Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

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, FL9AC

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby SecaucusJunction » Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:16 am

There are still several customers on the Suffern Industrial. The local serves them a few times per week.
I think it may be possible that NJ Transit might not be the perfect, infallible organization that most people assume it is.
SecaucusJunction
 
Posts: 3069
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 9:40 pm
Location: NS Watchdog

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby njt/mnrrbuff » Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:12 pm

As for any sort of rail between Suffern and Spring Valley, I would vote for diesel light rail. In fact, if that were to ever be restored to light rail, I would suggest running it as far as Downtown Nyack and keep it as close to Rt. 59 as much as possible. There are not just many homes, but probably many office parks and plenty of shopping centers close by. I also don't mind seeing the TOR and Hudson Link bus service improved a little. I have ridden the TOR 59 bus route a few times from Spring Valley to Suffern and vice versa and have to say that it seems to be a good route. It would be nice if not all of the 59 buses went a little out of their way to serve Rockland Community College. It seems like that adds time to their schedule.
njt/mnrrbuff
 
Posts: 3257
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby airman00 » Sat Jan 05, 2019 2:23 pm

I have always felt he re-activation of the Piermont Branch is a sorely needed rail option! Now based on what we know, just a thought... MNRR owns the row and NS has trackage rights and NJT runs service on lines adjacent to the remnants of the branch. Why can’t Metro North, NS, and NJT all come together on a plan to reactivate this line. They all split the cost and maintenance of rebuilding the line, and you could even apply for federal or state transportation funds, to help defray the cost. As far as nimby’s go, ignore them. Listen as a railroad company, MN, NS, NJT are autonomous and do NOT need “local approval” to rebuild this line, only DEP approval. There is, was, and has always been WAY, WAY, WAY, too much catering to nimbys. A few anti-rail people shouldn’t dictate railroad policy. Now I will admit that sometimes railroads haven’t always been the best neighbors but still... Anyway, something else to consider is approaching Beckerle Lumber in Spring Valley for a reactivating of rail service too as that would definitely get NS interested. So just my 2 cents...
User avatar
airman00
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby pateljones » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:58 pm

Was the wash out in Monsey ever repaired? I dont believe so, and if not, it never ever will be fixed as now there is too much opposition to train service after so many years without. The line should be sold in pieces to adjacent property owners for their use.
pateljones
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby Hawaiitiki » Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:20 am

The Right of Way was never formally abandoned. (someone correct me if I'm wrong) MetroNorth has the legal right to rebuild the rails and run service with little to no community input. Repairing the washout, which is not substantial, may/may not require EPA approval but thats about it.

A wise man once said,
"If you buy a house next to a baseball field, one of these days, your windows are going to get broken."
Double Track, Grade Separate, and Electrify America!
Hawaiitiki
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:14 pm
Location: Bogenhausen, München

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby JoeG » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:37 pm

A few years ago there were complaints about engines idling in Spring Valley yard. It was pointed out that if the Spring Valley-Suffern track was restored, the trains could be stored in Suffern, which had room. But the people who live along the Piermont, between Suffern and Spring Valley, who have considerable political clout, didn't want the track re-activated. To no one's surprise their wishes prevailed. This situation is not likely to change and will prevent the Piermont from being re-opened.
User avatar
JoeG
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:40 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby pateljones » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:13 am

I also remember those residents being loudly opposed to restoring train service there. I think we will never again see service along this branch all the way along it. Metro North has many many higher priorities and Piedmont Branch is way at the bottom of the list and likely is not even on the list. It is sad and each passing year makes it more unlikely to ever happen.
pateljones
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby Jeff Smith » Sat Jan 19, 2019 11:43 am

If anything drives reactivating the branch, it would be NJT wanting to close Woodbine Yard, and/or increase PV service and needing Suffern Yard. I don’t think MNRR, as noted, has it anywhere on their priorities list, and won’t unless there’s a demand upstream from Suffern to commute somewhere along the PV. And unless they decide to add rail to the TZB Prince Cuomo’s Dad memorial bridge, which is unlikely if necessary for all the traffic to WP and Stamford. And even that would probably mean tunneling and using the 87/287 ROW to avoid community opposition.
Next stop, Willoughby
~Jeff Smith (fka "Sarge") :: RAILROAD.NET Site Administrator
Jeff Smith
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8104
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:28 am
Location: MP 67.2 Georgia Southern Railway

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby Dcell » Sun Mar 10, 2019 6:15 pm

Which of the 2 Cuomo bridges is designed for the addition of commuter trains, the SB or NB? And is there a cost estimate for adding commuter trains to the bridge?
Dcell
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:14 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby Backshophoss » Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:49 pm

NONE!! the NEW TZ bridge had plans,but that "ship" has sailed,due to politics! :P
Backshophoss
 
Posts: 5843
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2012 7:58 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby NH2060 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 9:31 am

The new bridge was indeed built to support a rail line. The tracks would be put in the space occupied by the BRT lanes- one track on each span.
NH2060
 
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby Dcell » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:07 pm

Thanks. I read that the Cuomo Bridge was designed for possible inclusion of a rail line in the future. But I expect that possibility to go the way of the proposed trolley addition to the GWB in the 1930s. - not gonna happen. Still it’s nice to dream about a new rail line connecting both sides of the Hudson River in NY State.
Dcell
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:14 pm

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby DutchRailnut » Mon Mar 11, 2019 5:19 pm

one of problems why west of hudson lines will not be connected to Tappan zee is there simply is no room in GCT. its ludicrous to spend the billions needed and then have no room at the Inn.
If Conductors are in charge, why are they promoted to be Engineer???

Retired Triebfahrzeugführer. I am not a moderator.
User avatar
DutchRailnut
 
Posts: 22059
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: released from Stalag 13

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby JoeG » Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:08 pm

When they were planning the new bridges, there were various community outreach sessions. At the time I lived in Rockland. I was told by one of the planners that a big problem was that Westchester had no interest in the rail project; it was seen as disruptive and only benefitting Rockland.
Meanwhile, across the river, the NIMBYs were in full flower. The village I lived in was supposed to get a station. Good news? Nope! The station would be too intrusive!

Sometimes it seemed that the project's biggest supporters were the planners. I think a lot of Rockland residents would have liked the railroad but they never came out in sufficient numbers.

If Grand Central couldn't accommodate more trains, they could have made a transfer station in Tarrytown. The planners said they thought the majority of the passengers would be going to Westchester and not to GCT.

But of course we will never see any of this, at least for the next generation. Maybe with a carbon tax...
User avatar
JoeG
 
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 10:40 am
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: Piermont Branch (Orig Erie Main) aka Suffern Industrial

Postby airman00 » Mon Mar 11, 2019 8:08 pm

WHY do we cater to nimbys so much?? Way, way, waaay TOO much catering to nimbys! The will of a few people should NOT overrule the greater good that the train would bring. I understand that money would be a big issue in restoring the Piermont Branch. But money should be the issue, NOT nimbys! What is it that a few anti-rail people make a stink and then railroads and govt agencies get down on one knee and bend to their will??
User avatar
airman00
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: New Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to MTA Metro-North Railroad and CtDOT Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests