Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

TrainPhotos wrote:Wouldn't it be true that if the nextgen route has its own tunnels and platforms, the rolling stock can then be designed without the PRR tunnel dimensions as a constraint? Something to think about in the long & very long term. The 165 speed will only be in NJ and RI if memory serves, or has that changed?

As far as hell gate's 2 tracks, wasn't there some movable bridge that has a trains per day limitation on it on the shore line, or has that changed?

And to sum up a scattering of thoughts, there is much work to be done outside of nyc for gateway to reach its throughput potential. At least that's how it seems to me. Am i alone there on that one?

Amtrak and ctdot have made a lot of progress on these bridges-some have been replaced and others have been upgraded, the biggest problem $$$ will be the ct river bridge but they have come a long way since the restrictions where put on.

Pelham Bay is not the problem,some of MN's New Haven Line bridges(Walk in Norwalk is worst ) and bridges
East of New Haven have the Coast Guard watching and requiring bridge openings.
Amtrak at least protected the remaining tunnel access points by building the "tunnel box" under LIRR's
West Side Yard. New Jersey's stillborn "ARC" project has messed up and made the Feds take a good long look
and require studies up the wall before committing to any more tunnel projects.
Amtrak's announcement about the conditions in the PRR tunnels,and the possibilty of a tunnel shutdown for rehab
after Sandy's created damage was the eye opener.
As is Amtrak's and LIRR's problems in the East River Tunnels to Sunnyside Yard.
The Gateway Tunnels are needed,that's the given,but talk of the "HSR and Penn Station south"
should not be tangled with Gateway,they are just items to think about in the future about the time the
need for the 3rd gen Acela design that will need it's own dedicated ROW.

Wonder what's involved in rehabbing the existing tunnels. Total replacement of the cast iron rings? Welding on reinforcements? Certainly replacing cement linings.

BandA wrote:Wonder what's involved in rehabbing the existing tunnels. Total replacement of the cast iron rings? Welding on reinforcements? Certainly replacing cement linings.

I believe the rings are in good condition, but the concrete lining & bench walls were salt water damaged. From what i understand, they will be basically re-lining the tubes with concrete, putting in new wire/hangers and improvements in lighting & other stuff. I may be mistaken on this point, but i thought i read somewhere that the fan plants may be updated in this time frame as well including "hardening" against future flooding & made more sound from a security standpoint. The main difference in the old and new lining is fixed vs ballasted track, which may or may not have improvements in vertical clearance.

They have a great opportunity to really modernize these tubes and make the most of them being out of service. I hope speeds and vertical clearance are improved, but really gateway will be vastly superior due to the ability of putting in larger tubes that may allow slightly larger or simply currently non-north river tube compatible rolling stock passage.

Agree, gateway should have been ready to pick up, but there is a slightly different route and other factors, so for now all we can do is wait it seems.

Nice to see more editorials calling for Gateway.

But nothing can be a much greater priority than a third rail tunnel, since the possibility of losing one of the two existing, century-old tunnels is very real, and would create a commuter disaster that could cripple the regional economy.

The potential obstacles, however, aren't just financial ones. The dark specter of Gov. Chris Christie's influence lurks, and it isn't clear which side he'll take. While there should be no dispute about the need for the tunnel, Christie had no problem scuttling the last meaningful tunnel option — the ARC (Access to the Region's Core).

TrainPhotos wrote:

BandA wrote:Wonder what's involved in rehabbing the existing tunnels. Total replacement of the cast iron rings? Welding on reinforcements? Certainly replacing cement linings.

I believe the rings are in good condition, but the concrete lining & bench walls were salt water damaged. From what i understand, they will be basically re-lining the tubes with concrete, putting in new wire/hangers and improvements in lighting & other stuff. I may be mistaken on this point, but i thought i read somewhere that the fan plants may be updated in this time frame as well including "hardening" against future flooding & made more sound from a security standpoint. The main difference in the old and new lining is fixed vs ballasted track, which may or may not have improvements in vertical clearance.

They have a great opportunity to really modernize these tubes and make the most of them being out of service. I hope speeds and vertical clearance are improved, but really gateway will be vastly superior due to the ability of putting in larger tubes that may allow slightly larger or simply currently non-north river tube compatible rolling stock passage.

Agree, gateway should have been ready to pick up, but there is a slightly different route and other factors, so for now all we can do is wait it seems.

Pretty much. The waterproofing is the biggest thing. Most of you have probably seen the photos/videos of the "icebreaker" crews that have to go in the tunnels on a hi-rail several times a day and manually whack the icicles off the walls because there's no opportunities to take the tunnel out of service for some badly overdue leak patching. That kind of thing is what they'll be looking to take care of immediately with a good, thorough re-lining after Gateway opens and they finally have the capacity to take a single tube offline for the better part of a year to do it right, and do it so the rehab is good for 50 years.

Same general sort of thing they're going to do to the B&P tunnels once the new one in Baltimore gets built. "Retirement" just means it becomes MARC's and some freights' plaything and Amtrak only uses it during a service disruption. They fully intend to take it offline and give it the full 1-2 years of re-lining it so badly needs for continued service, do it right without the time crunch tying their hands, and make sure the reopened tunnel has a solid half-century of trouble-free operation to look forward to.

Backshophoss wrote:Pelham Bay is not the problem,some of MN's New Haven Line bridges(Walk in Norwalk is worst ) and bridges
East of New Haven have the Coast Guard watching and requiring bridge openings.
Amtrak at least protected the remaining tunnel access points by building the "tunnel box" under LIRR's
West Side Yard. New Jersey's stillborn "ARC" project has messed up and made the Feds take a good long look
and require studies up the wall before committing to any more tunnel projects.
Amtrak's announcement about the conditions in the PRR tunnels,and the possibilty of a tunnel shutdown for rehab
after Sandy's created damage was the eye opener.
As is Amtrak's and LIRR's problems in the East River Tunnels to Sunnyside Yard.
The Gateway Tunnels are needed,that's the given,but talk of the "HSR and Penn Station south"
should not be tangled with Gateway,they are just items to think about in the future about the time the
need for the 3rd gen Acela design that will need it's own dedicated ROW.

Walk is finally, at long last funded for replacement. And CT River (the last Shoreline bridge that needs replacement) is in expedited final design. So that leaves 3 really bad ones left to go in CT that still don't have a penny's appropriation yet. Walk's being replaced by a lift bridge with separate lifts for each 2 tracks. Which'll be a tremendous improvement in reliability with the redundant lifts, and tremendous improvement in speed because lifts are generally the fastest types of movables and they're adjustable height. With Norwalk only having short barge traffic, it means they can lift it only a few feet then quickly drop.

All 3 other New Haven Line bridges are likewise eyeing lifts for replacements, for same performance and reliability reasons.

Not sure what CT River's final design is. They couldn't raise the bridge like they originally hoped because it would've had to go too freakishly tall to cut down on the openings on New England's widest and longest navigable river. It's either going to be a redundant bascule, 1 track per leaf and much faster machinery, or a tall lift 1 track per lift. Lift I think is the preferred design because it widens the martime channel in addition to having the speed and reliability advantage at track level. With the kind of vessels that use the CT River, channel width and the boat being able to floor it instead of inching it through a narrow channel makes a bigger overall difference to speed of openings/closings than the height of the bridge.

That leaves Mystic River (1984-construction swing), Shaw's Cove (1984-construction swing), Niantic River (2012-construction bascule), Pequonnock River (1998-construction bascule) as the last non-lift movables north of Maryland. Portal's becoming a high fixed span. Pelham is likewise shooting for high fixed span if they can appropriate the money for it. Thames River was retrofitted to lift a couple years ago, and Dock in NJ is a lift that opens like twice a decade (and is the "youngest" of the ancient NEC movables and in good long-term condition). For the traffic those bridges carry getting a total of 7 of the 11 un-eliminable Tri-State Area movables over to lifts is the best they can possibly shoot for and should make a huge capacity difference if they can muscle all that $$$ into place.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:....
Same general sort of thing they're going to do to the B&P tunnels once the new one in Baltimore gets built. ...

They haven't decided to anything to it yet.

http://www.bptunnel.com/images/BPT_PASR_141223.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 21 of the report or page 22 of the PDF file.

"Alternative 2: Restore/Rehabilitate Existing B&P Tunnel is being carried forward for further evaluation because additional information is needed to determine the viability of this alternative.

This is a great video from American View of the a partial trip through one of the North Tunnels.

Sounds like Amtrak is really picking up the pressure on this. That's great!

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Backshophoss wrote:Pelham Bay is not the problem,some of MN's New Haven Line bridges(Walk in Norwalk is worst ) and bridges
East of New Haven have the Coast Guard watching and requiring bridge openings.
Amtrak at least protected the remaining tunnel access points by building the "tunnel box" under LIRR's
West Side Yard. New Jersey's stillborn "ARC" project has messed up and made the Feds take a good long look
and require studies up the wall before committing to any more tunnel projects.
Amtrak's announcement about the conditions in the PRR tunnels,and the possibilty of a tunnel shutdown for rehab
after Sandy's created damage was the eye opener.
As is Amtrak's and LIRR's problems in the East River Tunnels to Sunnyside Yard.
The Gateway Tunnels are needed,that's the given,but talk of the "HSR and Penn Station south"
should not be tangled with Gateway,they are just items to think about in the future about the time the
need for the 3rd gen Acela design that will need it's own dedicated ROW.

Walk is finally, at long last funded for replacement. And CT River (the last Shoreline bridge that needs replacement) is in expedited final design. So that leaves 3 really bad ones left to go in CT that still don't have a penny's appropriation yet. Walk's being replaced by a lift bridge with separate lifts for each 2 tracks. Which'll be a tremendous improvement in reliability with the redundant lifts, and tremendous improvement in speed because lifts are generally the fastest types of movables and they're adjustable height. With Norwalk only having short barge traffic, it means they can lift it only a few feet then quickly drop.

All 3 other New Haven Line bridges are likewise eyeing lifts for replacements, for same performance and reliability reasons.

Not sure what CT River's final design is. They couldn't raise the bridge like they originally hoped because it would've had to go too freakishly tall to cut down on the openings on New England's widest and longest navigable river. It's either going to be a redundant bascule, 1 track per leaf and much faster machinery, or a tall lift 1 track per lift. Lift I think is the preferred design because it widens the martime channel in addition to having the speed and reliability advantage at track level. With the kind of vessels that use the CT River, channel width and the boat being able to floor it instead of inching it through a narrow channel makes a bigger overall difference to speed of openings/closings than the height of the bridge.

That leaves Mystic River (1984-construction swing), Shaw's Cove (1984-construction swing), Niantic River (2012-construction bascule), Pequonnock River (1998-construction bascule) as the last non-lift movables north of Maryland. Portal's becoming a high fixed span. Pelham is likewise shooting for high fixed span if they can appropriate the money for it. Thames River was retrofitted to lift a couple years ago, and Dock in NJ is a lift that opens like twice a decade (and is the "youngest" of the ancient NEC movables and in good long-term condition). For the traffic those bridges carry getting a total of 7 of the 11 un-eliminable Tri-State Area movables over to lifts is the best they can possibly shoot for and should make a huge capacity difference if they can muscle all that $$$ into place.

The things I have hard about Dock lift bridge were that it may get a re-paint soon after work in newark penn is done, and it needs its footings worked on or something. I may be mistaken, but that's the impression I'm left with...

Here is a brief news article that states that the Obama Administration has initiated an endeavor to facilitate the construction of the Amtrak Gateway Project:

http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/201 ... cart_river

Brief, fair-use quote per railroad.net policy:

Obama Administration ready to help fund Hudson River rail tunnel

Today's announcement by federal officials that President Obama considers the Gateway rail tunnel to be the nation's top transportation priority underscores the need for us to quickly line up a commitment from the Port Authority to pledge the regional match needed to jump-start this vital project," Sweeney said.

But Jeff Tiitel, NJ Sierra Club director, questioned if New Jersey could fund its share of a new tunnel with the Transportation Trust Fund running out of cash to finance projects.

"It great that Federal Government wants to pull together a funding plan for the Gateway Tunnel.We have need this tunnel for a long time," he said. "Our biggest concern is NJ Transportation Trust Fund is broke and may stay underfunded for years to come .The failure of NJ to raise the gas tax or come up with other funding for transit needs hurts our economy and commuters."

Due to damage to the existing 105-year-old tunnels by salt from Hurricane Sandy, which could cause them to be closed for permanent repair, Rogoff said there is no time to waste.

Ken W2KB wrote:Here is a brief news article that states that the Obama Administration has initiated an endeavor to facilitate the construction of the Amtrak Gateway Project:
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/201 ... cart_river

I think Amtrak needs to explicitly threaten that one-seat LD service to NYP from a lot of Replublican states would get the Katrina/Sunset treatment if Amtrak has a tunnel crisis.

Basically, if you can only run 6 trains an hour each way, that doesn't leave much room beyond Acela and NERs (which, as money-makers, would have first claim to, say, 3 slots per hour each way). As between NJT and LDs, I don't see how you justify running anything but the highest-capacity (bilevel) trains in the slots that remain.

They need to see, not just "We'll have to go from 24 trains per hour, each way, to 6 trains per hour, each way" That's too abstract. They need to start showing the victims names: The Cardinal, Carolinian, "Virginians", Crescent, & Silvers would all be cut back to Newark, PHL or WAS, and the Vermonter would only operate NYP-Vermont. Do that, and maybe then they can get the attention of more than just the New Jersey delegation.

It will take at least that.

"initiated an endeavor"

Making an empty statement initiates nothing.

The administration has proposed budgets each year. Has funding for Gateway been in any of them?

If a tunnel went out tomorrow, we'd be in some very deep doodoo. You have one track out for the high speed upgrade project... Then with all of the NY metro area airports at full capacity, flying in would not offer an effective alternative. Also with the skyway partly closed and PABT at capacity, you then run out of options real fast. Here's to hoping those people in DC (and albany, and trenton) can put their heads on straight for a few minutes and get this fully funded ASAP...