Join the discussion on the following article:
New bridge approved for NS Southern Tier line
but will it also be double-tracked? or have the capacity to be double-tracked?
Can the old one be repurposed as part of a hiking or bike trail, or it is too shot? I hate to see old technology torn down…1875, 245 feet up? What a feat (sorry bout the pun).
Not to be double tracked. The approach to the bridge has quite a degree of curvature. In the EIS plan, the old iron (yes iron) bridge will not be repurposed and will come down. The document is large. https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/opdm/passenger-rail/passenger-rail-repository/Portageville_Bridge_ROD_and_FEIS_-_12-16-14.pdf
Just because the new bridge will allow trains to cross at a higher speed, that doesn’t translate to economic growth. The same amount of freight will continue to travel the line.
The new bridge is actually in the BACKGROUND. The Genesee River flows North, so a new bridge to the South would be behind the existing bridge in the image shown. If you zoom in on the image you can clearly see the black bridge girders on top of the train. Not sure why NYS or “the media” keeps getting it wrong.
It’s sad the old bridge won’t be retained. When UP built a new Kate Shelley High Bridge, they did not tear down the old one. It’s still there, unused, but there have been discussions to repurpose it to either a road or trail bridge. New York should do the same. The bridge itself could become an attraction.
Andrew, my point exactly. The structural loads on a bike or pedestrian bridge are far below that required for rail. Boston is now dealing with the old Fort Point Bridge, which originally carried rail in the center. The old Jordan Marsh department store warehouse, the building in which I currently work, had a direct rail link via this bridge to the store. Hope this bridge also gets restored as it is now an important pedestrian link, having been closed to traffic 30 years ago and to rail who knows when.
Why does the Federal Highway Administration have to approve a railroad bridge? Is there an aspect of the project that involves modifying a highway?
And why is this bridge such a bottleneck? What kind of gusher of economic development is being held back? Or is Phlip Nichols correct that there is none and this is just hyperbolic PR (which Trains shouldn’t have reprinted).
I’m afraid that the new bridge is going to be too low. Is it going to clear the new giant cargo ships dispatched down(up?) the river from the new Panama Canal? And what about the BASE jumpers hitting the bottom of the river? That speaks to re-thinking keeping the original bridge in place. I think we need Congress involved in this…
The bridge cannot handle the increasingly heavier freight trains using it. A new bridge will allow faster train speeds and more frequent dispatches as opposed to the speed and weight limitations on the antiquated bridge. That being said, the old bridge should be preserved as the view and the locale is incredibly scenic.
@George Brown - What in the world are you talking about?! The Genesse River is not navigable to anything larger than a small motor boat. If there is any cargo/container traffic to be had in the area, it would move on freight trains operating over the bridge, not on the river underneath. The current bridge is limited to 10 mph, and has a weight restriction of 263,000 lbs. A new structure with Class 4 track could accommodate car weights up to 315,000 lbs, and top speed of 60 mph; in reality would probably not see either of those top limits, but there would be a substantial improvement to what is currently in place. And what is this about BASE jumpers? Perhaps such activity does occur out there in Idaho, but off the Portageville Viaduct (as with any other railroad bridge in the country) would be a serious case of trespassing …
I think Mr. Brown was joking. At least that was how I took it. Class 4 should allow NS to divert more traffic to the line, hopefully taking some pressure off other lines.
My understanding is that NY State can’t or wouldn’t commit the money to make the old bridge safe as a walkway. What’s nice, and what we in the area weren’t clear about at first, is that the new span will be directly adjacent – which keeps the scenic view and lessens NS’ expense for track relocation. And frankly the new design doesn’t look all that bad either. As for enabling diversion of east-west traffic to this line, one can only hope – it sure would help cope with the endless bottleneck that is the CSX (ex-NYC) main these days!
What would really be nice of NS to do would be to fix the Vera Bridge over the Scioto River in Southern Ohio and start using the Cincinnati District again. It would be far less expensive than this project and by using this line again it would help relieve the congestion in Northern Ohio and would reap immediate benefits that NS needs right now.