New Jersey Transit plans to build a new station in North Brunswick between its Princeton Junction and Jersey Avenue stations. The station will include a flyover, an overpass for trains that will allow them to move from the southbound track to the northbound track without crossing any other track on the Northeast Corridor. The station will be part of a transit village that NJT has been trying to build in this part of the state for many years. It will be located at an old Johnson and Johnson complex on US Route 1.
The station is estimated to cost abut $30 million and the flyover estimate is several hundred million dollars.
Here is a link to the article which appeared in today's Star-Ledger: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_nj_transit_station_planned.html
I understand building a station on the J&J property, but what is the reason for building a flyover? Trains on the Northeast Corrider seem to work fine with the existing crossovers.
sandyhookken I understand building a station on the J&J property, but what is the reason for building a flyover? Trains on the Northeast Corrider seem to work fine with the existing crossovers.
Actually there are problems coming out of Jersey Ave. station and having to cross over three tracks in the face of traffic. If one train is out of tune, the Jersey Ave. train gets stuck or sticks the others.. Amtrak can't afford slowing down Acelas and Regionals...so the flyover or a duck under will do everybody good.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6Actually there are problems coming out of Jersey Ave. station and having to cross over three tracks in the face of traffic.
Yes, the article talks about these problems. And NJT seems to believe that the fly over will allow a much smoother, faster turn around to send outbound trains back in.
John WR http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_nj_transit_station_planned.html
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/new_nj_transit_station_planned.html
activated
The best design IMHO of this station would be for trains to enter a station track ( A ) and clear the 4 main line tracks. then either proceed on to Trenton by reentering main 1 (?) or for turn around trains to enter the loop flyover to a track (B) and be able to wait at station until scheduled departure time. Platforms on the present tracks 1 & 4 would constrain traffic somewhat. realize this would be more expensive.
blue streak 1The best design IMHO of this station would be for trains to enter a station track ( A ) and clear the 4 main line tracks. then either proceed on to Trenton by reentering main 1
New Jersey Transit is building the loop for the trains that do not go to Trenton. It runs local trains that end at Jersey Avenue, many miles short of Trenton, and return to New York. The fly over will turn the trains without having them cross the tracks which means that all other service on the two center tracks must be halted while a train is crossing those tracks.
While I don't disagree with the need for a flyover for operating reasons, I would state that its cost will mean that it won't get built.
CSSHEGEWISCHits cost will mean that it won't get built.
Perhaps you are right. "Hundreds of millions of dollars" is a lot of money. Yet, according to the article, NJT believes it would save money.
Some years ago they built a rail yard in Morrisville, PA. Some questioned that decision because it was outside of their state. NJT argued that without the yard they were running trains across the tracks in the Trenton yard in front of their own north bound trains. There was no space in New Jersey for a yard south of the station so they needed to go across the Delaware River to Morrisville. And that is what they did.
CSSHEGEWISCH While I don't disagree with the need for a flyover for operating reasons, I would state that its cost will mean that it won't get built.
`
Let us look at this from AMTRAK's perspective. The long range plans for the NEC NYP - WASH are to have the whole length 4 tracks. AMTRAK would not want any new station or rebuilding of present station to interfeer with the fluidity of that route. A station platform can be built adjaecent to tracks 1 or 4 but station trackS A & B be located on the other side of each platform. Additionally a flyoveer ( more likely ) or duck under there to allow turn backs for coommuter equipment.
AMTRAK does not want any more constraints to traffic with its planned 160 MPH ACELA service on tracks 2 & 3. Also the ability of trains on tracks 1 & 4 to pass each other . AMTRAK would want all locations of commuter equipment returns to build said flyovers for MARC, SEPTA, NJ TRANSIT, future Deleware commuter rail.to
blue streak 1Let us look at this from AMTRAK's perspective.
Do you think Amtrak will be willing to fund all or part of the fly over?
John WR Do you think Amtrak will be willing to fund all or part of the fly over?
blue streak 1BTW the flyover will save NJ transit un needed train miles, and actually would probably enable another 1 or 2 train sets during rush hours.
Yes. The article suggests that.
Why Can't the Northeast Corridor remove all of the remaining flat junctions and convert them into flying junctions. A good example is the one where NJ Transit's Raritan Valley line joins the Northeast Corridor in Elizabeth NJ.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
X
millions
Several hundred million dollars for a 20mph maximum 'flyover' that only moves transit equipment over 2 and 3 track? Someone from the Obama Administration must have provided that number...
I am not altogether sure whether a sharp curve and duckunder would not work just fine for this operation ... ISTR a turnaround for MUs, like this, that was almost ridiculously sharp but worked, I believe, with Silverliners. Are push-pull consists any more difficult to get around curves? And curving around does not require the crew to walk the length of the train to get to the other cab...
Yes, taking crossovers out of the picture would almost be essential for operation at the proposed speeds, even if it were 'safe' to be conducting multiple crossover moves with MU stock against the flow of traffic on 2 track...
RME
You have a point. Never thought of it that way. Here's the thing; It's bad enough that Northeast railroading is about 25 years behind current rail technology. We should now be operating high speed passenger trains at 188-200MPH! like the TGV in France does and fares between Washington DC and New York City should be about $5-10 one way. That's how cheap rail travel is in France. You know what! I don't approve of what the oil industry has done to the railroads. Too many cars, too much pollution. I live in Columbus New Jersey in Burlington county and there all still too many cars on the road in this region. Can't even drive without some SOB behind my back. Screw the oil industries , they're all going to hell with their stupid car commercials. They're all evil people!
There are many places fly over or duck unders would do wonders. But the reality of the costs for each, in the hundreds of millions each, put such ideas out of reach of the taxpayers of NJ...even with Federal help it is virtually unconscionable.
There you go again with the, let me paraphrase Carl Sagan, "millyuns and millyuns" to wonder at.
Show me the actual cost of a 20 mph flyover or duckunder with relatively uncomplicated construction access and already-dedicated real estate. What kind of 'field' is the ex-J&J facility? Certainly less than a full greenfield environmental analysis... and no high-speed alignment, or heavy rail and ballast, or particularly heavy bridge construction for the span. Granted it's a skew bridge, but it will never see any heavier Cooper than an MU train with, say, a 45DP on one end...
Real estate is at a premium in NJ. Labor rates are high. Construction is expensive. Politicians are thick. Agencies, political entities, NIMBY's, are as prevalent as mosquitoes in a state known for its hosting of mosquitoes. And voters can be more revolting than all of the 18th and 19th Century revolutions combined.
But now that you mention it, there is a fly over being proposed at Jersey Ave., New Brunswick. reportedly to cost several hundred million dollars. I'm not making this up...these are real tax dollars. So you are talking billions of dollars...Everett Dirksen lives "a few thousand here and a few thousand there, and soon you are talking real money."
Overmod I am not altogether sure whether a sharp curve and duckunder would not work just fine for this operation ... RME
I am not altogether sure whether a sharp curve and duckunder would not work just fine for this operation ...
Duckunder ? I cannot imagine the construction problems. Bridging over the duckunder would cause major slowdowns on tracks for years of construction. The clearance distance for tracks 1 - 4 should not be over what 80 ft ? That should allow for for the construction of supports on either side to roll on a girder bridge for the flyover. Anyway there will still need some distance for the curves to be completed.
Any traffic on tracks 1 - 4 needs to be separate from trains waiting at a station. so need station tracks. See my post of jan 08 11;11PM.
henry6But now that you mention it, there is a fly over being proposed at Jersey Ave., New Brunswick. reportedly to cost several hundred million dollars. I'm not making this up...these are real tax dollars.
As I understand it, Henry, NJT would finance the flyover with savings on their commuter service. Even now NJT makes a profit on its Northeast Corridor trains. The flyover would allow them to increase that profit.
I only mention duckunder as another construction option. You would not want to interfere with track tuning on 2 and 3 track at any point after the improvements are done... and they will have been done imho by the time this station project is advanced enough to justify extensive turnaround of equipment in the North Brunswick area.
There is no problem with capacity for existing platforms on 1 and 4 track -- they already have commuter trains making the same kinds of stops, and there is no capex difficulty that far out. The whole point of the exercise is to get rid of ANY impediment to practical high-speed operation on 2 and 3, even if this is near the curve where there is a permanent speed restriction (I remember this as being at Jersey Avenue, close to where Rt 1 goes over the main, but could be mistaken). That means, in particular, NO CROSSOVERS.
As noted, I am not expecting the 'flyover' to involve any kind of turnaround loop, or operate at anything remotely requiring high speed. Trains would go up and over after the platform stop, 'reverse' moving onto 1 track briefly then proceeding north (track east) to the NY-bound platform. The only time-critical part of that operation, as far as track occupancy is concerned, is the period that the train is fouling the switch. (if I were doing this, I would have a 'hostler' at one end or the other of a train flying over, to minimize the actual 'dwell' time on 1 track for MU trains. You would only need one person, who would board at the rear of the train, ride over the flyover, reverse the train quickly, and then cross back over at that end of the station for the next movement. While this is occurring, the regular crew can be walking the length of the train.)
I would expect the crossover trackage should be capable of accommodating multiple trains, perhaps even incorporate a small holding yard on the east side of the project. Be interesting to see a detailed plan.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.