Fredrick Douglass Tunnel (Replacement of the Baltimore and Potomac B&P Tunnel)

Jeff Smith wrote:Somewhat older article: Baltimore Biz Journals

B&P Tunnel plan would cost $4 billion

The proposed tunnel network arcing north would also allow the passage of trains stacked two-high with cargo containers. Baltimore's existing tunnel system is not large enough for such double-stack service, which has become a key issue as the Port of Baltimore tries to increase container traffic.
But simply building the larger tunnels won't be enough to bring double-stack trains to the port. Port freight currently runs through the Howard Street Tunnel, Thorne said. So freight railroads would need to build connections between lines serving the port and Amtrak's Northeast Corridor on which the B&P Tunnel lies....

Ah, no. You will not be seeing double stacks through a new B&P tunnel for several reasons. The Union Avenue tunnels just to the north of Baltimore Penn station won't clear them and neither will they fit under the "B&O" bridge at Bayview. At several other locations the catenary would have to be raised. Making the new tunnels large enough for Superliners might be a option but high enough for double stacks is a waste of money. As far as getting to the port of Baltimore is concerned CSXT can approach from the south and NS can approach from the north. There's no need for double stacks to go through Baltimore. I might also add the last thing Amtrak wants on the corridor is more freights. Amtrak did a good job chasing Conrail off of the corridor with it's 30MPH speed restriction on freights between 0600 and 2200.

Link to the whole DEIS. Time savings will be 3+ minutes for Amtrak as 100 MPH planned for tunnel. Option 3C appears best time saving although more costly and allows West BAL to be changed to high level platforms. Bores will have duck under feature to enable less use of interlockings fouling other tracks.

http://www.bptunnel.com/index.php/2014- ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Uhh yeah, good lord. The PRR knew this tunnel was an issue back when it was still around. The PRR had even gone so far as to procure new property/rights for its replacement but never got around to it before the PC disaster. These rights/properties were transferred to Amtrak. So what feck are they studying, just dust off the freaking PRR plans and build it.

RRspach. You might rethink about double stacks. Deep within the report is ... The tunnels are being proposed to plate "H" specs for double stacks. Yes the Union tunnels need raising but that is in the NEC improvement plan. B&O bridge will probably be raised by CSX so they can get their double stacks on the route.

RRspatch wrote:Ah, no. You will not be seeing double stacks through a new B&P tunnel for several reasons. The Union Avenue tunnels just to the north of Baltimore Penn station won't clear them and neither will they fit under the "B&O" bridge at Bayview.

This line of thinking makes no sense. If you don't build the new tunnel to double stack clearance, when it comes time to replace the Union Ave tunnels, you'll say that it is pointless to make those cleared for double stacks because the B&P tunnel isn't cleared for double stacks. That's some backwards, circular logic right there.

Freight currently moves through the B&P tunnels; if they do not choose to preserve the tunnels for continued freight use, the new tunnels are gonna have to carry freight. It's worthwhile in that case to build them to that height to provide for a future contingency of double-stack. Of course, if they choose to repurpose the B&P for dedicated freight service with doublestack clearance, (they say either lowering the tunnel floor or converting to a centered central track,) that would be the most equitable situation: separate and dedicated RoW.

BostonUrbEx wrote:

RRspatch wrote:Ah, no. You will not be seeing double stacks through a new B&P tunnel for several reasons. The Union Avenue tunnels just to the north of Baltimore Penn station won't clear them and neither will they fit under the "B&O" bridge at Bayview.

This line of thinking makes no sense. If you don't build the new tunnel to double stack clearance, when it comes time to replace the Union Ave tunnels, you'll say that it is pointless to make those cleared for double stacks because the B&P tunnel isn't cleared for double stacks. That's some backwards, circular logic right there.

Not really, particularly if you take the rest of his statement into context. While a new B&O bridge at Bayview is almost completed (I'm waiting for them to drop it onto the catenary by mistake any week now,) there are no plans for a desperately needed Union tunnel. Additionally, even if you build that tunnel to Plate H specifications, there is NOWHERE on the NEC between NYP and WAS that accommodates Plate H. Nowhere. There are a few precious areas that accommodate greater than Plate E trains, so don't see them raising the catenary. Additionally, one of the main purposes of the tunnel is to eliminate choke points so they can add more service. Do you really think Amtrak and MARC are going to build more capacity and add freight trains to the mix? They don't really want the freight they have now.

As such, while I'm all for "if you're going to build it, think of the future,) I suggest RRdispatch may be correct. It may be a waste of money.

Along those lines:

YamaOfParadise wrote:Freight currently moves through the B&P tunnels; if they do not choose to preserve the tunnels for continued freight use, the new tunnels are gonna have to carry freight. It's worthwhile in that case to build them to that height to provide for a future contingency of double-stack. Of course, if they choose to repurpose the B&P for dedicated freight service with doublestack clearance, (they say either lowering the tunnel floor or converting to a centered central track,) that would be the most equitable situation: separate and dedicated RoW.

Precious few freight trains currently more through those tunnels. Indeed, as Unilevel (Filbert switch) closed earlier this year, there is one less customer along the line. Plastics is rarely used at this point and Home Depot closed a few years back. The Popes Creek line is fed from Bennings, so I'm not seeing a lot of freight traffic forthcoming....

unless


Amtrak, MARC (the state of Maryland) get together with CSX and add a forth track between Halethorpe and Landover. Only then can I see the reemergence of through freight to Bennings and the RF&P sub and even that is a stretch. This is because CSX serves that entire area and they already have their own route. Unless NS decides pull a DH to go for track rights down the old RF&P, wants to access the Popes Creek Secondary from the north or a new company emerges, I don't see through freight on this section of the corridor.

BostonUrbEx wrote:

RRspatch wrote:Ah, no. You will not be seeing double stacks through a new B&P tunnel for several reasons. The Union Avenue tunnels just to the north of Baltimore Penn station won't clear them and neither will they fit under the "B&O" bridge at Bayview.

This line of thinking makes no sense. If you don't build the new tunnel to double stack clearance, when it comes time to replace the Union Ave tunnels, you'll say that it is pointless to make those cleared for double stacks because the B&P tunnel isn't cleared for double stacks. That's some backwards, circular logic right there.

There are no plans (as far as I know) to replace the Union Tunnels as both of them are in reasonably good shape.

Now, about that proposed stack train ... whose stack would that be? Well, since only CSXT has trackage right on the NEC south of Baltimore we'll have to assume it would be a CSXT train. Once the train gets through the new B&P tunnel(s) and a someday enlarged Union Tunnel, where would it go after that? Certainly NOT all the way to "Phil" and the connection to the Highline. No, CSXT would want to get it's train back on CSXT rails as soon as possible. Problem is there is no connection between Amtrak and CSXT north of Baltimore until one gets to Perryville (and that one involves a steep connecting track between the NS Port Road Line and the CSXT Baltimore to Philadelphia line). Amtrak would be none to happy to have a CSXT stack train running from Landover to Perryville. Now, about that lack of connection between Amtrak and CSXT at Baltimore. Back in the PRR/PC and early Amtrak days there used to be an interchange track just north of Bay Tower. This track fell out of use and was removed when Amtrak reconfigured the railroad between Baltimore and Gunpow (freights on A and No.1, passengers on No.2 and No.3 tracks). This was done to avoid conflicts between freights and passengers at Bay and River. In order for the stack train to get back onto CSXT rails the interchange track off of No.3 track at Bay would have to be restored ... and this assumes the new "B&O" bridge at Bay is high enough to clear a stack train as well as 12.5Kv catenary (somehow I doubt it will be). Also "Canton" interlocking would have to be restored as a left hand plant with switches from Track A to No.3 track.

The Google satellite view below shows Bay Tower (which I was qualified at) and the old B&O bridge. In it you can clearly see the path the PRR to B&O connecting track took. If the new B&O bridge isn't high enough, a new connecting track could be built just north of where Amtrak goes over route 40. I guess the new interlocking could be called "Pulaski".

https://goo.gl/maps/cNEyc9ELxCn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now at this point some of you are probably wondering why even run CSXT stack trains over the NEC? My guess is this is being proposed (new B&P tunnel with clearances for stack) to avoid the HIGH cost and HUGE mess of digging up Howard street in downtown Baltimore as to rebuild the CSXT Howard street tunnel for stack trains. If CSXT wants to run stack trains into Baltimore they can do it today through Locust Point or the Curtis Bay area without having to pass through either tunnel.

Long story short .... build the new tunnels large enough for Amtrak Superliners (detour route for the Capital Limited via Harrisburg) and MARC bi-levels and leave it at that.

Stack trains on the NEC .... NOPE.

Remembering my CETC 1 and CETC 2 daze ......

Not trying to be pedantic but WRT statement:

...since only CSXT has trackage right on the NEC south of Baltimore we'll have to assume it would be a CSXT train...

.
NS system map shows that it has freight rights along the entire length of the NEC south of port of NY/NJ. And in the early days of the Conrail break-up and acquisition, in its proposed operating plan submitted as part of STB filing 33388, NS talked about running Triple Crown intermodal service from Portside south (unfortunately TC is now being severely reduced in mission to haul auto parts between Detroit and KC):

5. The Triple Crown Network

NS and Conrail already operate trains for an integrated Triple Crown
RoadRailer( system. The service is seamless from the customer's
perspective. The restructuring of Conrail and division of its routes
will require certain changes in current operations on both NS and
Conrail. It will also open up some new markets-- markets that Conrail
was reluctant to pursue because its rail hauls for Triple Crown were
often very short.

For the Triple Crown RoadRailer( operation, the most important changes
include:
* Rerouting one pair of Portside, NJ/Atlanta trains onto Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor to reduce schedule time between these points to
27 hours.
* Initiating direct rail service between the Ft. Wayne hub on the
one hand and Baltimore and Morrisville, PA on the other.
* Shifting the current Rochester service to Buffalo.
* Shifting the current Crestline service to Bellevue, with Triple
Crown trains re-routed between Ft. Wayne and Pittsburgh.

Use of the Northeast Corridor is required for some of these changes.
The NEC offers a far more direct route between Atlanta and the
Northeast than the current route used by TCS through Hagerstown.
RoadRailers( are compatible with NEC operations, and the new route
will save mileage and time, open the Carolina-Northeast market, and
make a new terminal at Baltimore economically feasible. NS is
discussing the details of this Triple Crown service with Amtrak.

TCATPS and TCPSAT are the new symbols for re-routed Triple Crown
RoadRailer( trains between Portside, NJ and Atlanta, GA, with new
intermediate service to Charlotte, Baltimore and Philadelphia. Transit
times for these trains, which will also traverse the Piedmont Route,
will be 27 hours.

Net: In addition to CSX, NS might one day be a candidate to operate time sensitive intermodal service on the NEC. Having said that, your argument about tunnel restrictions for double stack service still holds (although NS seems content, for the foreseeable future, to operate long distance Chicago - Ayer, MA intermodal service as single domestic stack offering).

Arguments of double stack clearances should look at page 20 of the text stating plate "H" double stack clearances. Here is actual quote copied and pasted to this thread. Second item under engineering.....
""
1. Engineering
• Tunnel Separation: the minimum separation between existing underground structures (especially the
MTA Metro tunnel) and the proposed tunnel should be 30 to 40 feet.
• Tunnel Clearance: alternatives should be able to accommodate Plate H (double stack) clearance for
either twin single-track tunnels or a single double-track tunnel.
• Horizontal Curvature: alternatives should allow for design speed of 40 miles per hour or greater.
• Vertical Grade: the maximum vertical compensated grade should not exceed two percent.
• West Baltimore MARC Station Service: the alternative should be capable of serving the West Baltimore
MARC commuter rail station.
• Track Grade at Baltimore Penn Station: alternatives should not alter existing track alignments at
Baltimore Penn Station.
• Physical Constraints: the alternatives should not impact physical constraints, including MTA Light Rail,
the CSX track under Howard Street, the Jones Falls Bridge, the Jones Falls Expressway and the Howard
Street Bridge.
• Separated Right-of-Way: tunnels should be on physically separate right-of-way (ROW) within a wellprotected
perimeter.
2. Operational
• Amtrak and MARC Operations: Amtrak and MARC should be able to maintain the volume and frequency
of trains through Baltimore Penn Station with no significant interruptions.
• Number of Tracks and Throughput Capacity: tunnels should include at least two tracks and a practical
throughput capacity of at least 24 trains per hour per direction during and after construction. This is
equivalent to a theoretical throughput capacity of 30 trains per hour or two-minute headways between
trains
""

If the tunnel is going to be built to last 100 years, you build it to handle the largest thing that could possibly move through it in that 100 years. Since it's utterly unpredictable what freight traffic will be through Baltimore over a century or status of any preexisting tunnels over a century, designing it out the gate to DS spec is something you do to cover all future possibilities. Even the ones unprojectable as of 2016. Unless it's simply too cost-prohibitive to do at all, spending the premium now means they don't ever have to think about spending a much greater total sum later to modify one of the existing tunnels or build a whole new one because they made a short-sighted decision to trim their margins here. That's just common sense. It doesn't need to be squared with present-day DS freight traffic potential to be a wholly justifiable and prudent decision.

Gateway...yes, that one only needs to be maxed-out to Superliner dimensions because it is completely predictable that no freight--much less tall freight--will ever need to move through Penn Station in the next 100 years. A stretch with mixed traffic? Much different story when hedging against future traffic beyond timeline scope for even the wildest guesses.

Interesting point. In 1915, who could have predicted any of the things that happened on the railroads in the second half of the 20th century?

F-line: though it'd be a convenient route for CSAO/NY&A interchange, and would save money over the Cross-Harbor tunnel plan. Still no use for double-stack height though, unless LIRR commits to a massive clearance project.

Anyway, that topic is for another thread.

As far as clearances go some good points. Who would have thought in 1941 that anything other than the heavyweight passenger car's clearances would ever be built ? Freight cars did not meet that metric except for a few high wide routes.
Then came short domes, regular domes, High liners, Superliners, big johns, double stacks at plate "H"
One has to wonder if Australia's RRs will try triple stacks on some available routes routes ?

We had some previous discussion on the subject in this thread, wonder if the mods could be so kind as to merge?

The problem here, as transportation blogger Alon Levy noted, and I agree, is that what should really be a two-track passenger project has ballooned into a four-track double-stack daddy-mack heart-attack of a project. The original proposal from 2006 was to build two tracks on the Great Circle alignment and use that for express trains, and then refurbish the existing B&P and use it for MARC locals with a stop at the long-shuttered Pennsylvania Avenue Station. $1 billion.

A freight route that would allow the Howard Street Tunnel to be bypassed, was considered to be a separate project.

When talking about the northeast corridor, freight is the tail and passenger is the dog. But they are letting the tail wag the dog by bending over backwards to accommodate enormous freight trains that we don't even know for sure will show up, on ALL FOUR TRACKS of this tunnel project. Therefore, estimates now stand at $4 billion. The stated reason for getting double stacks through here is not some grand issue of efficiency or national security, it's just so that the port of Baltimore can be more competitive. Can you say political interference and parochial interests? Yet, the majority of money for this tunnel will likely come from a pot dedicated to passenger projects even though easily half the cost is due to freight accommodations. So, in essence, we have quadrupled the cost, and gained the opportunity for freight trains to interfere with passenger train operations.

This is what is wrong with passenger rail capital projects in the US. For the extra three billion, we could build a new deep water port somewhere else in Maryland and still have 2 billion left over to spend on some other worthy passenger rail project.