"Pocket Track" at Summit

[bleet]

NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet. ... ojectId=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hawaiitiki]

NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet. ... ojectId=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Confusing that they used the stock picture of Ridgewood at the top.

[bleet]

NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet. ... ojectId=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Confusing that they used the stock picture of Ridgewood at the top.

They've been using that picture on their capital projects page forever.

[TSTOM]

bleet wrote:NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. ... ojectId=61

This tells us nothing new or enlightening. I can see redoing the interlocking on the West end for 45mph crossovers and thus moving the signals further West. Not really gonna make a big difference but WTH, it's only our money, right ?

[Hawaiitiki]

NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet. ... ojectId=61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Confusing that they used the stock picture of Ridgewood at the top.

They've been using that picture on their capital projects page forever.

I figured. Just was super confusing because Summit and Ridgewood have extremely similar platform orientations.

[nick11a]

bleet wrote:NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. ... ojectId=61

This tells us nothing new or enlightening. I can see redoing the interlocking on the West end for 45mph crossovers and thus moving the signals further West. Not really gonna make a big difference but WTH, it's only our money, right ?

Not much difference really.... with the big exception of changing the crossover speeds from 15 MPH to 45 MPH. It's kind of a marvel how they handle that interlocking at present with trains crossing over to/from Gladstone, Summit locals changing tracks, etc.

The only downside is that apparently, the east end of the interlocking will remain the same (15 MPH), at least for now. So, one can infer that trains entering/leaving the Gladstone Branch at the west end can do so at 45 MPH (a big improvement) but at the east end would still be restricted to 15 MPH.

Oh and yeah... a little late on the response here, but hey, I got married and then life held me up. Sorry. Better late than never.

[ACeInTheHole]

bleet wrote:NJT has started planning for moving the interlocking, but doesn't mention the pocket track.

http://www.njtransit.com/tm/tm_servlet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. ... ojectId=61

This tells us nothing new or enlightening. I can see redoing the interlocking on the West end for 45mph crossovers and thus moving the signals further West. Not really gonna make a big difference but WTH, it's only our money, right ?

Not much difference really.... with the big exception of changing the crossover speeds from 15 MPH to 45 MPH. It's kind of a marvel how they handle that interlocking at present with trains crossing over to/from Gladstone, Summit locals changing tracks, etc.

The only downside is that apparently, the east end of the interlocking will remain the same (15 MPH), at least for now. So, one can infer that trains entering/leaving the Gladstone Branch at the west end can do so at 45 MPH (a big improvement) but at the east end would still be restricted to 15 MPH.

Oh and yeah... a little late on the response here, but hey, I got married and then life held me up. Sorry. Better late than never.

Oh. Congratulations Nick.

[BigDell]

Oh and yeah... a little late on the response here, but hey, I got married and then life held me up. Sorry. Better late than never.

Young Nick! Congratulations! Wow…! But please don't let real life, hearth and home keep you from your duties here!
Seriously, congrats… sorry to go off-topic but I think a congrats is definitely in order.
Okay back to the pocket track.

[kilroy]

Congrats nick. Glad to have someone to suffer with (25 years this past October).

[nick11a]

Thanks kilroy and BigDell. We are very happy together (although, she's not really that in to trains and finds my obsession with them pondersome.)

Back to topic, watching them reconfigure west Summit should be very interesting and take quite some time to do. Consider:

1) The extremely low catenary height
2) The sheer amount of volume that comes through there during rush hours
3) The close clearness of both of the walls
4) The interlocking(s) is/are pretty essential for day to day operations, including weekends

[bleet]

I believe that all of this work -- with the exception of perhaps removing the old interlocking -- will happen much farther west between the High Street bridge and Passaic Avenue. There's an NJT maintenance area off Passaic Ave that could provide some of the land for a pocket track if that's still being planned and all of the work for the interlocking wouldn't have the wall or catenary restraints that Nick mentions.

Never-the-less there certainly will be issues caused by the sheer volume of trains.

One other note, the Morris Avenue bridge over the tracks is due to be replaced this year too I believe which will certainly affect traffic at some point.

And congrats Nick.

[nick11a]

I believe that all of this work -- with the exception of perhaps removing the old interlocking -- will happen much farther west between the High Street bridge and Passaic Avenue. There's an NJT maintenance area off Passaic Ave that could provide some of the land for a pocket track if that's still being planned and all of the work for the interlocking wouldn't have the wall or catenary restraints that Nick mentions.

Never-the-less there certainly will be issues caused by the sheer volume of trains.

One other note, the Morris Avenue bridge over the tracks is due to be replaced this year too I believe which will certainly affect traffic at some point.

And congrats Nick.

Thanks.

Yes, the Morris Avenue bridge was slated to be shut down soon I think. It is in dire need of replacement or major rehab. And I agree with you, likely the new interlocking will take place right where the two rail lines and meet. The article didn't quite say that and gave one the impression that the new interlocking would be adjacent to the station. That wouldn't seem to be likely considering all the restrictions there.

[ACeInTheHole]

I believe that all of this work -- with the exception of perhaps removing the old interlocking -- will happen much farther west between the High Street bridge and Passaic Avenue. There's an NJT maintenance area off Passaic Ave that could provide some of the land for a pocket track if that's still being planned and all of the work for the interlocking wouldn't have the wall or catenary restraints that Nick mentions.

Never-the-less there certainly will be issues caused by the sheer volume of trains.

One other note, the Morris Avenue bridge over the tracks is due to be replaced this year too I believe which will certainly affect traffic at some point.

And congrats Nick.

Thanks.

Yes, the Morris Avenue bridge was slated to be shut down soon I think. It is in dire need of replacement or major rehab. And I agree with you, likely the new interlocking will take place right where the two rail lines and meet. The article didn't quite say that and gave one the impression that the new interlocking would be adjacent to the station. That wouldn't seem to be likely considering all the restrictions there.

They need that interlocking there.. Once there was a train that died right across both switches in the station.. It was the thick of rush hour. There was no way around him for the three or four eastbound trains stacked around the corner behind him. Had there been an interlocking up by the branch pocket.. Wouldve really helped that day.

[nick11a]

There used to be switched there and a second track on the branch up to New Providence Station. Having that would've very helpful for Gladstone trains needing to pass near Summit, Summit trains to turn around, etcetera.

If the pocket track and new interlocking is indeed down there, it'll become its own new interlocking.

[nick11a]

Still nothing yet on this project. NJT's website says they're supposed to be advertising construction for this project right now.