Old Rockaway Beach Branch Reopening & Port Jeff Electrification

Tomorrow's Newsday, Long Island's award-winning newspaper of record (7/26/22), tells us

"The (MTA) agency revealed that among the projects being considered as part of its forthcoming “Twenty-year Needs Assessment” report are the reactivation of two LIRR lines that have been dormant for decades: the Lower Montauk branch, which runs from Long Island City, Queens to Jamaica, and the Rockaway Beach Branch, which runs from Rego Park to Far Rockaway. Also being considered are “Port Jefferson Branch improvement” and “rail line electrification."

We just can't wait to ride the first M-7 from Long Island City to Port Jeff via Ozone Park and Rockaway Beach!
I always knew it would happen soon.

In my experience, something badly needed is on the Montauk Branch.

- Extend the 2nd track from Y to PD
- Y to PD 261 territory with speed control
- Island Platform at Patchogue

As far as a 20 year need, all of the above, but electrified (Babylon to PD)

How many 20 year plan projects actually happen? Not many.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

Funny, can't remember how many times a lot of us said this is what they should've built for the Airtrain in the first place! LOL But they've had their consultants on it: https://new.mta.info/system_modernizati ... ach_branch

Let's see, what HASN'T changed - biblical resistance from Forest View Crescent apartments, a changed model of people working from home (wasn't the estimate of 13 years before they get to pre-pandemic levels?), the bus company dug in tighter than a tick at old Ozone interlocking, I'm amazed at how many buses they get up there and how far they've squatted on the branch. That's just off of the top of my head.

The Lower Montauk is probably closest to reality but then there is still the same issues that led to it's closure. Putting in PTC, rebuilding the branch after a long period of neglect, rebuilding Dutch Kills, and a tiny ridership. Hopefully they can shake down Uncle Sam to interlock Pond (can't call it that anymore, LOL) and Maspeth, or it will be fun to operate both pax and frieght - NOT. Only thing helping this is how absolutely onerous it is to drive in the City now with those lovely cameras, and the guys I knew that worked at UPS in LIC, etc. have all fled elsewhere to escape the car commute. And when it comes time to rebuild the bridges over the Van Wyck at Jay, they will truly miss having the option to run diesels down the Lower Montauk.

A lot like the "Five-Year Plans" of the USSR......grandiose, on paper, and seldom fully realized.

Electrify to Sag Harbor and Wading River.
What about the high speed bridge connection across the sound to Boston?

RGlueck wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:40 pm What about the high speed bridge connection across the sound to Boston?

Moses through of extending the LIE under the sound as direct route to Boston. In retrospect, would been good in
providing an alternate through New York-Boston highway alongside I-95 via Connecticut Turnpike.

krispy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:11 pm The Lower Montauk is probably closest to reality but then there is still the same issues that led to it's closure. Putting in PTC, rebuilding the branch after a long period of neglect, rebuilding Dutch Kills, and a tiny ridership.

If a "universal rail transit car" could be FRA certified and be designed to run on both Class I and non-FRA traffic,
this would be the place. I envision a 51' DMU or dual-mode that not only would be FRA certified but would
meet the loading gauges of the IRT lines, PATH and CTA for example and in theory could run any mile of road
in North America.

A 51 foot MU can meet the 800,000 lb ICC rule - the lightweight aluminum PATH PA1s did it in 1965.

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:48 pm

RGlueck wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:40 pm What about the high speed bridge connection across the sound to Boston?

Moses through of extending the LIE under the sound as direct route to Boston. In retrospect, would been good in
providing an alternate through New York-Boston highway alongside I-95 via Connecticut Turnpike.

krispy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:11 pm The Lower Montauk is probably closest to reality but then there is still the same issues that led to it's closure. Putting in PTC, rebuilding the branch after a long period of neglect, rebuilding Dutch Kills, and a tiny ridership.

If a "universal rail transit car" could be FRA certified and be designed to run on both Class I and non-FRA traffic,
this would be the place. I envision a 51' DMU or dual-mode that not only would be FRA certified but would
meet the loading gauges of the IRT lines, PATH and CTA for example and in theory could run any mile of road
in North America.

A 51 foot MU can meet the 800,000 lb ICC rule - the lightweight aluminum PATH PA1s did it in 1965.

So, a PCC like car, which any vendor could build, instead of one shot custom models.

gamer4616 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:18 pm In my experience, something badly needed is on the Montauk Branch.

- Extend the 2nd track from Y to PD
- Y to PD 261 territory with speed control
- Island Platform at Patchogue

As far as a 20 year need, all of the above, but electrified (Babylon to PD)

Gamer - Good thoughts about Y to Patchogue...My reply: 1 and 2 - Yes - A second track from Y (50.6)
to Patchogue (53.9) to close this 3.3 mile gap is an easy improvement for the Montauk Branch...

3: There is sufficient space/width for a new north platform at Patchogue Station - there would have to be
at least one overpass constructed near the center of the platform adjacent to the station building...
An island platform would require the removal of the current Patchogue Station platform along with shifting
both tracks - and may need the purchase of additional private property along the north track...A Patchogue
island platform would be accessible only by way of overpasses (or perhaps an underpass) making access much
less convenient to trains than it is currently - a new second north platform is the easiest and least-expensive
way to expand Patchogue Station with the extension of double track...MACTRAXX

scratchyX1 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:43 pm

R36 Combine Coach wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 5:48 pm

RGlueck wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 2:40 pm What about the high speed bridge connection across the sound to Boston?

Moses through of extending the LIE under the sound as direct route to Boston. In retrospect, would been good in
providing an alternate through New York-Boston highway alongside I-95 via Connecticut Turnpike.

krispy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:11 pm The Lower Montauk is probably closest to reality but then there is still the same issues that led to it's closure. Putting in PTC, rebuilding the branch after a long period of neglect, rebuilding Dutch Kills, and a tiny ridership.

If a "universal rail transit car" could be FRA certified and be designed to run on both Class I and non-FRA traffic,
this would be the place. I envision a 51' DMU or dual-mode that not only would be FRA certified but would
meet the loading gauges of the IRT lines, PATH and CTA for example and in theory could run any mile of road
in North America.

A 51 foot MU can meet the 800,000 lb ICC rule - the lightweight aluminum PATH PA1s did it in 1965.

So, a PCC like car, which any vendor could build, instead of one shot custom models.

Scratch - This new MU car would be something resembling the CTA fleet in Chicago or as R36
mentions a PATH PA 1 to 5 car with the length and size...MACTRAXX

That point mentioned by scratchyX1 about making the dimensions variable is important, since cars fitting the IRT, PATH, and CTA dimensions wouldn't reach the platform edges on the other lines mentioned, and cars for the other lines could be made longer. I was always impressed by the differences between the Washington and Chicago PCCs using the same design elements and still benefitting from economies of scale in their manufacture. And it's always nice not to be dependent on one manufacturer.

Wait, having only seen baltimore, philly, Washingto,and pittsburgh PCCs, I didn't know there was a difference.
and yes, the current "build a factory for custom build, then close factory when done" model is a bad idea.

ExCon90 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:31 pm That point mentioned by scratchyX1 about making the dimensions variable is important, since cars fitting the IRT, PATH, and CTA dimensions wouldn't reach the platform edges on the other lines mentioned, and cars for the other lines could be made longer. I was always impressed by the differences between the Washington and Chicago PCCs using the same design elements and still benefitting from economies of scale in their manufacture. And it's always nice not to be dependent on one manufacturer.

(bolding mine) That could be solved with a variable-width gap filler, similar to what brightline in Florida is using.

Besides the issue of car width, wouldn't this proposal for a universal car also require uniform platform heights above rails? Even on the MBTA, each line has a different platform height. It would likely be less expensive and less complex to not make a one-size-fits all car if that involves rebuilding stations to allow level boarding. (The variation in heights on the MBTA platforms are such that if they used a single floor height car design, they would need to provide ramps with hand rails to meet ADA requirements.)

PCC cars had a number of size variations, not to mention other variations, such as numbers and locations of doors. There is no reason not to keep that flexibility in assembling other rail vehicles.

iirc, i think stadlers designs have that level of flexibility. You've a good point, there's legacy ex streetcar subways which have a different standard. Case in point is mbta, followed by MYC MTA. And then, there is the standalone norristown line, of SEPTA.