Railroad Forums 

  • Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

  • Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.
It is currently Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:47 pm

Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

 Reply

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1599582  by lensovet
 
JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:04 pm you could have half those trains run on each line
Sure, if you wanted to have a commuter revolt on your hands.

Why on earth would someone who lives next to the NEC today ever want to have their frequency cut in half or now have to drive through backcountry roads to keep their frequency? And have a longer ride to boot?

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1599711  by Roadgeek Adam
 
lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:22 am
JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:04 pm you could have half those trains run on each line
Sure, if you wanted to have a commuter revolt on your hands.

Why on earth would someone who lives next to the NEC today ever want to have their frequency cut in half or now have to drive through backcountry roads to keep their frequency? And have a longer ride to boot?
bEcAuSe We NeEd SeRvIcE tO wEsT tReNtOn!!

That's legit the only reason for this barbaric proposal. You take those trains away, those people don't come back. As is, there's a serious change in who will be riding trains the next few years and for what reason.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1599793  by rcthompson04
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Tue Jun 14, 2022 3:48 pm
lensovet wrote: ↑Mon Jun 13, 2022 12:22 am
JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Mon Jun 06, 2022 1:04 pm you could have half those trains run on each line
Sure, if you wanted to have a commuter revolt on your hands.

Why on earth would someone who lives next to the NEC today ever want to have their frequency cut in half or now have to drive through backcountry roads to keep their frequency? And have a longer ride to boot?
bEcAuSe We NeEd SeRvIcE tO wEsT tReNtOn!!

That's legit the only reason for this barbaric proposal. You take those trains away, those people don't come back. As is, there's a serious change in who will be riding trains the next few years and for what reason.
Yes. Of all NJT projects potentially out there, this is a second or third tier project.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1599818  by JohnFromJersey
 
In all seriousness, why can't SEPTA go past WT to BB for terminating and connecting with NJT, or have NJT continue from BB down to WT and end there to connect with SEPTA? I'd imagine the latter would be easier since the RVL is diesel, and extending it down to WT wouldn't require the catenary SEPTA would.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1599820  by Roadgeek Adam
 
JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:50 pm In all seriousness, why can't SEPTA go past WT to BB for terminating and connecting with NJT, or have NJT continue from BB down to WT and end there to connect with SEPTA? I'd imagine the latter would be easier since the RVL is diesel, and extending it down to WT wouldn't require the catenary SEPTA would.
Let's break it down.

A) This project is over 2 decades old at this point. There hasn't been movement in years from a political perspective. Why would you expect that to change? I want passenger service on the NYSW to Sparta, but that's not happening either.

B) As I mentioned earlier, ridership is changing. How much demand is there now post-pandemic? Is Belle Mead, Ewing, West Trenton, Hillsborough and maybe Manville really going to change the NJT numbers?

C) What capacity do you propose we use that doesn't result in a dummy train that goes from just Bound Brook to West Trenton and back? The 4 track CNJ is gone. It's all 2 tracks. Where are you getting the extra capacity on the CNJ main?

D) In terms of capacity, where are you putting all those trains in Newark Penn? NPS doesn't have a full yard for the trains. Ridership is going to demand a non-stop trip to New York Penn Station. Where is that capacity? My hopes of NJT buying half of Croxton for expansion is as likely as me getting a PhD tomorrow.

E) What do you tell commuters with wheelchairs who still need a lot of stations improved from an ADA perspective? NJ Transit needs to work on that before expanding lines.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615290  by Danny197050
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 9:38 pm
JohnFromJersey wrote: ↑Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:50 pm In all seriousness, why can't SEPTA go past WT to BB for terminating and connecting with NJT, or have NJT continue from BB down to WT and end there to connect with SEPTA? I'd imagine the latter would be easier since the RVL is diesel, and extending it down to WT wouldn't require the catenary SEPTA would.
Let's break it down.

A) This project is over 2 decades old at this point. There hasn't been movement in years from a political perspective. Why would you expect that to change? I want passenger service on the NYSW to Sparta, but that's not happening either.

B) As I mentioned earlier, ridership is changing. How much demand is there now post-pandemic? Is Belle Mead, Ewing, West Trenton, Hillsborough and maybe Manville really going to change the NJT numbers?

C) What capacity do you propose we use that doesn't result in a dummy train that goes from just Bound Brook to West Trenton and back? The 4 track CNJ is gone. It's all 2 tracks. Where are you getting the extra capacity on the CNJ main?

D) In terms of capacity, where are you putting all those trains in Newark Penn? NPS doesn't have a full yard for the trains. Ridership is going to demand a non-stop trip to New York Penn Station. Where is that capacity? My hopes of NJT buying half of Croxton for expansion is as likely as me getting a PhD tomorrow.

E) What do you tell commuters with wheelchairs who still need a lot of stations improved from an ADA perspective? NJ Transit needs to work on that before expanding lines.
First of all, I'm glad to be here.

That out of the way, I lived in that area of Central Jersey for 9 years from 2007-2016. I can tell you having been in Bound Brook many times, that area really needs rail down to West Trenton.

When I look at the map of Bound Brook, another issue would be that the station for the West Trenton Line would be single track, meaning inbound and outbound would be sharing a track in Bound Brook. That would be potential issue for sure until that second track between Sunnymeade Rd and the Port Reading Junction got built.

Another issue would be rebuilding those platforms between Bound Brook and West Trenton. Also, building a second track along that line as well.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615414  by Roadgeek Adam
 
The problems I explained last year aren't just on the ex-Reading main. Where are we getting all this extra train capacity on the RVL and at Newark Penn? There's no room for 4 tracks on the RVL anymore. You'd have a better chance finding capacity if you can switch the West Trenton Line to the LVRR between Bound Brook and Aldene. However, NS would throw a fit. I see no chance in hell that happens.

I lived in Central Jersey from 1995-2014 (and am planning to move back when the time is right). There's just needs NJ Transit has elsewhere that are of much more important value, particularly when it comes to the handicap accessibility problem. The best you can probably get would be a dummy shuttle between West Trenton and Bound Brook (the latter of which needs new platforms itself!) with a transfer requirement.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615430  by Ken W2KB
 
NS, in my recollection, years ago when restoration was proposed, stated that NJT would be required to build a flyover type junction at the connection west of Bound Brook. Likely NS thought this would be a dealbreaker. More recently NS stated that it would not allow Amtrak or NJT to use its right of way for extension of Raritan Valley Line service or for Amtrak.
Last edited by nomis on Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediate quote

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615432  by Roadgeek Adam
 
I could propose we re-align the LVRR alignment 4 feet west and NS would throw a fit. Unfortunately this entire project suffers from 1 of the 2 monarchs of northeastern freight getting themselves involved. it doesn't seem like the value of the project is there right now. The agency should have higher priorities, especially on the Raritan Valley Line, where only 5 stations are handicap accessible.
Last edited by nomis on Tue Feb 07, 2023 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Remove immediate quote

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615462  by MACTRAXX
 
Everyone - This same topic has been active at times over my entire 18 year membership here at RR.Net...
(I joined 2/7/2005 for the record)...For NJT to revive this service NS demands a flyover bridge at Bound Brook.
CSX requires that NJT fund and construct a second track between Bound Brook and West Trenton.

Without those two main infrastructure projects funded and built along with a firm commitment from NJT
West Trenton rail service that has now been gone for (just over) 40 years is not coming back...MACTRAXX

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615538  by Roadgeek Adam
 
I don't think anyone is questioning the chances it's happening any time soon. My entire argument is be where NJT's priorities should be and its elsewhere on the RVL. But I'm still out to poke holes in the arguments.

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615589  by MaRoFu
 
Is there the possibility that the line heading north from Port Reading Junction could be reconnected to the RVL west of Bridgewater instead of running trains on the LVRR east to Bound Brook?

Re: Reviving passenger service between West Trenton & Bound Brook

 #1615617  by Roadgeek Adam
 
If I remember the original proposal, the Bridgewater option was on the table. I don't know if that a) it's still on the table; b) if there's ever a chance.

Anything that requires operating service on a track owned by 1 of the 2 monarch freights is a tough ask. Realistically any service NJ Transit would revive would mean only using active NJ Transit-owned railroad tracks. There would be great value in using the LVRR between Bound Brook and Aldene in terms of alternative operations in Somerset, Union and Middlesex Counties, unfortunately you have NS in the way and they will absolutely positively destroy any attempts for that. If NS weren't in the way, you could absolutely operate the West Trenton service via the LVRR instead.

As for the alternative to the NEC. Think about it. The odds that there's a Frankford Junction repeat are slim.
 Reply
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
 Return to “New Jersey Transit NJT Rail and Light Rail LRT”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -