Northern Branch HBLR (was DMU proposal)

From the Colorado DMU website:
www.coloradorailcar.com/images/NewJearsey-BergenCty.jpg

maybe if NJT wants to promise a "one seat ride" then they should have the Northern Branch DMU stop at North Bergen for Hoboken bound passengers to transfer off to and terminate in Secaucus. Cause if it really is going to NYP (ha ha ha) then it would have to go through the ARC track in Secaucus, right?

ok in all seriousness how much $ would it cost to connect the Northern Branch to the PVL, Bergen & Main lines right past Secaucus going into the Bergen Tunnels?

Can the DMU's fit under the light rail wire? Assuming they can..couldn't NJT run the DMU's straight though to Hoboken?
They will be able to fit under the NEC wires into NYP..assuming the one trip ride is going to happen
what is the height difference between the two systems?

The CRC DMU won't fit under wires, even a GTW 2/6 wouldn't fit everywhere, from what people at WGI tell me.

Can the DMU's fit under the light rail wire? Assuming they can..couldn't NJT run the DMU's straight though to Hoboken?

The DMUs will never operate through the West Shore tunnel, if that's what you're asking. The DMU is about 13 feet 7 inches in height IIRC, and it looks like something of that height could fit under the wires, but don't quote me on that...certainly CRC's double-decker won't, at over 19' 6" tall (which exceeds the height of most bilevels).

northjerseybuff wrote:Can the DMU's fit under the light rail wire? Assuming they can..couldn't NJT run the DMU's straight though to Hoboken?
They will be able to fit under the NEC wires into NYP..assuming the one trip ride is going to happen
what is the height difference between the two systems?

In general I don't believe you are allowed to mix FRA compliant stuff with FRA non-compliant stuff on the same trackage for passenger conveyance, unless they are time of day separated, as in the case of the RIVER line. So even if DMU's fit under the wire they cannot be run on HBLRT trackage (i.e. assuming that they are capable of taking some of the LRT radius curves).

That would be another benefit to coming through the Bergen Arches.
Right of Way was built for heavy rail with out the curves the HBLR line takes to get into Hoboken.

The HBLRT wire gets REAL close to top of the existing cars, in places. I'd say there's at most 2 feet of clearance in the tunnel and at Bergenline Ave.

Remember, it's a 750VDC system. You don't need more than a few inches.

The height of the existing Kinki cars is 12 feet, 6 inches.

Following is link to N.J. Assoc. RailRoad Passengers report on last Wednesday's meeting.

www.nj-arp.org/hot543.html#tenafly

While there, It is worth signing up for their E-mail bulletins.

Lets be honest here. If NJT is unwilling to bring light rail to that portion of Bergen County or if they can't bring it to Bergen County, then wouldn't it make sense to put in something else? Bergen County has a lot of traffic to begin with. To me, if they can run a service that will mitigate that traffic, whether it's DMU or Light Rail, it should be put into place.

"Let's be honest here" might be directed at the deceptive marketing delivered to rail advocates and local citizens when it comes to the Northern Branch.

If New Jersey Transit is "unwilling" to offer LRT to its potential ridership, that's one thing. In fact, that's not even a new thing; NJT has seldom if ever been a champion for the mode, even when it's successful. Its shameful trash-talking of the River Line, almost up to the week where the River Line commenced operations, indeed shows it can be "unwilling" about a product it already has.

But unwillingness is one thing, and sleight of hand is another. NJ Transit is, in essence, saying it can deliver unspecified DMU service to the Northern Valley "more quickly" than LRT (why is that?), while deliberately, deceptively, remaining vague on how long -- if ever -- that oh-so-valuable "one-seat ride" to Manhattan might take.

Know what? NJ-ARP is "unwilling" to accept that. NJ Transit has massive fiscal, physical, technical, and political hurdles to overcome with its DMU, or DMMU, or "one-seat" proposal. Can NJT tackle any of these obstacles? Sure, doubtless. Can it handle all four of them? No way.

Doubt us. Move just a couple of miles west to the Pascack Valley Line, now finally, finally getting those passing sidings some seven years after originally promised. How technical is that? How costly? We've seen how political it can be, as NIMBYs cowed NJT on a line it already operates.

But NJT is telling us it can deliver a much more complex service -- and more quickly than an LRT extension? Please.

Letter from George D. Warrington
In defense of diesel for northern Bergen
Printed in The Record Sunday, April 16, 2006

In response to "Inflating costs of light rail" (Your Views, March 26), I want to clarify NJ Transit's plan to advance diesel multiple unit service on the Northern Branch into Bergen County as an alternative to extending the light rail system north from Hudson County along that route.

NJ Transit's goal is to provide Bergen County residents with rail access to both the New Jersey waterfront and Manhattan on a one-seat ride. In fact, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that we do both, in the interest of making the highest and best use of resources to relieve congestion and deliver more service choices for commuters.

Forecasts indicate that ridership is maximized with the one-seat ride to Manhattan. Thanks to the governor's plan to replenish the Transportation Trust Fund, we will have the committed funding we need to advance the Northern Branch project.

With an initial investment of less than $500 million, a DMU-based Northern Branch can be delivered sooner than a light rail system and at a significantly lower cost. This would be due primarily to the ability to operate both freight and diesel passenger trains on the same track. Light rail would require expensive structures in the North Bergen yard to separate the light rail from the freight lines, two separate tracks for the passenger service and the freight service, and the cost of electrification.

DMU service will not compromise freight business or require separation of freight and passenger service. Light rail service would push freight service to evening or weekend hours, creating noise and vibration issues to which residents would most certainly object. Light rail would require bridging over the heavily utilized North Bergen freight yard and the Edgewater Branch freight tracks at considerable expense.

The most important public transit project taking place in New Jersey and the region is the new trans-Hudson tunnel to Penn Station in Manhattan. When completed, the $6 billion tunnel would offer further support for a DMU-based Northern Branch. The project would double the number of passenger trains that can enter Manhattan, offering new capacity for the Northern Branch that can then use dual-mode powered trains and thus offer Bergen County's Manhattan-bound commuters can have one-seat rides to work.

On the other hand, a light rail system would bring commuters only to the Hudson County waterfront and require Manhattan-bound commuters to transfer to ferry, bus or PATH service to complete their trip. A light rail system would be prohibited by Federal Railroad Administration safety standards from utilizing the tunnel.

I appreciate the enthusiastic support the DMU project has received from Rep. Steve Rothman, D-Fair Lawn, and other leaders. It is the right thing to do in the long run to serve the largest market.

The first step toward that goal is providing DMU service from Tenafly to a North Bergen stop on the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail system at half the cost of a light rail extension, completed in a shorter period and with less impact on the communities we serve.

George D. Warrington
Sunday, March 26, 2006

My response was printed today in the OPINION section of THE RECORD
Your views, Sunday, April 23, 2006

Albert Cafiero
Tenafly, April 17

NJ Transit Executive Director George Warrington promised that diesel multiple unit service, which could provide one-seat rides to Manhattan, would bring maximum ridership on the Northern Branch of rail service in eastern Bergen County ("In defense of diesel for northern Bergen," Your Views, April 16).

That anticipated ridership would come only after and if the agency builds the connection to the new tunnel.

Warrington expects a replenishment of the state's Transportation Trust Fund to pay for DMU service. But the DMU project risks loss of federal funds. The DMU's projected ridership is so low that the project will fail to meet Federal Transit Administration cost/benefit criteria.

Warrington expects a speedy completion of the less expensive DMU. But the DMU proposal has already resulted in a more than three-year delay caused by NJ Transit abandoning the completion of the 2001 Draft Environmental Impact Study.

Warrington says light rail would require expensive infrastructure improvements. But the costs would be more than offset by elimination of the expensive DMU transfer station in North Bergen.

He said light rail would require bridging over the Edgewater Branch freight tracks at considerable expense. No new bridge would be necessary for Edgewater Branch freight tracks; they are already located on a bridge that goes over the Northern.

Warrington has great expectations in a new trans-Hudson tunnel to Penn Station in Manhattan. But NJ Transit has not provided any cost estimates for connecting the northern DMU into the tunnel. There is a strong possibility that funding for this connection will never be available.

As currently envisioned, a connection would require a six-mile loop going through Jersey City to Secaucus Junction and back to North Bergen. This may be feasible, but it will result in an impractical routing that would waste both time and energy.

NJ Transit should not bow to political pressures but give more weight for following practical engineering principles in the capital planning process. The only sure step toward the goal of rail service for northeast Bergen is providing direct light rail service from eastern Bergen to Weehawken and Hoboken.

The DMU path leads only to more studies and no rail service at all.

The writer is a transportation adviser to state Sen. Gerald Cardinale, R-Demarest.

Mr. Cafiero's rebuttal letter was augmented by a second pro-LRT (for the Northern Branch) voice, this one by Assemblyman John Rooney, R-39th district.

NJ-ARP thanks both gentlemen. Those kinds of letters to the editor count, even in this day and e-age. If nothing else, New Jersey Transit doesn't get a free pass on the matter from the local daily newspaper -- even if that newspaper is struggling to understand the debate in the first place.

I question how the letters and the disagreements as to the type of service to be offered will ultimately help the effort of bringing transit options to the Northern Branch area. At least they are considering a rail-type alternative which while just a band-aid in terms of rail service, probably will have less cost for upgrading versus bus to rail.

NJ-ARP itself has noted that it's great to have a debate with New Jersey Transit over which rail mode should serve the Northern Valley, as opposed to just which mode. In this regard, uzplayer and we agree.

But we find it curious that NJ-ARP (or anyone else, including those pro-rail folk who actually live in the area affected) should be admonished for pursuing an optimal course this early in the planning stage. NJ-ARP sincerely believes we've outlined in significant detail why light rail transit (LRT) is better than diesel multiple-unit (DMU) service for the Northern Valley.

Our preference, moreover, is more than the proverbial Band-Aid. And NJ-ARP disputes -- make that vigorously disputes -- this "costs-too-much" nonsense as applied to light rail.

Then, too, we protest because various powers-that-be have reneged on a promise (and, apparently, have succeeded in having people forget such a promise was ever in place). It's not as if NJ-ARP suddenly, and whimsically, called for LRT for the route. And even if NJ-ARP were guilty of such a thing, others -- notably Tenafly's Al Cafiero -- certainly never have wavered on the matter.