Port Jervis Potential Yard Locations

Discussion relating to the operations of MTA MetroNorth Railroad including west of Hudson operations and discussion of CtDOT sponsored rail operations such as Shore Line East and the Springfield to New Haven Hartford Line

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, Jeff Smith

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby TDowling » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:51 am

I know the main line through chester and goshen was double tracked but I don't believe the graham line from harriman to campbell hall was. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
TDowling
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: West Point, NY

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby ExCon90 » Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:42 pm

An Erie ett from September 1952 states that Moodna Viaduct was single track with a spring switch at each end, lined for the eastbound main at the east end and the westbound main at the west end, with a detailed procedure regarding the signaling in effect over the single track--the signals were automatic and functioned much as in an automatic interlocking; i.e., the first train to hit the circuit gets the route. As to whether it was ever double-tracked, I think it was but I can't prove it (even though I rode over it on a fantrip, I can't remember whether it was wide enough for two tracks). One possibility is that the viaduct was originally double-tracked but was single-tracked at some point because its condition was such that they didn't want two freight trains on it at the same time; if that was the case in 1952 I doubt that it's changed since then. A greater constraint on increasing train frequency might be the maximum authorized speed over the viaduct today, whatever that is.
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby Backshophoss » Fri Mar 04, 2016 12:12 am

The current route in use was single track before CR abandoned the original mainline,this was the route to Maybrook,the
New Haven and L&HR interchange back in Erie/EL era.
That all changed after the Poughkeepsie Bridge Fire...... :(
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4574
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby EuroStar » Fri Mar 04, 2016 8:27 am

Was CR's logic that this line provided the connection to the Poughkeepsie Bridge and still could be used to get the trains Port Jervis? Not knowing enough of the history, I find it surprising that somehow CR ended up with preferring to keep a "secondary" over a main line. Was the main line curvy or not grade separated with many crossings in town?
EuroStar
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby ExCon90 » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:03 pm

Just about all of the above--in fact those are the reasons the Graham Line was built. When on-line freight business on the Main Line had pretty well dried up, my understanding is that CR told MN "we're going to abandon this line--if you want to keep using it we'll sell it to you," and MN decided to move to the Graham Line. It would have been hard to justify asking more than scrap value, but maybe MN (or New York State) couldn't come up with it at the time, and in any case all maintenance would have been MN's responsibility from then on. (Or, does MN own the Graham Line now, and if so, who pays for the maintenance?) (All of this subject to correction from someone who knows more about it.) Also, did NYSDOT want some of it for a highway?
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby SemperFidelis » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:28 pm

According to an old "Erie Memories" book I have stashed away somewhere, Moodna was built as a single track line, but with the ability to be double tracked by adding more supports, each halfway between the existing ones. I'm not recalling that 100% correctly, but that was the jist of the statement next to the photo.
SemperFidelis
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Stupid Voterland

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby Backshophoss » Fri Mar 04, 2016 9:22 pm

Current route is owned by NS and leased to MN,believe MN has option to buy.
Maintaince is MN's with Help from NJT MOW for some projects,Signals and future PTC are done to NJT standards.
Dispatch is done by NJT.
Believe CR wanted a little more than "scrap value" for the old Mainline,may have been some bridges that were in need of
work,with little $$$ in the budget, running on the freight route was the only option.
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 4574
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby SecaucusJunction » Fri Mar 04, 2016 10:53 pm

I'm not at all familiar with specifics, but If MN had the open option to buy, wouldn't they have bought it by now? I thought I read a while back that if MN bought the line, they could limit NS operations on the line and NS wanted nothing to do with that. I'm not sure of the accuracy.
I think it may be possible that NJ Transit might not be the perfect, infallible organization that most people assume it is.
SecaucusJunction
 
Posts: 2988
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: NS Watchdog

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby EuroStar » Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:06 am

I recall hearing somewhere that NS has about 2 trains a day on the line. I am assuming that was 2 trains each way, but even then that is not a lot of trains -- they could easily be accommodated during the night even under substantially busier schedule of passenger trains because very few of them run at night.
EuroStar
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby SemperFidelis » Mon Mar 07, 2016 12:26 pm

I'd imagine it's one train up and one train down, both to service online industries and do the interchange work for that East Penn operation up by Campbell Hall.
SemperFidelis
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Stupid Voterland

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby TDowling » Sun Mar 20, 2016 11:12 pm

ExCon90 wrote:An Erie ett from September 1952 states that Moodna Viaduct was single track with a spring switch at each end, lined for the eastbound main at the east end and the westbound main at the west end, with a detailed procedure regarding the signaling in effect over the single track--the signals were automatic and functioned much as in an automatic interlocking; i.e., the first train to hit the circuit gets the route. As to whether it was ever double-tracked, I think it was but I can't prove it (even though I rode over it on a fantrip, I can't remember whether it was wide enough for two tracks). One possibility is that the viaduct was originally double-tracked but was single-tracked at some point because its condition was such that they didn't want two freight trains on it at the same time; if that was the case in 1952 I doubt that it's changed since then. A greater constraint on increasing train frequency might be the maximum authorized speed over the viaduct today, whatever that is.

Yeah very unlikely that a 100+ year old viaduct can hold two at the same time which is what is probably going to occur if/when double tracking takes place. The so called improvements that the mta did to the bridge look to me like nothing more than a sand blast and a paint job.
TDowling
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: West Point, NY

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby SecaucusJunction » Mon Mar 21, 2016 9:18 pm

I think it's safe to say that Moodna won't be double tracked in our lifetimes...
I think it may be possible that NJ Transit might not be the perfect, infallible organization that most people assume it is.
SecaucusJunction
 
Posts: 2988
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: NS Watchdog

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby EuroStar » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:51 am

It does not need to be double tracked ever. There is no need. All the ridership comes from stations east of the viaduct. The new yard will guarantee that the number of trains going west to Port Jervis is never enough to justify double tracking.
EuroStar
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby njt/mnrrbuff » Tue Mar 22, 2016 6:54 pm

Don't hold your breath about Moodna getting double tracked. While the ridership on the Pt. Jervis Line may be healthy enough to build the double track as far north as where the viaduct begins, it's not as good as the other side of the river. Plus the line is a little more of a straight shot at Salisbury Mills-Cornwall and southward. Remember, Coach USA's Short Line Bus runs more of a decent service to NYC.
njt/mnrrbuff
 
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: potential yard at Campbell Hall?

Postby SemperFidelis » Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:24 pm

I think a pretty decent chunk of ridership comes from Middletown which is west of the viaduct. I'm not saying the viaduct would ever need to be double tracked, but someone said that little ridership comes from points west of the viaduct.
SemperFidelis
 
Posts: 1297
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:49 pm
Location: Stupid Voterland

PreviousNext

Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests