH more 'perturbable' and chaotic stream than rail, which tends to have an order and flow enforced by the signal system (which the highway system has in only the most rudimentary way) and schedule (which highways in general do not have). But if you're honest, and acknowledge that *any* MOM alternative will have a modern signal system, passenger train-appropriate track structure, and a rational station distribution coupled to a rational timetable, the comparison breaks down quickly.

Perhaps I should have been clearer in stating my assumptions, but I thought they were so obvious as to be self-evident. A 15-mile commuter-rail quality rail line will ALWAYS produce longer running times than a comparable commuter-rail quality 5-mile rail line. That's just the way it is.