Lackawanna Cutoff Passenger Service Restoration

photobug56 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 01, 2023 12:24 pm This is odd.

Not at all. The posts were veering into the realm of Amtrak coverage.

Jeff Smith wrote:To the Scranton thread in Amtrak.

Thank you sir!

That's what I get paid the big bucks for, lol. Not.

However, I should have posted a link and update about the relocation. Ask my ex, communication is not necessarily my strong suit.

You don't work for LIRR, do you? For anyone that doesn't get it, they're not known for communication either.

First blast of the western portal of Roseville tunnel was conducted around noon today.

Both good and sad, but it is progress. Even beyond wanting full service restoration NYC to Scranton and beyond, getting this project done is a big step forward.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 11:18 am Both good and sad, but it is progress. Even beyond wanting full service restoration NYC to Scranton and beyond, getting this project done is a big step forward.

It's 24ft of tunnel. Are we really going to need a mourning service for 24ft? It's not like they are choosing to cut the entire tunnel out and make it a cut.

I don't care about the 24 feet, but losing the portal built back then. And while I get safety regs, having to chop 24 feet of a tunnel a tiny bit too long under current safety regs to not have a ventilation system does seem a tad silly. Regardless, it's a needed step to get more of the line back into service.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:00 pm I don't care about the 24 feet, but losing the portal built back then. And while I get safety regs, having to chop 24 feet of a tunnel a tiny bit too long under current safety regs to not have a ventilation system does seem a tad silly. Regardless, it's a needed step to get more of the line back into service.

As I've said many times to a lot of old men who whine about track tear outs, we don't have to save everything. If we have to erase a portal for a tunnel in the middle of nowhere, then we should do it.

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:49 pm

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:00 pm I don't care about the 24 feet, but losing the portal built back then. And while I get safety regs, having to chop 24 feet of a tunnel a tiny bit too long under current safety regs to not have a ventilation system does seem a tad silly. Regardless, it's a needed step to get more of the line back into service.

As I've said many times to a lot of old men who whine about track tear outs, we don't have to save everything. If we have to erase a portal for a tunnel in the middle of nowhere, then we should do it.

While not how I would word it, I do agree. So many tunnels have had to be ripped out or lowered for freight improvements. I don't see how this is any different.

Only in trying to salvage things historical, including some portal entrances. But courtesy of inflexible regs, not possible here. Restoring the Cutoff will cause the loss of old, abandoned structures in some cases.

Under the Clinton Gore administration, Gore led a huge effort to clean up regulations that were past their time. That needs to happen once in a while. And in some cases, regulators need some ability to use common sense, like in a case like this, where 24 feet was beyond insignificant.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:32 pm Only in trying to salvage things historical, including some portal entrances. But courtesy of inflexible regs, not possible here. Restoring the Cutoff will cause the loss of old, abandoned structures in some cases.

Under the Clinton Gore administration, Gore led a huge effort to clean up regulations that were past their time. That needs to happen once in a while. And in some cases, regulators need some ability to use common sense, like in a case like this, where 24 feet was beyond insignificant.

If we're debating the 24ft, yes it seems silly. But in today's stupidly litigious society that may be the difference in a law suit, if say a train stopped in the tunnel and there was an incident. While we as a society should be examining and getting rid of foolish regulations. If it's on the books at the time of line rehabilitation, then it needs to be followed.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:32 pm Only in trying to salvage things historical, including some portal entrances. But courtesy of inflexible regs, not possible here. Restoring the Cutoff will cause the loss of old, abandoned structures in some cases.

It's a bare rock portal, there's not much of a historical appeal to it.

Doesn't the other portal have the date it opened?

Kaback9 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:27 pm

Roadgeek Adam wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:49 pm

photobug56 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 12, 2023 5:00 pm I don't care about the 24 feet, but losing the portal built back then. And while I get safety regs, having to chop 24 feet of a tunnel a tiny bit too long under current safety regs to not have a ventilation system does seem a tad silly. Regardless, it's a needed step to get more of the line back into service.

As I've said many times to a lot of old men who whine about track tear outs, we don't have to save everything. If we have to erase a portal for a tunnel in the middle of nowhere, then we should do it.

While not how I would word it, I do agree. So many tunnels have had to be ripped out or lowered for freight improvements. I don't see how this is any different.

Just bluntness cause I'm tired of arguing with old rail fogies. It's just a persona that we don't need to save everything (road and rail). We should keep what's necessary. This blasting of 24ft is helping revive service. We can trade a portal and 24ft of tunnel for a train service.

photobug56 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 3:46 pm Doesn't the other portal have the date it opened?

The one that didn't get blown to pieces? Yeah?