|
|
| Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs (1221423) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (1221504) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:59:47 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat May 11 18:54:43 2013. A couple of summer ago, the 6:16am from Raritan (which I use to make a close catch with the 7:45 to Montauk) had lower levels on 2 cars roped off.They should assign 3 Comet train sets to the RVL, use them off-peak, and send the MLV's to the NEC which needs the capacity. How's that ? I remember when the MLV's were coming in, when down to the last 3 Comet train sets, THAT is what ran on weekends. |
|
|
| (1221507) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sat May 11 19:17:32 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 16:35:39 2013. I talked to an EE at NJT who worked on the proposals to wire the system. He said they had the entire thing figured out *including* the RVL. There would have been speed restrictions, but double stacks would have fit and the freight RRs were on board with everything planned at the time.They were detailed enough to have wire heights and even substation locations oplanned out. It was shelved by that asshole Warrington. |
|
|
| (1221509) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Sat May 11 19:24:19 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Dan on Sat May 11 13:50:29 2013. It's not the house but rather the value of the land that will go up. Faster commutes will mean more demand to live in that area and hence higher density (one way or another). This pitch is clearly aimed at homeowners further out who dream of increasing valuations. What they're not considering is how some of the other things that they also value (space, quiet, etc.) will disappear in the process. To keep those they'll have to move further out, in all probability erasing whatever time gains may be won with the DPs. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1221521) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 20:25:36 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat May 11 18:07:17 2013. You can't throw people off? |
|
|
| (1221522) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 20:37:07 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by nasadowsk on Sat May 11 19:17:32 2013. Something tells me that electrification even of half the commuter rail network would have saved a bundle in the long run over buying and maintaining ALP-45DPs, never mind the rest of the diesel fleet, especially the PL42ACs. |
|
|
| (1221523) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 20:37:55 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat May 11 18:54:43 2013. Who wrote those rules? |
|
|
| (1221524) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 20:42:48 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:28:20 2013. For a bus company, they sure seem obsessed with downsizing. There are a lot fewer bus routes around compared to thirty years ago. |
|
|
| (1221527) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat May 11 20:50:37 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 12:54:30 2013. I've advocated building a single new Hudson River tubeSo the trains get to NYP and then go where, exactly? Have we perfected matter teleportation while I wasn't watching? They aren't going to be able to reach Sunnyside from the south side of the station, and even if they could there aren't any slots make that move. Similarly there aren't any westbound slots as Amtrak has a parade of southbounds which operate right alongside NJT's reverse peak traffic. If you're going to spend the money to dig one tunnel then either make it double track, or dig two tubes under the Hudson. 4 additional stub tracks south of Track 1 at NYP as the most reasonably cost-effective solution. Hahah! You're kidding, right? As Gateway's cost escalation over ARC easily demonstrates, adding additional tracks at the existing platform level is the *least* cost effective method of adding track space at Penn Station. The property acquisition alone is almost as much as ARC planned to spend on the cavern under PSNY. Tracks 1-4 are fairly underutilized as it stands now, so adding two new tunnels under the Hudson would greatly improve that utilization and provide some measure of redundancy while pushing the expensive terminal expansion off to some point in the future. NJT could do a lot to tighten up their terminal operations to fully utilize Tracks 1-5 with two new tunnels under the Hudson before they contemplate terminal expansion. |
|
|
| (1221528) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat May 11 20:54:07 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 13:58:49 2013. Lower Manhattan lacks the catchment area to justify the diversion of full trains away from stations which better serve the larger Midtown Manhattan market. That's not to say it does not justify a station, but it'd really be best if trains served both locations. |
|
|
| (1221531) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 21:06:50 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:37:54 2013. P-Burg is not much of a traffic generator for Trans BridgeThat's because the bus continues into the ABE area. NJT has no trackage right west of P-Burg, and unlike Amtrak, would have to pay market costs, not incremental costs, for NS trackage rights into Pennsylvania, and probably have to pay a ransom in double-tracking and terminal yard costs Depends on the demand. NJT isn't going to cross the border uninvited. |
|
|
| (1221532) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 21:07:17 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:50:12 2013. token NYPS trains don't change people's habitsIf they run at the right time of day, they do. |
|
|
| (1221533) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 21:07:46 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:48:41 2013. When 3% of the ridership continues beyond the primary terminal, word would not matterThat's what they thought when it came to Midtown Direct. |
|
|
| (1221535) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:14:46 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 20:42:48 2013. They weren't even in NJ 30 years ago.They bought out West Hunterdon Transit service on the Frenchtown route. They sought ICC authority and started the I-78 route. (It was not a takeover of the NJT route, they coexisted for about a year and was truncated to be the present day 117). |
|
|
| (1221536) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:16:50 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 21:07:46 2013. No they didn't. Dover service was well used when it when to Hoboken. Don't you remember 13 car rush hour MU trains in the 1960's ? |
|
|
| (1221537) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:17:56 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by nasadowsk on Sat May 11 19:17:32 2013. The caught dual-mode disease from the LIRR after they shelved plans to electrify to Port Jeff. |
|
|
| (1221539) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sat May 11 21:25:03 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 14:35:09 2013. Eh? You have a problem with numbers? The USS Ford is slated to cost on the order of $9 billion, not counting upwards of $8 billion spent on R&D for that class of carriers. That's right in line with the estimated cost of the ARC project, and doesn't count the escort ships which are required to defend the carrier in a CVBG.ARC would not have operating costs remotely comparable that for the carrier battle group, which amount to an eye popping 2.2 billion dollars a year. Just eliminating a carrier battle group for a decade would finance a tremendous amount of infrastructure. Over a fourty year lifespan of that carrier and the associated reduction in demand for escorts in its battle group we'd easily be looking at much more than $120 billion in savings by eliminating one CVBG. |
|
|
| (1221541) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Sat May 11 21:40:46 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:17:56 2013. And what's the one line on the LIRR that's desperately in need of electrification?Port Jeff. And everyone, even the LIRR, knows it. |
|
|
| (1221549) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Sat May 11 22:39:00 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 18:31:15 2013. If the project were built in Lower Manhattan, cost overruns and delays to final completion would still be possible, if not downright likely, considering what happened with Fulton Center and WTC. |
|
|
| (1221560) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 11 23:15:58 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 13:58:49 2013. Oh, there was a guy at NTD@GCT giving out flyers and advocating for Alt. G plan. Take a guess who that was. |
|
|
| (1221561) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 23:28:23 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 13:58:49 2013. More people want Midtown. It's just that simple. It's also silly to spend billions to parallel PATH. |
|
|
| (1221563) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 11 23:32:39 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat May 11 18:07:17 2013. Reminds me of a co-worker I had more than ten years ago. He used to say "I'm from Jersey, I have the right to behave like someone from there" |
|
|
| (1221567) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 23:43:47 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Dan on Sat May 11 13:50:29 2013. By that logic, a house in Hackettstown should cost about $500. |
|
|
| (1221568) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 23:45:04 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 23:28:23 2013. If more people want Midtown, then PATH to WTC would be dead. Most people do go for other means of transportation aside from their feet when they get out of Penn, whether subway, bus or taxi. |
|
|
| (1221572) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 23:48:05 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 11 23:15:58 2013. Certainly wasn't me. Alt G was kaput when the MTA pulled out of ARC. Who else shills for it nowadays? because if you want me to guess, I'm certainly at a loss. |
|
|
| (1221574) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 23:51:21 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:14:46 2013. Nope; the 117 was never part of the 150/350.The Trans-Bridge Line bus route always had the code "T0350" on the back of the schedule. Guess what that is? |
|
|
| (1221575) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 23:54:23 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by streetcarman1 on Sat May 11 18:11:37 2013. That'll be like pulling teeth, sadly. Probably the only thing that would help there is an increase in lobbying on the PA side and NJT making CSX/NS an offer towards their planned upgrade of the Lehigh Line. |
|
|
| (1221580) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 00:34:43 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat May 11 23:28:23 2013. I would venture that most people want Midtown because more stuff is at Midtown, but more stuff is at Midtown because the two main rail stations are located there.Lower Manhattan is a ghost town on weekends. Perhaps that wouldn't have been the case if a rail terminal had been operating there all these years... |
|
|
| (1221582) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 00:44:25 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 5301 Fishbowl on Sat May 11 18:54:43 2013. Keep in mind, this is the same company that had a rule a couple of years ago requiring us to open ALL of the cars on anything leaving NY Penn late at night (including 6601 and 6603).I can see why that rule was in place - I remember some conductors would refuse to open additional cars even when the train clearly needed it. That said, I'm not sure if the design of the new cars still allows for this but generally passengers would simply open the extra car themselves. Flip up metal bar and sit in dark until disgruntled conductor flips on the lights. |
|
|
| (1221583) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 00:46:16 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 18:37:54 2013. NJT has no trackage right west of P-BurgSo they gave it up when they discontinued the Wall Street Exp and the Crusader? |
|
|
| (1221589) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 01:10:08 2013, in response to Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 11:37:19 2013. They could try sending at least some Raritan Valley line trains to St. George terminal. I believe the SI Railway ROW actually intersects with the RVL at some point. The only problem is that there isn't a lot of space to store the trains in SI. |
|
|
| (1221592) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 12 01:22:58 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 00:34:43 2013. At this point, you build to meet existing demand, you don't build to create it from scratch. |
|
|
| (1221594) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:43:30 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun May 12 01:22:58 2013. So how did HBLR and River Line get anywhere, i.e. besides having that flat fare? There was no pre-existing demand. |
|
|
| (1221595) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:44:51 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 01:10:08 2013. That'd be interesting. There's a lot of rebuilding to do on the North Shore SIR though. |
|
|
| (1221597) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:54:00 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 00:46:16 2013. The Crusader didn't go that way; it turned onto the RDG west of Bound Brook (east of Raritan) and went through West Trenton, into Reading Terminal in Philly. The old RDG main line is cut off from the former Reading Terminal in Philly at Vine Street; the ROW is obliterated going across I-676. And that was a SEPTA service operated by Conrail. NJTR as a railroad didn't exist back then, and neither did SPAX.NJ Transit never operated into Easton, Bethlehem or Allentown. The last stop was Phillipsburg NJ, on the east bank of the Delaware River.  |
|
|
| (1221598) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:54:43 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 00:44:25 2013. Passengers can't open closed cars if the conductor locks the door. |
|
|
| (1221599) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:55:40 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 00:34:43 2013. That's been my thought throughout. The waterfront terminals weren't opposite downtown for no reason. |
|
|
| (1221600) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:58:28 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sat May 11 21:16:50 2013. That was the 1960s, and the ferry service was still running up to 1967. If the E-L had a way into Manhattan at the very end of the 60s, Hoboken Terminal would have become very quiet. |
|
|
| (1221612) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 06:54:19 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 11 23:51:21 2013. I was told that by a long term bus service planner at NJT.The 350 and Trans Bridge co-existed for about a year. |
|
|
| (1221613) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 06:57:22 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 11 23:15:58 2013. I know full well. I know him. Nice man, but stubborn, can't tolerate an explanation on why it can't be built and wouldn't work if it could, a one-man show, and he never gives up. |
|
|
| (1221614) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 07:00:12 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 00:46:16 2013. Those trains took the West Trenton line to Philly, no P-Burg. |
|
|
| (1221615) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 07:02:49 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 01:10:08 2013. There would be quite a rider rebellion if they did that. |
|
|
| (1221638) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 10:32:26 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 06:57:22 2013. I've never seen an explanation as to how it couldn't be built. GCT's lower level is approximately 60 feet below street level, right? |
|
|
| (1221660) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 12:10:04 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 07:02:49 2013. Well, they would have direct service to NYC :). No one said it had to be useful service. And at least the ferry is free!If they did that they may as well extend HBLR to an intermediate station for those RVL-ers bound for JC / Hoboken... |
|
|
| (1221661) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun May 12 12:15:11 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by nasadowsk on Sat May 11 19:17:32 2013. Electrification is ultimately going to be necessary. Maybe not now but in 20 years I doubt diesel will still be cost competitive with electric. Then RRs will either be forced to perform a mass electrification or a SEPTA-style mass culling of lines. |
|
|
| (1221674) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 13:08:32 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 01:54:00 2013. Hm, interesting, thanks for the info! |
|
|
| (1221675) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 13:08:56 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 07:00:12 2013. OK, thanks! |
|
|
| (1221679) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Sun May 12 13:20:28 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 01:10:08 2013. Who wants to go to St. George? |
|
|
| (1221684) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 13:49:45 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 10:32:26 2013. VERY risky construction with all the old infrastructure underground. First obstacle is crossing 6th Avenue with 6th Avenue and Broadway subways, and NY Water Tunnel. Then what do you do with all the trains once they get there, what to do with MLV cars that won't fit through all of the Park Av tunnels, assuming MN would give up 6 tracks, which they won't do.MN was a major stakeholder, yet some will say "MTA won't cooperate", and their concerns were not taken seriously by a certain few advocates. I have yet to hear an definition of "cooperate". Are they supposed to sacrifice their GCT capacity, give up on MU's, end 3 + 1 peak direction operation of the tunnels, denigrate their schedules and reliability to accomodate NJT for "thru-running" fettish. Was NJT to send all trains to GCT, if not, how and where are NYPS and GCT bound passengers sorted out. It was all unworkable. |
|
|
| (1221686) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun May 12 13:54:16 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 13:08:56 2013. I don't know what happened to NJT trackage rights on the ex-RDG to West Trenton, now CSX.But in any case, NS demands a flyover at Bound Brook, ADA demands high level boarding full-length, CSX demands a lot of double-tracking, island platforms and gauntlet track, if not separate passenger track. This is all a general passenger service requirement throughout CSX, and is to occur at Rochester, and that is holding up a long sought after station in Dunkirk, NY. |
|
|
| (1221691) | |
Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun May 12 14:13:27 2013, in response to Re: Raritan Valley Coalition pushing for direct NJT RVL service to New York using ALP-45DPs, posted by 3-9 on Sun May 12 13:08:32 2013. YW. That pic is of Phillipsburg Union Station BTW, which is still there but only has a single track now and no more platform. Only three trains a day each way served that town during weekdays. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
