Railroad Forums 

  • New Jersey Seashore Lines: was CNJ being cleard Woodmansie>N

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New Jersey
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New Jersey

Moderator: David

 #1317967  by jrzwalker86
 
But, work has been done and a lot of it in the years 2011, 2012, 2013. This includes new crossings for
- Wranglebrook road with new concrete crossing base,flash signal and gates with its wiring tied to rail switches.
- Rt. 530 with
-- re-engineered intersections around it
-- traffic lights wired with rail switches
-- new semaphore signals on either side and wired in with rail switches
-- new concrete crossing base
-- some new ties under the tracks on either side of the crossing and under the PRR connector switch
- Rt 539 with flash signal, gates and track base (yes the rail is not yet bolted to the rest of the tracks as of Sunday Feb. 8th)
- Diamond Rd. with new concrete crossing base
- Savoy Blvd with new concrete crossing base
Would Clayton have had to put some money out for this as well as for track clearings over the past several years?
Money is being spent on the 13 mile section for some reason. Looking at the maps for Woodmansie, there were tracks that branched off of that section into Clayton's sand pit. If they are being relaid, then I guess we would have a definite answer, right?
 #1317974  by scottso699
 
jrzwalker86 wrote:But, work has been done and a lot of it in the years 2011, 2012, 2013. This includes new crossings for
- Wranglebrook road with new concrete crossing base,flash signal and gates with its wiring tied to rail switches.
- Rt. 530 with
-- re-engineered intersections around it
-- traffic lights wired with rail switches
-- new semaphore signals on either side and wired in with rail switches
-- new concrete crossing base
-- some new ties under the tracks on either side of the crossing and under the PRR connector switch
- Rt 539 with flash signal, gates and track base (yes the rail is not yet bolted to the rest of the tracks as of Sunday Feb. 8th)
- Diamond Rd. with new concrete crossing base
- Savoy Blvd with new concrete crossing base
Would Clayton have had to put some money out for this as well as for track clearings over the past several years?
Money is being spent on the 13 mile section for some reason. Looking at the maps for Woodmansie, there were tracks that branched off of that section into Clayton's sand pit. If they are being relaid, then I guess we would have a definite answer, right?
I think your last line is the key to it. If we see Clayton re-laying the loop that used to be there then we can be pretty confident that something is imminently going to happen.
 #1317981  by wolfboy8171981
 
scottso699 wrote:
jrzwalker86 wrote:But, work has been done and a lot of it in the years 2011, 2012, 2013. This includes new crossings for
- Wranglebrook road with new concrete crossing base,flash signal and gates with its wiring tied to rail switches.
- Rt. 530 with
-- re-engineered intersections around it
-- traffic lights wired with rail switches
-- new semaphore signals on either side and wired in with rail switches
-- new concrete crossing base
-- some new ties under the tracks on either side of the crossing and under the PRR connector switch
- Rt 539 with flash signal, gates and track base (yes the rail is not yet bolted to the rest of the tracks as of Sunday Feb. 8th)
- Diamond Rd. with new concrete crossing base
- Savoy Blvd with new concrete crossing base
Would Clayton have had to put some money out for this as well as for track clearings over the past several years?
Money is being spent on the 13 mile section for some reason. Looking at the maps for Woodmansie, there were tracks that branched off of that section into Clayton's sand pit. If they are being relaid, then I guess we would have a definite answer, right?
I think your last line is the key to it. If we see Clayton re-laying the loop that used to be there then we can be pretty confident that something is imminently going to happen.
You don't need a loop to store railcars or run a passenger train........
 #1317994  by RailsEast
 
Good point, Wolf....however, if you will....."applicant will cause or use its best efforts to cause common rail freight service to be provided using the rail freight facilities or right-of-way that is the subject of assistance for a period of no less than five years from the date the State provides written notification of acceptance of the funded project is complete."

Is car storage considered 'common rail freight service'? I would assume yes, but I would also assume that excursion trains are not, but I am just guessing here.....I suppose revenue is revenue, just not sure as to the actual rule as the state sees it.

Sorry to stir up things, but as a former transportation agent (trucking, not rail, and a long time ago) I find the details somewhat fascinating, especially given my affinity for the railroad, and my proximity to the Southern Secondary.
Chris
 #1317998  by bmwr12
 
I really think everyone is over thinking this. It clearly stated in the grant application over the years that Clayton was the NJSL main customers along with a secondary customer. Who is the other customer? I would bet that Clayton is funding the 10% share for the repairs as they own the tracks. Obviously if you don't see the repairs done and trains running in the next 24 month it is not going to happen.
 #1318009  by luminous53
 
I think if you look at this situation the chain of events makes sense If you remove the wild ideas that have been floated and look the facts. This is my take.

The line was cleared and the grant was proposed when gas prices were high and a NJ/NY rail tunnel was to be built. Clayton looking at his useless tracks that he pays taxes on, generating no profit said "hey, I have a customer who wants rail delivery (lets say a cement plant?) and I want to bid on these big construction projects like a rail tunnel AND hey, the state will pay %90, why not try". If the tracks are reopened again for ($150K) why not try, and if big projects and more customers want sand via rail then great. It's better to "look Into" rehabbing the line now, and maybe pulling the trigger on the project now to for 150K, then having to spend 1.5 million 10 years, 20 years,or 50 years from now down the old rusty rail road.

so the grant gets approved and the next step is seeing what king of real traffic is out there and how much will it cost. Clayton and NJSL calls Conrail, NJT wants it's chance to complain and add some ridiculous Coast Line charge, and all parties finally talk and negotiate and a cost analysis is made, or I believe still being made. This analysis will decide if the tracks will be redone now.

Clayton probably has a customer, it's not 200 cars a week of sand, BUT it's not 5 either. The rumor floated on the forum is 5-10 cars daily. That may not be enough for the trains to start rolling but that is enough to keep this alive for a few more months, as that is a very big customer for Browns yard and will rock the world of operations in central jersey for freight railroading.

NJSL yeah, besides being there to move sand would want to do what he does, run santa trains and car storage. Why shouldn't he and I hope he does.

Conrail has 4 reasons as I see it to have done the bridges via their grant.1, they have a base with a spur in lakehurst to serve if they need service. yes it's very inactive but toxic dirt trains and passenger coaches for training purposes have all been delivered to that base in the last 10 or 12 years. 2, use the turnaround track in Lakehurst if needed. 3, to interchange with NJSL, .. maybe. 4, if they need to resume service to Lakehurst for any reason that would cost them a lot of money, but as of last week, nope, the state has paid for 90 percent so easy easy easy.

If we don't see any trains it's because it's not cost effective to do so, or Clayton believes it's too risky to might have to hand 1.5 mill back to the state if that is how these grants work. Also I don't believe there is any ill intentions on any party, It comes down to money.
 #1318058  by Ken W2KB
 
RailsEast wrote:With all the stipulations involved, I would think that it is not worth it at all to proceed with any work unless the applicant is certain that it can fulfill the agreement. I presume that if nothing is started, then no harm, no foul, aside from the 10% applicant cost (in this case, $150K); but......if no work is done, does the applicant still owe the 10%?
It is my understanding that the $150K is not an upfront payment; the reimbursement payment(s) are for 90 percent of the submitted reimbursement application so if no work is performed there is no payment by the applicant.
 #1318059  by Ken W2KB
 
RailsEast wrote:Is car storage considered 'common rail freight service'? I would assume yes, but I would also assume that excursion trains are not, but I am just guessing here.....I suppose revenue is revenue, just not sure as to the actual rule as the state sees it.
Excursion or any other rail passenger operation is not eligible for funding by this NJ program. However, the program does not prohibit use of funded infrastructure for rail passenger service; the program's only concern is that the freight service requirements be met.
 #1318078  by CJPat
 
Interesting theory.

Just a couple of thoughts/questions:
1. It may be just bad memory, but I thought the grant was just to cover the timber bridge(2) rebuild, not the rebuilding the 13 miles of the track itself. I thought the numbers that were kicked around 5+ years ago indicated that just to replace ties to re-attain a Class III standard, relay the sand loop at Clayton, and re-ballast everything was going to cost several million dollars. That would have to be covered by Clayton unless he truly has a second customer that may part of the cost. All I am saying is that Clayton will be into this project for far more than the $150K application fee of the grant. I don't know whether that impacts the theory or not.

2. The Conrail grant for redoing the 3 bridges leading to Lakehurst would have the same requirement for actual use: ....."applicant will cause or use its best efforts to cause common rail freight service to be provided using the rail freight facilities or right-of-way that is the subject of assistance for a period of no less than five years from the date the State provides written notification of acceptance of the funded project is complete." That means the bridgework directly in the vicinity of Lakehurst Naval Air/Joint Base McGuire would only be valid if there was a definite plan to run freight there (within the 5 years), not wait and see if Lakehurst has another need. If Lakehurst/McGuire had approached Conrail, you'd think the DOD might have underwritten a maintenance subsidy. Maybe they "influenced" the approval of the grant for Homeland Security purposes and the usage requirement may be waived?
 #1318085  by luminous53
 
hey, this the work that Clayton states it will be doing. This is right out of the grant application. I can't find the link anymore but I copied and pasted this on the forum a few years back. hope this helps

ponsor / Railroad:
New Jersey Seashore Lines (NJSL)
Project Name:
Tie Renewal Project to serve an Aggregate Transload Facility
Project Scope of Work:

Description of the Proposed Project:
In order to provide new freight rail service to (initially) two new freight rail customers at a new aggregate transload facility; New Jersey Seashore Lines (NJSL) proposes a tie, switch and bridge timber renewal project on 13 - miles of main track, and repairs to one (1) undergrade wooden bridge to gain access to the transload facility. This work is necessary to support the movement of heavy - density aggregate traffic.
Detailed Scope of Work of the Proposed Project:
Tie, switch and bridge timber renewal:
1. Remove nine thousand, three hundred sixty (9,360) old ties and properly dispose of them off site;
2. Furnish and install nine thousand, three hundred sixty (9,360) new grade ties;
3. Remove five (5) sets of old switch timbers and properly dispose of them off site;
4. Furnish and install five (5) complete sets of new switch timbers for Number eight switches. All new timbers will be a
Grade #5 quality;
5. Furnish and install five (5) new switch stands, complete with new rods and latches.
6. Remove two (2) unused switches and straight - rail the track;
7. Tighten or replace (as necessary) all loose track bolts;
8. Utilizing an on - track Tamper, spot - tamp the track to level as effectively as possible, without performing a complete
surfacing project;
9. Utilizing an on - track Broom Regulator, broom the entire 13 miles of track;
10. Remove all old bridge timbers on one (1) undergrade wooden bridge and properly dispose of them off site;
11. Furnish and install all new bridge timbers on one (1) undergrade wooden bridge;
Bridge repairs:
Page 2 of 6
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BUREAU OF RAIL SERVICES
FISCAL YEAR 2011 STATE RAIL PLAN APPLICATIONS ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING


12. Furnish and distribute ballast at both north and south approaches to the bridge;
13. Furnish and install 96 lineal feet of 4" x 8" timber guards, with fasteners;
14. Furnish and install 132 lineal feet 12" diameter treated timber posts;
15. Furnish and install one (1) each concrete cap;
16. Furnish and install one (1) each concrete sill;
17. Remove drift;
18. Furnish and install inner guard rail;
19. Furnish and install 200 lineal feet of 3" x 10" bracing
20. Clean up the job site, perform final inspections and prepare the track for service.
Additional Information:
In order to accomodate the process of the movement of aggregates by rail, Clayton Sand Company recently purchased a new 14" x 14" 120 Single Pump electric Marlin Class Dredge with 120' dredging depth capacity. This capital expenditure by Clayton Sand Company totalled $2.7 million dollars. The new Marlin Class Dredge was placed in service during March of 2010.

Municipality (s):
Borough of Lakehurst; Manchester Township
County (s):
Ocean
Legislative District (s):
8, 9

Total Cost:

$1,653,000.00
luminous53

Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 1:10 am
Location: Brooklyn
 #1318105  by Ken W2KB
 
Very helpful. here is the link http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 0519,d.aWw

The two customers are a required minimum. NJ will not fund single customer only projects.
 #1321655  by Ken W2KB
 
Splatz wrote:So noted.

As of a recent drive by through Lakehurst, mistaking the stacks of supplies adjacent the ROW for the multi-family dwelling as project related south, but then noticing looking north several huge creosoted bridge timbers (not ties) laid across the tracks under the Lakehurst circle overpass. Noting also the completion of the Conrail grant bridge improvements in advance and on a stepped up schedule of NJSL's. Lending credence to a rail delivered rationale for what will be needed to bring grant funded materials to below the now repaired bridges.

At the same time someone is stacking the Pinelands Commission with pro piplineites. Once a pipeline enters the Reserve the precedent is set and more are sure to follow on or under a currently moribund but potentially revenue producing ROW south of Woodmansie, entirely owned by NJDOT. NJ Natural Gas who extended their pipelines to Lakehurst 3 years ago need only join our ROW by less than half a mile from their lines current junction just beyond the Lakehurst circle by crossing 70 laterally SE over Township owned land once owned by Hovnanian, if they haven't already done so. That line would allow an extension of plant to challenge SJG in Atlantic County. NJNR took a huge infrastructure hit from Sandy, so they would like to get away from the beach and to something way inland that can grow. The one they have under the other former CNJ ROW to Barnegat deadends like the CNJ did in the final days.

Another Bakken crude derailment and Keystone veto will seem like pure folly. Our at least restored to Class III ROW equally a more logical place for future passenger rail expansion with cheap DMUs rather than the huge electrical infrastructure to expand the Bergen light rail. But electric is right across the street in Whiting and in huge capacity.
Not sure what you mean by "challenge" South Jersey Gas - the territories are allocated by the NJBPU and it is highly unlikely that the territory would be reallocated. Also, allowing overlapping service territories is not cost effective so BPU approval of that is even more unlikely. With respect to the proposed South Jersey Gas pipeline to reinforce its system and to serve the Beasley's Point generating station, that is not a meaningful incursion into the Pinelands as the pipeline would be buried in the shoulder of existing highways so no pine trees nor the environment would be adversely impacted. NJ Natural does have a major reinforcement project proposed but it does not impact the CNJ right of way. See for details: http://www.njng.com/about/southern-reli ... /index.asp. Could something eventually be proposed for the CNJ right of way at some point? Of course it could. However, the pipeline use is not incompatible with rail use if the pipeline project is designed to that end. There could be a shared right of way. With respect to the Whiting JCP&L 230kV station, it may or may not have available capacity; a system impact study would need to be completed before committing to add a significant new load. Whiting will become more critical to bulk electric system reliability after the Oyster Creek Generating Station is permanently closed in the not too distant future.
 #1326806  by rrbluesman
 
I was following the tracks through Wharton today, I know it is much further south, but I found pieces of the CNJ Southern Division had been partially cleared of recent growth trees adjacent to Fleming Pike between Winslow Junction and Atsion, sometimes 50 to 100 feet at a time. Looked like recently cut, is there any connection to what is going on up north in Woodmansie?
  • 1
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124