Hudson River Rail crossings

[Dinker]

Here's a question that maybe someone knows the answer to: what is the first Hudson river rail crossing north of the tunnels into Manhattan, who owns it, how many tracks are there and when was it built?

I've poked around on the internet a bit but couldn't find too much. Thanks.

 

[The Metropolitan]

Isn't there an abandoned rail bridge near Poughkeepsie that is considerably higher than the river? Would this be it?

 

[PRR 60]

Isn't there an abandoned rail bridge near Poughkeepsie that is considerably higher than the river? Would this be it?

Yes, it is. The Poughkeepsie Bridge, opened to rail traffic in 1889, was the first rail crossing of the Hudson south of Albany. The PRR North River Tunnels, part of the huge Manhattan Gateway project that included Penn Station, the East River Tunnels, and the Hell Gate Bridge, opened in 1910. The Hudson Tubes rail transit tunnels, now part of PATH, were opened in 1908.

 

[Dinker]

Isn't there an abandoned rail bridge near Poughkeepsie that is considerably higher than the river? Would this be it?

Yes, it is. The Poughkeepsie Bridge, opened to rail traffic in 1889, was the first rail crossing of the Hudson south of Albany. The PRR North River Tunnels, part of the huge Manhattan Gateway project that included Penn Station, the East River Tunnels, and the Hell Gate Bridge, opened in 1910. The Hudson Tubes rail transit tunnels, now part of PATH, were opened in 1908.

I'm shocked this bridge is abadoned, since as I understand trans-Hudson capacity is somewhat of an problem. Do you know who owns the bridge and when and why it was abandoned??

 

[AlanB]

I'm shocked this bridge is abadoned, since as I understand trans-Hudson capacity is somewhat of an problem. Do you know who owns the bridge and when and why it was abandoned??

Well capacity across the Hudson is really only a problem from the TappanZee Bridge and south. Poughkeepsie is simply to far north to be of value.

I'm not sure about your other questions.

 

[George Harris]

Do a search on this subject, and you will probably find out a lot. Someone closer to the territory could probably give you a lot more detail than me. It was, if I recall correctly owned by the New Haven. It was used for freight from New England to the west and south for many hears, but either after Penn Central or Conrail, it suffered a fire on the deck and was abandoned. It was originally built for double track but was operated as single track for many years, as it was felt to be unable to support two trains at the same time as freight car weight increased.

The next bridge north of this one is near Albany. There are two, both ex Newy York Central and now CSX, the southern one a few miles south of town is used by freight going to New England from the west, and the other, just north of town is used by Amtrak.

 

[blueman271]

The bridge was abandoned in 1974 after a fire. I went to school at Marist, which isnt even a quarter mile up river from the Poughkeepsie Bridge and for my first year and and a half there i had no idea what it was. Then one day i saw an old picture of it which a train going across it in the presidents dining room and voila the spooky black thing down the river wasn't so spooky anymore

 

[Dinker]

The bridge was abandoned in 1974 after a fire. I went to school at Marist, which isnt even a quarter mile up river from the Poughkeepsie Bridge and for my first year and and a half there i had no idea what it was. Then one day i saw an old picture of it which a train going across it in the presidents dining room and voila the spooky black thing down the river wasn't so spooky anymore

I researched it a little and apparently it used to be carried a lot of Boston to Philly and Washington passenger trains on what was called the Poughkeepsie Bridge Route. Title is currently owned by a group dedicated to turning the bridge into a park. They have a website: www.walkway.org. It was previously owned by the New Haven, Penn Central, and I think Conrail at various times.

I'm surprised that a rail bridge in Poughkeepsie wouldn't be in demand - would the extra time it would take to send trains there from the NYC area that are being routed somewhere else on the other side (CT, MA, RI or even somewhere in Westchester County). There is a (now dead, I believe) plan to build an extremely expensive tunnel under NY harbor for freight trains - would a bridge at Poughkeepsie really be of no use to the trains that would have used this tunnel?

 

[George Harris]

Poughkeepsie was always primarily a freight route and that would be the main reason to restore it to service. This bridge permits freight not destined to New York to bypass the city. Right now way too much freight in this part of the country is on the road and it should be on rails.

 

[Dinker]

Poughkeepsie was always primarily a freight route and that would be the main reason to restore it to service. This bridge permits freight not destined to New York to bypass the city. Right now way too much freight in this part of the country is on the road and it should be on rails.

Right, but you aren't surprised that people were considering a multi-billion dollar tunnel under New York harbor rather than restoring an already extant structure? Would it be that hard to route traffic through Poughkeepsie?

 

[AlanB]

Poughkeepsie was always primarily a freight route and that would be the main reason to restore it to service. This bridge permits freight not destined to New York to bypass the city. Right now way too much freight in this part of the country is on the road and it should be on rails.

Right, but you aren't surprised that people were considering a multi-billion dollar tunnel under New York harbor rather than restoring an already extant structure? Would it be that hard to route traffic through Poughkeepsie?

Actually it probably would be hard to route traffic through Poughkeepsie, at least traffic headed for NY City. Traffic headed north might do ok by crossing that bridge, but traffic headed south would have a tough time reaching the city. To my knowledge, the remaining tracks heading southbound are all owned by Metro North at this time. Metro North's commuter service is quite heavy and there is little room for many extra freight trains.

Even if they do get down to the Bronx, there is only one remaining track into Queens, which in turn would then service Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan (via truck), and Long Island.

So a 70+ mile detour to the north, followed by the same heading south in congestion would not make more sense overall in the scheme of things, than digging a new tunnel direct from NJ to Brooklyn.

 

[Dinker]

Actually it probably would be hard to route traffic through Poughkeepsie, at least traffic headed for NY City. Traffic headed north might do ok by crossing that bridge, but traffic headed south would have a tough time reaching the city. To my knowledge, the remaining tracks heading southbound are all owned by Metro North at this time. Metro North's commuter service is quite heavy and there is little room for many extra freight trains.
Even if they do get down to the Bronx, there is only one remaining track into Queens, which in turn would then service Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan (via truck), and Long Island.

So a 70+ mile detour to the north, followed by the same heading south in congestion would not make more sense overall in the scheme of things, than digging a new tunnel direct from NJ to Brooklyn.

I suppose you're right. I had thought the tunnel was in large part designed for traffic heading past NYC, but it turns out that, judging from the project's website, they are pitching for rail traffic heading to the five boroughs. Interestingly, they do seem to think they'll be able to route traffic through on Metro-North lines:

Eastbound trains would exit the tunnel along the Bay Ridge Branch between 12th and 13th Avenues in Brooklyn. Trains would continue along the Bay Ridge Branch to Fresh Pond yard and then either to the proposed intermodal facility in Maspeth, or on to one of several rail yards or rail lines, including Harlem River Yard and Oak Point Yard in the Bronx, a new Pilgrim Intermodal Yard in Long Island, back to 65th St. Yard in Brooklyn, or to points north in Westchester and Connecticut via the Hudson Line and New Haven Line.

Perhaps at night? But even then I can't imagine Metro-North would be too happy about heavy, bi-level freight trains chewing up their tracks. Is the Hudson Line uncongested at night? That would bring the Poughkeepsie Bridge route into play again...

 

[AlanB]

I suppose you're right. I had thought the tunnel was in large part designed for traffic heading past NYC, but it turns out that, judging from the project's website, they are pitching for rail traffic heading to the five boroughs. Interestingly, they do seem to think they'll be able to route traffic through on Metro-North lines:

Eastbound trains would exit the tunnel along the Bay Ridge Branch between 12th and 13th Avenues in Brooklyn. Trains would continue along the Bay Ridge Branch to Fresh Pond yard and then either to the proposed intermodal facility in Maspeth, or on to one of several rail yards or rail lines, including Harlem River Yard and Oak Point Yard in the Bronx, a new Pilgrim Intermodal Yard in Long Island, back to 65th St. Yard in Brooklyn, or to points north in Westchester and Connecticut via the Hudson Line and New Haven Line.

Perhaps at night? But even then I can't imagine Metro-North would be too happy about heavy, bi-level freight trains chewing up their tracks. Is the Hudson Line uncongested at night? That would bring the Poughkeepsie Bridge route into play again...

To a large extent, at night is how the current freight that does run into the city gets here via MN tracks and eventually the Hell Gate Bridge. So I'm sure that what's being described in that paragraph above that you quoted from the project website is counting on reversing the current traffic. In other words, if the tunnel is built, instead of some freight flowing south on MN lines, it would start flowing north.

I suspect that there is some room for additional southbound freight trains on MN's Hudson Line late at night, beyond what is already there. However when it comes to the Poughkeepsie bridge, I rather doubt that the costs to fix/replace that bridge, the increased payments to MN, as well as the fuel and crew costs to run that far north and then back south would work out cheaper than the current method of dropping things in New Jersey and trucking it over the river.

Yes the tunnel would be a huge expense, but I'm sure that a large part of the money to build it would come from Government sources, whereas monies to fix/replace the bridge would probably come largely from the freight RR itself. And then you're still left with all that extra expense to run 70 miles north and another 70 back to NYC.

 

[Dinker]

In any case, this seems like a rare case where the European saw of 'passengers vote, freight doesn't' applies to the US. The states involved aren't interested in this project, even when the federal government gave the Port Authority $100 million for it last year because everyone has a different priority. NJ is more interested in a new passenger tunnel under the Hudson and Pataki (not that he matters anymore) was more interested in a new tunnel under the East River for direct rail service to JFK. Conn., at least Chris Shays, was a big supporter but I doubt Conn. would ever contribute much money to this project, even if they stood to benefit from it.

Traffic heading for the Boston Metro area probably could cross the Hudson at Albany just as easily as at Poughkeepsie or under New York Harbor.

 

[George Harris]

You could cover the cost of the extra 70 miles of running forever out of the interest, even at a very low rate, on the difference in cost between repairing or even replacing the Poughkeepsie Bridge and the cost of a tunnel under the Hudson River / New York Harbor. Tunnels are hugely more expensive than bridges, and due to ventilation requirements, etc., more expensive to operate than bridges.

 

[AlanB]

You could cover the cost of the extra 70 miles of running forever out of the interest, even at a very low rate, on the difference in cost between repairing or even replacing the Poughkeepsie Bridge and the cost of a tunnel under the Hudson River / New York Harbor. Tunnels are hugely more expensive than bridges, and due to ventilation requirements, etc., more expensive to operate than bridges.

That's true only to a certain point George. If CSX is rebuilding the bridge with their own money, but can get the fed and local governments to build the tunnel using only a little of CSX's money, then there would be no savings for CSX to earn interest on.

 

[Dinker]

That's true only to a certain point George. If CSX is rebuilding the bridge with their own money, but can get the fed and local governments to build the tunnel using only a little of CSX's money, then there would be no savings for CSX to earn interest on.

But if the Cross-Harbor tunnel continues not to go anywhere, it will be interesting to see if interest is renewed in the Poughkeepsie Bridge. I'd imagine that CSX might also want to wait and see what happens to the Tappan Zee Bridge; there may be a rail line on its replacement and it just may have a interestingly large enough amount of extra capacity.

 

[George Harris]

I'd imagine that CSX might also want to wait and see what happens to the Tappan Zee Bridge; there may be a rail line on its replacement and it just may have a interestingly large enough amount of extra capacity.

For freight?

Suspension bridges do very interesting things under freight trains, in fact even under heavy commuter or transit trains. You would probably have a visible wave in the deck as the train went across. Even though the design of suspension bridges includes considering what happens under lanes full of trucks placed so as to cause maximum deflection, in reality this never happens. the deflection you get when you calculate the movement of a freight train really would happen. Maybe not quite to the full extent, but a large deflection would happen. (The actual load of a double stack container train is about 2/3 of the current railroad bridge design load. Coal trains get a little closer.)

 

[AlanB]

I'd imagine that CSX might also want to wait and see what happens to the Tappan Zee Bridge; there may be a rail line on its replacement and it just may have a interestingly large enough amount of extra capacity.

For freight?

Suspension bridges do very interesting things under freight trains, in fact even under heavy commuter or transit trains.

Well they haven't even decided what kind of bridge they are going to build, much less if it will have tracks on it.

 

[George Harris]

I'd imagine that CSX might also want to wait and see what happens to the Tappan Zee Bridge; there may be a rail line on its replacement and it just may have a interestingly large enough amount of extra capacity.

For freight?

Suspension bridges do very interesting things under freight trains, in fact even under heavy commuter or transit trains.

Well they haven't even decided what kind of bridge they are going to build, much less if it will have tracks on it.

Duhh - for some reason when Dinker said "Tappan Zee" my brain said "Veranzano Narrows" (sp?) Tappan Zee is cantilever now, and so would the replacement logically be, although there have been a lot of cable stayed bridges built in recent years. The probem there would be conecting rails on both ends. I was thinking that was being considered more for extended transit or commuter service with freight being unlikely, anyway.

George

 

[Dinker]

The probem there would be conecting rails on both ends. I was thinking that was being considered more for extended transit or commuter service with freight being unlikely, anyway.

You're absolutely right that was what is being considered. What I said a little unclearly is that it might be more cost-effective to add the extra capacity for freight on the new Tappan Zee than it would be to build the Cross-Harbor Tunnel. It all depends on rail capacity back and forth to the bridge, as with Pougkeepsie though, so I imagine it's the same problem as before.