Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Gateway Tunnels - Freight Usage

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

 #1587040  by STrRedWolf
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Wed Dec 15, 2021 1:23 pm (in jest) the solution is pneumatic tubes. Extrapolate from that lol.
That'll fit the tunnels easier but how do you get the cargo to fit into a cylindrical shipping container? Maybe we should ask Elon Musk... :grinning:
 #1588014  by Greg Moore
 
I will add too, that even if somehow you made the Gateway tunnels large enough and usable by freight, and say one track through NYP large enough, you still have the East River Tunnels being unworkable for freight.

I didn't see it, but I do recall the PRR tested freight through the existing tunnels (I believe it may have been only one train of coal) around/during WWII. I think that's about it. The existing North River tunnels exhibit some up and down movement when trains pass through. I can't imagine what modern, heavily loaded freight cars would do to them. Even in the new tunnels, I suspect this might be a problem.

The solution is still the Cross-Harbor Tunnel. Honestly, this is the way to go.
 #1588111  by lensovet
 
You guys keep saying this…but Wikipedia has exactly zero mention of this. What's the source?

Btw, per the last study they've done, building a tunnel would divert no more than 4% of truck traffic. At a cost of $11 billion. Personally seems like a rather dubious use of resources.
 #1588113  by photobug56
 
"For over three decades, Congressman Nadler has been at the forefront of efforts to more efficiently move goods in New York by reconnecting the City to the nation’s freight rail system via the construction of a tunnel under New York Harbor. The Cross Harbor Rail Freight Tunnel would fundamentally decrease New York’s over-dependence on truck-borne freight by taking up to 1 million trucks off City streets annually. This would help solve New York's major traffic congestion issues, eliminate a built-in cap on economic development, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by thousands of tons, improve public health, and address a major national security vulnerability. "

From https://nadler.house.gov/about-jerry/

https://www.politico.com/states/new-yor ... way-000000
 #1588115  by lensovet
 
Obviously Congressman Nadler is going to be tooting his own horn.
A cross-harbor freight tunnel, said Nadler, "was the keystone in the arch of the masterplan."
That's great, but can we have someone substantiate this, or will we take a politician at his word? I'm a little lost, too, on the story that follows, because I'm not sure on what basis the city of new york would be building a tunnel to new jersey?

There's so many issues with this project:

- the current proposals are all about a rail-truck transloading facility. okay…so you're building a giant tunnel to supposedly reduce truck traffic…but really the only truck traffic you're reducing is whoever is going between NJ and Brooklyn, because the rest is being done by trucks anyway. what's the point?
- let's say we realize that this is dumb and it makes more sense to actually have rail continue on to points east. where is it going to go? how are double stack containers going to navigate third rail, which is basically everywhere in LI? And once you're out east, where are the facilities to unload this stuff?

This is a pipe dream, plain and simple. Jerry Nadler wants a project he can put his name on, I get it, but that doesn't make it a good use of public funds.
 #1588202  by photobug56
 
The point was direct rail access from the south and west to Brooklyn, connecting to existing rail to GO EAST ON LONG ISLAND. Eliminates piles of trucks through the city except local delivery, same on much of Long Island. Nadler has pushed this for a long time, and again, this is what PANYNJ was created to do, not build awful air trains and shift sea cargo to New Jersey from Brooklyn.

I've had 2 drives on the New Jersey Turnpike in recent days. Piles of trucks, many long distance (judging from the very expensive sleeper tractors hauling then). Lots of tractors with no trailers. Obviously some heading to New England and upstate NY, but judging from what I saw on Staten Island, a lot of that traffic is heading to NYC and Long Island. Of course, those trucks, heading east off the VZ, hit local streets only. FYI, I don't remember the stats, but NYC and Long Island get far less of their freight by rail compared to other areas. This would go a long way to fixing that.
 #1588308  by lensovet
 
Where and how are you going to unload these mythical freight trains going to east Long Island? And what will the residents of these communities have to say about diesel belching freight trains going through their back yards?
 #1588314  by photobug56
 
I guess you are not aware that there is a good size rail depot out east just for that purpose. Also, a few still live sidings, lots of abandoned ones that could be reactivated. Most freight would move at night. Over time locos will be rebuilt or replaced, but I'd say that the old locos now in use are probably cleaner than the 1990's smoke belching junk LIRR uses for its 'customers'.

FYI, freight tonnage is much higher than was a couple decades ago, and lots of residents would like to see a lot fewer long distance trucks on their roads. With this, a lot of freight could use trucks only for local delivery.
 #1588340  by Tom V
 
Instead of a new tunnel what about either a replacement of the Hell’s Gate bridge or building a freight dedicated twin span? That has to be a cheaper option then a tunnel.

A second bridge would need to be built across the Hudson somewhere South of Selkirk closer to the City.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkirk_hurdle

Would building two freight rail bridges be cheaper than a Hudson River tunnel?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 #1588347  by Ken W2KB
 
scratchyX1 wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:11 am
photobug56 wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 12:34 am Wasn't PANYNJ created just to build this tunnel?
Yes, They were created to build the cross harbor tunnel.
And a great job they have.. of ... er ...
airtrain? maybe?
There is no language in the interstate compact and state legislation that requires or even suggests this specific purpose. Construction of a rail tunnel is clearly within the Port Authorities powers, but its establishment was far broader than that single potential project. Relevant language of the 1921 Compact legislation reads as follows: " Chapter 154 of the laws of 1921
Port of New York authority
Section 1. William R. Willcox, Eugenius H. Outerbridge and Murray
Hulbert, or any two of them, commissioners heretofore appointed under
chapter four hundred and twenty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and
seventeen of the state of New York, together with the attorney-general
of the state of New York, are hereby authorized as commissioners upon
the part of the state of New York to enter into, with the state of New
Jersey, by and through the commissioners appointed or who may be
appointed under or by virtue of a law of the legislature of the state of
New Jersey, an agreement or compact in the form following, that is to
say:
Whereas, In the year eighteen hundred and thirty-four the states of
New York and New Jersey did enter into an agreement fixing and
determining the rights and obligations of the two states in and about
the waters between the two states, especially in and about the bay of
New York and the Hudson river; and
Whereas, Since that time the commerce of the port of New York has
greatly developed and increased and the territory in and around the port
has become commercially one center or district; and
Whereas, It is confidently believed that a better co-ordination of the
terminal, transportation and other facilities of commerce in, about and
through the port of New York, will result in great economies, benefiting
the nation, as well as the states of New York and New Jersey; and
Whereas, The future development of such terminal, transportation and
other facilities of commerce will require the expenditure of large sums
of money and the cordial co-operation of the states of New York and New
Jersey in the encouragement of the investment of capital, and in the
formulation and execution of the necessary physical plans; and
Whereas, Such result can best be accomplished through the co-operation
of the two states by and through a joint or common agency. Whereas, It is confidently believed that a better co-ordination of the
terminal, transportation and other facilities of commerce in, about and
through the port of New York, will result in great economies, benefiting
the nation, as well as the states of New York and New Jersey; and
Whereas, The future development of such terminal, transportation and
other facilities of commerce will require the expenditure of large sums
of money and the cordial co-operation of the states of New York and New
Jersey in the encouragement of the investment of capital, and in the
formulation and execution of the necessary physical plans;

ARTICLE XXII.
Definitions. The following words as herein used shall have the
following meaning: "Transportation facility" shall include railroads,
steam or electric, motor truck or other street or highway vehicles,
tunnels, bridges, boats, ferries, car-floats, lighters, tugs, floating
elevators, barges, scows or harbor craft of any kind, air craft suitable
for harbor service, and every kind of transportation facility now in use
or hereafter designed for use for the transportation or carriage of
persons or property. "Terminal facility" shall include wharves, piers,
slips, ferries, docks, dry docks, bulkheads, dock-walls, basins,
car-floats, float-bridges, grain or other storage elevators, warehouses,
cold storage, tracks, yards, sheds, switches, connections, overhead
appliances, and every kind of terminal or storage facility now in use or
hereafter designed for use for the handling, storage, loading or
unloading of freight at steamship, railroad or freight terminals.
"Railroads" shall include railways, extensions thereof, tunnels,
subways, bridges, elevated structures, tracks, poles, wires, conduits,
power houses, substations, lines for the transmission of power,
car-barns, shops, yards, sidings, turn-outs, switches, stations and
approaches thereto, cars and motive equipment. "Facility" shall include
all works, buildings, structures, appliances and appurtenances necessary
and convenient for the proper construction, equipment, maintenance and
operation of such facility or facilities or any one or more of them."
 #1588348  by lensovet
 
photo bug, it's like the cutoff thread all over again. how are the freight trains going to clear the third rail? "lots of people"? please.

i'm not sure why Hell's Gate needs to be replaced. There's room for another freight track on the existing bridge if that's needed, but crossing the hudson is the bigger problem. seems like the easier approach would be to restore the North Shore Branch in Staten Island and build a bridge from St. George to the existing transfer terminal at 65th St. This might have some merit as you could include rapid transit tracks on it too and finally connect SI with the rest of the city without needing ferries.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7