"Pocket Track" at Summit

Discussion related to New Jersey Transit rail and light rail operations.

Moderators: Tadman, Kaback9, nick11a, ACeInTheHole

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby Jtgshu » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:46 am

nick11a wrote:Yes, they've built themselves into a hole in Summit. To get more clearance in Summit, they'd have to lower the roadbed.


Are you saying the track is too high at Summit, Nick? :)

If there was any place that they could undercut the roadbed to increase clearances..........
On the RR, "believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see"
John, aka "JTGSHU" passed away on August 26, 2013. We honor his memory and his devotion to railroading at railroad.net.
User avatar
Jtgshu
 
Posts: 11744
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:32 pm
Location: MP 39.1

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby nick11a » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:47 am

Jtgshu wrote:
nick11a wrote:Yes, they've built themselves into a hole in Summit. To get more clearance in Summit, they'd have to lower the roadbed.


Are you saying the track is too high at Summit, Nick? :)

If there was any place that they could undercut the roadbed to increase clearances..........


Yes, because the bridges are too low over the cut!
~Nick O.: Moderator: NJT Rail

Moderator of the "widely popular" NJT Rail Forum! What once was first is now seventh!
User avatar
nick11a
 
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: North Central Jersey

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby lstone19 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 3:35 pm

TSTOM wrote:The ONLY place I know of to build this 'pocket track' is adjacent to the Gladstone single-track next to the NJT MOW storage facility. In LACKAWANNA days this area was indeed double-track from the junction WEST to near the New Providence station.


I didn't move to the area until after that "double-track" was gone but I was always of the impression it was just a siding - New Providence Siding to be exact. It ran from east of the New Providence station to west of where the Branch and the main line split. But I thought it was still the same main track arrangement as exists today with a single Gladstone Branch main track running parallel to the two Dover main tracks but with no switches until just west of Summit station.
Larry
Roselle, IL (along the MILW West line)
ex-N&W Sandusky, Ohio
lstone19
 
Posts: 669
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:40 pm

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby 25Hz » Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:16 pm

I have a question.........

Since NJT is all abuzz about storage of equipment, why don't they make a double track all the way to the station? There is room....
Next stop the square, journal square station next!
User avatar
25Hz
 
Posts: 4625
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: Newtown, PA (or PATH towards WTC)

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby nick11a » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:14 pm

lstone19 wrote:
TSTOM wrote:The ONLY place I know of to build this 'pocket track' is adjacent to the Gladstone single-track next to the NJT MOW storage facility. In LACKAWANNA days this area was indeed double-track from the junction WEST to near the New Providence station.


I didn't move to the area until after that "double-track" was gone but I was always of the impression it was just a siding - New Providence Siding to be exact. It ran from east of the New Providence station to west of where the Branch and the main line split. But I thought it was still the same main track arrangement as exists today with a single Gladstone Branch main track running parallel to the two Dover main tracks but with no switches until just west of Summit station.


Originally (and I am going back to the 50s and prior), the second track (which was the New Providence Siding) could go back into the Gladstone Main/Wall Track at the Junction or could go directly into the Morristown Line Track 2. There were switches that allowed both kinds of moves. So, the Gladstone Branch was double tracked in effect all the way to New Providence.... which isn't all that far. By the 60s, this was gone it would seem based on pictures I've seen.
~Nick O.: Moderator: NJT Rail

Moderator of the "widely popular" NJT Rail Forum! What once was first is now seventh!
User avatar
nick11a
 
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: North Central Jersey

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby TSTOM » Fri Jun 28, 2013 9:30 am

As is obvious, the LACKAWANNA erected 2-track catenary supports from the junction West to the New Providence station. Thus, that'll save NJT some expense in reconstructing this track and stringing wire above.

I still don't get the need/desire for any extended platforms nor the practicality of doing same.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Westbound platform easily hosts 8 Comets ( not 6 from the article ) as does the Eastbound ( center ) platform. The Wall track seems to be able to host 6 and a half Comets and 8 Arrows. Neither platform can physically be extended on the West ends and the Westbound platform can't be extended on it's East end. The Eastbound ( center ) platform can be extended on the East end by destroying 25 to 35% of the present storage yard and realigning trackage. But is all this REALLY all that critically necessary here at Summit ?

I can see the need/desire for newer / higher speed switch plants on West end of the station for a tad more speed needs. But this so-called 'pocket track' is gonna be about a HALF MILE West. Isn't a train gonna occupy / likely tie-up / block some other train moves getting out there and then crossing over to this thing and ditto coming back ?

For decades the LACKAWANNA / E-L ran MORE rush-hour trains thru here than NJT does today and most were 8-10-12 car MU sets mixed in with 4-car MU locals that often 'turned' at Summit. They didn't have the apparant operational 'problems' that NJT claims it has here. Why is that ?

Color me skeptical. Methinks this might be a case of NJT needing to spend budgeted project money rather than perhaps
coming in UNDER budget for the fiscal year....running the risk of a lower budget approval the following year. There's gotta be a more pressing project elsewhere .
TSTOM
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:39 am

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby bleet » Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:39 am

TSTOM wrote:As is obvious, the LACKAWANNA erected 2-track catenary supports from the junction West to the New Providence station. Thus, that'll save NJT some expense in reconstructing this track and stringing wire above.

I still don't get the need/desire for any extended platforms nor the practicality of doing same.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Westbound platform easily hosts 8 Comets ( not 6 from the article ) as does the Eastbound ( center ) platform. The Wall track seems to be able to host 6 and a half Comets and 8 Arrows. Neither platform can physically be extended on the West ends and the Westbound platform can't be extended on it's East end. The Eastbound ( center ) platform can be extended on the East end by destroying 25 to 35% of the present storage yard and realigning trackage. But is all this REALLY all that critically necessary here at Summit ?

I can see the need/desire for newer / higher speed switch plants on West end of the station for a tad more speed needs. But this so-called 'pocket track' is gonna be about a HALF MILE West. Isn't a train gonna occupy / likely tie-up / block some other train moves getting out there and then crossing over to this thing and ditto coming back ?

For decades the LACKAWANNA / E-L ran MORE rush-hour trains thru here than NJT does today and most were 8-10-12 car MU sets mixed in with 4-car MU locals that often 'turned' at Summit. They didn't have the apparant operational 'problems' that NJT claims it has here. Why is that ?

Color me skeptical. Methinks this might be a case of NJT needing to spend budgeted project money rather than perhaps
coming in UNDER budget for the fiscal year....running the risk of a lower budget approval the following year. There's gotta be a more pressing project elsewhere .


Well, I don't know the reasoning but I agree with your questions about the actual engineering of any platform extensions. The only real space is on the eastern side of the space and as you say you'd have to take out a big chunk of the storage yard. However, maybe that's part of the reason for the pocket track... that way you could tear up the yard and still have a place to store a train or a rescue engine on the western side of the station.
bleet
 
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 2:01 pm

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby nick11a » Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:50 pm

TSTOM wrote:As is obvious, the LACKAWANNA erected 2-track catenary supports from the junction West to the New Providence station. Thus, that'll save NJT some expense in reconstructing this track and stringing wire above.

I still don't get the need/desire for any extended platforms nor the practicality of doing same.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but the Westbound platform easily hosts 8 Comets ( not 6 from the article ) as does the Eastbound ( center ) platform. The Wall track seems to be able to host 6 and a half Comets and 8 Arrows. Neither platform can physically be extended on the West ends and the Westbound platform can't be extended on it's East end. The Eastbound ( center ) platform can be extended on the East end by destroying 25 to 35% of the present storage yard and realigning trackage. But is all this REALLY all that critically necessary here at Summit ?

I can see the need/desire for newer / higher speed switch plants on West end of the station for a tad more speed needs. But this so-called 'pocket track' is gonna be about a HALF MILE West. Isn't a train gonna occupy / likely tie-up / block some other train moves getting out there and then crossing over to this thing and ditto coming back ?

For decades the LACKAWANNA / E-L ran MORE rush-hour trains thru here than NJT does today and most were 8-10-12 car MU sets mixed in with 4-car MU locals that often 'turned' at Summit. They didn't have the apparant operational 'problems' that NJT claims it has here. Why is that ?

Color me skeptical. Methinks this might be a case of NJT needing to spend budgeted project money rather than perhaps
coming in UNDER budget for the fiscal year....running the risk of a lower budget approval the following year. There's gotta be a more pressing project elsewhere .


Sounds like you miss the Lackawanna. I probably would too, if I was alive during that time period.

Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.

The infastructure at Summit hasn't really seen any major upgrades in quite some time. Yes, it was converted to high platforms, yes the catenary and electrical systems were redone, yes better signaling has been put into place and cab signals have been introduced.... but by and large, this has been done over a railroad infastructure (tracks, switches etc.) which haven't really been upgraded all that much. In the meantime, railroad rules have evolved... esepcially over the last half century. The modern world and the more "safety concious" have refined and added more rules to ensure safety. In most cases, these rules have created more restrictions than freedoms.

What I mean to say is that some of the regular every day train moves through Summit during the Lackawanna Days wouldn't be something that NJT would want to do each day in and day out. Yes, more trains went through Summit and probably went through Summit faster back then, but in today's world, safeties and precautions have slowed it down. How do you combat this? Improve the infastructure to allow faster moves while not sacrificing safety, and that is what they want to do here.

I know it has been said many times here, but it is true: a lot of rules and a lot of procedures were added "in blood" meaning accidents created change. The infamous accident of the train crashing into a Spaghetti accident quickly led to cab signals being installed all across NJT. This creates a much safer environment... however, in most cases, cab signals slow down the operation of trains. Engineers must comply with them and often, cab signals are brought down in advance to ensure that rules aren't being violated. Back then, an engineer could operate the train a little more freely and push the limits of the rules.

Another thing mentioned here is that "The Goold Ol' Days" may not have been as good as people remember. Yes, facts are facts: trains ran faster to Hoboken from Gladstone in the steam engine days than today. But don't tell me that it was safer back then than it is today. In these days of increased liability and insurance costs, safety comes first (but not always because of safety, but because of liability!) Say what you want about NJT, but don't say it isn't a safe railroad.

Sorry for the long post.
~Nick O.: Moderator: NJT Rail

Moderator of the "widely popular" NJT Rail Forum! What once was first is now seventh!
User avatar
nick11a
 
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: North Central Jersey

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby 25Hz » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:43 am

nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(
Next stop the square, journal square station next!
User avatar
25Hz
 
Posts: 4625
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: Newtown, PA (or PATH towards WTC)

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby morris&essex4ever » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:08 am

25Hz wrote:
nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(

How so? The M&E got re-electrified in the 80's, the Montclair-Boonton Line has midtown direct service, many stations have been renovated, etc.....
"To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches." Margaret Thatcher
User avatar
morris&essex4ever
 
Posts: 2011
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:11 pm
Location: MP 20.5

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby nick11a » Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:14 pm

morris&essex4ever wrote:
25Hz wrote:
nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(

How so? The M&E got re-electrified in the 80's, the Montclair-Boonton Line has midtown direct service, many stations have been renovated, etc.....


In addition, recently, the mainline tracks between Summit and Dover were upgrade to Rule 261 (tracks signaled in both directions) and they made this segment of railroad Rule 562 (no wayside automatic signals, except for distant signals to a home signal.) They're upgrading it slowly. The problem is space in Summit. There is little space to be used. At the spot where the Gladstone and Morristown meet/separate, the only available track space is the second track (New Providence Siding.) It would be more beneficial to have this new second track as a place to turn trains around or have trains meet. Remember, they could always store a few trains in Summit Yard, but NJT chooses not to. I would think that IF NJT wanted to store trains at or near Summit, they'd put them there first.
~Nick O.: Moderator: NJT Rail

Moderator of the "widely popular" NJT Rail Forum! What once was first is now seventh!
User avatar
nick11a
 
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: North Central Jersey

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby sixty-six » Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:07 am

nick11a wrote:
morris&essex4ever wrote:
25Hz wrote:
nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(

How so? The M&E got re-electrified in the 80's, the Montclair-Boonton Line has midtown direct service, many stations have been renovated, etc.....


In addition, recently, the mainline tracks between Summit and Dover were upgrade to Rule 261 (tracks signaled in both directions) and they made this segment of railroad Rule 562 (no wayside automatic signals, except for distant signals to a home signal.) They're upgrading it slowly. The problem is space in Summit. There is little space to be used. At the spot where the Gladstone and Morristown meet/separate, the only available track space is the second track (New Providence Siding.) It would be more beneficial to have this new second track as a place to turn trains around or have trains meet. Remember, they could always store a few trains in Summit Yard, but NJT chooses not to. I would think that IF NJT wanted to store trains at or near Summit, they'd put them there first.


No distant signals in service on NJT 562 territory (unless you have back-to-back interlockings).
sixty-six
 

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby 25Hz » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:35 am

nick11a wrote:
morris&essex4ever wrote:
25Hz wrote:
nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(

How so? The M&E got re-electrified in the 80's, the Montclair-Boonton Line has midtown direct service, many stations have been renovated, etc.....


In addition, recently, the mainline tracks between Summit and Dover were upgrade to Rule 261 (tracks signaled in both directions) and they made this segment of railroad Rule 562 (no wayside automatic signals, except for distant signals to a home signal.) They're upgrading it slowly. The problem is space in Summit. There is little space to be used. At the spot where the Gladstone and Morristown meet/separate, the only available track space is the second track (New Providence Siding.) It would be more beneficial to have this new second track as a place to turn trains around or have trains meet. Remember, they could always store a few trains in Summit Yard, but NJT chooses not to. I would think that IF NJT wanted to store trains at or near Summit, they'd put them there first.


I guess i'm thinking in terms of getting equipment out of the way as some trains are still running revenue while others are being stored as part of a staged shutdown to both minimize number of people stuck places and get responsible timeliness of having everything tucked away and not have train crews still out and about when they should be home taking care of their own lives etc.
Next stop the square, journal square station next!
User avatar
25Hz
 
Posts: 4625
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:06 pm
Location: Newtown, PA (or PATH towards WTC)

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby baldwr » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:50 pm

nick11a wrote:
Jtgshu wrote:
nick11a wrote:Yes, they've built themselves into a hole in Summit. To get more clearance in Summit, they'd have to lower the roadbed.


Are you saying the track is too high at Summit, Nick? :)

If there was any place that they could undercut the roadbed to increase clearances..........


Yes, because the bridges are too low over the cut!


I could be wrong on this but... Its already been done where necessary, back in the early 80s. To get the necessary clearances when upgrading from 3 kV DC to 25 kV AC, undercutting was done in the Summit Cut and the Roseville Ave (Newark) Cut.
baldwr
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 10:22 pm
Location: Clinton Twp (Annandale) NJ

Re: "Pocket Track" at Summit

Postby nick11a » Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:09 am

sixty-six wrote:
nick11a wrote:
morris&essex4ever wrote:
25Hz wrote:
nick11a wrote:Now, we get into an area of debate. So, let's go. This may sound like a defense of NJT... I don't really mean it to sound that way. In my opinion, this is "the way it is"... just like Bruce Hornsby and the Range.


Good song.

What about my idea to make pocket track into a 1 line storage yard? Practical? Possible? Affordable? Logical?

The hoboken side seems to be the neglected stepchild of NJT as far as infrastructure. I have no solutions aside from the ones that refuse to come from trenton. :(

How so? The M&E got re-electrified in the 80's, the Montclair-Boonton Line has midtown direct service, many stations have been renovated, etc.....


In addition, recently, the mainline tracks between Summit and Dover were upgrade to Rule 261 (tracks signaled in both directions) and they made this segment of railroad Rule 562 (no wayside automatic signals, except for distant signals to a home signal.) They're upgrading it slowly. The problem is space in Summit. There is little space to be used. At the spot where the Gladstone and Morristown meet/separate, the only available track space is the second track (New Providence Siding.) It would be more beneficial to have this new second track as a place to turn trains around or have trains meet. Remember, they could always store a few trains in Summit Yard, but NJT chooses not to. I would think that IF NJT wanted to store trains at or near Summit, they'd put them there first.


No distant signals in service on NJT 562 territory (unless you have back-to-back interlockings).


Thanks for that sixty-six. Haven't had a chance to really investigate all of the new 562 territories. It seems each railroad handles 562 territory slightly differently.
~Nick O.: Moderator: NJT Rail

Moderator of the "widely popular" NJT Rail Forum! What once was first is now seventh!
User avatar
nick11a
 
Posts: 9759
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:28 pm
Location: North Central Jersey

PreviousNext

Return to New Jersey Transit NJT Rail and Light Rail LRT

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest