Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  • 164 posts
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
airman00 wrote:WHY do we cater to nimbys so much?? Way, way, waaay TOO much catering to nimbys! The will of a few people should NOT overrule the greater good that the train would bring. I understand that money would be a big issue in restoring the Piermont Branch. But money should be the issue, NOT nimbys! What is it that a few anti-rail people make a stink and then railroads and govt agencies get down on one knee and bend to their will??
The silent majority is not the spoken minority. Politicians listen to the latter, not the former
  by cjvrr
 
Having been in government for 25 years I can tell you the vocal minority are those that come to town council meetings and create the biggest issues. The politicians, wanting to remain in office, often placate to those folks or ask staff to bend over backwards for them as they do not want bad press. The papers, or press, of course post the negative stuff as that gets the most clicks to their websites, or most papers sold.

Most people that accept the way a municipality, county, or state are run, never go to the public meetings to express their support. And if they do, they may go to one meeting. But the NIMBY's go to every meeting.

Politicians with a backbone or the ability to nullify the minority of dissenters are few and far between. It gets even worse when the NIMBY's threaten or follow through with legal action to stop a project.
  by HAMMER77777
 
EuroStar wrote: Fri Jan 04, 2019 8:58 am The line will never be a DMU as that is not cost effective relative to just restoring it for heavy rail as long as the diesel lines to Spring Valley and Suffern continue to operate.

The political capital needed to reopen the line is not there. The only context in which it might happen is if service to Spring Valley was to be increased beyond what the yard there can handle. This however cannot happen without more double tracking in NJ, however such double tracking is dead for at least the next 20 years as NJ's ridership of the line is not growing fast enough to justify spending money on the double track while NJT is trying to find money for the light rail to Englewood.
Sorry, I don't Know how to multi-quote on here but I have so much to ask. Also apologies for the strong bump. What does DMU mean, in this context? Why would double tracking be needed? Also, regarding Piermont Branch, Wikipedia shows the following stops listed,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piermont_Branch

Where were the Dater's Crossing, Tallmans, Monsey, and Monsey Heights stations? I walked some of the ROW, maybe 20 Years ago, but haven't seen any evidence of any stations between Suffern and SV. Could someone help me out with those? Other than that wiki page, I find scant if any evidence of any of those stops. Also it's interesting how they spell Tallman as Tallmans. Thanks again for any insight into this.

I sure hope they have service again between Suffern and SV. Seems logistically silly to isolate 2 towns, about 5 miles apart, from the ease of being able to move trains from one line to another. Think, Panama Canal. To move any equipment or stock between Suffern and SV, requires a long ass trip, sort of like sailing around South America, instead of crossing Panama Canal. I mean the line goes east a few miles from Suffern anyway, about 3 miles. How much of a big deal would it be to open back the last 2 miles of the journey to SV?
  by HAMMER77777
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote: Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:12 pm This does normally belong in the Metro-North forum, but I will quickly summarize the Piermont Branch.

The Piermont Branch is what I call the Erie equivalent of DL&W's Old Main. The Erie Railroad's main line originally ran from Dunkirk to Piermont, basically a Lake Erie-Hudson River line. The Piermont station had docks nearby to serve other locations. However, in the 1870s, the Erie took over the Passaic and Hudson RR (the current NJT Main Line up to Paterson) for use as their main line. The old main line was, like the DL&W, relegated to branchline status. In 1938, only one passenger train serviced the Piermont Branch from Suffern - Piermont. The amount of stations along the line were pretty large although only three stand, Spring Valley, Suffern and Piermont. The rest were demolished or collapsed at some point: Sparkill, Orangeburg, Blauvelt, Nanuet (burned), Monsey and Tallmans. The chances we're going to get line service back on the Piermont Branch is slim. Tallmans and Monsey are both NIMBY central. For more info on the proposed alignment, go check the Metro-North forum, they have a semi-active topic.

Here is a horriby drawn schematic of the railroad, does what I need it to do:

Image
Sorry for the strong bump, but if anyone Knows about these stations, I am very curious. Wiki also lists Daters crossing, Monsey, AND Monsey Heights, as stations east of Suffern. Any insight into any of those?
  by JoeG
 
The hamlets of Tallman and Monsey still exist, but I don't know where the old stations were. There is a lumber yard in Tallman that still gets rail service from Suffern. East of there is a washout. Further east the ROW is used for a sewer line. At least before the washout, NJT wanted to use the line so it could keep the Pascack Valley trainsets in Suffern, but NIMBYs in Monsey blocked the plan.

The Erie acquired the line from Suffern to Jersey City around 1850, not 1870. Also, from stuff I read years ago the Piermont Branch was afflicted with bad grades--I have no quantifiable information here. The current Main and Bergen lines from Suffern to Hoboken don't seem to have much in the way of grades.
  by Ridgefielder
 
JoeG wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:17 pmThe Erie acquired the line from Suffern to Jersey City around 1850, not 1870. Also, from stuff I read years ago the Piermont Branch was afflicted with bad grades--I have no quantifiable information here. The current Main and Bergen lines from Suffern to Hoboken don't seem to have much in the way of grades.
There really was never much of a valid *commercial* reason for the Piermont Branch to exist, even in the beginning. The Erie Rail Road was conceived and built, starting in the 1830's, as a New York State economic development project for the Southern Tier. Because it was built by Albany, the powers that be decided that both ends had to be in NY State. Piermont was the southernmost place on the west bank of the Hudson where a railroad could meet the river without crossing into New Jersey. Once the Erie passed into private hands the Piermont terminus was downgraded pretty quickly.

Incidentally, the Tappan Zee Bridge was built where it was for pretty much the same reason-- avoiding New Jersey-- in the 1950's.
  by JoeG
 
The location of the Tappan Zee Bridge long puzzled me because it was built across the widest part of the Hudson. The location was the result of a fight between the NY Port Authority and the NY State Thruway Authority. The Port Authority had the right to build all river crossings within a 25 mile radius of the harbor. I believe the harbor's center was taken as the Statue of Liberty. The Port Authority didn't want a new Thruway bridge because it was in the midst of building the George Washington Bridge lower deck, which would provide 6 additional lanes. It was worried the Thruway bridge would drain traffic from he GW Bridge. (This lower deck was originally to contain railroad tracks but instead got 6 traffic lanes.) So, the Thruway built its bridge just past the 25 mile line which ended the Port Authority's jurisdiction.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Everyone's raising good points on the Piermont portion of what was originally the Erie Main Line. The east-west grades around there are pretty bad, which is why the TZB rail proposal relied heavily on tunnels on the NYS Thruway proposed routing. Certainly, going down to Piermont didn't have much use, even way back once other connections were built like the NJ/NY. It's a shame that the NY branches that existed extending from Nanuet to New City, and Spring Valley to Haverstraw don't exist any more. Particularly the Haverstraw connection to the West Shore. Although CSX definitely doesn't want passenger service on the West Shore, that would have been an interesting connection.
  by HAMMER77777
 
JoeG wrote: Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:17 pm The hamlets of Tallman and Monsey still exist, but I don't know where the old stations were. There is a lumber yard in Tallman that still gets rail service from Suffern. East of there is a washout. Further east the ROW is used for a sewer line. At least before the washout, NJT wanted to use the line so it could keep the Pascack Valley trainsets in Suffern, but NIMBYs in Monsey blocked the plan.

The Erie acquired the line from Suffern to Jersey City around 1850, not 1870. Also, from stuff I read years ago the Piermont Branch was afflicted with bad grades--I have no quantifiable information here. The current Main and Bergen lines from Suffern to Hoboken don't seem to have much in the way of grades.
Thank you. I lived in South Monsey as a kid, and I am genuinely curious as to where those mysterious stations were located. Maybe someone with some insight into that might chime in?
  by oknazevad
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 2:11 pm Everyone's raising good points on the Piermont portion of what was originally the Erie Main Line. The east-west grades around there are pretty bad, which is why the TZB rail proposal relied heavily on tunnels on the NYS Thruway proposed routing. Certainly, going down to Piermont didn't have much use, even way back once other connections were built like the NJ/NY. It's a shame that the NY branches that existed extending from Nanuet to New City, and Spring Valley to Haverstraw don't exist any more. Particularly the Haverstraw connection to the West Shore. Although CSX definitely doesn't want passenger service on the West Shore, that would have been an interesting connection.
The continuing existence of the Haverstraw extension of the PVL and a connection to the River Subdivision would, however, make the NIMBY claims about "mile long freights" on the PVL (the spurious ones they used to create sentiment against more PVL passing sidings) at least technically possible. They don't need the ammunition.

Really wish I had been paying more attention back then. I would have called them out on their BS lies.
  by Jeff Smith
 
When you say "continuing existence of the Haverstraw extension", do you mean the ROW is still intact? Having a hard time seeing where it would wind over to the West Shore above Nanuet. It's a little easier envisioning the New City branch.

I was tracing the Piermont branch; from Suffern, it still appears on Google maps as far as Monsey Glen Park. Hard to see on Maps where it cuts over to Spring Valley.
  by Ridgefielder
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:00 pm When you say "continuing existence of the Haverstraw extension", do you mean the ROW is still intact? Having a hard time seeing where it would wind over to the West Shore above Nanuet. It's a little easier envisioning the New City branch.

I was tracing the Piermont branch; from Suffern, it still appears on Google maps as far as Monsey Glen Park. Hard to see on Maps where it cuts over to Spring Valley.
Thiells to Haverstraw has been gone a long time-- since before the Second World War, I think. The old maps don't seem to show a junction between the Erie/NY&NJ and the West Shore at Haverstraw, anyway-- they show the lines crossing (unclear whether a diamond or an overpass) and the Erie continuing down to the waterfront. I don't really know the history of these lines at all-- not clear to me why the Erie would need another Hudson River port between Newburgh and Piermont.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11