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

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.

One thing I missed (that could explain the high cost): at the west portals, Amtrak tracks are the center two tracks with MARC tracks on the outside to serve the (new high platform) West Baltimore station, but at the east portals, the Amtrak tracks are north of both MARC tracks. I can't tell if the MARC track crosses over or under the Amtrak tracks.

The outer tracks (A and 3) would be south of the inner tracks (1 and 2) when they came out of the north portal and hit CHARLES interlock. The goal there was to save on wear and tear on the interlock.

Ether way, the tunnels would be able to take freight traffic should NS run a train down it.

No word on what they'll do with the B&P, though.

If there's no intended rail usage for the B&P, does Amtrak have the authority to lease it as a gigantic conduit for utilities? I'm assuming that the 138kV circuits in the B&P will be replaced with at least two new circuits in one (or more) of the new tunnels, so theoretically the entire envelope of the tunnel would be available for new utilities to be installed.

In the ROD, the B&P tunnel is to be retained for possible future rail use.

Note that although both CSX and NS have rights to carry feight through the B&P tunnels, only NS does (a single local round trip nightly). The new tunnels are to be built to accommodate Plate H trains though 145 other structures in the Baltimore area would also need to be rebuilt to allow that use. The ROD does note that CSX's closest connection to the NEC north of the tunnel is in Philadelphia and that unlike NS, CSX is limited to 4 trains a day and would have to pay fees to use the tunnels, while NS has unlimited free use as long as they do not unduly conflict with passenger movements.

You mean direct connection to the NEC from CSX lines, right? CSX can hand off to NS at Perryville and the connector there to get onto the NEC. Besides, CSX is working on double-stacking through the Howard Street Tunnel, so there's not much of a need for NEC access right now.

That said, past plans were to single-track through the B&P's after extensive rehabilitation... and even then, freight service would have to ether cross over all tracks to get to it at CHARLES or ST PAUL, or have a free open freight bypass track that allows for double-stacks to go through the B&P closer to the "older" side of Baltimore Penn Station.

Or NS gives up the traffic south of bayview to CSX, or another entity that has locomotives that have PTC installed, for a Night Train.

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.

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"

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Signed.pdf

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"

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... Signed.pdf

From the tunnel replacement FAQ sheet at https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... m-faqs.pdf

Are the two new tunnel tubes being designed to accommodate double stack freight trains?
No. The new tunnel tubes are not 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

I remember going through that tunnel - the train went very slowly and the tunnel had some sharp curves. Looking at maps of the tunnel, it runs under city streets, likely by cut-and-cover or shallow bores. That made the tunnel have those sharp curves.

The new-tunnel plans show a tunnel that will go much deeper, too deep for cut-and-cover. It will be deep enough to cross the Metrorail line.

Bob Roberts wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:16 pm

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/

Gotthard 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.
So the price per mile in $ 178 million.


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.

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.