• Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

  • 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

  • 2240 posts
  • 1
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  by photobug56
 
It would be nice to have a clean version of this whole thing to get started with, optimized. No anything SOUTH, no tearing down of churches, no making the homeless problem in NYP even worse by eliminating places outside Penn that help them. Plus a parallel project to fix things in and around Penn economically, such as rebuilding the pedestrian passage from Penn to PATH / 6th Ave subway. Make Penn work better, and then do a careful non-political planning process. In the meantime start the tunnels, do Portal the best way possible (whatever that is), and get tunnel repairs underway for real.
  by lensovet
 
right, the way to move this forward and "for real" is to scrap everything that's been done already and start over. sounds like a great plan /s
  by kitchin
 
NYC real estate development might be involved /s

Amtrak should probably use more of its station properties to earn money on smart housing and other uses, seems to me. But NYC is a whole other game, and lots of folks want to stick in their thumb and pull out a plum. Penn South.
  by lensovet
 
Amtrak doesn't own that land, so I'm not sure what your point is? Amtrak already makes money from the air rights above NYP. NY State is also making money from the leases of the post office building.
  by kitchin
 
In general Amtrak doesn't seem to aggressive about real estate. NYP is another matter of course.
  by gokeefe
 
Unlikely. Gateway appears to be headed or funding in my opinion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by STrRedWolf
 
gokeefe wrote: Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:11 pm Unlikely. Gateway appears to be headed or funding in my opinion.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Cuomo was pushing the "Repair it w/overnight & weekend closures" idea. I'm hoping that's now dead.
  by gokeefe
 
I think it almost certainly is. The exiting tunnels will get repaired eventually and that's one of the things I do like about Gateway. Build two new tubes and then (likely after the first one opens) repair the ones already in place.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by west point
 
gokeefe wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:43 pm Build two new tubes and then (likely after the first one opens) repair the ones already in place.
Why do we keep having to note to posters that the new bores have to be both operational before they can be used for revenue trains ? Present fire codes require operational cross escape tubes every 800 - 900 feet between bores. Old Hudson north river tubes are grandfathered so as to not be required.
  by Ken W2KB
 
west point wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 12:01 am
gokeefe wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:43 pm Build two new tubes and then (likely after the first one opens) repair the ones already in place.
Why do we keep having to note to posters that the new bores have to be both operational before they can be used for revenue trains ? Present fire codes require operational cross escape tubes every 800 - 900 feet between bores. Old Hudson north river tubes are grandfathered so as to not be required.
This begs the question. Would that Code (NFPA?) section preclude the construction of a new single track tunnel under a wide body of water since there would be no parallel tunnel to provide an alternate escape path?
  by gokeefe
 
west point wrote:
gokeefe wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:43 pm Build two new tubes and then (likely after the first one opens) repair the ones already in place.
Why do we keep having to note to posters that the new bores have to be both operational before they can be used for revenue trains ? Present fire codes require operational cross escape tubes every 800 - 900 feet between bores. Old Hudson north river tubes are grandfathered so as to not be required.
Thank you for that reminder.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

  by eolesen
 
west point wrote:
gokeefe wrote: Sat Aug 14, 2021 5:43 pm Build two new tubes and then (likely after the first one opens) repair the ones already in place.
Why do we keep having to note to posters that the new bores have to be both operational before they can be used for revenue trains ? Present fire codes require operational cross escape tubes every 800 - 900 feet between bores. Old Hudson north river tubes are grandfathered so as to not be required.
Both tubes don't need to be operational, they only need to be complete.

The second tube can still meet the evacuation needs regardless if trains are operational. Even a tunnel under construction still needs a functional escape path per OSHA.

If they take the Chunnel approach and have a dedicated utility tube that doubles as an evacuation route, the second tube likely wouldn't be a dependency. It's certainly safer for workers to have the separate tube.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

  by west point
 
eolesen wrote: Sun Aug 15, 2021 2:26 pm
The second tube can still meet the evacuation needs regardless if trains are operational. Even a tunnel under construction still needs a functional escape path per OSHA.

If they take the Chunnel approach and have a dedicated utility tube that doubles as an evacuation route, the second tube likely wouldn't be a dependency. It's certainly safer for workers to have the separate tube.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Thanks for the reminder. Forgot about the service tubes that many of the European tubes have. The Gotthard base tunnels are a prime example of 2 rail tubes + the service tunnel bore that can be used as an escape route. The cross escape passageways even have a fire resistant door to keep fire from spreading into service tunnel or other rail tunnel.
EDIT == Not sure how those long tunnels protect the other bore at the crossover locations that connect one bore to the other.
  by eolesen
 
west point wrote: Mon Aug 16, 2021 8:27 pm Not sure how those long tunnels protect the other bore at the crossover locations that connect one bore to the other.
I'd imagine they have multiple watertight/fireproof doors in the crossovers. It doesn't do any good to have an escape route that will allow catastrophic loss to compromise the other bore.
  • 1
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150