Port Jervis Line to Hudson Line via New TZ Bridge?

[pb-bkln]

Does anyone recall the arguments over this when the new bridge was being planned? I encountered an angry casual Twitter post. But my recollection is that an east west heavy rail connection, from Suffern to Nyack and following the Thruway, isn't really feasible because of the topography. I would also guess that if someone really wanted to run trains across the Hudson, a separate railroad bridge would be a more efficient way to go about it.

[GojiMet86]

Not really. I can't recall if there is even space on the bridge for a line.

I was never really convinced by the viability of such a line in the first place. A line along the West Shore CSX line from West Haverstraw would make more sense.

The plan always seems half-assed, like someone looked at the map and said "Yeah, so there's a bridge and that side of the river doesn't have many trains so let's connect them to the lines on this side" without really thinking of how that would affect operations, how it would interact with the Hudson or Harlem lines, or whether is even physically possible.

Edited June 1, 2021 by GojiMet86

[pb-bkln]

56 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

Not really. I can't recall if there is even space on the bridge for a line.

I was never really convinced by the viability of such a line in the first place. A line along the West Shore CSX line from West Haverstraw would make more sense.

The plan always seems half-assed, like someone looked at the map and said "Yeah, so there's a bridge and that side of the river doesn't have many trains so let's connect them to the lines on this side" without really thinking of how that would affect operations, how it would interact with the Hudson or Harlem lines, or whether is even physically possible.

That's what I thought, too. My recollection is that the "plans" and "proposals" that occasionally appeared online or in letters to the editor never came from anyone with a real background in railroading.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

Not really. I can't recall if there is even space on the bridge for a line.

I was never really convinced by the viability of such a line in the first place. A line along the West Shore CSX line from West Haverstraw would make more sense.

The plan always seems half-assed, like someone looked at the map and said "Yeah, so there's a bridge and that side of the river doesn't have many trains so let's connect them to the lines on this side" without really thinking of how that would affect operations, how it would interact with the Hudson or Harlem lines, or whether is even physically possible.

It was studied in the plan that preceded Cuomo that he dumped in the trash. I have the 90's EIS in my Gmail somewhere.

The 287 "BRT" system would've been a separate regional line. But it also cost about $2B to $4B to fully build out. Right now it's "future proofed" (as in, the bridge was designed to carry the weight, and the approaches are not so steep. And it's not like the Port Jervis lines are particularly busy today anyways; there are a total of 9 weekday trains leaving Port Jervis in the AM spread out from 3-11 and one train an hour is not going to kill Grand Central.

3 hours ago, pb-bkln said:

Does anyone recall the arguments over this when the new bridge was being planned? I encountered an angry casual Twitter post. But my recollection is that an east west heavy rail connection, from Suffern to Nyack and following the Thruway, isn't really feasible because of the topography. I would also guess that if someone really wanted to run trains across the Hudson, a separate railroad bridge would be a more efficient way to go about it.

There aren't places to put a new bridge. The Hudson River Valley is pretty steep on either side of the river, and any reasonable place to put a bridge has long been filled in with suburbs. And not to mention the need for longer connecting railroads; pretty much the only useful connection would probably be Newburgh-Beacon but that bridge is not getting replaced any time soon.

I would imagine that it may be useful for freight operations given that the next northern bypass of NYC's busy commuter railroads is in Selkirk.

 

[R10 2952]

There was the rail bridge in Poughkeepsie that got damaged by fire in the '70s; the state and federal government were prepared to provide some funding for the repairs, but Conrail deliberately dragged their feet because they wanted to get rid of the Maybrook Line.  Now that its all been converted into a walking trail and tourist attraction, the window of opportunity has closed entirely. 

[pb-bkln]

20 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The 287 "BRT" system would've been a separate regional line. But it also cost about $2B to $4B to fully build out. Right now it's "future proofed" (as in, the bridge was designed to carry the weight, ..

BRT is bus rapid transit? Or was that light commuter rail? And when you say designed to carry the weight, that's not true heavy rail like the Port Jervis or Hudson Lines, is it? I know there's plenty of capacity on the PJ Line, I was wondering if the Twitter poster is correct that it is technically feasible to connect it to the Hudson Line via Suffern, Nyack, and the new bridge and running MetroNorth trains. The new bridge climbs from the Nyack side to Tarrytown; I also wasn't sure if MetroNorth trains can handle that.

Edited June 2, 2021 by pb-bkln

[pb-bkln]

14 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

There was the rail bridge in Poughkeepsie that got damaged by fire in the '70s; the state and federal government were prepared to provide some funding for the repairs, but Conrail deliberately dragged their feet because they wanted to get rid of the Maybrook Line.  Now that its all been converted into a walking trail and tourist attraction, the window of opportunity has closed entirely. 

Poughkeepsie would be too far north for a useful Port Jervis line connection? Although through the Harlem line that could have been a connection to GCT.

[pb-bkln]

23 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

A line along the West Shore CSX line from West Haverstraw would make more sense.

I've followed a little bit of the CSX line discussion and it seems like CSX is adamant about taking the line out of service in order to make the necessary changes.

[bobtehpanda]

13 hours ago, pb-bkln said:

BRT is bus rapid transit? Or was that light commuter rail? And when you say designed to carry the weight, that's not true heavy rail like the Port Jervis or Hudson Lines, is it? I know there's plenty of capacity on the PJ Line, I was wondering if the Twitter poster is correct that it is technically feasible to connect it to the Hudson Line via Suffern, Nyack, and the new bridge and running MetroNorth trains. The new bridge climbs from the Nyack side to Tarrytown; I also wasn't sure if MetroNorth trains can handle that.

 

Literally the new bridge has a website.

Quote

Designed and constructed to be mass-transit ready, the new crossing will also be able to accommodate bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail.