• Phillipsburg Rail Service—Four Years, $90 Million

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

Moderators: Tadman, nick11a, Kaback9, ACeInTheHole

  • 392 posts
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 27
  by northjerseybuff
 
Maybe a piece by piece approach is needed then...get the line to Bloomsbury(rt78) and see how service does. How many miles are we talking from high bridge to bloomsbury?
  by cruiser939
 
northjerseybuff wrote: And for the operting costs...why not extend trains that go to high bridge(no new equipment is needed this way) like they did with the montclair bay st service? its not like high bridge gets hourly service. With some rearranging of the schedules to adjust the 15 min or whatever it is to P-Burg it should be a no brainer!
As JT has already explained, you would need to utilize additional sets of equipment in order to extend to Phillipsburg.
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
I've spent months looking at different ways for this. At the same time as everyone wants trains to Alpha/Phillipsburg. I've spent the ideas of looking at terminating at a Bloomsbury P&R similar to Wayne Route 23. I've thought about the idea of just temporarily ending at Hampton, like it used to be. However, the one that may be of most benefit and would stick is just lay track from Hampton to Washington via an alignment similar to the DL&W Hampton Branch via Changewater. If it meant an alignment following Route 31 to the old DL&W Washington station, I'd advocate for it, seeing they could at least at that point extend Montclair-Boonton service to Washington via Port Murray. In the long run, with less track laid, we'd be able to spend the funds on 4 new stations, Glen Gardner (which I don't get is being left out in studies), Hampton, New Hampton/Changewater, Port Murray and Washington. I don't see it being harder than that. I realize we'd need the extra equipment (fuel, labor, maintenance, etc) but at the same time we're gaining services via Washington for two lines rather than one. After that, maybe in the future, we could extend to Phillipsburg on both lines. After an extension, we could have RVL trains that run from Phillipsburg - Washington and RVL Trains that run from Phillipsburg - Hampton via the normal RVL alignment. Warren County would benefit greatly from extra service on both lines. All hypothetical, but free for discussion ;)
  by Ken W2KB
 
Very interesting concept but would be extremely expensive of course compared to extending RVL to an I-78 park/ride (or further to P"burg) or the Washington Secondary to P'Burg.
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
Ken W2KB wrote:Very interesting concept but would be extremely expensive of course compared to extending RVL to an I-78 park/ride (or further to P"burg) or the Washington Secondary to P'Burg.
Although technically my above hypothetics do restore the Washington Secondary. Phase I to Hackettstown - Washington via Port Murray and Phase II to Phillipsburg via a new Broadway Station (rename the current one to Fair Lawn) and Stewartsville.

If we really want to be NJ Transit, even with a little help, we need more stations in Sussex and Warren Counties. If you read some of my ideas, this one actually is sensible. In the long run, Hampton, Glen Gardner, Port Murray, Washington, Phillipsburg, Alpha, and Bloomsbury would all get new stops and service. It works in my opinion.

Exactly how much is missing of track from the RVL? I don't think there is more than 5 miles for a new Hampton-Changewater-Washington Branch, if it follows NJ 31 to some degree. (Also, the ties for the old Hampton Branch are there at the Hampton Station site, rotting away. It would also mean rebuilding the line,
  by Ken W2KB
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote:
Ken W2KB wrote:Very interesting concept but would be extremely expensive of course compared to extending RVL to an I-78 park/ride (or further to P"burg) or the Washington Secondary to P'Burg.
Although technically my above hypothetics do restore the Washington Secondary. Phase I to Hackettstown - Washington via Port Murray and Phase II to Phillipsburg via a new Broadway Station (rename the current one to Fair Lawn) and Stewartsville.

If we really want to be NJ Transit, even with a little help, we need more stations in Sussex and Warren Counties. If you read some of my ideas, this one actually is sensible. In the long run, Hampton, Glen Gardner, Port Murray, Washington, Phillipsburg, Alpha, and Bloomsbury would all get new stops and service. It works in my opinion.

Exactly how much is missing of track from the RVL? I don't think there is more than 5 miles for a new Hampton-Changewater-Washington Branch, if it follows NJ 31 to some degree. (Also, the ties for the old Hampton Branch are there at the Hampton Station site, rotting away. It would also mean rebuilding the line,
The original Hampton - Washington line did not follow 31 at all, it was east of the Musconetcong River to Changewater and thence to Washington. I suspect that much of the former Hampton - Washington line was sold off, and thus would require significant costs to acquire the right of way. RVL right of way ownership is completely intact as I understand it.
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
Ken W2KB wrote:
Roadgeek Adam wrote:
Ken W2KB wrote:Very interesting concept but would be extremely expensive of course compared to extending RVL to an I-78 park/ride (or further to P"burg) or the Washington Secondary to P'Burg.
Although technically my above hypothetics do restore the Washington Secondary. Phase I to Hackettstown - Washington via Port Murray and Phase II to Phillipsburg via a new Broadway Station (rename the current one to Fair Lawn) and Stewartsville.

If we really want to be NJ Transit, even with a little help, we need more stations in Sussex and Warren Counties. If you read some of my ideas, this one actually is sensible. In the long run, Hampton, Glen Gardner, Port Murray, Washington, Phillipsburg, Alpha, and Bloomsbury would all get new stops and service. It works in my opinion.

Exactly how much is missing of track from the RVL? I don't think there is more than 5 miles for a new Hampton-Changewater-Washington Branch, if it follows NJ 31 to some degree. (Also, the ties for the old Hampton Branch are there at the Hampton Station site, rotting away. It would also mean rebuilding the line,
The original Hampton - Washington line did not follow 31 at all, it was east of the Musconetcong River to Changewater and thence to Washington. I suspect that much of the former Hampton - Washington line was sold off, and thus would require significant costs to acquire the right of way. RVL right of way ownership is completely intact as I understand it.
I know, but if you take into consideration NJ Transit's thing about getting cars off the street, you want a line that parallels Route 31 so cars can pull of easy. (Glen Gardner would not be one). Rebuilding the original Changewater alignment is never going to happen. We'd have to rebuild the entire Changewater Trestle, along with a few other demolished bridges. We could run along the side of Route 31 if needed north of Hampton.
  by amtrakowitz
 
I've spent the ideas of looking at terminating at a Bloomsbury P&R similar to Wayne Route 23
Not going to happen. And such will not help the traffic situation on I-78 west of that location, where you have a slow crawl for twenty-five miles or so.
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
amtrakowitz wrote:
I've spent the ideas of looking at terminating at a Bloomsbury P&R similar to Wayne Route 23
Not going to happen. And such will not help the traffic situation on I-78 west of that location, where you have a slow crawl for twenty-five miles or so.

Hint to not putting much detail into it.
  by ccutler
 
rebuild the branch to Washington? It had a tunnel, and at NJT prices it would cost $7MM a mile. and few people would ride.

If NJT really wanted to make an RV extension work, they would build a large park/ride near bloomsbury and charge a toll for driving over Jugtown Mountain in I-78 during the morning rush. Don't need any more passenger stations than that, most people drive to the train now anyway. They should probably close a few of the stations and consolidate to allow for faster train turnaround.

I'm not holding my breath...
  by NYS&W142Fan
 
ccutler wrote:rebuild the branch to Washington? It had a tunnel, and at NJT prices it would cost $7MM a mile. and few people would ride.
What tunnel? There were only two lines that ran to Washington, the current line that comes from Hackettstown to P'burg and that does not have a tunnel and the old line from Washington to Hampton Junction. I don't recall it having a tunnel, only the bridge over the Muskie river. The main reason this line was torn out was the bridge would not support the heavier loads and they didn't feel it was worth the expense to replace it. The bridge piers are still in place but that bridge would cost a lot to put in.
  by Roadgeek Adam
 
We don't need the Changewater Truss Bridge, at all. We don't need to follow the historical alignment. I've said that three times now. We can use an alignment that parallels near Route 31, serving Hampton, New Hampton and Washington. I know just for costs sake, those piers can't support a truss, even 52 years later
  by Tommy5
 
ccutler wrote:rebuild the branch to Washington? It had a tunnel, and at NJT prices it would cost $7MM a mile. and few people would ride.
Tunnel? theres the Oxford tunnel on the old DL&W ROW North of Washington, but that wouldn't be apart of the changewater branch
  by NYS&W142Fan
 
Roadgeek Adam wrote:We don't need the Changewater Truss Bridge, at all. We don't need to follow the historical alignment. I've said that three times now. We can use an alignment that parallels near Route 31, serving Hampton, New Hampton and Washington. I know just for costs sake, those piers can't support a truss, even 52 years later
Hi Roadgeek,
Could you post your proposed alignment on this forum as I would be very interested on how you propose to get to Washington from Hampton without using the old alignment? The topography in that area is hilly and there would be large grade changes. And somewhere you still have to cross over the river which is in a valley. I'm not saying it can't be done but following 31?
  by Patrick Boylan
 
Why do they always have to build those rivers at the bottom of valleys? I think it would make life easier if they were on the top of ridges :)
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 27