Railroad Forums 

  • 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: lensovet, Kaback9, nick11a

 #444217  by jb9152
 
pumpers wrote:WOuld love to see a hypothetical timetable for some kind
of limited express from Phillipsburg to Newark. Maybe just
2 or 3 stops in between.

East of Raritan, NJT trains must make at least a dozen stops, no more than 2 miles apart it seems. No wonder it is hard to appreciate that this
is a 70 or 80 mph railroad.
Unfortunately, probably not do-able given the lack of overtake ability on the RVL. If you can't pass the local, you're going to run as slow as the local, even if you don't stop. If you forgo operating the local so you can run your super-express, you wind up with huge gaps in service at local stations that cannot stand even small gaps in service.

What would be needed is some infrastructure, like third tracks, that would allow overtakes so you could run a zonal express structured service.

 #444224  by northjerseybuff
 
yea..i agree that some studies are to appease certain politicians..but its coming to the point now that these are becoming serious issues and something HAS to be done. I think NJT threw certain studies in to keep the projects alive...these numbers for the lehigh valley are large. some type of service will be needed west of High Bridge..even at the current rate..the cutoff is ahead of everything..so this is years away..and the problem will be worse at that time. BTW..Which highway is worse with rush hour traffic..rt78 or rt80?

 #444234  by Don31
 
jb9152 wrote: trainhq -

My over-arching comment still stands - there are a lot of people on these boards who do not work in the business (you do, Don apparently does, and I do as well) who simply want it both ways, all the time. Every possible pissant or worthy project built NOW, with 50 trains a day...AND simultaneously "Why are they doing a study? Just BUILD it." No matter how many times it's patiently explained to them that there are laws and regulations in place that prevent such construction on a whim, it doesn't sink in. That's my pet peeve.
Thats exactly what I was trying to say. Many people don't understand why it takes so long to go from maybe an MIS, to concept, to preliminary and final design, environmental, permitting, etc., etc...... And let's not overlook the fact that if what funding that is available gets pulled for any length of time, much of the work has to be done over.......

Sorry, its been a long day.....

 #444235  by finsuburbia
 
northjerseybuff wrote:yea..i agree that some studies are to appease certain politicians..but its coming to the point now that these are becoming serious issues and something HAS to be done. I think NJT threw certain studies in to keep the projects alive...these numbers for the lehigh valley are large. some type of service will be needed west of High Bridge..even at the current rate..the cutoff is ahead of everything..so this is years away..and the problem will be worse at that time. BTW..Which highway is worse with rush hour traffic..rt78 or rt80?
Hmm... It seems like this would be simpler and cheaper than the Cutoff to restore. For one thing, the rail is still there until it connects to the ex-LV west of Bloomsbury (although it would probably be replaced CWR and the roadbed upgraded). If it shared the ex-LV ROW, another track would probably have to be installed for the 5.5 miles to the Delaware river. The ex-LV bridge over I-78 seems wide enough for two tracks. It looks like there is room between the ex-CNJ and the ex-DL&W for a small yard. If service were to be extended into Pennsylvania, that would seem a bit more difficult because I am not sure if the ex-CNJ bridge has room for an extra track. If it doesn't, NJT (with money from Penn and the Feds) could rehab the ex-LV bridge.

To go as far as Phillipsburg would be much much less expensive than Scranton. There are little or no structures to replace or rehab (aside from the ex-LV and that's only if it goes into Penn). Plus, one of the most expensive items listed in the EA for the Cutoff is the rolling stock for which I would not imagine there would be as much required, considering the shorter distance. I imagine that existing trains west of Raritan could be extended west for this service.

Again this is just speculation though...

 #444239  by northjerseybuff
 
it would be cheaper to go to pburg..but its two different markets really. I suspect the lehigh valley is much more populated than the poconos, so it is probably needed more than the pocono service..but each project has its pros/cons..right now this is in the infancy stages..the cutoff is light years ahead of this..

 #444477  by trainhq
 
Remember also that cheaper projects don't always get built first. The problem with the Phillipsburg extension is that it's expensive enough and big enough that it counts as a major capital project; that means it can't cut in line, big dollar wise, over the ones that are ahead in the line and are waiting for funding (ARC, Lackawanna cutoff, MOM). This has happened up here in Boston, too; there are about half a dozen short and worthwhile line extensions that could and should be done that wouldn't cost that much, but they won't get done any time soon, because they're big enough to require major $$$, and that means they have to get in line behind the existing big dollar projects-
and the one at the head of the line right now is the 1.5 billion dollar Fall River New Bedford line, which is a huge political battleground. I'd say down there, ARC and Lackawanna are pretty much going to stuff everything else for the next ten years, unless someone raises taxes significantly (try doing that!).

 #444706  by finsuburbia
 
What sort of signaling exists west of High Bridge? Anyone know the track conditions?

 #444805  by nick11a
 
No signaling west of High Bridge. Track is in good shape for several miles west of High Bridge- all the way out to Hampton and then some.

 #444846  by M&Eman
 
nick11a wrote:No signaling west of High Bridge. Track is in good shape for several miles west of High Bridge- all the way out to Hampton and then some.
Then why hasn't NJT pulled a Hackettstown yet and expanded to Hampton. Im sure Glen Gardner and Hampton would not mind the service. Im sure a few miles of new signalling doesn't cost that much. I don't think there is any ATC out there anyway, making only wayside installation neccesary.

 #444917  by finsuburbia
 
M&Eman wrote:
nick11a wrote:No signaling west of High Bridge. Track is in good shape for several miles west of High Bridge- all the way out to Hampton and then some.
Then why hasn't NJT pulled a Hackettstown yet and expanded to Hampton. Im sure Glen Gardner and Hampton would not mind the service. Im sure a few miles of new signalling doesn't cost that much. I don't think there is any ATC out there anyway, making only wayside installation neccesary.
What is the signalling like on the RVL generally actually?

 #450417  by northjerseybuff
 
Ok..does NJT list all possible studies on their website? I did a search trying to locate the current RT78 NJT/ NJPA study..nothing..too bad NJT doesn't make links available to these critical studies

 #450483  by transit383
 
What would be needed is some infrastructure, like third tracks, that would allow overtakes so you could run a zonal express structured service.
But with NJT building permanent structures (i.e. stations with high level platforms) on the old right of way of tracks 1 and 4, this leaves no room to expand service and increase tracks through the area. On top of that, they are rebuilding bridges to be only wide enough for two tracks (when they were wide enough for 4, dating back from the CNJ days).
The ex-LV bridge over I-78 seems wide enough for two tracks. It looks like there is room between the ex-CNJ and the ex-DL&W for a small yard.
The bridge is wide enough for two tracks and the area you refer to is wide enough for a small yard, but doesn't do much for parking. There isn't much room out there to accomodate the amount of people that would use the service. Ever drive on Route US-22 or NJ-122 to access the former Phillipsburg Union Station? Numerous traffic lights and low speed limits aren't desirable. The Park and Ride should be built near I-78 and the railroad (like SEPTA's Cornwells Heights Station).
Im sure a few miles of new signalling doesn't cost that much.
But it does take forever to put in! Take a look at the White House passing siding.

 #450512  by Jtgshu
 
Where there is one bridge that I can think of on the RVL that has been rebuilt and only allowed 2 tracks over, Crossway Place, I believe it is, other bridges have been rebuilt for three or four tracks - 206 in Raritan (3 tracks) various bridges through Dunellen and Grant Ave, have been rebuilt for 4 tracks, and the bridges through Plainfield, all four tracks are being rebuilt. There was a discussion a few pages ago about if Plainfield and Westfield could squeeze another track through - and it doesn't look like Plainfield could, but it looks like Westfield could accomadate another track, with relative ease.

While the Whitehouse passing siding has taken a LONG time to finish (its almost there, needs signals installed), the signal and MOW guys have LOTS of major projects going on right now, including, but not limited to the PVL resignaling (the entire line is being resignaled from the ground up, a whole new system, not just the new sidings) the Whitehouse Siding, the trackwork at Rare on the Coast Line, and the cab signal installation on the MandE by the tunnels. The PVL is winding down, so hopefully that wil free up guys to work on these other projects and get the rest of them finished up!!!!

 #456332  by northjerseybuff
 
Just saw there was a fiery truck accident on Rt78..A little east of where its 2 lanes..but still..a dangerous hiway..no alternatives..maybe some eyes will open up as a result?

 #456398  by geoking66
 
This is clear dreaming as in all likelihood this would never happen, but I was thinking that the RVL could actually be split up into two independent lines. One would follow the current RVL to Raritan and then head towards Flemington, giving central Hunterdon County more rail access, while a new alignment could be formed within the median of Interstate 78 (I know that a high-speed rail line to Pennsylvania has been discussed on numerous occasions using I-78). The new alignment would allow for much faster service for Clinton, Annandale, Lebanon, High Bridge, eventually to Phillipsburg. New stations could possibly work at I-78 exits 33 (Martinsville), 36 (Warren), and 40 (Watchung), which are at convenient regional rail station distances. After the Watching Reservation where I-78's median disappears, a viaduct could be built, possibly alongside the huge retaining wall paralleling the road. Eventaully, this new line could be called the Western Line or the Central Valley Line.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 27