Will the new Portal Tunnels be able to fit Superliners and Double-stac

One thing I was wondering is that the proposed new tunnels under Baltimore are planned to be able to fit Double-stack container trains under electrified lines. And if the tunnels can fit doublestacks, they can definitely fit superliners, or any other type of double-decker cars.

As part of Amtrak's plan for true-HSR in the Northeast, there will be the two new tunnels as part of the $20 billion Portal project.

Considering that Amtrak will be able to big two new tunnels, I would assume that they would make them be able to fit double-stacks and Superliners.

Now, I know what you're going to say: Superliners can only work at low level platforms! Well, yes, but...

1) As part of any sort of Penn Station expansion project (either Moynihan or Penn South), then I would expect several low-level platforms to be built.

2) Superliners aren't the only double-decker trains that could be used at Penn Station. Think of double-decker high speed trains, like the TGV Duplex 3882722104_6c69de9b34_b.jpg , or the E1 and E4 series Shinkansen JR_East_Shinkansen_E4.jpg .

Question though: Are the Balt-Penn Station tunnels and the South and East river tunnels a cost included in the $50 billion NEC master plan, or the $117 true-HSR line?

Second question: Are locomotives on a train (high-speed or otherwise) included in the max-car limit for a platform? And Penn Station's max-car length is 16 cars, right?

A little off-topic, but here's my findings about the capacity of the Acela versus true high speed trains that could operate in the Northeast...

The Acela trainset has 6 cars between the two trainsets. One of them is the cafe car, another is first-class car, with 44 seats. The other three are the business-class cars, with 260 seats. That's 304 seats total over five cars, or an average of 60.8 seats per car.

Assuming a HST has the same average seating and has a cafe car, and two power cars. That gives 13 cars. Multiply that by 60.8 and the result is 790 seats per train. Based on the TGV duplex, double-decking a HST increases capacity by 45%. That gives us 1146 seats in a double-decker HST.

Should the new Portal Tunnels be able to fit double-decker trains, or should it be the same loading gauge as the existing tunnels?

Thoughts? Information?

GlobalistPotato said:

One thing I was wondering is that the proposed new tunnels under Baltimore are planned to be able to fit Double-stack container trains under electrified lines. And if the tunnels can fit doublestacks, they can definitely fit superliners, or any other type of double-decker cars.

As part of Amtrak's plan for true-HSR in the Northeast, there will be the two new tunnels as part of the $20 billion Portal project.

Considering that Amtrak will be able to big two new tunnels, I would assume that they would make them be able to fit double-stacks and Superliners.

Now, I know what you're going to say: Superliners can only work at low level platforms! Well, yes, but...

Click to expand...

You are asking a lot of questions, many of which likely can not be answered yet, even by Amtrak, because the preliminary engineering and detailed costs tradeoff analysis has not even started yet. The B&P tunnel replacement in Baltimore may provide a track with clearance for double stack trains, but that might be a dedicated freight tunnel running parallel to the passenger tunnels. It is likely that new tunnels in Baltimore and under the Hudson will provide plate F clearance for future bi-levels, but not really intended for current Superliners.

As for a low level platform in NYP, why? The new platforms in the South extension would be primarily for NJ Transit use and possibly some Metro-North Hudson line trains. Given the cost of the project and the tight capacity at NYP, every platform has to be put to use. BTW, when did the Gateway project become a $20 billion dollar project? The only figure that has been put out was $13.5 billion by Amtrak and it is not clear just what that includes.

Question though: Are the Balt-Penn Station tunnels and the South and East river tunnels a cost included in the $50 billion NEC master plan, or the $117 true-HSR line?

Click to expand...

The B&P Tunnel replacement and new Hudson & East River tunnels are listed in the NEC master plan, so they are part of the $50 billion ballpark price tag. The $117 billion next gen NEC HSR concept plan has new and seriously expensive tunnels running under Baltimore, Philly, and a 11+ mile tunnel under all the way under Manhattan, so it would not be using the NEC tunnels. I suspect the idea of a new 11+ mile tunnel under NYC is already getting dropped from the Next Gen NEC plan in favor of routing the 220 mph trains through the Hudson and East River tunnels route, but with the Gateway, 2 new East River tunnels, and Harold Interlocking bypass improvements speeding up the route through NYP.

Second question: Are locomotives on a train (high-speed or otherwise) included in the max-car limit for a platform? And Penn Station's max-car length is 16 cars, right?

Click to expand...

The problem with a long 12 or 16 car long HSR train is getting that many people on and off the train on the narrow platforms and escalators at NYP. It is bad enough when a NJ Transit train and a Amtrak train both unload on the same platform at same time at rush hour. The 17 car long platforms at NYP were designed for long distance overnight trains with sleeper and diner cars, not densely packed commuter trains.

To echo the above: The really long platforms at NYP are, I believe, a holdover from when the Pennsy would run long trains out of NYC due to demand. Don't forget that there was a time when you could pack a very long LD train from end to end.

GlobalistPotato said:

One thing I was wondering is that the proposed new tunnels under Baltimore are planned to be able to fit Double-stack container trains under electrified lines. And if the tunnels can fit doublestacks, they can definitely fit superliners, or any other type of double-decker cars.

As part of Amtrak's plan for true-HSR in the Northeast, there will be the two new tunnels as part of the $20 billion Portal project.

Click to expand...

No, your understanding is completely wrong. The two tunnels proposed under the Gateway Project have nothing to do with HSR true or otherwise. It is about capacity expansion between Newark and New York, and providing additional redundancy in case of a tunnel failure. They will be 70mph tunnels. It is also not the Portal project. The Portal project is about a bridge replacement and expansion of capacity across the Hackensack River and is priced at around $1.7 billion total, for two two track fixed bridges 50' above mean water level with 2% gradient on the approaches to get to that height and yet be at current grade at Swift on the west and Secaucus junction on the east. The current Portal funding application which did not get a grant was for the North Bridge of the Portal pair of proposed bridges.

The true HSR project envisages a 12 mile long tunnel which starts somewhere in NJ and ends up near New Rochelle in NY, and has two run through stations under Manhattan, one in the vicinity of Penn Station and the other in the vicinity of Grand Central Terminal. This is merely in the dreaming stage at present.

Considering that Amtrak will be able to big two new tunnels, I would assume that they would make them be able to fit double-stacks and Superliners.

Click to expand...

No they won't, since the Superliners would have nowhere to go at the New york end as they will not fit in any track at NY Penn Station and there is no plan whatsoever to raise the ceiling of the track level at Penn Station.

Now, I know what you're going to say: Superliners can only work at low level platforms! Well, yes, but...
1) As part of any sort of Penn Station expansion project (either Moynihan or Penn South), then I would expect several low-level platforms to be built.

2) Superliners aren't the only double-decker trains that could be used at Penn Station. Think of double-decker high speed trains, like the TGV Duplex 3882722104_6c69de9b34_b.jpg , or the E1 and E4 series Shinkansen JR_East_Shinkansen_E4.jpg .

Click to expand...

TGV Duplexes actually would fit nicely into existing Penn Station. They are not high, and no real HSR will be as high as Superliners.

Your expectations of low level platform at Penn Stations are guaranteed not to be met. Penn South is exclusively for use of NJT which has all high level platform equipment. Why would they want low level platforms?

Question though: Are the Balt-Penn Station tunnels and the South and East river tunnels a cost included in the $50 billion NEC master plan, or the $117 true-HSR line?

Click to expand...

The replacement of B&P (Baltimore and Potomac) tunnels is included in the 2030 plan. What is the South River tunnel? The cost of the Gateway Tunnels is included. There is mention of additional East River tunnel in the 2030 plan but it is unlikely that it is included in whatever that $50 billion is. The HSR vision plan does not touch the North and East River tunnels. They remain as is. That plan envisages a separate two track 12 mile long tunnel to traverse Manhattan underground.

Second question: Are locomotives on a train (high-speed or otherwise) included in the max-car limit for a platform? And Penn Station's max-car length is 16 cars, right?

Click to expand...

Yes and depends on which track you are talking about. There are a few tracks in Penn Station that can hold 16 car trains.

Should the new Portal Tunnels be able to fit double-decker trains, or should it be the same loading gauge as the existing tunnels?Thoughts? Information?

Click to expand...

There is nothing called Portal Tunnels. Portal is a bridge and an interlocking to the west of Secaucus Junction. the new tunnels would most likely be called Gateway Tunnels. The tunnels, new and old are located East of Secaucus junction between CP Bergen and CP Penn A.

The current tunnels will fit trains like TGV Duplex. So yes the current and the new tunnels will fit some typical double-decker HSR trains. The ARC tunnels were designed to be large enough to accommodate Superliners but none of the infrastructure on either end of the tunnel could accommodate them. In all likelihood any double decker HSR trains that is used on NEC will be of the TGV Duplex size and they will fit in all tunnels, old and new.

BTW, having ridden thousands of Kms on every variety of TGVs, I can assure you that the capacity in TGV's are obtained by using airline economy class style seat pitch. I think it unlikely that such will ever be used in the US.

The track layout from the new tunnel into Penn Station as planned makes them unsuitable for heavy duty use for through running trains, and besides any train going east of New York has to pass through the East River tunnels, so it is highly unlikely that an additional operational nightmare will be created by introducing trains that do not fit through them anytime in our lifetime.

afigg said:

The B&P Tunnel replacement and new Hudson & East River tunnels are listed in the NEC master plan, so they are part of the $50 billion ballpark price tag. The $117 billion next gen NEC HSR concept plan has new and seriously expensive tunnels running under Baltimore, Philly, and a 11+ mile tunnel under all the way under Manhattan, so it would not be using the NEC tunnels. I suspect the idea of a new 11+ mile tunnel under NYC is already getting dropped from the Next Gen NEC plan in favor of routing the 220 mph trains through the Hudson and East River tunnels route, but with the Gateway, 2 new East River tunnels, and Harold Interlocking bypass improvements speeding up the route through NYP.

Click to expand...

It is better to keep the 2030 infrastructure plan completely separate from the 2050 vision. I don't think anything is being dropped from the 2050 concept study yet.

During his presentation Al Engel VP HSR at Amtrak has repeatedly said, and has repeated in private conversations that the routing of the HSR Vision is completely open. What has been presented in the study is merely an example set of segments to illustrate a what if scenario and associated costs and designs and operations. That is all that that is at present.

The Harold Bypass has nothing to do with the 2050 vision. It was always part of ESA plan, and it will save 1 to 2 mins in running time to Boston. The last part of it was never fully funded due to cost overruns of the original ESA project. That is what got funded this time. The route through Penn Station will never be a high speed anything, no matter how much lipstick is pasted on the pig.

I am also not sure whether the additional pair of tunnels under East River that is talked about in the 2030 plan is can be realistically included in the funding estimates. Gateway envisages eventually getting a pair of tunnels under 30th St (not 31st St. as penciled in by the Pennsy when they were designing Penn Station and for which some easement exists under the Pennsylvania Hotel). Getting Penn South to tunnels under 30th St will require condemnation of property in very expensive blocks. So that project in and of itself could eat up a good $5 to $7 billion. If you add that to the $13.8 billion for Gateway and a couple of billions for Newark to Philly, we have already eaten through $21 billion of the alleged $50 billion, without even touching the three bridges in Maryland and the whole Baltimore situation. Hence my skepticism about the cost estimates.

Having spent 50 years in Baltimore I can assure you that ground breaking for a connecting route from the east side to the west side will not occur before 2035 with the first train in 2055.

Reference: The current single Metro subway line was initially proposed in 1956, commited in 1966 and partially opened in 1983.

jis said:

It is better to keep the 2030 infrastructure plan completely separate from the 2050 vision. I don't think anything is being dropped from the 2050 concept study yet.

During his presentation Al Engel VP HSR at Amtrak has repeatedly said, and has repeated in private conversations that the routing of the HSR Vision is completely open. What has been presented in the study is merely an example set of segments to illustrate a what if scenario and associated costs and designs and operations. That is all that that is at present.

The Harold Bypass has nothing to do with the 2050 vision. It was always part of ESA plan, and it will save 1 to 2 mins in running time to Boston. The last part of it was never fully funded due to cost overruns of the original ESA project. That is what got funded this time. The route through Penn Station will never be a high speed anything, no matter how much lipstick is pasted on the pig.

I am also not sure whether the additional pair of tunnels under East River that is talked about in the 2030 plan is can be realistically included in the funding estimates. Gateway envisages eventually getting a pair of tunnels under 30th St (not 31st St. as penciled in by the Pennsy when they were designing Penn Station and for which some easement exists under the Pennsylvania Hotel). Getting Penn South to tunnels under 30th St will require condemnation of property in very expensive blocks. So that project in and of itself could eat up a good $5 to $7 billion. If you add that to the $13.8 billion for Gateway and a couple of billions for Newark to Philly, we have already eaten through $21 billion of the alleged $50 billion, without even touching the three bridges in Maryland and the whole Baltimore situation. Hence my skepticism about the cost estimates.

Click to expand...

My reference to the Harold Interlocking bypass was in the context of improvements to the existing route in NYP from northern NJ though Queens and the Hellgate line. Yes, it is not part of the vaguely defined Next Gen HSR NEC or the 2050 Vision depending on what we call it. But I just don't see the 12 mile tunnel running the length of Manhattan to NYP and Grand Central happening. Just too expensive and could take several decades to build. The Gateway, Moniyhan, and new East River tunnel projects will cost enough. If the separated 220 mph HSR tracks get built, I expect the 220 mph line will end somewhere in the NJ marshlands and connect to the Gateway tunnels to NYP, then under the East River to Queens. Where the next gen NEC goes from there, I would expect decades of studies will be spent on it.

The NEC Infrastructure Master Plan document refers to two new East River tunnels and 2 new Hudson River tunnels in the section on improvements to the NYP section of the NEC with a placeholder $12.5 billion dollar amount for the section. The master Plan was written while ARC was still alive, but the ARC was not part of the cost figures because it was separated from the NEC. There is no mention of the NYP South extension proposal, so the $12.5 billion presumably covered the 2 new Hudson and 2 new East River tunnels and the Portal Bride replacement. The 3 MD bridges and the B&P tunnel replacement are all listed in the cost tables in the NEC master plan. The $50 billion includes a lot of stuff including improvements to the connecting corridors to the NEC.

But the OP was asking about plate clearance and Superliners, albeit confusing the Portal Bridge and Gateway projects. Discussions on the Next Gen NEC should be left to the HSR threads. The point to the OP is that: 1) No, they will not be building double stack clearance in the Gateway tunnels. NYP is for passenger trains, not freight. 2) No, they won't build low level platforms in NYP or in the south extension (if it gets built).

Speaking of improving plate clearances in the east, it was announced this week that CSX will be spending $160 million to rebuild the Virginia Avenue tunnel in DC with a two track tunnel with Plate H clearances. Project to be completed by 2015 as a key part of the CSX's National Gateway project to provide double stack clearances up to Baltimore and through to western PA. If a new freight tunnel route is built in Baltimore, that may someday provide a freight route for a second Amtrak Autotrain to run from northern NJ.

JAChooChoo said:

Having spent 50 years in Baltimore I can assure you that ground breaking for a connecting route from the east side to the west side will not occur before 2035 with the first train in 2055.

Reference: The current single Metro subway line was initially proposed in 1956, commited in 1966 and partially opened in 1983.

Click to expand...

The B&P tunnel replacement is well pass the initial proposal phase. $60 million of funding has been provided and obligated for the preliminary engineering and EIS studies. The FRA and MDOT put out a fairly extensive feasibility and alternative analysis study in January which looked at the alternatives for both new passenger and freight tunnels (and bridges for freight) through Baltimore. According to the report, they don't have the luxury of delaying the replacement for the B&P tunnel until 2035.

Quoting from the executive summary of the FRA & MD DOT Jan 2011 report discussing the no-build option: "Concerning the B&P Tunnel, there is no realistic No-Build Scenario. The physical condition of the tunnel requires that it be rebuilt or replaced within the next 10-20 years. Rebuilding would contradict the fundamentals of engineering economy. The tunnel’s basic geometry was substandard when it was completed and is irremediable by any reasonable amount of rehabilitation. Also, the reconstruction would be inefficient because it must be undertaken while keeping only one track in service, so its cost would surpass that of constructing a new tunnel." The report can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/1240.shtml

The PE work will take several years at a minimum, so there are 2-4 years to get the funding in place to build the new tunnel. What may happen is that the Great Circle passenger tunnel is built, but the new freight tunnel construction gets stalled while all of the stakeholders argue on who will pay for how much of it.

JAChooChoo said:

Having spent 50 years in Baltimore I can assure you that ground breaking for a connecting route from the east side to the west side will not occur before 2035 with the first train in 2055.

Reference: The current single Metro subway line was initially proposed in 1956, commited in 1966 and partially opened in 1983.

Click to expand...

Well, one difference between that subway tunnel and these freight tunnels is that there's a lot more money behind the freight tunnels (CSX), and whatever has the money backing is more likely to get built.

"Money backing" meaning someone will be able to make a lot of money off of that. CSX would love the extra money from being able to ship Double-stacks through the Northeast.

Also, a little thing about NYC... I'm not a expert on that area, so I was confused when making the post.

About Next-gen HSR in NYC... an 11 mile tunnel under Manhattan sounds VERY ambitious and risky. Personally, I would place it near the end of the phasing of that project, and in the meantime route high-speed trains through the existing and new gateway tunnels.

Unless of course the FRA acts like a total... tumblr_lg45unzdhV1qglv1yo1_400.jpg

GlobalistPotato said:

Well, one difference between that subway tunnel and these freight tunnels is that there's a lot more money behind the freight tunnels (CSX), and whatever has the money backing is more likely to get built.

Click to expand...

I suspect that the replacement of the B&P tunnel with the great circle tunnel will take place within the next 10 - 15 years. The points made in this thread regarding the B&P Tunnels is right on the mark. Historically it was designed to be a secondary route out of Baltimore and requisite amount of attention and resources and expenses were expended on building it.

"Money backing" meaning someone will be able to make a lot of money off of that. CSX would love the extra money from being able to ship Double-stacks through the Northeast.

Click to expand...

But when we are talking CSX's tunnel we are not talking of the same tunnel necessarily.

Also, a little thing about NYC... I'm not a expert on that area, so I was confused when making the post.

Click to expand...

Yep, that was apparent and hence my detailed correction of the underlying assumptions.

About Next-gen HSR in NYC... an 11 mile tunnel under Manhattan sounds VERY ambitious and risky. Personally, I would place it near the end of the phasing of that project, and in the meantime route high-speed trains through the existing and new gateway tunnels.

Click to expand...

Actually I bet that they will mostly operate through the original North River Tubes given the planned track layout in A interlocking in Penn Station. The middle of the station will have much more direct access from the old tunnels than from the new ones. The new one's main access will be to the south end of the station and will mostly be used by NJTransit. Think of the current proposal as a scheme to offload a lot of NJT traffic from the original tunnels.

As for the Vision thing, whether it is even reasonable to do any or all of it is something that will be part of a Tier I PEIS (Program Environmental Impact Statement) that will be carried out. It is at present not clear to me whether this will be part of the PEIS that was recently funded from one of the HSIPR/ARRA grants to NJ which NJ turned over to FRA to run the multi-state PEIS or not.

One significant issue that needs to be mentioned here for anything beyond Class 8 track, which is what anything above 160mph will require, is a larger track center distance than is in place anywhere on the NEC, - as much as 20' some rumors go. hen I asked Al Engel about using the existing RoW for VHSR (we used V to designate any HSR that requires higher than Class 8 track) he mentioned this as a serious issue that has not been fully looked into. For HSR like in California that is track class above 9, apparently it is a case by case thing with FRA. It would be interesting to watch what they actually approve.

There are very few parts of the NEC ROW that has space for such, so anything above 160 mph will require significant row acquisition either along the current RoW or totally new RoW, which is going to be a mightily expensive proposition. Maybe George can give us some idea on what is typically used in China. I know Fraqnce uses significantly higher track center distance on the LGV but don't know what the exact numbers are.

As I understand it, the three main blocks to running Superliners up the NEC are the Baltimore tunnels, the DC tunnels, and the NYC tunnels. Apparently, the government and CSX are pitching in on getting the Virginia Avenue tunnels worked on. If Baltimore is in the works, then I think that would only leave the NYC tunnels. Also, dual-level compatible tunnels would save Metro North (and NJ Transit) at least some engineering headaches with their dual-level passenger cars.

Anderson said:

As I understand it, the three main blocks to running Superliners up the NEC are the Baltimore tunnels, the DC tunnels, and the NYC tunnels. Apparently, the government and CSX are pitching in on getting the Virginia Avenue tunnels worked on. If Baltimore is in the works, then I think that would only leave the NYC tunnels. Also, dual-level compatible tunnels would save Metro North (and NJ Transit) at least some engineering headaches with their dual-level passenger cars.

Click to expand...

The engineering is done, so there is no remaining headaches. NJT will not be ordering any more cars for at least a decade or more anyway beyond what is already on order. Since MNRR faces much more constricted clearances in the Park Avenue tunnels and there is no money or desire to enlarge the Park Avenue tunnels, it would be interesting to see what they do with multi-levels. It is possible that they will order a dedicated fleet that fits their loading gauge, which will of course automatically fit the Penn Station loading gauge in all likelihood. LIRR will most likely not order any further multi-levels since even their current ones do not fit through the ESA tunnel under East River to Grand Central.

The current tunnels to Penn Station are already dual level compatible and there are two large collection of such cars running around already, and even more are on order from NJT. They are just not as tall as Superliners. The cost of making the necessary clearances are not justified when so much other work that is more necessary remains unfunded in the Tri-State area.

I will make a completely fearless prediction that Superliners will not run into Penn Station in my lifetime. There will not be any low level platforms in Penn Station either. The real issue at Penn Station is quick loading and unloading and what is really needed are EMUs with subway like door arrangements, not constricted doors and stairs as in Superliners. The biggest problem with the NJT Multi-levels is the constricted door and stairs arrangement and the time it takes to load/unload such cars. Superliners are worse. Surfliners are similar, or perhaps slightly better than the MLVs, but not by much. If you want to see what high capacity loading/unloading multi-levels look like you need to see the Paris RER trains.



Notice those huge wide doors? And in all likelihood these puppies will fit through the Penn Station tunnels.

Virginia Avenue tunnel is irrelevant to this discussion since Superliners can already get into Washington Union Station through the Capitol Hill Tunnel.

Anderson said:

As I understand it, the three main blocks to running Superliners up the NEC are the Baltimore tunnels, the DC tunnels, and the NYC tunnels. Apparently, the government and CSX are pitching in on getting the Virginia Avenue tunnels worked on. If Baltimore is in the works, then I think that would only leave the NYC tunnels. Also, dual-level compatible tunnels would save Metro North (and NJ Transit) at least some engineering headaches with their dual-level passenger cars.

Click to expand...

There are no issues with running Superliners in the First Street Tunnel in DC. The Cardinal used to run with Superliner equipment and it easily fit through First Street. The First Street Tunnel is the tunnel immediately south of Washington Union Station.

The Virginia Avenue Tunnel, which CSX is about to get started on making a double-stack capable facility, has nothing to do with Amtrak, because Amtrak trains do not go through the Virginia Avenue Tunnel and have no reason to do so. I don't know if Superliners would fit through it or not.

Here's a map (by me) of Washington's railroads, in case you need a primer.



In regards to Baltimore, and the Great Circle Tunnels, I recommend reading this article.

jis said:

One significant issue that needs to be mentioned here for anything beyond Class 8 track, which is what anything above 160mph will require, is a larger track center distance than is in place anywhere on the NEC, - as much as 20' some rumors go. hen I asked Al Engel about using the existing RoW for VHSR (we used V to designate any HSR that requires higher than Class 8 track) he mentioned this as a serious issue that has not been fully looked into. For HSR like in California that is track class above 9, apparently it is a case by case thing with FRA. It would be interesting to watch what they actually approve.

There are very few parts of the NEC ROW that has space for such, so anything above 160 mph will require significant row acquisition either along the current RoW or totally new RoW, which is going to be a mightily expensive proposition. Maybe George can give us some idea on what is typically used in China. I know Fraqnce uses significantly higher track center distance on the LGV but don't know what the exact numbers are.

Click to expand...

If what I've heard is correct, the track spacing on the LGVs are about 15 feet on average. But I'm not totally certain.

jis said:

The engineering is done, so there is no remaining headaches. NJT will not be ordering any more cars for at least a decade or more anyway beyond what is already on order. Since MNRR faces much more constricted clearances in the Park Avenue tunnels and there is no money or desire to enlarge the Park Avenue tunnels, it would be interesting to see what they do with multi-levels. It is possible that they will order a dedicated fleet that fits their loading gauge, which will of course automatically fit the Penn Station loading gauge in all likelihood. LIRR will most likely not order any further multi-levels since even their current ones do not fit through the ESA tunnel under East River to Grand Central.

I will make a completely fearless prediction that Superliners will not run into Penn Station in my lifetime. There will not be any low level platforms in Penn Station either. The real issue at Penn Station is quick loading and unloading and what is really needed are EMUs with subway like door arrangements, not constricted doors and stairs as in Superliners. The biggest problem with the NJT Multi-levels is the constricted door and stairs arrangement and the time it takes to load/unload such cars. Superliners are worse. Surfliners are similar, or perhaps slightly better than the MLVs, but not by much. If you want to see what high capacity loading/unloading multi-levels look like you need to see the Paris RER trains.

Notice those huge wide doors? And in all likelihood these puppies will fit through the Penn Station tunnels.

Click to expand...

Good, I do like the idea of bringing RER/S-bahn type service to New York. However, there are those who'd say that it'd also take a lifetime to complete due to labor union issues, different electrical systems on each railroad, and the overall spirit of noncooperation between the agencies, especially between NJ and NY.

There's also the idea of extending the 7 subway to Secaucus Juction as a potential way to relieve congestion on the Hudson River Tunnels.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/11/17/to-replace-the-arc-tunnel-a-subway-extension-to-new-jersey/

Although this project seems to be aimed at relieving commuter congestion, I have wondered if it could be used to make Secaucus the terminus for the NYC-terminal LD trains. Probably would only work like that if the 7 Subway served Penn Station, which it appears that it does not.

Anderson said:

As I understand it, the three main blocks to running Superliners up the NEC are the Baltimore tunnels, the DC tunnels, and the NYC tunnels. Apparently, the government and CSX are pitching in on getting the Virginia Avenue tunnels worked on. If Baltimore is in the works, then I think that would only leave the NYC tunnels. Also, dual-level compatible tunnels would save Metro North (and NJ Transit) at least some engineering headaches with their dual-level passenger cars.

Click to expand...

As already indicated, the Virginia Avenue tunnel has nothing to do with the NEC; it is a CSX freight tunnel. Double tracking the tunnel may have some indirect implications on Amtrak and VRE traffic as it will clear a single track bottleneck which can result in freight trains backing up south of the tunnel in Virginia and impeding Amtrak & VRE passenger trains. The only reason I mentioned it is that with a new double stack clearance freight tunnel in DC and in Baltimore AND provided additional work is done to provide higher clearances up through NJ, that someday it might allow an Autotrain with the auto carriers to operate from northern NJ and head south to FL on CSX. Someday.

The tunnels in Baltimore and under the Hudson River are almost certainly only the most prominent clearance limits for Superliners. There are likely a number of highway bridges over the NEC between Baltimore and NYC as well as low hanging catenary at many points that would have to be raised or the tracks lowered.

However the whole discussion of the current generation of Superliners and the new bi-level spec car is a moot point for operation on the NEC because they require low level platforms. The long term plans for SEPTA and, as far I know MARC, are to upgrade all their stations on the NEC to high level platforms. There will be a few stops with low levels platforms off to one side for various reasons, but the NEC will eventually be almsot entirely high level platforms. The new tunnels should be built with clearances for taller passenger bi-levels, for no other reason than to future proof them for next-next-(next?) gen bi-levels which can use high level platforms.

afigg said:

that someday it might allow an Autotrain with the auto carriers to operate from northern NJ and head south to FL on CSX. Someday.

Click to expand...

That's never going to happen for a whole set of reasons unrelated to clearance issues.

The new tunnels should be built with clearances for taller passenger bi-levels, for no other reason than to future proof them for next-next-(next?) gen bi-levels which can use high level platforms.

Click to expand...

Commuter bilevels with high platform access already exist. LD bilevels with high platform access make no sense at all, as the facility for entering above the lower level but below the upper level would take up far too much space inside the car that's needed for passengers.

Track Centers:

Most of the LGV lines: either 4.5, 4.3 or 4.7 meters, depending on who is talking. I have a very old, but undated document that says 4.7 meters, but my understanding is that the centers are now being built at 4.50 meters. I beleve that the ICE lines are on 4.5 meters. Japanese Shinkansen tracks are at 4.3 meters, Taiwan HSR tracks are at 4.5 meters, and the Chinese HSR tracks are at 5.0 meters. It needs to also be mentioned that the vehicles widths in Japan, Taiwan, and China are larger than those used in Europe, more on the order of 1i feet in Asia and 10 feet or less in Europe.

To save conversions, here they are:

4.3 = 14.10 feet

4.5 = 14.76

4.7 = 15.42

5.0 = 16.40

Numbers are rounded to nearest 0.01 foot

Proposed California track centers is 16.50 feet for 220 mph track. (I beleive that by now this is public information, otherwise I could not say it.)

At the time the Japanese chose 14.30 meters, 130 mph was considered the maximum practical speed on rails, in fact anything over 100 mph was considered to be of doubtful practicality. That concept has now gone away.

A superliner vehicle is 16'-2" high. With a roof mounted horn, as happens with cab cars for push-pull operations, the top of the horn is right at 17'-0" above the top of rail. That is the height of plate F. In the case of a rounded tunnel ceiling line, a Superliner can go where a Plate F cannot due to the near squared corners on Plate F. If a Plate F will fit, a Superliner unquestionably will fit.

I do not know where the 20 foot number originated.

Bi-level cars for high platform loading are built. The problem is that there is no level pass through from car to car at any level. Also, the doors are over the trucks.

The overall vehicle height of the TGV Duplex and other European bi-level cars is not developed from optimization of internal ceiling heights but backed in from maximum feasable vehicle height due to vertical clearance constraints which do not exist outside the northeast in the US. Internal floor to ceiling heights in these vehicle is more on the order of minimum tolerable that optimal/desirable.

The 7 Extension to Secaucus is a dead and short sighted idea and won't realize congestion. Rerouting and investing more in the network that feeds into Hoboken and Jersey City / Lower Manhattan will help this region. The Jobs are shifting to Urban Jersey and Lower Manhattan and not Midtown Manhattan.

Nexis4Jersey said:

The 7 Extension to Secaucus is a dead and short sighted idea and won't realize congestion. Rerouting and investing more in the network that feeds into Hoboken and Jersey City / Lower Manhattan will help this region. The Jobs are shifting to Urban Jersey and Lower Manhattan and not Midtown Manhattan.

Click to expand...

So the fact that 70% of the commuters from NJ want to get within 7 blocks of GCT does not mean much to you then? Any statistics of how much jobs are shifting from Midtown East side to elsewhere?

jis said:

Nexis4Jersey said:

The 7 Extension to Secaucus is a dead and short sighted idea and won't realize congestion. Rerouting and investing more in the network that feeds into Hoboken and Jersey City / Lower Manhattan will help this region. The Jobs are shifting to Urban Jersey and Lower Manhattan and not Midtown Manhattan.

Click to expand...

So the fact that 70% of the commuters from NJ want to get within 7 blocks of GCT does not mean much to you then? Any statistics of how much jobs are shifting from Midtown East side to elsewhere?

Click to expand...

I'll have to look for the hard numbers but theres an estimated 250-300,000 in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City , that grew by at least 30,000 this past decade. I know Newark / Elizabeth holds at least 80,000 jobs , same with Paterson , New Brunswick , and Hackensack to a lesser extent. The fact that were not connecting NJ or Urban Jersey is troubling , enough with the Midtown political pandering. Not all of us work in Midtown , its split 50/50 for NJ works. Most people working in Lower Manhattan use the PATH , Ferries , and Buses to get there hench why you don't see a strain on the network. The Point is , i'm and i can speak for half the state is tired of the lack of connecting Rail service between Urban / Suburban Jersey and the promises of Restored Rail , but then the $$$ is pulled for a NY train project....