NEC B&P Tunnels in Trains Feb 2020

[njtmnrrbuff]

The new tunnels will be an Amtrak project.

[EuroStar]

I do not believe that we will see four new tunnels built in the lifetime of anyone currently living. At best two will be built with provisions for the other two to be built at a future date. The money simply is not there for four new tunnels given all other priorities.

I am OK with the fact that they planned all the bells and whistles (double stack under wire) in all of them. The savings to be had from making two of the tunnels not-double stack compatible are vanishingly small as the costs do NOT scale with the tunnel diameter. The only thing that scales with diameter is the removal of the spoils and the energy required to bore the tunnels. A bigger tunnel boring machine rarely requires more people to run it and all the wires, tracks, signals and so on are practically the same regardless of the size of the bore.

And to answer an earlier question. I do not believe that the national fire codes specify the exact distance between exits and such for rail tunnels, but the principles embedded in the code effectively require those exits. Note that a freight tunnel does not require as frequent exits and the same level of egress capability (the new Virginia Avenue Tunnel on CSX comes to mind). I cannot recall the last time I heard of a single track passenger tunnel being built anywhere in the developed world. Egress capability always makes two tunnels necessary even in places which are less concerned about passenger safety. Some places even require three bores with the third one used for ventilation and egress (the Channel Tunnel comes to mind).

[orulz]

I cannot recall the last time I heard of a single track passenger tunnel being built anywhere in the developed world..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokuhoku_Line

Opened in 1997

[STrRedWolf]

I do not believe that we will see four new tunnels built in the lifetime of anyone currently living. At best two will be built with provisions for the other two to be built at a future date. The money simply is not there for four new tunnels given all other priorities.

I am OK with the fact that they planned all the bells and whistles (double stack under wire) in all of them. The savings to be had from making two of the tunnels not-double stack compatible are vanishingly small as the costs do NOT scale with the tunnel diameter. The only thing that scales with diameter is the removal of the spoils and the energy required to bore the tunnels. A bigger tunnel boring machine rarely requires more people to run it and all the wires, tracks, signals and so on are practically the same regardless of the size of the bore.

And to answer an earlier question. I do not believe that the national fire codes specify the exact distance between exits and such for rail tunnels, but the principles embedded in the code effectively require those exits. Note that a freight tunnel does not require as frequent exits and the same level of egress capability (the new Virginia Avenue Tunnel on CSX comes to mind). I cannot recall the last time I heard of a single track passenger tunnel being built anywhere in the developed world. Egress capability always makes two tunnels necessary even in places which are less concerned about passenger safety. Some places even require three bores with the third one used for ventilation and egress (the Channel Tunnel comes to mind).

Negative on just two. They studied that to death -- a one-for-one replacement will still slow down trains due to having to muck with CHARLES interlock. Amtrak and FTA said two won't cut it, it has to be four, and the tunnels arranged properly. Read the EIS and Record of Decision.

[EuroStar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hokuhoku_Line ... Opened in 1997

I was not aware of it, but even that was 22 years ago and the planning for it was done probably another decade or so earlier. Safety and egress requirements were different then.

Negative on just two. They studied that to death -- a one-for-one replacement will still slow down trains due to having to muck with CHARLES interlock. Amtrak and FTA said two won't cut it, it has to be four, and the tunnels arranged properly. Read the EIS and Record of Decision.

In my opinion it does not matter how much the bureaucrats studied it. I am not objecting to their EIS conclusions, just at the value engineering. After the Gateway Tunnels in New York blow out their budget by the typical 50-100% overruns for projects of this type, the B&P will be lucky to get the money for two bores. Even a rail friendly administration such as Obama's failed to allocate significant amounts for rail expansion beyond the "stimulus" money, so the money is not likely to be coming. After a decade or so of no funding the EIS will be stale giving any objecting party the right to sue and delay any construction for years.

[orulz]

In my opinion the EIS did an artful dance around the most obvious option:

(1) Build two new bores on the great circle alignment
(2) Shift all traffic to the new tunnels, maintaining current service levels
(3) Rehabilitate the old tunnel
(4) Reactivate the old tunnel, using it to add service - especially commuter and non-high speed intercity trains.

The study just completely punted on the feasibility of rehabbing the old tunnels. According to the EIS, this alternative "was not fully evaluated because there was insufficient information at the time on the most appropriate manner of tunnel restoration and rehabilitation, future uses of the existing tunnel, and whether reconstruction of the tunnel could reasonably accommodate train operations." (FEIS, Chapter III, page 8.)

Okay, so they spent years working on this study, and they just decided to *ignore* the possibility of rehabbing the old tunnel? They had plenty of time to answer those questions. They just chose not to. This was even the preferred course of action that was laid out by MARC in 2012. Why did they ignore it, then? Maybe because the consultants who were hired to do this study were biased toward a maximum-cost solution.

If further capacity is ever needed beyond that, then consider a US 40 tunnel alignment for high speed trains.

[STrRedWolf]

In my opinion the EIS did an artful dance around the most obvious option:

(1) Build two new bores on the great circle alignment
(2) Shift all traffic to the new tunnels, maintaining current service levels
(3) Rehabilitate the old tunnel
(4) Reactivate the old tunnel, using it to add service - especially commuter and non-high speed intercity trains.

The study just completely punted on the feasibility of rehabbing the old tunnels. According to the EIS, this alternative "was not fully evaluated because there was insufficient information at the time on the most appropriate manner of tunnel restoration and rehabilitation, future uses of the existing tunnel, and whether reconstruction of the tunnel could reasonably accommodate train operations." (FEIS, Chapter III, page 8.)

Okay, so they spent years working on this study, and they just decided to *ignore* the possibility of rehabbing the old tunnel? They had plenty of time to answer those questions. They just chose not to. This was even the preferred course of action that was laid out by MARC in 2012. Why did they ignore it, then? Maybe because the consultants who were hired to do this study were biased toward a maximum-cost solution.

If further capacity is ever needed beyond that, then consider a US 40 tunnel alignment for high speed trains.

Given that the Great Circle Tunnel has been studied to death (there's at least four studies on it now)...

So you would keep the 30 MPH MAS of the current tunnels? In their current condition? How would you mitigate the water leakage and deteriorating walls? No, it would be better off to retire them, fill them in so there's no risk of collapse.

[orulz]

Given that the Great Circle Tunnel has been studied to death (there's at least four studies on it now)...

So you would keep the 30 MPH MAS of the current tunnels? In their current condition? How would you mitigate the water leakage and deteriorating walls? No, it would be better off to retire them, fill them in so there's no risk of collapse.

Rehabilitating old tunnels is entirely possible - Even going so far as complete removal and replacement of large sections of the lining, perhaps even the entire thing. This process is generally cheaper and less disruptive than starting from scratch. Doing this cost effectively certainly requires closing the old tunnel, but building tunnels on the great circle alignment as a first phase certainly would allow this to happen.

I am not sure how much of the 30mph MAS is due to the tunnel's geometry and how much is due to the condition of the tunnel. MARC's 2012-era proposal of reopening the Pennsylvania Avenue station (for transfers to the Metro's Upton station) always seemed like a good one to me; if a rehabbed B&P tunnel focused mostly on regional/commuter trains, then this would enable a massive frequency increase which would be a good thing, and the low MAS would hardly be an issue at all, since trains would be mostly decelerating and accelerating in the tunnel anyway.

At any rate, all of the above may or may not be feasible, but we wouldn't know because they NEVER STUDIED IT.

[ExCon90]

FWIW, a 1960 ett shows 30 mph through the tunnel for both passenger and freight, and 15 mph on all tracks through the station. That's a little early for real track deterioration to have set in, so it would appear that the speed restriction is due to alignment rather than track condition.

[STrRedWolf]

FWIW, a 1960 ett shows 30 mph through the tunnel for both passenger and freight, and 15 mph on all tracks through the station. That's a little early for real track deterioration to have set in, so it would appear that the speed restriction is due to alignment rather than track condition.

Meanwhile the circle tunnels would have a 79 MPH MAS. Doing two would still be a bottleneck, if just a faster one -- you still will have trains waiting for other trains to navigate through CHARLES... and MARC trains get held up constantly for Amtrak trains. Doing 4 and having them shuffle into position via tunnel routing saves having to completely change CHARLES' switches -- turning a MARC train back at Baltimore would not need having to change upwards of 5 switches (only one).

[scratchyX]

Given that the Great Circle Tunnel has been studied to death (there's at least four studies on it now)...

So you would keep the 30 MPH MAS of the current tunnels? In their current condition? How would you mitigate the water leakage and deteriorating walls? No, it would be better off to retire them, fill them in so there's no risk of collapse.

Rehabilitating old tunnels is entirely possible - Even going so far as complete removal and replacement of large sections of the lining, perhaps even the entire thing. This process is generally cheaper and less disruptive than starting from scratch. Doing this cost effectively certainly requires closing the old tunnel, but building tunnels on the great circle alignment as a first phase certainly would allow this to happen.

I am not sure how much of the 30mph MAS is due to the tunnel's geometry and how much is due to the condition of the tunnel. MARC's 2012-era proposal of reopening the Pennsylvania Avenue station (for transfers to the Metro's Upton station) always seemed like a good one to me; if a rehabbed B&P tunnel focused mostly on regional/commuter trains, then this would enable a massive frequency increase which would be a good thing, and the low MAS would hardly be an issue at all, since trains would be mostly decelerating and accelerating in the tunnel anyway.

At any rate, all of the above may or may not be feasible, but we wouldn't know because they NEVER STUDIED IT.

It would be nice if there was a study made to use the old tunnels, to both the rerouted NEC, and north to the former WM. I wonder how many cars a west side express which connected with the Subway, amtrak/MARC, MTA bus, and light rail would take off the road.

[east point]

Rehabbing the old tunnel needs more thought. The water problem and soft soil under the tunnel make rehabbing very difficult while tracks are in service. Have heard worry that if a hurricane like Sandy hit Baltimore that the tunnel might have to be shut for several weeks to several months. Even though hate to see Howard tunnel rehabbed it would appear that needs doing for redundancy.

[STrRedWolf]

It would be nice if there was a study made to use the old tunnels, to both the rerouted NEC, and north to the former WM. I wonder how many cars a west side express which connected with the Subway, amtrak/MARC, MTA bus, and light rail would take off the road.

There has been some ideas floated, but none think there's any use for train traffic.

Rehabbing the old tunnel needs more thought. The water problem and soft soil under the tunnel make rehabbing very difficult while tracks are in service. Have heard worry that if a hurricane like Sandy hit Baltimore that the tunnel might have to be shut for several weeks to several months. Even though hate to see Howard tunnel rehabbed it would appear that needs doing for redundancy.

2011-08-15, mid-day. Heavy rains inundate the Jones Falls, which runs under I-83... and the B&P tunnel. Flooding of 4" over the rail is reported to CTEC and MARC Ops, located around Howard Street. Trains are halted until the water receded, then trains were walked through at 3mph. In some cases, trains were told to off-load at West Baltimore to board buses to Penn Station.

Yes, 3 mph.

I'm so glad they turned West Baltimore into a proper transit hub. All they need to do now is high-block it and put some switches around it.

Similar fates happened when tracks between LANDOVER and AVENUE, when tracks were shut down or slow orders put in. Passengers would off-load at New Carrolton and MARC would drop to restricted schedule.

So what would happen if a catastrophic flood happens and took out the B&P? Well... the NEC would be split into two. Amtrak would off-load in DC and re-load in Baltimore, using MARC to haul most of the load to BWI. Some select MARC sets would go to service Halethorpe and West Baltimore on a single track, turning at West Baltimore. That would buy it time, but it depended on how bad the B&P was.

[orulz]

With an elevation of something like 150' above sea level at the west portal, 65' above sea level towards Penn Station, and at a distance of 2 miles from the inner harbor, the B&P is not susceptible to the sort of saltwater storm surge flooding that wreaked havoc on tunnels in NYC. The Jones Falls is a small creek with a watershed of 40 square miles, so while it does exceed its banks regularly in flash flood situations from heavy localized rainfall, any flooding that does occur is limited in extent and duration - it is not susceptible to the extreme, long-duration flooding found on rivers like the Ohio or Mississippi that drain hundreds of thousands of square miles.

In comparison, the southern portal of the Howard Street tunnel is a paltry 10' above sea level, and given that they are planning on excavating its floor even lower to allow for double stacks, it is quite plausible that it *could* see some Sandy-like problems in the event of a major hurricane.