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

  • 96 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
  by Ridgefielder
 
The 4th main track on the New Haven was removed between the split for the Waterbury Branch at Devon through Milford to Woodmont in the early. Between Woodmont and New Haven the track was left in place but downgraded for freight service only, with the wire removed. New Haven to Woodmont was rewired and restored to service as part of the reopening of West Haven as a passenger station in the early 2010's. Woodmont-Devon remains 3-track however when the overpasses in downtown Milford were rebuilt in (I think) the 1990's they were built to 4-track width. The only actual encroachment on the Track 4 trackway is the westbound platform at Milford.

I'm not entirely sure whether the removal of Track 4 was a Metro-North or a Conrail initiative-- it happened right around the time MN was being formed.
  by fredmcain
 
Ridgefielder wrote: I'm not entirely sure whether the removal of Track 4 was a Metro-North or a Conrail initiative-- it happened right around the time MN was being formed.
I made numerous trips over the New Haven line 1980 - 1985 and I recall seeing the north track out of service but I don't think it'd been removed at that time. I had hoped at the time that they had only taken it out of service for maintenance but later it turned out that my worst fears were realized.

Now there is evidently a plan to reinstate the removed track so the platform at Milford will have to be moved again. This plan is "rapidly" moving forward along with the Danbury Line re-electrification, i.e., not real fast. See my recent post under the Danbury Line Electrification thread.

Regards,
  by DutchRailnut
 
problem with moving platfirm in Milford is they will loose a * load of parking and no room to replace it.
  by Noel Weaver
 
Milford is probably not alone with this problem. The only way they will ever solve it if they can is to build more parking garages, the only way they can go is up. They have to give up on ugliness and build them or the issue will never improve. Stamford, Bridgeport and New Haven have them and they can swallow up a lot of parked cars.
Noel Weaver
  by Rockingham Racer
 
New Rochelle also went the way of the parking garage. It's now part of the New Rochelle Transportation Center.
  by deathtopumpkins
 
DutchRailnut wrote:problem with moving platfirm in Milford is they will loose a * load of parking and no room to replace it.
27 parking spaces (incl. 4 handicapped).

That's not an unreasonable number to lose, especially given the fact that parking at Milford was just expanded, and the relative ease with which you could relocate those spaces.
  by TDowling
 
How unfeasible is complete electrification on the line to Poughkeepsie? I know riders who could benefit from such an improvement, although I am fully aware of the cost-benefit analyses and jurisdictional issues as they pertain to emu service upstate. I imagine also that emus would suffer enormous wear and tear.
  by fredmcain
 
Mr. Dowling,

I distinctly remember that at one time there was a lot of serious discussion about electrifying Croton/Harmon - Albany. They were talking about overhead catenary. But in recent years I haven't heard anything more about this.
  by EuroStar
 
I though that at one point the plan had been to electrify up to Peekskill and run the EMUs up to there, but maybe I am mixing up things.
  by Rockingham Racer
 
That would be "re-electrify up to Peeksill". Back in the day, it was electric, and some few evening rush hour trains terminated there. And sometime back in the 70's [?], there was talk of doing third rail as far as Poughkeepsie. Never heard of going all the way to Albany.
  by DutchRailnut
 
Electrification was never upto Peekskill, tHru service was offered by towing a couple of MU cars or RDC's after Harmon.
  by Rockingham Racer
 
DutchRailnut wrote:Electrification was never upto Peekskill, tHru service was offered by towing a couple of MU cars or RDC's after Harmon.
Hmm, I must be having a "senior moment". :wink:
  by fredmcain
 
Rockingham Racer wrote: Never heard of going all the way to Albany.
Well, I remember seeing this in the news; mighta been back in the 1980s. However, I tried to "Google" for it and turned up nothing.

Seems to me, thought, that if they ran the third rail all the way to Poughkeepsie, they'd be able to standardize their equipment more with MUs.

Regards,
Fred M. Cain
  by Patrick A.
 
Extending third rail to Poughkeepsie would be more than doubling the distance covered by 3rd rail on the Hudson line from 33 miles to 74 miles. Not sure how many additional substations would be required for such a distance. The Harlem line electrification runs 53 miles up to Southeast from GCT, by way of comparison. While 3rd rail would be less offensive from a sight standpoint (sans substations) versus catenary for the NIMBY crowd, the benefits just don't seem to make sense to justify the additional expense.

Compared with all of the other critical railroad infrastructure projects in the region, have to imagine this one would be far far far down on the list in terms of relative import.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7