Hampton Roads/Norfolk/Newport News NE Regional Service

I agree that removing the old tunnels is almost certainly not going to happen, and said as much in my last post, but that doesn't stop me from dreaming! It certainly would improve safety and operations.

I'm still inclined the rail under Hampton Roads should be a light rail line vs commuter rail. the last thing anyone would want is to see freight railroad cars with hazardous loads under Hampton Roads intermixed with passenger trains and automobiles. Light rail being non FRA compliant guarantees that will never ever ever ever happen!

Think of the distance involved though... that's a long way for light rail. Just going downtown Norfolk to (e.g.) City Center, Newport News is 20+ miles, which is rather long for a light rail line. Most of the lines I can think of that are that long don't have large numbers of people riding the entire length (e.g. they go from suburbs, to CBD, and back to suburbs). Think like St Louis MetroLink - no one is going to ride that end-to-end (except maybe a very few people catching a flight at Lambert). However, a theoretical Hampton Roads rail crossing is going to have most of its ridership on board for longer distances. I know if I were going to take a train from Newport News to Norfolk I would expect a seat, and not want to stop every few blocks.
Plus, a commuter rail tunnel would allow BOTH regional service AND Amtrak run-throughs. Talk about bang-for-your-buck.

I also would actually be fine with freight using the tunnel in off-hours, though I suspect that the grades would be too steep to allow it. I'd rather hazardous cargo be on a railcar in that tunnel than on the truck next to me in my car! Plus it might be interesting to give CSX access to NIT...

deathtopumpkins wrote:I also would actually be fine with freight using the tunnel in off-hours, though I suspect that the grades would be too steep to allow it. I'd rather hazardous cargo be on a railcar in that tunnel than on the truck next to me in my car! Plus it might be interesting to give CSX access to NIT...

Won't happen. I would require a Plate H international-container-dimension tunnel rather than a Plate C, which increases the cost by multiple orders of magnitude. All this is regardless of the fact that CSX has its own port facilities a couple miles distant, and can just encourage the ships to come there rather than go to them.

I like tunneling under the base, if the Navy will allow it. Let's say you leave the I-564 right-of-way here, trench parallel to the overrun area of NAS Norfolk runway 10-28 along the treeline, build a portal here, then curve north into the Hampton Blvd right-of-way here. The NS Norfolk Station can slot under the intersection of Hampton/Maryland Ave and Admiral Taussig Blvd., just outside of the secure area. Keep cut-and-covering north to the end of Maryland Ave., then dredge-and-float tunnel segments across Willoughby Bay to Rip Rap. (Or straight across the bay if you like.)

If that's too sensitive for the Navy - I wouldn't blame them - there's always the option of tunneling parallel to the I-664 tunnel straight from the end of Newport News Point to Craney Flat, then turning hard east, continuing to tunnel under the Elizabeth, and popping up at the east portal of Norfolk International Terminal.

Or we could just use a fast ferry from either Newport News or Hampton and skip this whole tunnel business

-----

The talk of LRT has me thinking of DART - their KinkiSharyo cars are much bigger and faster than most LRVs, like the equivalent of an interurban rather than a fast city car. Those could eat up the distance under the bay pretty quickly.

How long would the light rail tunnel be ? There are power problems for long run DC especially 600 volts. Add in possible several trains drawing down the voltage.

mtuandrew wrote: Won't happen. I would require a Plate H international-container-dimension tunnel rather than a Plate C, which increases the cost by multiple orders of magnitude. All this is regardless of the fact that CSX has its own port facilities a couple miles distant, and can just encourage the ships to come there rather than go to them.

So they do. I actually never realized there was a container port at Newport News. Coal is the big commodity there, and I can't recall ever seeing an intermodal train on the Peninsula sub, but maybe I was just unlucky. Scratch that idea then.

I like tunneling under the base, if the Navy will allow it. Let's say you leave the I-564 right-of-way here, trench parallel to the overrun area of NAS Norfolk runway 10-28 along the treeline, build a portal here, then curve north into the Hampton Blvd right-of-way here. The NS Norfolk Station can slot under the intersection of Hampton/Maryland Ave and Admiral Taussig Blvd., just outside of the secure area. Keep cut-and-covering north to the end of Maryland Ave., then dredge-and-float tunnel segments across Willoughby Bay to Rip Rap. (Or straight across the bay if you like.)

That's exactly what I was thinking for that route.

Or we could just use a fast ferry from either Newport News or Hampton and skip this whole tunnel business

A good idea in theory, but it would eliminate the one-seat ride option for most people, since there isn't much going on along the Newport News waterfront, and I'm sure the slow speeds in the Hampton and Elizabeth Rivers would make that a lengthy trip. And again, no Amtrak service (hey, have to stay relevant to this thread after all! )

The talk of LRT has me thinking of DART - their KinkiSharyo cars are much bigger and faster than most LRVs, like the equivalent of an interurban rather than a fast city car. Those could eat up the distance under the bay pretty quickly.

According to Wiki they have a top speed of 70, so yeah, I guess so!

I'm starting to come around to a modern light rail system, so long as it has large stop spacing and uses SLRV-esque vehicles.

east point wrote:How long would the light rail tunnel be ? There are power problems for long run DC especially 600 volts. Add in possible several trains drawing down the voltage.

I would estimate 5-6 miles, depending on how far from shore each portal has to be.

deathtopumpkins wrote: Plus, a commuter rail tunnel would allow BOTH regional service AND Amtrak run-throughs. Talk about bang-for-your-buck.

A tunnel that long would require electric traction for any heavy rail user (no way you'd have a diesel in that tunnel)--are you suggesting an isolated electric operation (such as GN used to have at Cascade Tunnel/Stevens Pass) or are we playing out the fantasy to include electrification of the whole Peninsula Sub?

That said, in a more perfect world, running Tidewater trains through to Norfolk via Williamsburg and Newport News/Hampton would be a lovely thing. There's a lot of mostly empty space and few riders between Suffolk and Petersburg.

The tunnel doesn't have to be all the way under Hampton Roads, it could be bridge most of the way and a tunnel under the main buoyed marked seaway, just like the three existing bridge/tunnels crossing Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay. Therefore, 600 Volts DC power shouldn't be a problem. FYI, the Siemens S70 are rated up to 750 Volts DC.
Siemens even made dual voltage units in France, the S70/Avanto can be configured to operate on various overhead power supplies. The Avantos ordered for France are dual voltage, capable of operating on 750 V DC when running on tram or light rail tracks and on 25 kV AC when running on main line tracks. The vehicles operating in Paris currently operate on AC only; its DC capabilities will not be used until an extension of the current line to Montfermeil is completed. I'm sure 25 KV AC could feed tracks over 25 miles away from it's power cabinet (shed/shack) on the right-of-way.

There wouldn't be any stations/stops on, over, or under Hampton Roads, and at 60 mph the light rail vehicles could transverse Hampton Roads within five to ten minutes, as fast or faster as driving a motor vehicle at the posted speed limits through the tunnels today. And once you are on the other side, you'll have far more station stops increasing the number of destinations you can walk to upon alighting the train, which should increase ridership.

Light rail also wouldn't be limited to any existing rail corridor, it could be placed in or adjacent to Mercury Blvd, the east to west major commercial street on the peninsula.

Regarding a tunnel, why couldn't diesels run through? We have the ventilation technology in use at Cascades and at Moffat, and the parallel auto tunnels have to provide ventilation for hundreds of cars an hour too.

It would really need to be an all-tunnel route for heavy rail though, since by the time you finish going up and down you've crossed the entire harbor. LRT wouldn't need that. (And look to BART for a DC system crossing an entire harbor - I don't know whether they have additional underwater substations.)

I think I need to be given the Big Lebowski line--Donnie, you're out of your element! In my defense, I had just ridden through the tunnel from Union Station on VRE, and the diesel fumes were a little strong. I'll defer to those who know more about tunnels and fumes.

I was assuming a ventilated tunnel that could handle diesels. Though in my ideal fantasy world SEHSR would get built and electrified, and include a spur to Hampton Roads along the Peninsula sub.

An isolated electric operation would be a non-starter, I think.

deathtopumpkins wrote:I was assuming a ventilated tunnel that could handle diesels. Though in my ideal fantasy world SEHSR would get built and electrified, and include a spur to Hampton Roads along the Peninsula sub.

I don't know if you were following the discussions of Boston's North-South Rail Link, but there a tunnel and electrification were inseparable (even as they were under the Hudson)

Diesel freights require long, gentle grades, but that long tunnel has two fatal problems:
- a tunnel long enough to have gentle grades gets crazy-expensive based on length alone (it is cheaper to electrify whole corridors for the same billions that long approaches add)
- a tunnel long enough to have gentle grades gets too long to ventilate for diesel (particularly if you'd have to build artificial islands to ventilate under a river)
- either way, the length of the tunnel and the location/cost of ventilation never let you build under water for diesel.

Electrification
- climbs steeper grades, allowing a shorter tunnel with steeper approaches (but probably still can't take a freight)
- mostly solves the ventilation issue.

For crossing under water, light rail is the only mode that makes sense, both from a congestion relief standpoint and from an engineering cost. The goal should be to connect the TIDE from the NFK station to the NPN, but I don't see the point of bringing intercity rail across from either direction.

I was, and I do recognize that. Like I said, my idea fantasy would involve electrification, but you have to start somewhere, and I think an isolated electrification would be a non-starter, so I would design the tunnel for diesels.

However, if a cost analysis revealed that it would be cheaper to electrify from Washington to Norfolk and build a steeper, shorter tunnel, then I'm all for that option.

I still disagree about the Tide being the right choice of mode though. And certainly not to the NPN station. There's not much going on in that part of town.

Arlington: I'd have to do some calculations, but it might still be reasonable to build a tunnel that both didn't go too far inland and clears the navigation channel with gentle enough grades for passenger diesel (say, 2.5% max.) It would have the same submerged sections as do the current bay crossings, but instead of coming above water it would stay submerged between Hampton (or Newport News) and Willoughby (or Craneys.)

I'll get back to you all on that.

The tunnel could be built for plate "H" freight cars clearances. As well install 25Kv CAT. Use special FRA compliant cars just for the tide trains scheduled thru the tunnel that would be dual power to operate on regular routes at their DC voltages.......

Then Amtrak could use dual mode locos similar to NJT's ALP-45DPs. Once the CAT is extended from WASH <> Richmond <> NPN/Norfolk. the regular electric motors could be used thru tunnel. CSX and NS would need a few electric motors to pull much shorter freight trains up the 2 - 3 % slopes of the tunnel or just not use it ? want to bet ?.

Limit any freight trains trailing tons to prevent any pull a parts.

(Post moved by an Admin)

deathtopumpkins wrote:I still disagree about the Tide being the right choice of mode though. And certainly not to the NPN station. There's not much going on in that part of town.

The NPN station will move to Bland Blvd., near the airport, in the next couple of years. There also may be a smaller station built in downtown, near the original C&O station, but I have not heard anything about it recently.

At the risk of further muddying the water, doesn't the Cascade Tunnel require a time interval between trains to permit the fumes to dissipate before another train enters? Or has that been overcome?