All Things Portal Bridge: Amtrak and NJT Status and Replacement Discussion

One reason is because NJT gives Amtrak millions upon millions upon millions of dollars a year. Amtrak does own the NEC, but NJT does pay a VERY hefty price for its use of the NEC, not to mention contributing lots of additional cash to upgrades to the infrastructure that NJT trains use as well. (which in turn benefits Amtrak trains as well)

I don't disagree with involving Amtrak into the ARC project, and making the station more of an expansion of Penn Station compared to a seperate station. However, Amtrak isn't contributing any $$$$ (as far as I know) to the ARC project (which is why the Portal project is a seperate project and not involved with ARC, because its an Amtrak and NJT project) so can NJT just simply make all these grand plans of an expansion of NYP with Amtrak involvement and in turn, some cash. Whats not being mentioned, is that as I understand it, basically NJT trains - the dual mode powered trains and Midtown Direct service - would stay on NJT tracks (expect NEC and most NJCL trains, which would continue to use the current Penn Station) and would access the new station with no interference with any Amtrak trains, as it would be pretty much seperate tracks from Swift east, along with the connection with the Loop track at SEC, and then on to the new tunnels and the 34th St. station.

There is a pretty interesting discussion going on in teh NJT forum about the ARC project and its benefits and drawbacks, however, something does need to be done with Portal sooner rather than later

However the track configuration is gonna be, it makes sense to build on the north and south side of hte current bridge, because its gonna mean more tracks over the river, which is what is despirately needed. Expanding the tracks to Swift SHOULD get rid of the Swift bottle neck, or at least minimize it, while hopefully making SEC more of a run through station instead of how it is now, with tracks 2 and 3 "run thorugh" and A and B slower, diverting moves.

Portal was 70mph until the big fire on teh bridge fender, about 4 years ago now. Since then, its been 60mph.

Jtgshu wrote:I don't disagree with involving Amtrak into the ARC project, and making the station more of an expansion of Penn Station compared to a seperate station. However, Amtrak isn't contributing any $$$$ (as far as I know) to the ARC project (which is why the Portal project is a seperate project and not involved with ARC, because its an Amtrak and NJT project) so can NJT just simply make all these grand plans of an expansion of NYP with Amtrak involvement and in turn, some cash. Whats not being mentioned, is that as I understand it, basically NJT trains - the dual mode powered trains and Midtown Direct service - would stay on NJT tracks (expect NEC and most NJCL trains, which would continue to use the current Penn Station) and would access the new station with no interference with any Amtrak trains, as it would be pretty much seperate tracks from Swift east, along with the connection with the Loop track at SEC, and then on to the new tunnels and the 34th St. station.

There is a pretty interesting discussion going on in teh NJT forum about the ARC project and its benefits and drawbacks, however, something does need to be done with Portal sooner rather than later

Any chance the ARC project could get Federal funding as part of the Obama infrastructure upgrades for a tunnel to continue into Queens/Sunnyside which would benefit Amtrak as well as NJT? Is this being discussed on the NJT forum?

travelrobb wrote:with the curves and turnouts required in the new configuration, will through trains still be able to maintain 90 mph in this territory?

The plans in the Appendix of the EIS don't list the curve sharpnesses, but looking at them I'd say it's a safe bet the alignment on tracks 2 and 3 would allow 90. Not that it matters much-- it's only a four-mile stretch that would allow 90 now if the bridge weren't in the middle of it.

What I'd like to know is: what's supposed to happen to that third track (#4, they call it) on the new fixed span? The plans just show it dead-ending at Swift-- are they hoping to extend it to Harrison?

NJT operates too many commuter trains on Amtrak owned NEC to p!$$ Amtrak off. Amtrak could easily retaliate, if you will, and say something like "ok build your new station into NYC, and while your at it, find a new right of way between Portal Bridge and Trenton as well to operate the majority of your trains into NYC." Well NJT would have to pack up shop at that point, and I doubt it will ever to come to that. And if it did, NJT riders would be hijacking the capitol building and raiding NJT's office space. On the other hand, Amtrak woud be thrilled, because they could perhaps run their trains on-time between this choke point between Newark and New York City.

I saw the original plans with a "connecting track" into the existing Penn Station, in addition to a new 34th street NJT station - which would put NJT in two different places to begin with so as to confuse the masses. That plan was back in 2007. I supported that plan because it provided much needed interconnectivity, which needs to be the goal of this whole project. I've heard all kinds of excuses/reasons as to why this "connecting track" could not be put back on the plans.

Getting an extension to Grand Central Station would be great. Otherwise, perhaps expansion comes in the form of an upper or lower level at Penn Station, rather than the deep cavern 34th Street Station.

Im sure NJT would love to run less trains over the NEC, that would mean they would have to pay Amtrak less cash, meaning that Amtrak would have less cash to operate its own trains and pay its own employees, and less cash to keep the tracks and infrastructure up to snuff.

Yes, its a bottleneck inbetween Newark and NY, however, all the trains pretty much go the same speeds, so there really is no difference inbetween the speed an Acela can go compared to an NJT local. If the 562 signal system worked a little better, there would be less delays, but as it is now, there is no point in running as hard as you could becuase someone on board the train would end up on their tail, while risking getting a cab signal penalty, etc with the signals going up and down the whole way and constantly on the power and brakes. Not to mention, most times, NJT trains get up to speed faster than Amtrak trains, especially MUs, so we tend to "get out of the way" pretty quickly.

But whatever, this isn't a discussion on NJT vs. Amtrak, its a discussion on Portal Draw replacement which is a JOINT project with NJT and Amtrak. So like it or not, NJT trains are going to be around for a long time to come on the NEC, and NJT will continue to pay Amtrak trainloads of cash each year

I remember when it was 12 minutes on a NJT train from NYP to Newark. Amtrak still has some of its trains carded at this running time (good luck!). But for regional commuter trains (NJT) its up to 20 minutes - if ontime. Many predicted in joking that it would one day take 20 minutes to travel from NYP to Newark after Secacus Junction was built and more Midtown Direct trains were added etc. Well that day has now come, even for those trains that stop at Secaucus Junction. I am glad that NJT has finally wised up for some NJ Coast Line express trains whereas some are now skipping this stop, as I think NJT NJ Coast Line express trains should - leave this to Midtown Direct trains and NEC Trenton/Jersey Avenue trains.

It's "bumper to bumper" between Newark and New York Penn at rush hour periods (and sometimes beyond).

The one good thing about how NJT schedules its rush-hour trains is that nearly all of the trains stopping at Secaucus peak hours are Summit, South Amboy, or Jersey Avenue locals. The express trains are crowded enough already. I still don't get how with this new Portal Bridge alignment the two alignments will still stay separated through Secaucus though.

From the project alternatives page, the northern bridge will be 50' high and fixed, while the southern one will be 40' high and a bridge that can be raised to 50'. The existing Portal Bridge is a swing-span one.

Last year, Amtrak's bridge over the Connecticut Thames River (Groton / New London) was replaced; the existing bascule bridge was replaced by a lifting-span one. So have lifting-span bridges become a sort of fashion?

Also, the northern bridge will go north of the existing bridge, while the southern one will either replace the existing one or go south of he existing one.

[i]The New York Times[/i] wrote:"The administration approved the final environmental impact statement that clears the way for Amtrak to spend $1.34 billion to build a three-track bridge just north of the Portal Bridge and a two-track span south of the bridge."

I'm wondering does Amtrak have $1.34 billion to spend? (Has the money been authorized?)

What is NJ Transit's share of this project?

Wonder how much cheaper would this plan be with two fixed bridges.

I think that someone decided on a tradeoff somewhere. To be up to the usual water-navigability standards, the bridges have to be 50' above water level. And that will likely require construction of approach ramps on each side of the bridges.

A lower bridge will mean a smaller approach ramp, at the price of having to make the bridge movable for water traffic.

The southern bridge will be a hydraulic-jack lifting-span bridge; the jacks will lift the center span 10' from 40' to 50'. But only a few ships are expected to be tall enough to require that bridge to be lifted, while in comparison, the existing bridge must be turned almost every day.

Slightly unrelated, but about as close to any topic as I could find... Portal Bridge looks to have gotten new pilings over this weekend. I saw them working on it yesterday. Why bother at this point, I wonder, but I suppose it might be mandated by some authority.

ryanov wrote:Slightly unrelated, but about as close to any topic as I could find... Portal Bridge looks to have gotten new pilings over this weekend. I saw them working on it yesterday. Why bother at this point, I wonder, but I suppose it might be mandated by some authority.

they have been working a few weeks on it - they are replacing the wood fender system that burnt up in 2004ish

I thought of the same thing - why bother? But i guess considering its gonna be around about another 10 years, it might need to be done

They never did a proper repair job after that fire. Only value is to keep maritime traffic away from any of the bridge support points. One good barge hit and they will never get that thing properly aligned again. And they want to stay with that design for the next 100 years? Marvelous.

It does not look like this was ever posted:

Harbor Operations Presentation - 19 March 2009.

It mentions several future connections not to be precluded including an extension of track 4 east of the bridge. I wonder if that would be to replace track 3 at SEC or to provide a bypass around the north side. Any insights?