by RandallW
The new tunnel is four tracks each in its own tunnel such that shutting down one for maintenance leaves three open. All four tracks are intended for passenger service.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
RandallW wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:02 pm The new tunnel is four tracks each in its own tunnel such that shutting down one for maintenance leaves three open. All four tracks are intended for passenger service.
west point wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 3:56 am Here is the plan which show 4 independent tunnelbores. Doing the math you willl find a 2 track round tunnel bore has as much soil as 2 separate single trackbores. One bore wil be from the near side of BAL station and will fy over the other bores to exit as the western most local track for MARC. Could not find it but only one bore is going to be plate "H"From the tunnel replacement FAQ sheet at https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... m-faqs.pdf
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Signed.pdf
Are the two new tunnel tubes being designed to accommodate double stack freight trains?Granted, if they were, that means they could accommodate Superliners to Baltimore, although that would be more of a system-wide effort between WAS, PHL, and HAR to accommodate them.
No. The new tunnel tubes are not being designed to accommodate double stack freight trains.
drwho9437 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 22, 2023 10:21 pm I guess I see where the ultra high cost of this tiny tunnel comes from on paper but I would just point out that a 50 km base tunnel in Europe cost something like 9 billion to make. Meanwhile this tunnel is only about 3 km long for 6 billion. It is almost 10 times as expensive per distance. Obviously prices fall the longer to make a tunnel on a per distance basis but it seems like the US really fails at building rail cost effectively. The 2nd ave subway was the highest cost per mile and Grand Central Madison was also extremely costly.Where was that 50 kilometer tunnel built? This tunnel is being built in a heavily developed urban environment with lots of obstacles in its way; was the 50 kilometer tunnel in Europe built in a similar geological environment? It doesn't excuse the high cost of the Frederick Douglass Tunnel but it offers useful context and explains one of the reasons why the cost is so high.
I love rail and want to see it built for that reason we have got to figure out why are costs are 10x higher because we could have many times more rail for the same investment if we could.
TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:00 am Where was that 50 kilometer tunnel built? This tunnel is being built in a heavily developed urban environment with lots of obstacles in its way; was the 50 kilometer tunnel in Europe built in a similar geological environment? It doesn't excuse the high cost of the Frederick Douglass Tunnel but it offers useful context and explains one of the reasons why the cost is so high.Yea, it is certainly easier to dig beneath a mountain than Baltimore. A better comparison of baseline costs might be the new tunnel built to allow HSR through service from Madrid Atocha to Chimartin -- this runs beneath an urban area not much different (but certainly more fragile) than central Baltimore (but I can't comment on soil / rock). My calculations are that this Madrid tunnel was built for $78.5 million USD per mile. The base tunnel mentioned above (Gotthard?) was $193.5 usd per mile (if my conversions were kosher). The Spanish (and the Swiss) know a thing or two about tunneling.
Bob Roberts wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:16 pmGotthard Base Tunnel consist of 2 separate tunnels with an total length of 70 mile did cost € 8.9 billion or €128 million per mile. In 2011 €1 was $1.3924.TheOneKEA wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:00 am Where was that 50 kilometer tunnel built? This tunnel is being built in a heavily developed urban environment with lots of obstacles in its way; was the 50 kilometer tunnel in Europe built in a similar geological environment? It doesn't excuse the high cost of the Frederick Douglass Tunnel but it offers useful context and explains one of the reasons why the cost is so high.Yea, it is certainly easier to dig beneath a mountain than Baltimore. A better comparison of baseline costs might be the new tunnel built to allow HSR through service from Madrid Atocha to Chimartin -- this runs beneath an urban area not much different (but certainly more fragile) than central Baltimore (but I can't comment on soil / rock). My calculations are that this Madrid tunnel was built for $78.5 million USD per mile. The base tunnel mentioned above (Gotthard?) was $193.5 usd per mile (if my conversions were kosher). The Spanish (and the Swiss) know a thing or two about tunneling.
https://railway-news.com/new-tunnel-and ... in-madrid/
SRich wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:39 pm But Amtrak is making a wrong choice in my opinion, that the new tunnels aren't prepared for double stack under catenary. Its only 2 feet or 60 centimeter more depth to dig and the double stack under wire is done.They're keeping the B&P tunnel, likely for freight.