Eastern Railroad Discussion > NJ: More on the CSX Oradell Reservoir bridge

Everybody seems to be in agreement that the antiquated 86 year old bridge will be replaced.  The one time New York Central bridge in northeastern Bergen County hosted West Shore and NYO&W trains for decades.  Along with their arsenic, mercury and who knows what going up their exhaust stacks. The Bergen Record reports that the replacement bridge will be a closed deck bridge, with ballast.  The new bridge should provide better opportunities to capture any leaking oil before it goes into the reservoir. The current bridge is of open design.  CSX says the new bridge should be installed later this summer.  No word on a work window, but it shouldn't be too long.  This is a relatively simple project on a single track section that used to be three tracks (two tracks?) wide.

The Committee to Ban Unsafe Oil Trains (a local group) has brought a substantial amount of attention to the issue, gaining the interest of the freeholders and the leadership of several towns. It will be interesting to see what they do next with the loss of this highly visible symbol.


Bridge (with a picture of an ethanol train car on it)

IIRC, there were two main tracks in Oradell at one time. Isn't this just a relatively short deck girder bridge, maybe 50-80 feet long?

CPR_4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IIRC, there were two main tracks in Oradell at one
> time. Isn't this just a relatively short deck
> girder bridge, maybe 50-80 feet long?

Yes, about a car length long

25-30 tt maximum... tempest in a teacup, and all the other culverts north drain into the same watershed... all the way up to Lake DeForest about 15 miles north, alongside the ROW.

Thank you for posting.  Havng grown up within a mile or so of the bridge, I can assure you that it was only two tracks.  One of the points in the ETTs of the passenger era, was that train crews were to lock the toilet door between Haworth and Harrington Park to avoid what could be a flush into the reservoir.

DocJohn

i sure hope they're not stupid enough to just place a single track x
deck girder bridge ... i hope the carnival barking clowns about wanting a closed deck bridge realize that this of bridge needs drainage to keep it free of water retention that would eventually rot the steel ... weep holes are manufactured into the bridge to keep water draining off the deck ... now how they divert the water coming from the bridge is what zhould be at issue there ...

And the drainage is the issue. I think the link has a photo that shows this more clearly... the railroad follows a valley that essentially parallels the Hackensack River and the creeks that flow into the reservoir and the small chain of two lakes north of it.

I guess the only solution is to shut down the railroad completely.

DocJohn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for posting.  Havng grown up within a
> mile or so of the bridge, I can assure you that it
> was only two tracks.  One of the points in the
> ETTs of the passenger era, was that train crews
> were to lock the toilet door between Haworth and
> Harrington Park to avoid what could be a flush
> into the reservoir.
>
> DocJohn

I believe the four track section ended at Dumont, or just north of there.

The drainage question will be interesting.  I wonder how/if  the railroad plans to handle it, and how they plan to discuss it?

CSX has had a string of gaffes in dealing with the people in Bergen County over the years.  If nothing else, they should be capping these issues before they turn ugly. The idling trains on the double siding in Bogota eventually involved two US congressmen. That couldn't have gone over well in Jacksonville, and was a matter that could have been resolved with a "sure, we'll make an effort if we expect to leave the train more than 24 hours, etc" at the superintendent level.  Instead of giving people the finger... (figuratively, of course)

Fortunately, the management seems to be engaged in trying to engage with practical improvements and make a good effort to resolve real problems.  Like getting drills up and running for firefighters, and helping to map fire hydrants, etc.

The railroad has had a love-hate relationship with the area well before CSX. From the elimination of passenger service by NYC to the frequent breakdowns in the Harrington Park-Norwood-Northvale stretch in the PC and early Conrail era in the early and mid-70's, whoever owned the ROW at the time wasn't a crowd pleaser.

Unfortunately the whole oil transport by rail issue has become a lightning rod for a series of long-term community problems. You're right in how CSX responds will be critical, but my slightly tongue in cheek message was really about whether there's a solution that's acceptable to everyone, with the emotion surrounding the issue.

Meanwhile dozens of 10,000 gallon tractor trailers containing gasoline and diesel fuel pass on parallel roads every day. And the roads'  catch basins drain into the same watershed.

Yes, but the dozens of tractor trailers are individual and spaced out along the roads---not in 100 car trains.   One semi crashes and it is a mess, 50 cars derail and you have a different order of magnitude disaster.

All true, but it's also a statistical probability game.

There are at least 5-10 car and car-truck accidents a day along the parallel county roads from Haworth to Northvale and continuing across the NY State line. Generally not reported other than through the local police departments and coresponding insurance companies. But they happen, with significantly greater frequency than rail accidents.

I'm not disputing that there might be a rail accident, even one with major implications. my point is that replacing decking, or an entire 30 ft bridge is only a small part of the risk assessment. An accident is equally likely to happen anywhere along the line, more probably at switchpoints, grade crossings, etc.Then what? And how much time and effort goes into that assessment?

The Record has removed the "earn big money fast" posts which were littering the comments.  So there's one person who feels that "replacing the bridge ties will make everyone safe", one person with a petition to ban the oil trains altogether, and Ms Rogovin of the Ban the Oil Train Movement announcing their next meeting, which is Wednesday evening.