Northern Branch Project in NJ

[daveklepper]

The Swiss firm Stadler built the River Line diesel light rail cars (DLRV's).  They manufacture a complete line, including dual-mode diesel and electric, dual-power electric, regular light rail, light rail modified for crush-resistance to FRA requirements, combination high floor and low floor loading, you name it an they will build it for you and it won't fail in any way when put into service.   An extremely reliable company.   And their stuff is quiet, at least on the exterior, and one should not expect the interior of a diesel self-propelled car to be as quiet as an electric, more like a regular bus.

I see nothing wrong with initial diesel operation of the Northern Branch, with or without FRA compliance, and later electrification if patronage climbs to make it worthwhile.   And a few European cities allow diesel light rail cars in local interurban or suburban service to access the center city on otherwise electric tram tracks, so it need not be dual-mode.   (In Germany, usually the diesel light rail line is an ex-DB branch bought by the local area government, and the city tram lines or Staatbahn is run by the city, and the two cooperate.  These include old historic cities with narrow streets with the tram tracks.  In one case, the trams, streetcars, are narrow gauge and there is three-rail track for the diesel light rail cars.   There are examples in Austria and Poland as well.)

And there are plenty of light rail operations that share tracks with diesel freight, not just the River LIne, but even the last mile and one half of the Newark Subway (light rail), Salt Lake City's TRAX, the Portland, OR MAX, San Diego's line to San Ysidro, and all go through residential neighborhoods where a lot of noise would not be welcome.  New low-power  switcher locomotives aren't than noisy to begin with, and quieting them further is old technology, your basic family car already has the same technology as smaller scale.   High-powered diesels with whining turbocharges and dynamic brake resistor fans in the roof are an order of magnitude noisier.

[paulsafety]

AFAIK, the DMUs on the River line are diesel-electrics. This said, the design could by modified with some engineering work to run from catenary or third rail, too. However, where is the space for a transformer, which is necessary if you have high-tension a.c.? Furthermore, they can only operate in time-slots without freight-traffic because they do not meet FRA-standards for collision-resistance.

The Colorado Diesel Railcar DMUs are diesel-hydraulics. Modifying them to run on both diesel (on the Long Branch Line) and electric-traction (tunnels into Manhattan) would require to put in some electric motors that drive the axles. This would come close to designing an entire new DMU. Of course, catenary on the Long Branch line - for modern, high-tension a.c. - would solve this problem. Electric traction offers many advantages for commuter railroads, notably regenerative braking and the higher short-term-ratings of electric motors. 

Who makes these kinds of units? And where in the world are they already in service?-a.s.

More details about the River Line units -- http://www.stadlerrail.com/file/pdf/SNJ_en.pdf

An online search function for "where in the world are they already in service" -- http://www.stadlerrail.com/default.asp?n=182&ms=7&h=1&id=175&s=2

More details about the River Line -- http://world.nycsubway.org/us/phila/riverline.html

More detail about Colorado Railcar DMU - http://www.coloradorailcar.com/dmuhome.htm

 

 

[al-in-chgo]

AFAIK, the DMUs on the River line are diesel-electrics. This said, the design could by modified with some engineering work to run from catenary or third rail, too. However, where is the space for a transformer, which is necessary if you have high-tension a.c.? Furthermore, they can only operate in time-slots without freight-traffic because they do not meet FRA-standards for collision-resistance.

The Colorado Diesel Railcar DMUs are diesel-hydraulics. Modifying them to run on both diesel (on the Long Branch Line) and electric-traction (tunnels into Manhattan) would require to put in some electric motors that drive the axles. This would come close to designing an entire new DMU. Of course, catenary on the Long Branch line - for modern, high-tension a.c. - would solve this problem. Electric traction offers many advantages for commuter railroads, notably regenerative braking and the higher short-term-ratings of electric motors. 

Who makes these kinds of units? And where in the world are they already in service?-a.s.

[martin.knoepfel]

AFAIK, the DMUs on the River line are diesel-electrics. This said, the design could by modified with some engineering work to run from catenary or third rail, too. However, where is the space for a transformer, which is necessary if you have high-tension a.c.? Furthermore, they can only operate in time-slots without freight-traffic because they do not meet FRA-standards for collision-resistance.

The Colorado Diesel Railcar DMUs are diesel-hydraulics. Modifying them to run on both diesel (on the Long Branch Line) and electric-traction (tunnels into Manhattan) would require to put in some electric motors that drive the axles. This would come close to designing an entire new DMU. Of course, catenary on the Long Branch line - for modern, high-tension a.c. - would solve this problem. Electric traction offers many advantages for commuter railroads, notably regenerative braking and the higher short-term-ratings of electric motors. 

[chefjavier]

Who's paying for the project?

[alphas]

JT22CW: 

According to our local newspaper (State news section, not the editorial pages) and local TV stations, (1) SEPTA receives about 80% of all Commonwealth public transportation funding in PA, and (2) much of the proposed funds to be derived from Rendell's plans to toll I-80 (with toll booths placed across the state) is to go to PA public transit funding with no change in SEPTA's percentage.  And in the rural northern and central tiers of PA, I-80 is indeed their "lifeline".   I-80 is crediting with saving them from desolation since it was opened up in the late 1960's, including some research studies performed by Penn State University in the '70's, '80's, and '90's.   

Rendell has not been ignoring public transit recently--its become a major issue in PA politics even before the I-80 tolling proposal.  Under pressure, mainly from the SE PA area and the various public transportation union locals throughout the state, he's started trying to create a more stable funding mechanism.  However, he keeps running into problems since he always plays politics by trying to have SEPTA funding somehow provided way out of proportion from the rest of the state rather than forcing the SE PA area to bite the bullet and come up with a method of better local funding for SEPTA.   The tolling of I-95 for the (approx.) 55 miles its in PA suggested by the I-80 area legislators to support SEPTA actually makes sense, due both to the availablity of EasyPass on the East Coast and, especially, the ability of the Truckers and non-local drivers to use I-295 in NJ to avoid paying tolls (or just stay on the NJ TP which many do to avoid all the local traffic on I-295).   Even those non-locals driving into Philly from the north or south can take I-295 towards Camden and cross over the bridges to get into the city so they would only have to pay a one-way bridge toll.

 

[JT22CW]

And a very, very major part of the expected income from tolling I-80 is earmarked to help out SEPTA in the Philadelphia area (Rendell is former mayor of Philly and that's where his big political support comes from)

As far as SEPTA goes, Rendell seems to ignore it just as much as any other PA governor.  SEPTA isn't the sole transit agency in PA, besides (take PA Transit in Pittsburgh, LANTA in the ABE area, Colts in Scranton, MCTA in the Poconos, several others).  It's the NIMBYs that call free highways their "lifeline" that are the troublemakers.  Additional toll revenue won't be a boon to SEPTA at all; it won't get the Schuylkill Valley "Metro" (ripoff project) off the ground, nor would it help get rail service into northern Montgomery County no matter who the operator.

Back on topic...the Hudson Bergen LR is already costing over $107 million per mile. That's a project whose costs have gotten way out of control, and extending it to Tenafly will make things yet more outrageous in terms of spending on it. 

[alphas]

JT22CW is only part right about the resistance to tolls on I-80 in PA when he mentions the truckers.   There's even more resistance from the local folks who were originally told by governor Rendell that there would only be a few toll booths near both Ohio and NJ in an attempt to catch the cross-state traffic.  After the legislation was passed, the govenor's office then proposed about 11 or more toll booths across the state which will catch a lot of local traffic, especially in the rural areas.  And a very, very major part of the expected income from tolling I-80 is earmarked to help out SEPTA in the Philadelphia area (Rendell is former mayor of Philly and that's where his big political support comes from).   Needless to say,  the residents of PA's central and northern tiers don't take kindly to having to pay for the Philadelphia area's transit funding.  Newest proposal from non-SE legislators is to establish toll booths on I-95 in SE PA and dedicate their revenue to SEPTA.  Of course, that's being resisted by those living in the SE area who want the other parts of the state to pay and Rendell has said he will veto it if passed.

[paulsafety]

A little light reading for anyone interested:

http://www.northernbranchcorridor.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Branch

Paul F.

[daveklepper]

I presume that the fans that tell me they see freight cars on sidings along the River Line are correct in assuming that freight service is provided at night.   Since it is a night service, don't expect many fan photographs.   To quiet diesels doesn't take much modification except on the highest horsepower units.

I assumed that the light rail extension we are talking about would continue the same electrification system asw the existing HLR.   Then an electric freight locomotive might be applicable.   Possibly built fron an old diesel switcher the prime mover and generator removed, and the necessary control equipment and pantograph added.

[JT22CW]

WADR, it sounds like you're grabbing at straws.  The state of the railroads is the state of the railroads.  No locomotive manufacturer is going to fall over itself to build a "whisper-quiet" diesel in order to accommodate a timeshare-waiver constriction that could have been avoided by using FRA-compatible passenger rail vehicles, never mind avoiding a lot of extravagance related to rebuilding infrastructure (some of the stuff they do to LRT stations in NJ is absurd in its expense) and duplicating rolling stock plus the shops to maintain same (new facilites in Jersey City and Bloomfield, several others; meanwhile, the Atlantic City Line that runs askew to the River Line in Pennsauken has to run all of its equipment to Kearny NJ).  AFAIK, all of the current CSX operations alongside the River Line have been restricted to Pavonia Yard; I have heard of nobody tracking any local freight operations, although there are certainly railfans out there that would have opportunity to do so.  (It'd be certainly amusing to see CSX run a "second-hand electric freight locomotive" that formerly resided in "some trolley museum", in territory that was never electrified, that Conrail certainly has no wish to electrify, and the new owners NJT have demonstrated that they do not wish to electrify either; and that still doesn't mitigate the noise from squealing flanges, slamming couplers and flat spots with their rapid-fire percussion.)

While freight operations are pushed into a very narrow window, or in some cases eliminated altogether, as a result, the trucking industry makes even more gains in terms of market share.  (As far as the trucking industry goes, they're almost to the point of terrorism, especially when it comes to resisting putting tolls on certain highways; they're even assuming a threatening posture.  One big example is the proposal for the state of PA to put tolls on I-80 through the state.)  We need far less of that.

As for the light rail "success", one must ask how much of that hinges on the frequency and the low fare.  One way to measure that is to start cutting off-peak frequency, raising fares and redoubling fare inspection.  The lower you cut your fares, the more that operating costs must rely on the taxpayer.  Corzine, certainly, has been looking at ways to tighten purse strings in New Jersey; and I'm sure he has not ruled out attempts at deriving more revenue from the light rail networks of NJT in order to keep them going.

[daveklepper]

Diesel locomotives don't have to be noisy.  If speeds are restricted, a lot of horn blowing can be avoided.  If worse comes to worse, a second-hand electric freight locomotive can be restored to health from some trolley museum.

I have not heard about any complaints about CSX night freight operations on the River Line even though the route goes through the main street of several residential suburbs.  The system is considered a success by most people.

It is possible to build a diesel freight locomotive that is as quiet as a modern bus or even quieter.   Technical papers on this have been published in the magzines Noise Control Engineering and Sound and Vibration on this subject.

[JT22CW]

Indeed it does mean the end of rail freight. Timeshare waivers push freight operation into late night hours, when nobody wants to be woken up by a loud diesel going through town, and they limit passenger operation.

It also furthers the war on unionized labor. DBOMs make lots of promises to their motormen, which they fail to uphold.  Our present "pro-business" focus in government results in labor intimidation to the point of terrorizing them.

Passengers may benefit for a while from the low fares, but in the long run, they'll have to pay the piper since the state won't be able to keep up with the costs of operation unless they raise the fares or increase taxes.  They'll also get highly weary of riding in low-floor trolleys with transit-bus seats for long distances; these cars were acquired with the intent of squeezing up to 400 people inside them, remember.  (And of course, the Hudson-Bergen LRT won't ever go to Manhattan either.)

Thanks to timeshare waivers, operations like this during the day (when they would be tolerable by the public) will never be possible again. This is on the former Camden & Amboy (today's NJT "River Line") in Burlington NJ, in the middle of Broad Street. The PRR's "Nellie Bly" train between New York and Atlantic City used to run here.

[daveklepper]

Light Rail need not mean the end of rail frieght.  Time separation is possible, as on NJT's River Line (diesel LRV) and the last mile of the NJT's Newark Subway (electric LRV).   Other examples include San Diego, Salt Lake City and many European examples.  

[JT22CW]

I don't see anything on Mr. Steinberg's website about the Northern Branch. Where would it be, on there?

There's a bit of a tug-of-war concerning what kind of passenger service to put on that rail line (ex-Erie, originally the Northern Railroad of NJ between Jersey City and Nyack NY). A number of passenger advocacy groups want light rail, in the form of an extension of the Hudson-Bergen LRT system; this would mean low fares over long distances, but also less comfortable seating, lower revenue, and NJT having to buy yet another railroad line from Conrail (which further means the end of freight service on this line).

During the late George Warrington's tenure, the idea of using FRA DMU was advanced, with a "teaser" suggestion (false, IMHO) that the line would be upgraded to allow direct access to Manhattan (how this would be done was not explicitly stated, especially with the line remaining unelectrified under such scenario); while this would allow mixed freight and passenger operation, it would be quite scaled-down (only way to make this work would be to have service frequency similar to the LRT idea), but the thing that kills the original idea is that the intent was to connect the DMU to the LRT at Tonnelle Avenue in North Bergen NJ (instead of going all the way to Hoboken Terminal), which would be utter folly.

Both projects have Tenafly NJ as their northern terminus. This is not far north enough, IMHO. Northeastern Bergen County is quite congested on the roads, and the sooner a passenger service returns to this part of the state, the better.

[chefjavier]

Click the link and what do you think? Do you think is going to increase revenue & passergers?

 

http://www.hobokenterminal.com/index.html