Railroad Forums 

  • MOM Rail Service

  • 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

 #251918  by jb9152
 
CJPat wrote:After MOM gets established through to Monmouth Junction, how about adding a rail connectior south on the NEC to send trains to Trenton. The real answer would probably be a transfer at North Brunswick or Jersey Ave and then grab a train south.

If MOM does get built and they have trains travelling to atleast NWK, wouldn't they need to double track down Lakehurst to permit adequate quantity of trains? Waiting for a train to make a return trip would put the cyclic rate fairly low.
I don't believe so, at least in the beginning. The headway would be about half hourly during the peaks; passing sidings could handle that.

For the future? Who knows? If ridership demands a reduction in headway (a BIG "if"), then double tracking might be a logical next step.

 #256610  by PRSL
 
By looking at the fantasy map, in theroy, it might work but i dont think so. Please dont take it the wrong way, the alignment should be from Red Bank. Now if you like the map, extend it to Winslow.

 #258536  by Eric Kreszl
 
My point exactly starting it from Red Bank. If they did that NJT could rebuild Red Bank Yard to layover trains in a similar format to the rest of the NJCL to Bay Head. Red Bank yard is bigger than people think and they definately have the room to expand if they have to. For example run a Shuttle back and forth from Red Bank to Lakehurst.

That's just my opinion.


Eric

 #258542  by SemperFidelis
 
Tom V wrote:The fact is the route through Jamesburg is the best solution, and the best investment which is what will drive the decision to ultimatley build the route
Oh, you mean like the River LINE light rail? Your point would be correct in a free-market environment, but we're dealing with a government project.

Uncommon sense is a common virtue...

 #258843  by cp327
 
how about dual mode locomotivs allow dircet service to nyc on the mom
can this be done ?

 #259281  by KFC Jones
 
The maps look great! How about some guerrila rail activism? Print out a ton of these maps on adhesive backed paper and put them over the maps posted in the trains, on platforms, etc.

I volunteer to help put them up!
 #259309  by Douglas John Bowen
 
If this is a MOM fantasy map, NJ-ARP certainly has no objections to those fantasizing the Red Bank serves more riders (and O/D pairs) than New Brunswick does, or that a Matawan route somehow is "faster" than the true MOM via Monmouth Junction.

NJ-ARP would respectfully submit, however, that real-world conditions are very different in both cases.

SemperFidelis makes a good point when he notes the variance between the free market and government priorities when it comes to passenger rail transit. As MOM's authors, however, NJ-ARP will defend the River Line -- now topping 8,000 riders per weekday -- as a worthwhile project that should not affect any debate on MOM, be it fantasy or otherwise.

If we're interfering with creative thought here on this thread, our apologies.

 #259768  by RailMike
 
Add this to your fantasy: A MOM branch south from Jamesburg down the Hightstown Secondary, terminating in a park-and-ride at the Turnpike. The tracks currently end at the pike, but the grade is still pretty much intact all the way to the new NJ-133 infill. Modify Turnpike Interchange 8 to connect directly to this station; Exit 8 is due for a reconstruction anyway to link with NJ-133, accommodate the planned extension of the truck lanes, and sheer age.

It'd make a good alternative to the pre-Exit 8A backups.

 #259786  by hsr_fan
 
How difficult/expensive would the interchange at Monmouth Junction be? Could it be built without interfering with 135 mph Acelas and all the other high speed traffic? Could the NEC handle the additional traffic from Monmouth Junction to Newark? (Where would these diesel trains terminate? Hoboken?)

Theoretically, I agree that this is the best route. But if the costs are too high, I wonder if the Red Bank option might be a more realistic approach. The problem there is that it misses Freehold, and a spur out to Freehold might be too indirect.

 #259833  by jb9152
 
hsr_fan wrote:How difficult/expensive would the interchange at Monmouth Junction be? Could it be built without interfering with 135 mph Acelas and all the other high speed traffic? Could the NEC handle the additional traffic from Monmouth Junction to Newark? (Where would these diesel trains terminate? Hoboken?)
It would be expensive and difficult, because it would require some grade separation (a tunnel under the NEC in the westbound direction); it wouldn't necessarily interfere with Acela traffic because the turnouts would be from Tracks 1 and 4, while Acelas generally operate on Tracks 2 and 3 in that area (hence the requirement for grade separation - to keep the westbounds from having to crawl across the whole plant to get to the MOM line, blocking traffic on all four tracks).

Some consideration would have to be given to allow the use of high speed turnouts to and from Tracks 1 and 4 (with enough length in the "leads" so that westbound trains could exit the NEC at high speed and slow to the curve speed before ducking under the NEC, and eastbound trains could get up to a respectably high speed before merging onto Track 1).

In addition, the area there is fairly "wet", which will require some more expensive tunneling techniques, and a watertight tunnel.

The NEC could theoretically, with the grade separation in place, and a new, higher speed switch-equipped Midway Interlocking, handle the extra traffic. But that doesn't take into account the proposed ARC volumes on the NEC, which will be quite dense.

The latest documented thinking on where the trains would go on the east end is Hoboken, the MMC, and possibly a reconfigured Hudson Pocket.
hsr_fan wrote:Theoretically, I agree that this is the best route. But if the costs are too high, I wonder if the Red Bank option might be a more realistic approach. The problem there is that it misses Freehold, and a spur out to Freehold might be too indirect.
I'm sure the folks at NJ-ARP will disagree, but the NJT website actually shows the Matawan alignment generating the most ridership, with the lowest end to end travel time, the lowest estimated cost per mile, and the second lowest annual operating cost estimate.

It remains to be seen whether or not *that* particular alternative is chosen as "locally preferred". Should be an interesting few years coming up.

 #259855  by Irish Chieftain
 
Let's not forget that insofar as the former CNJ alignment, work is already underway to convert it into a rail-trail.

 #260083  by CJPat
 
jb9152 wrote:Some consideration would have to be given to allow the use of high speed turnouts to and from Tracks 1 and 4 (with enough length in the "leads" so that westbound trains could exit the NEC at high speed and slow to the curve speed before ducking under the NEC, and eastbound trains could get up to a respectably high speed before merging onto Track 1).
There should be plenty of room there for a long lead in. Aren't there the remains of freight spurs/sidings that run alongside the NEC that were intended to serve the various industries (e.g. Johnson & Johnson off Rt1). Of course, I don't know how long a lead would be needed in relation to the Jersey Avenue station and the Milltown spur.
jb9152 wrote:In addition, the area there is fairly "wet", which will require some more expensive tunneling techniques, and a watertight tunnel.
Would it be cheaper to build a flyover rather than tunnel? Although bridging will require greater maintenance in the long run.

 #260124  by geoking66
 
I think that a connection to the NJCL would be a smart idea. This way, commuters have a cross-state link from the shore to Trenton, much easier than having to drive across 195. If NJT wants business, make a stop at Six Flags, it will get business.

-Phil

 #260152  by jb9152
 
CJPat wrote:There should be plenty of room there for a long lead in. Aren't there the remains of freight spurs/sidings that run alongside the NEC that were intended to serve the various industries (e.g. Johnson & Johnson off Rt1). Of course, I don't know how long a lead would be needed in relation to the Jersey Avenue station and the Milltown spur.
Not sure, but I think there may be issues with some overhead bridges. I'd have to check the overheads again. Those leads absolutely must be there in sufficient length for this to have any chance of working.
CJPat wrote:Would it be cheaper to build a flyover rather than tunnel? Although bridging will require greater maintenance in the long run.
I believe a flyover would be more expensive, and there may be some constructability issues even at that, due to the overhead bridges. Again, I could be mistaken about this, but I believe the tunnel is the less expensive of the two options, and more constructible.
Last edited by jb9152 on Thu Jun 22, 2006 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

 #260153  by jb9152
 
geoking66 wrote:I think that a connection to the NJCL would be a smart idea. This way, commuters have a cross-state link from the shore to Trenton, much easier than having to drive across 195. If NJT wants business, make a stop at Six Flags, it will get business.

-Phil
Phil, I think you may be misunderstanding the options here. A connection to the NJCL would never come near Trenton. If you intended to say NEC, it should also be noted that at least for now, there are no plans to create a "wye" at Monmouth Junction in order to allow trains to also travel westbound down the NEC from the MOM line to Trenton.
  • 1
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 115