• Amtrak Gateway Tunnels - Freight Usage

  • This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.
This forum will be for issues that don't belong specifically to one NYC area transit agency, but several. For instance, intra-MTA proposals or MTA-wide issues, which may involve both Metro-North Railroad (MNRR) and the Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Other intra-agency examples: through running such as the now discontinued MNRR-NJT Meadowlands special. Topics which only concern one operating agency should remain in their respective forums.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, nomis, FL9AC, Jeff Smith

  by west point
 
A one tube freight bore would still need the emergency egress requirements of NFPA 130 standard. That would require a separate escape tunnel with access every 800 feet or less to main freight tunnel.

These tunnels would not be able to handle land barges. I would expect to reduce constructio costs that grades might be in the 1 - 2 % grade range. Allowable drawbar tonnage would be much less beind an electric motor.
  by ElectricTraction
 
west point wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:34 pmA one tube freight bore would still need the emergency egress requirements of NFPA 130 standard. That would require a separate escape tunnel with access every 800 feet or less to main freight tunnel.
Interesting. An escape tunnel would still be a lot cheaper than a whole second rail tunnel, but that does complicate things quite a bit. Are there any other technical solutions allowed for to avoid that?
These tunnels would not be able to handle land barges. I would expect to reduce constructio costs that grades might be in the 1 - 2 % grade range. Allowable drawbar tonnage would be much less beind an electric motor.
They would be designed for trains, not trucks or anything else. Huh? How would a 10,000HP electric locomotive be able to handle less tonnage than a 4400HP diesel locomotive of the same weight? At worse, they'd be about the same, at best, the electric potentially could handle quite a bit more. Tractive effort, however, tends to be determined by weight and powered axles, not horsepower, which determines speed. Nationwide, electric freight locomotives would be much faster, as they would be able to keep speed on hills and get heavy trains up to track speed faster, especially with DPU.
  by Ken W2KB
 
west point wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:34 pm A one tube freight bore would still need the emergency egress requirements of NFPA 130 standard. That would require a separate escape tunnel with access every 800 feet or less to main freight tunnel.

These tunnels would not be able to handle land barges. I would expect to reduce constructio costs that grades might be in the 1 - 2 % grade range. Allowable drawbar tonnage would be much less beind an electric motor.
It appears that NFPA 130 Standard does not apply to freight-only tunnels. The standard specifically provides that for freight and other excepted types it can be used as a guide, but is clearly not mandatory: "NFPA 130 - Standard for Fixed Guideway Transit and Passenger Rail Systems Scope

1.1 Scope.
1.1.1* This standard shall cover life safety from fire and fire protection requirements for fixed guideway transit and passenger rail systems, including, but not limited to, stations, trainways, emergency ventilation systems, vehicles, emergency procedures, communications, and control systems.
A.1.1.1 Vehicle maintenance facilities are not addressed by this standard because requirements for that occupancy are provided in other codes and standards. Where vehicle maintenance facilities are integrated or co-located with occupancies covered by this standard, special considerations beyond this standard shall be necessary.
1.1.2 Fixed guideway transit and passenger rail stations shall pertain to stations accommodating only passengers and employees of the fixed guideway transit and passenger rail systems and incidental occupancies in the stations. This standard establishes minimum requirements for each of the identified subsystems.
1.1.3 This standard shall not cover requirements for the following:
(1) Conventional freight systems
(2) Buses and trolley coaches
(3) Circus trains
(4) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations
(5) Any other system of transportation not included in the definition of fixed guideway transit system (see 3.3.63.1) or passenger rail system (see 3.3.63.2)
(6)* Shelter stops
A.1.1.3(6) A shelter stop is a location along a fixed guideway transit or passenger rail system for the loading and unloading of passengers that is located in a public way and is designed for unrestricted movement of passengers. A shelter stop can have a cover but no walls or barriers that would restrict passenger movement.
1.1.4 To the extent that a system, including those listed in 1.1.3(1) through 1.1.3(6), introduces hazards of a nature similar to those addressed herein, this standard shall be permitted to be used as a guide."
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7