Poughkeepsie Bridge Freight through Ct in general

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know if the Poughkeepsie bridge will evr be repaired and put back in service. Ct is in bad shape trying to ship goods through the state. They need to put some rail back and soon. The interstates are jammed an they are about at capacity and can't be expanded. One idea is to put trailers on flat cars and run them border to border.
The bridge used to handle alot of e-w traffic and alot of it was for Ct. I believe since the fire on the bridge it has caused expensive re-routes. Working on putting to paper our round country tour on Amtrak sleeper car. went through 25 states

[daveklepper]

Actually, before the fire, there was only one through train across the bridge each way each day, as reported in the Maybrook article in Classic Trains recently. It was in Penn Central's interest to consolidate all New England traffic and most New York City area traffic at Selkirk Yard, including running freight up the west side of the Hudson and then down the east side. (Still being done by CSX) They kept the single through train up because they were obligated to provide the EL with interchange as part of the merger. For a while they tried running through East Coast service in addition, using the L&NE or the L&HR as a link, but the short lines wanted too much money and they reverted to the Selkirk route. I'm sure their accountants were happy when the bridge burned because it meant less trains to run and less track to maintain. Local service is provided on the old Maybrook by one or more of the short lines and regionals, possibly including the Providence and Worcester or even Gildford. I believe Metro North now has ownership of the Maybrook line itiself as a bank against future "crosstown" commuter service and also be move equipment economically between the Hudson Division (reached by a connection at Beacon), the Harlem (at Brewster), and New Haven (Milford) without going all the way to New York City and back! My own idea is the Metro North and Norfolk Southern should rebuild the bridge to provide Connecticut with decent competitive freight service and the track should be paved as a one line bus-only road on the bridge, with buses scheduled like the trains, so there would be no conflict, and then Metro North would have added value for its trains, with the bus connecting with its Port Jervice and Valley lines on the west side, the Hudson at Poughkeepsie, and the Brewster and Bridgeport. Eventually, when traffic builds up as employment in the suburbs increases, trains would replace the every-two-hour or so bus service. There is no, zero, no, public transportation in this corridor today despite its proximity to a major metroplitan area. There is "crosstown" bus service farther south, in the Harrison-White Plains-Tarrytown area.

[daveklepper]

Oh yes, I did forget the possible eventual use by really highspeed (incremental) Amtrak trains linking Boston and Baltimore-Washington on schedules bypassing New York and Metro North curvey trackage to be competitive. It would take quite a bit of upgrading on the Maybrook line and possibly a new railroad required west of the Hudson.

[gfjwilmde]

As I recall, that bridge at Poughkeepsie has been abandoned for more than three decades. I think I also read in one of the areas' local newpapers that the west Hudson River portion of that abandoned roadbed has been turned into a nature trail. I was young and living in Brooklyn, New York when that bridge burned. It would not be economically sound just to rebuild something that has been rusting for so long. Yes, I agree with the notion that New York City and New England can benefit from having a more direct rail connection. That bridge should have been rebuilt many years ago, before Conrail even came into exsistance. The old New York Central freight line, which connected with the Hudson River line of the Metro North Commuter Railroad, was at one time how alot of the freight trains entered the city. If the greedy ceo's and other management or board officials would stop stealing from their own rail companies and actually concentrate on actually running trains, they will see the feasibility of having a more realistic rail connection with New York City and New England at that site. Freight trains would have an easier time making it across to New England at Poughkeepsie, than traveling up to Albany where I hear the trek through the mountains is sometimes brutal. Plus, it would open up many possibilities for expanding their own rail business. The economics is there, but that fact is no one has foresight, either by choice or just plain stupid. I on the other hand know how this could work and benefit the economies of the northeastern region, especially the boroughs of Queens, Brooklyn and the counties of Long Island. Lower New England would have a big boost in their economies as well. It not a pipe dream people. It can happen if the bribe taking elected officials want it to happen, and pu***he railroads into making it happen.



GLENN
A R E A L RAILROADER!!!!!
A R E A L AMTRAKER!!!!!
A T R U E L Y DISGUSTED AND DISGRUNTLED AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Paul3]

Hey, I'd love to see the Maybrook line reopen, but it ain't gonna happen because there's no traffic to justify it.

There is very little made in New England that would go by rail, which leaves containers and trailers. Those are a little tough to do under the Shore Line wire, and even if you could fit modern TOFC and COFC on the ancient NY&NE RoW though Hartford...where would they go? The only logical place is Boston, and there's no South Boston Freight Terminal anymore...not really. The area's all getting built up, and the mayor isn't going to let anything get in the way of a new South Boston waterfront.

And that's not even counting the question of who would ship to Boston? Cargo ships like either New York/New Jeresy (cheaper), or Canada (faster). Boston harbor is neither.

I'd love to see a revival, but there's nothing to justify it's return...yet.

Paul A. Cutler III
*****************
Weather Or No Go New Haven
*****************

[oltmannd]

There really isn't a lot of carload freight coming out of southern NE these days and the route through to the southern tier and then on to Buffalo isn't very competitive for intermodal traffic, so, I suspect the Poughkeepsie Br. is irrelevant for rail service.

Southern NE is a good destination for truck traffic, though. You could make a case for improved intermodal rail service, but that would best be done by routing through NYC, either using the existing rail tunnel under the Hudson at night and then over Hell Gate, or by putting money into a new rail tunnel.

However, that crosses so many rail company jurisdictional, cultural and political boundaries, I wonder if it could ever happen, no matter how much economic sense it makes.

[Anonymous]

The New Haven never really seemed to have enough freight traffic to keep going, except in the war. Whether there is enough freight traffic to justify reopening a bridge... who knows?

The thread makes me wonder, though, if whoever owns the Cedar Hill yard outside New Haven (NS? CSX?) ever considered using some of it for intermodal load and offload... or if it would even be worth it.

Erik

[jchnhtfd]

Sadly I have to agree with the guys above who mention that there really isn't enough conventional rail freight traffic to re-open the Poughkeepsie Bridge -- much as I would like to see it happen. Structurally, it's sound enough for rail service, even though it hasn't been used for a while (they made 'em tough in those days!).

There is another 'detail' that hasn't really been mentioned, though: on the Maybrook side I don't know the status of the ROW. On the east side, the track is very much there, and used from time to time. I believe the operator is the Housatonic Railroad out of North Canaan, CT. Much of that line, though, is very old. Not only would it need some real work to get any speed on it, but the alignment is crooked (to put it mildly) and there are a number of low clearance points; you couldn't do double stacks or anything else large.

As someone also pointed out, where would the freight go? Hartford, CT??? Why? -- there's nothing there!

On the other hand (this is schizo day here...), Dave has a very good potential idea, and it is one which I proposed to the CT State DOT some years ago (drew a big yawn): refurbi***he bridge, fix the alignment problems on both the line to Ansonia-Derby and the Waterbury - Hartford line, and run a service like the iron highway on up to Palmer, MA from Maybrook. And back. It would work and it would be cheaper than trying fix I-84 (which is one of the worst interstates anywhere in the country). However, ConnDOT has such a terrific pro-highway bias that I'm afraid it ain't never going to happen.

Never mind public transportation. ConnDOT has been trying to shut down its rail services ever since they began, never mind expanding them. But Dave again is quite right -- good commuter rail on that line would be a real help. Ever been around Danbury CT between 3 and 7 in the evening? Take my advice. Don't.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I rode over the New Haven's Poughkeepsie Bridge on a fan trip from New Haven to Middletown, NY on the NYO&W from Maybrook to Middletown in 1951. Then the New Haven interchanged cars with the Erie, the Lehigh & New England, the Lehigh & Hudson River, the New York Ontario & Western (NYO&W) and the New York Central.

Today the only connections are with the former Erie-Lacawana, Conrail Southern Tier Line, and the Susquehanna. I doubt if there would be enough freight traffic going through the Maybrook gateway to interchange with either the Norfolk Southern or the Susquehanna to justify keeping the line open.

[Overmod]

Keep in mind that the potential traffic for a Hudson River crossing is by no means limited to traffic on 84. All the stuff going across the various New York City-area crossings, particularly GWB to that miserable Cross Bronx, is amenable to being 'mini-bridged' as described above.

Stuff to the general New York City area can be TOFC or various flavors of container intermodal, depending on precisely where and how it's best handled in the various places it will go -- I can see potential for any of the current technologies, from Iron Highway through to RailRunners. It's moot to wonder whether there is formal 'rail traffic' to extended points east, such as Hartford or the Boston area -- that's not what the trains would do. What they'd do is reduce the rubber-tired congestion, load, and other factors on the area roads. For instance, assume that traffic from the south and west, instead of going across the Sheridan, the Cross Bronx, or Cross Westchester, were routed preferentially up the west side of the Hudson, for instance on the 287 loop, then sent to an appropriate intermodal transfer point of adequate size and capacity where the loads are shuttled to logical points of transfer back to road -- north and east, yes, but also south into Westchester and the New York/west Connecticut region in counterflow.

Of course, I think there's a much better solution for doing this than anything involving that nonexpandable bridge, which is the proposal for putting a double-track railroad in the replacement for the Tappan Zee. You have all the joy of state subsidy (the 'all-New York' routing for Metro-North trains from Port Jervis etc. into NYC) and all sorts of relatively clean connection -- Piermont is still wagging its tail as an opportunity on the west shore, with possible connection via the old Northern branch, link to ex-West Shore River Line via connection at Blauvelt, and perhaps reconstruction of the now 'missing link' to the Pascack Valley line (which would give a very quick connection to 287 south of where it joins 87 and turns east, for all the stuff coming from the south/west to NYC)

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't have full dual-main capability all the way, there's little point in trying to run this kind of operation, either as an 'iron bridge' to take congestion (and pollution and excess fuel consumption, etc.) off the road crossings, or as a flexible multidestination funnel. That high bridge at Poughkeepsie would forever be a bottleneck on a dual-main operation, short though it may effectively be (and with at least the theoretical possibility that multiple 'yard' leads could be provided at each end of the bridge to allow phased directional running on just that short stretch).

Whether there's a future for separate directional running with one main at Poughkeepsie and the other at Tappan Zee/Tarrytown (to keep capital cost including 'environmental impact' crap to a minimum on the new bridge) is one for the bean counters. I mention it as a possibility -- without comment on whether it's hairbrained or not.

[daveklepper]

I thought the Poughkeepsie Bridge was built as double track and then single-tracked as an economomy measure, but the structure is there for double track with clearances sufficient for double-stack. If I am wrong, correct me. But the Tappan Zee Bridge is also a good idea and can be used for freight to New England by going north on Metro North's Hudson Line to Beacon, up the connection to the Maybrook Line and then east to Milford and New Haven. Freight to New York would follow the commuter passenger route south on the Hudson to its new connection with Harlem River Yard. Freight to Long Island can go from Harlem River Yard to the Hell Gate or go the long way around via Milford and New Rochelle to the Hell Gate. A "crosstown" commuter service via Danbury and Waterbury to Milford would also be possible.

[Valleyline]

Connecticut highways definitely need relief from truck traffic and I agree with the previous comment about the Connecticut DOT's highway mind set. However, the situation is becoming so bad, and the highway options so expensive, that the DOT will have to face up to it whether they want to or not. Unfortunately, a couple of key east/west routes that could be used have been torn up, and the remaining east west route, Amtrak's Shoreline and Metro North, have neither the traffic capacity to handle double stacks, or the clearances. I believe this will eventually develop into a federal issue as much of CT's truck traffic is interstate.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Poughkeepsie Bridge was built as a double-track bridge but was set up as a gantlet during a rebuilding in the 1920's for engineering reasons. Heavier freight locomotives were being introduced and the gantlet allowed the greater weight of the new locomotives to be centered on the bridge span.

[Dutchrailnut]

They had to gauntlett the tracks to accomodate 1960's type diesels and cars.
todays diesels and cars would be way to heavy for poughkeepsie bridge.
The right off way on west end is gone, and the east end is more curvy than NEC.
speed at best was 40 mph on right off way with lots of 10 mph in cities like Danbury and Derby Jct, Devon wye etc.
The bridge itself in the 60's was restricted to 10 mph and no braking or excesive powering.
The concrete viaduct in LaGrange is gone, and East end Approch of bridge(the burned part) would never see traffic, as Nimby's would never allow it.
In New haven days Coal was still shipped to New England and General merchandise shipped out.
We have no more industries in New England, and Fuel no longer travels by rail.
Idea off trucks traveling by rail may work in Europe but a trip from Maybrook to say Cedar hill would take 7 hours or more plus loading and unloading. a Truck runs same segment in 1 to 2 hours.
The Poughkeepsie bridge was absolete in 60's and in 2005 is not salvageble anymore.

[Anonymous]

Any of you realize the operating conditions of that Poughkeepsie bridge when it was being used? Talking to a friend who was an engineer having run trains over that bridge, the max speed you could go was 7 mph. You could not use the brakes on the bridge either. Also the bridge dipped down in the middle, so halfway over it you had to start pulling like a son of a gun. Sometimes trains would get stuck on the bridge, had to wait for a helper locomotive to come along. Apparently going any faster on the bridge, or using brakes, could actually hurt the bridge.

[daveklepper]

I guess no further comment necessary. The Tappan Zee solution looks better. And it could also incorporate the high-speed Boston - DC bypass of New York.