Portageville Bridge Replacement, Future Tier Traffic

New pics

They are doing a awesome job on it!

Went there vacationing (again) and was disappointed not to be able to ascend the gorge trail #1 to get closer. However, the pics posted here solve that dilemma. Now I know what the "banging sound" we heard was when we went to the Glen Iris, thanks to the video posted above. I wonder how the park road will be realigned for the new bridge? The renderings show it west of the new support column closest to the gorge, as they have blasted out the former roads' area. I guess there will be a complete realignment when the old bridge and its supports are removed. And, the new bridge has an uncanny resemblance to the Hell Gate here in Metro NY. Even the same color!

What a crying shame that the old bridge is to be taken down. It would provide a magnificent view. Can't we start a movement to save it?

rhallock wrote:What a crying shame that the old bridge is to be taken down. It would provide a magnificent view. Can't we start a movement to save it?

No. Too late. Many reasons already discussed earlier in the thread. The main one being money, for upkeep, liability, and making it safely accessible. It can't really be compared with The Walkway On The Hudson, either. Sorry.
Scott K.

The only way the entrance road to the park gets restored is to bulldoze the area under the west abutment of the old bridge and remove a good chunk of the existing embankment.

^Yes, that will be the new parking area. I don't think they will have as much room as the previous parking lot.

Scott K wrote:

rhallock wrote: It can't really be compared with The Walkway On The Hudson, either. Sorry.
Scott K.

Not that it matters, (I agree its a lost cause) but why cant it be compared to Walkway over the Hudson?
seems very similar to me..and smaller, easier, probably less expensive..etc.

Not that it can happen..the state would never allow it. but im just curious..

Scot

scottychaos wrote:

Scott K wrote:

rhallock wrote: It can't really be compared with The Walkway On The Hudson, either. Sorry.
Scott K.

Not that it matters, (I agree its a lost cause) but why cant it be compared to Walkway over the Hudson?
seems very similar to me..and smaller, easier, probably less expensive..etc.

Not that it can happen..the state would never allow it. but im just curious..

Scot

I think rhallock is referring the population base in upstate vs downstate NY. He apparently doesn't understand upstate NY, despite having a smaller population, does alot of tourist business already.

I feel the current Letchworth viaduct could be a good tourist attraction a la Kinzua. Unfortunately, NYS doesn't want to pay for it and NS doesn't want the liability, so the viaduct will be torn down after the new span enters service.

scottychaos wrote:

Scott K wrote:

rhallock wrote: It can't really be compared with The Walkway On The Hudson, either. Sorry.
Scott K.

Not that it matters, (I agree its a lost cause) but why cant it be compared to Walkway over the Hudson?
seems very similar to me..and smaller, easier, probably less expensive..etc.

Not that it can happen..the state would never allow it. but im just curious..

Scot

I know what you mean, but I was mainly thinking of the added liability risk from the active line that would remain next to the old bridge, unlike the Walkway and Kinzua, which "stand alone" now. I'm sure NS is going to have enough problems with trespassers on the new bridge, without worrying about people crossing the track to get to the old one, rather than using the proper access route. I also wonder if the north end's stability would be affected by being disconnected from the existing embankment when they rebuild the road.

Scott K.

The state has all sorts of recreational attractions which are potentially hazardous, such as hiking and bike trails, ski areas, swimming areas. The list is almost endless. The bridge is strong enough to support 10,000 ton trains. It should be able to withstand foot traffic for a long time, baring tornadoes. A few fences in the right places should solve any problems with trespassers on the RR. I can't help but feel that a great opportunity will be lost if it is torn down.

I'm not really arguing in favor of removing the old bridge, I just know there isn't money available to preserve it, or political will, either. I'd at least like to see the footbridge across the piers remain, but I bet that will be removed as well.

Scott K.

The concern about liability is not really a concern about an actual incident. Rather, the issue is the cost of the insurance to cover the liability. As much I'd like to see the old viaduct preserved, I can understand why NS doesn't want to pay for insurance on a structure which will no longer generate revenue for the corporation.

With regard to NYS, they've certainly paid for plenty of other tourist attractions. I'm baffled as to why they wouldn't want to keep at least part of the old viaduct in place for pedestrian use.

rhallock wrote:A few fences in the right places should solve any problems with trespassers on the RR. I can't help but feel that a great opportunity will be lost if it is torn down.

IMO, keeping the old viaduct and fencing off the new ROW/bridge would be the ideal combination to discourage trespassers. It's a pity NYS doesn't understand this idea.

I have no stake in the matter but in my opinion removing the old bridge would be the way to go. Would cost lots of money to perform the annual inspections and upkeep of the old structure.

If a walkway over the valley is wanted it could be cantilevered off the new bridge away from the tracks. This would provide a safe viewing platform on a new structure that should be in place for 100 years or more.