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

  • 129 posts
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
  by Jeff Smith
 
In the (somewhat older) news: The Hour

Brief, fair-use quote:
Officials demonstrate Walk Bridge operations, lay out replacement schedule

...
Redeker said the replacement bridge will be bascule-type structure that lifts to permit maritime traffic to pass beneath.

Bridge designers have been developing plans for the replacement bridge and preparing the necessary permit. Construction on the new bridge is expected to begin in 2016 and be completed in 2020, according to Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's office.

The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) intends to keep two train tracks in operation at all times during the replacement, although train service may be replaced by bus service on weekends at some point during the project, according to Redeker.
...
Last November, the State Bond Commission approved more than $53 million for the ConnDOT to begin work to replace the Walk Bridge.

The state bond money will be supplemented by a $161 million federal grant awarded last September under the Sandy Resiliency Project Program for states most affected by Storm Sandy, according to Malloy's office.
...
Under the rules, the bridge may not be opened during peak train hours, which are Monday through Friday, from 4:30 to 10a.m. and 2 to 9 p.m.

Four hours' notice is required before the bridge will be opened from 9 p.m. to 4 a.m., and two hours' notice is required from 4 a.m. to 9 p.m., according to Malloy's office.
  by Arlington
 
They should stop wasting money and time on studying types other than bascule. It a dominant choice.
{Edit: OK, my comment is stupid, and they can keep spending money on lift-vs-bascule)
Last edited by Arlington on Mon Aug 10, 2015 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by Ridgefielder
 
I thought a lift bridge was the preferred option?
Last edited by nomis on Mon Aug 10, 2015 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediately preceding quote.
  by Backshophoss
 
Gov. Malloy,How about taking the Maybrook away from HRRC,and get it back into condition for Detoured passenger trains!!
  by DutchRailnut
 
devon to south norwalk even if maybrook were 40 mph would be a 3 hour detour . plus it would be several months to reconstruct rail and crossings for those speeds.
and at most 2 to 3 trains in that amount of time due to no passing sidings ?

and since CT refused the maybrook during Conrail sale, they can not exercise eminent domain, they be in court for 10- years or more.
  by Noel Weaver
 
Using the Maybrook Line for a few detoured trains would allow for a one seat train ride vs a three seat train - bus - train ride just between New York and New Haven. Up until the time the Housatonic took over the operation of that trackage such a detour was not that impossible. Yes probably you would lose at least two to three hours time but before the signals were removed it probably would not have been that bad. In my days on the engineer's spare board in Oak Point I sometimes got called to get a Budd Car up to Danbury and we would get as far as South Norwalk only to find out that the local freight was working at Bethel and would be for most of the night. I would call the tower and tell them that I was also qualified through Shelton to Danbury, would they consider running us that way? The answer was always yes they would and we made it up and back. Some of the Maybrook was 30 and some was 40 at that time, Devon to Derby Junction was 50 for passenger. We made respectable time that way. Yes today the Maybrook Line would need a considerable amount of track work in order to accomplish this but at the present level of train movements on this particular line it could be done. Biggest problem would be changing power enroute at least once and probably twice and probably congestion on the Danbury Branch. The New Haven also detoured trains this way occasionally as did Penn Central and probably Conrail too.
Noel Weaver
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Backshophoss wrote:Gov. Malloy,How about taking the Maybrook away from HRRC,and get it back into condition for Detoured passenger trains!!
No way a passenger train would work there, but that *is* P&W's preferred route to Danbury so wresting control from HRCC and giving Derby-Danbury a modicum of upkeep does spare the New Haven Line and all its bridges (including Walk) some unnecessary freight traffic and a reverse move. I do wonder if Walk's construction is going to force some action here, because the unreliability of the Maybrook under HRCC's stewardship is the only reason P&W stays on the New Haven Line west of Devon for anything beyond their seasonal Bronx stone trains.
  by Jeff Smith
 
The current condition of the WALK bridge (disclaimer: attempt at humor stolen from FB):
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Oy Vey Ostler humor..
  by 35dtmrs92
 
Does anyone know if the under-bridge clearance at WALK when closed will be increased with the replacement of the swing span?
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Same, because the approaches are unmodifiable with the surrounding density. The swing just means it can go up and down much faster. Since barge traffic is virtually the only maritime traffic left there the swings wouldn't have to go anywhere near max height to slip the barges under. That ends up shaving more time still off the clock of a start-to-finish bridge opening.
Last edited by nomis on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediately preceding quote.
  by NH2060
 
I was under the impression that the approach spans would be replaced as well. Or are they still structurally sound? There apparently was a mention at the meeting in Naugatuck last night of "floating" new spans in unless that was just for the lift span(?)
Last edited by nomis on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediately preceding quote.
  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Structural replacement of the approach spans...yes. Modification of their geometry/elevation of those spans during replacement (i.e. to the original question)...no. It's locked into its footprint by abutting development so there's no way to finesse around the ends to get a new bridge with any greater underclearance in the closed position than what's there now.
Last edited by nomis on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:32 am, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Removed immediately preceding quote.
  by Ridgefielder
 
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Same, because the approaches are unmodifiable with the surrounding density. The swing just means it can go up and down much faster. Since barge traffic is virtually the only maritime traffic left there the swings wouldn't have to go anywhere near max height to slip the barges under. That ends up shaving more time still off the clock of a start-to-finish bridge opening.
Actually- not to start an argument but I think they could increase the clearance. The current swing span is a deck truss. If the replacement- lift, bascule or whatever- is a through-truss or a through-girder, there should be a decent increase in clearance above mean-high-water.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9