|
|
| Port Jervis Improvement Study (1431318) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
| (1431318) | |
Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017 Is online now! |
|
|
| (1431321) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Bzuck on Sat Mar 25 17:03:22 2017, in response to Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017. Thank you! |
|
|
| (1431328) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 25 20:21:32 2017, in response to Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017. Heh, they slipped a stock image of an LIRR C3 train waiting on a passing siding. I'm sure not many of the target audience noticed :).A few things that bug me: 1. Why are they adding a passing siding west of Middletown when they only expect the project to enable 1 additional train out there. 2. What's this talk of replacing the Moodna viaduct! 3. They say that increasing speeds would increase capital costs, but flat out eliminating all the NJ stops (except for Ramsey 17 since a lot of NY-ers use it, and Ridgewood for people who need transfers) would accomplish the same at 0 capital cost. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1431334) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 20:55:34 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 25 20:21:32 2017. I noticed the C3 at the presentation, but did not mention it...1. One psossibility would be, for example, a morning WB train that terminates at Middletown, would go to the passing track to wait for EB trains coming from Port Jervis to pass by. If the picture they show is accurate, that is only about a mile west of Middletown. 2. They just had to do a quick rehab on the Moodna to keep it from falling apart. Both it and Woodbury are over 100 years old, and deficient. 3. How much would it cost them to pay NJT to do that? And it really is not that much of a problem - looking at the actual schedules, there's only one daytime train, and the very late train at night where local stops are made. As the report states, the real problem is the section between Harriman and Tuxedo, where the line follows the Ramapo River - for the reasons clearly stated in the report. by the way, Shortline does the exact same thing - the last schedule out of the PABT at 12:30/12:45 am is a local. And not many evening expresses either..and they all have to stop at the various park/rides. One would assume any new scheduled runs would be expresses. And what sort of capacity does NJT have left Suffern-Ridgewood?? |
|
|
| (1431405) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Sun Mar 26 16:49:34 2017, in response to Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017. My question is why the passing sidings are not at the stations. Wouldn't it be better to have the trains wait at the stations instead of the middle of nowhere? |
|
|
| (1431417) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 26 20:15:32 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by 3-9 on Sun Mar 26 16:49:34 2017. Operationally yes, and that is how most of the world does single track with passing sidings - they pass at a station.That said, they would have to build two platforms, and all the ADA fun that encompasses. Someone somewhere might even insist on an overpass (ADA compatible, of course) because passengers can't be trusted to be responsible with at-grade crossings. You then end up with a monstrosity like this:  The 3 story building-like structures on each side are solely to house ramps and stairs. Nothing useful like ticket machines, vending machines, or an official restroom. An added kicker is the inbound platform is the one that requires crossing all that nonsense. |
|
|
| (1431424) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Mar 26 21:53:37 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 26 20:15:32 2017. Now if the MBTA had not gone with any high platforms (they really ought to have gone with gallery cars or low-floor bilevels like GO Transit), no need for mini-highs.BTW, NJ Transit has a grade crossing for passengers at Dover at the east end of the station, from when they rebuilt the station by removing the center track and putting a high island platform there. |
|
|
| (1431446) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by nasadowsk on Mon Mar 27 07:50:11 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Mar 25 20:21:32 2017. 1. Why are they adding a passing siding west of Middletown when they only expect the project to enable 1 additional train out there.Workfare. 2. What's this talk of replacing the Moodna viaduct! Shrug It might be old/EOL. I suspect whatever replacement would look more or less the same. 3. They say that increasing speeds would increase capital costs, but flat out eliminating all the NJ stops (except for Ramsey 17 since a lot of NY-ers use it, and Ridgewood for people who need transfers) would accomplish the same at 0 capital cost. It's a Money Taking Agency. The end service is a by-product of wealth redistribution going on. By their own data, there's zero reason to even bother with service west of Middletown, since the vast majority of riders are boarding at Middleton and points east. No shit - the schedule sucks ass. Speeds are slow due to curves, and you can't straighten them. Slow speeds are leading to low ridership and crap utilization of equipment. Nowhere in this study do they talk about tilt trains, which have been used in regional services elsewhere in the world. Not that I'd hold terribly much hope, but it'd be interesting to see what the schedule changes would be a 3, 6, 9, 11 inches cant deficiency. This is a line where even 5-10 minutes would be a godsend. Future service to Stewart? Why? It's never going to be the next big airport, being 2 hours by train and almost the same by car from NYC. |
|
|
| (1431452) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by G1Ravage on Mon Mar 27 10:14:40 2017, in response to Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017. Heh, the possibility of using the remaining piece of Monroe ROW as a possible Mid-Point Yard location. |
|
|
| (1431494) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Mar 28 02:37:14 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Mar 27 07:50:11 2017. PHL is more likely to be the next big airport compared to Stewart.There is no reason to have extra service past Middletown, and they could get away with only having peak direction service to Port Jervis for the primary purpose of getting the trains out of the yard. That said, PJ is actually a nice little town. With a little effort they could pull a New Canaan and make the downtown more of a destination, and maybe people would actually want to go *to* there for the day. |
|
|
| (1431495) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Mar 28 04:38:12 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Mar 28 02:37:14 2017. it definitely is a "northern delaware river railroad town" still. the last remnant of its up-river kin, narrowburg, callicoon, hancock etc.
|
|
|
| (1431496) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by ntrainride on Tue Mar 28 05:05:30 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 26 20:15:32 2017. yeeks. the many...providing for the very very few.heinlein wrote something like, an elephant is an ant as designed by the gov'mint. |
|
|
| (1431497) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Mar 28 05:19:25 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Mar 28 02:37:14 2017. PHL is more likely to be the next big airport compared to Stewart.FWIW, Norwegian Air is going to make a go of it with flights to Europe, but we'll see what happens. If there's a free connecting shuttle bus, it could work, but otherwise, and Norwegian's existing flights from JFK more accesible, not much more expensive, and go to more popular destinations (mmm, Belfast from Stewart vs London from JFK), and flights from EWR start in June, IIRC, so there's a very limited cachement zone. My co-workers in Newburgh are happy about the flights close to home and the low prices, but short of everybody in the Capital Region driving down the Thruway (and super cheap landing fees), I kinda question if this will work in the long run. As for PHL, I'm tempted to say that EWR is the second airport for Philadelphia. It's not impossible to get to their airport, but it just isn't worth it in most cases unless you're in some fringe suburb in Central Jersey. The prices aren't lower, and there's far more choice in the NYC region than at PHL. As I've noted before, peripheral airports will reduce demand at the margins for the larger airports, but they're not going to be slam dunk cases. Stewart's case is much harder because the I-84/Lower Hudson Valley corridor isn't exactly economically dynamic or well populated compared to Westchester County Airport or Islip-MacArthur. With a little effort they could pull a New Canaan and make the downtown more of a destination, and maybe people would actually want to go *to* there for the day. Cold Spring is closer and has actual train service. Try harder. :-p |
|
|
| (1431499) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Tue Mar 28 07:00:08 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by nasadowsk on Mon Mar 27 07:50:11 2017. Actually the line west of Middletown is mostly still part of the low grade Graham Line with the sharpest curve measuring 1 deg 30 min. Except for the Ottisville Tunnel, the line is pretty much 80mph all the way to Port Jervis. |
|
|
| (1431568) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by menJop on Tue Mar 28 20:44:05 2017, in response to Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Lou From Middletown NY on Sat Mar 25 16:29:53 2017. Hmmm... I wonder if they might be persuaded to add a flag stop or two between Tuxedo and Harriman for hikers. Like near Kanawauke Rd, Southfields, or Arden. |
|
|
| (1431642) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Mar 29 19:43:14 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Mar 26 20:15:32 2017. At least they saved money on decorative touches and artwork. :-SWouldn't the buildings have been a lot smaller if they went with elevators? In fact, just tell them to screw it and say they get a grade crossing unless the town chips in the money. |
|
|
| (1431656) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 29 22:46:16 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by ntrainride on Tue Mar 28 05:05:30 2017. Never heard that one. I heard the proverb about the camel being a horse designed by a committee though, which is ignorant when one realizes just how perfectly designed a camel is for its environment. |
|
|
| (1431774) | |
Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 31 11:56:23 2017, in response to Re: Port Jervis Improvement Study, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Mar 29 22:46:16 2017. I'll take a committee over a dictator any day. |
|
|
