Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
That was a pretty generic and useless statement. What was the interference? Where was the interference?
Baltimore B&P tunnel replacement study
- Thread starter afigg
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Actually, I've seen a number of cases where they've held MARC 409 (6:13 AM out of Baltimore) because of a slightly late arrival of Northeast Regional #67 (6:10 AM out of Baltimore.)
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
Um..ok...so they held a local that would typically have to cross the entire plant (perhaps at 15mph depending on what track it is coming from) for 3 minutes in Baltimore to follow a train that will make less stops. That statement seems to bolster my previous post:
Last edited by a moderator:
west point
Engineer
Here is another delay today for two MARC trains due to no 4 track mains.
MARC Service Alert <[email protected]>
To
MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber
Today at 2:00 PM
Train 422 is approaching Bowie with a 25 to 30 minute delay. Train 433 is expected to depart Baltimore with a 25 minute delay , following 2 Amtrak trains.
MARC Service Alert <[email protected]>
To
MTA Maryland Alerts Subscriber
Today at 2:00 PM
Train 422 is approaching Bowie with a 25 to 30 minute delay. Train 433 is expected to depart Baltimore with a 25 minute delay , following 2 Amtrak trains.
Thirdrail7
Engineer
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2014
- Messages
- 4,542
And how do you know these delays were caused by not having 4 mains? What was the cause of the delay? All you've done now is blather about tweets without mentioning root cause. What is the root cause of the delays and how do you know track configuration plays a part? As for 433 departing Baltimore, once again it proves what I said a few times now....Baltimore is a bigger bottleneck.
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently the FRA has chosen a preferred alternative (3B). http://www.baltimoresun.com/bs-md-ci-bp-tunnel-study-20170331-story.html, http://www.bptunnel.com/, http://www.bptunnel.com/index.php/environmental-studies/record-of-decision-rod
CraigDK
Service Attendant
No surprise they went with 3B, I figured it would be another month though before they released the ROD though...
They must have put this out in the last couple of hours, I didn't see it when I checked earlier today (its one I have been following fairly close). Now time to read through the ROD...
They must have put this out in the last couple of hours, I didn't see it when I checked earlier today (its one I have been following fairly close). Now time to read through the ROD...
Ziv
Conductor
Sorry if this is basic info, but I was trying to find out how much the trip times would be helped by the new tunnel(s). I saw this:
Route Segment - Max Speed Passenger Service - Max Speed Freight Service
Union Tunnels, north of Baltimore Penn Station - 45 mph - 30 mph
Existing B&P Tunnel, south of Baltimore Penn Station - 30 mph - 20 mph
South of existing B&P Tunnel to Baltimore Washington International (BWI) Rail Station - 110 mph - 50 mph or less
And then I saw that the MARC trains actually take less time to cover most of the segments than the Acelas.
Trip Direction - MARC Commuter1 - Amtrak Regional/Intercity2 - Acela3
Southbound - 5 min, 48 sec - 6 min, 20 sec - 5 min, 52 sec
Northbound (No stop at BWI) - N/A - 6 min, 5 sec - 5 min, 56 sec
Northbound (Stop at BWI) - 6 min, 18 sec - 7 min, 16 sec - 7 min, 1 sec
I believe that time saved directly will be just one of the benefits, but just how much time will be saved? A minute or two?
Will the freight traffic be sped up too? Will that yield real world time savings for Amtrak?
Route Segment - Max Speed Passenger Service - Max Speed Freight Service
Union Tunnels, north of Baltimore Penn Station - 45 mph - 30 mph
Existing B&P Tunnel, south of Baltimore Penn Station - 30 mph - 20 mph
South of existing B&P Tunnel to Baltimore Washington International (BWI) Rail Station - 110 mph - 50 mph or less
And then I saw that the MARC trains actually take less time to cover most of the segments than the Acelas.
Trip Direction - MARC Commuter1 - Amtrak Regional/Intercity2 - Acela3
Southbound - 5 min, 48 sec - 6 min, 20 sec - 5 min, 52 sec
Northbound (No stop at BWI) - N/A - 6 min, 5 sec - 5 min, 56 sec
Northbound (Stop at BWI) - 6 min, 18 sec - 7 min, 16 sec - 7 min, 1 sec
I believe that time saved directly will be just one of the benefits, but just how much time will be saved? A minute or two?
Will the freight traffic be sped up too? Will that yield real world time savings for Amtrak?
CraigDK
Service Attendant
Chapter 3 of the FEIS (p.29) has a chart showing the travel time reductions for the new tunnels, under Alt 3B (refined). Page 32 has travel times between Baltimore Penn and the Gwynns Falls bridge. Over that segment the current travel times are nearly identical, and the alternative provides time savings for Amtrak and MARC trains, though more for Amtrak. I am assuming that does not account for a stop in West Baltimore. Freight travel times, I don't recall seeing them. However I suppose they will be slightly reduced. Overall I would assume the time savings listed would be fairly close to what is given.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Executive summary, for those playing at home:
Alternate Plan 3 B (refined) [that means, improved since first offered as one of the choices]
Time Savings
Acela 2:31 [two minutes, 31 seconds]
Regional 2:32
MARC 1:49
Estimated cost: $4 Billion
+++++++++++++++++++++
So 2 1/2 minutes it will be, if they stick to the Record of Decision.
(At first, Alt 3 B required losing 150 on-street (free) parking spaces in the affected neighborhood. I thought that number would kill the plan. While in the make-over, the number of spaces being taken drops to 85, that will remain a problem with car-owning members of the public.
)CraigDK
Service Attendant
Its really not that many, and I would suspect most of the cars parked in that area parked would be owned by those residents that will be displaced anyway.(At first, Alt 3 B required losing 150 on-street (free) parking spaces in the affected neighborhood. I thought that number would kill the plan. While in the make-over, the number of spaces being taken drops to 85, that will remain a problem with car-owning members of the public.
CraigDK
Service Attendant
Now that the Record of Decision has been made, the only way I see anything else being built involves doing nothing for at least a decade or two first, at that point it would make sense to see if another plan is better suited at that time.Executive summary, for those playing at home:
Alternate Plan 3 B (refined) [that means, improved since first offered as one of the choices]
Time Savings
Acela 2:31 [two minutes, 31 seconds]
Regional 2:32
MARC 1:49
Estimated cost: $4 Billion
+++++++++++++++++++++
So 2 1/2 minutes it will be, if they stick to the Record of Decision.
(At first, Alt 3 B required losing 150 on-street (free) parking spaces in the affected neighborhood. I thought that number would kill the plan. While in the make-over, the number of spaces being taken drops to 85, that will remain a problem with car-owning members of the public.
Alt 3B has similar advantages to 3C in travel time and improvements to the West Baltimore Station without impacting as many of the historical buildings. Alt 3A avoided those impacts but would have additional impacts on local business (with less benefits to the corridor).
Now the for the real trick, advancing the project beyond this point. Final engineering and property acquisitions could potential be covered in the next couple of years without looking for dedicated funding. That is just speculation on my part, but it would continue to advance the project while looking for a way to pay for the rest of it.
Ziv
Conductor
Saving over 2 minutes isn't chump change. Considering the age of the existing tunnel, I hope they get this funded and the work started soon. I rode through the tunnel just once on a Regional, years ago, and it seemed like we were crawling along.
CraigDK
Service Attendant
Ryan
Court Jester
More important than the trip times, is the the fact that you're trading a 2 track tunnel that requires constant maintenance to a modern 4 track structure.
What has not been discussed that I have seen is the actual dollars historically and estimated in the future to keep the existing tunnels functional (except the buzzwords... expensive... increasing... etc). At some point in time there should be a return on investment which should vacillate various entities to fund the project. Remember Amtrak now has the above the rail profit on the NEC to spend on infrastructure... this could allow revenue bonds. MARC and NS should also be players especially if NS were to desire to move freight traffic on that route and if MARC were to want to increase frequency of trains.
CraigDK
Service Attendant
I am sure that existing maintenance cost are known as well as a reasonably estimate of them going forward. I am not sure the ROI calculation will be what gets this project done, I am just hoping it is not a failure of the current tunnel. As far as using the above the rail profit, a project like this would probably eat that for a considerable length of time....
NS has no motivation to pay, at this point in time they are satisfied running there single out and back day (night?) local through the existing tunnel. MARC on the other hand does.
Last edited by a moderator:
west point
Engineer
MARC has hinted that they expect to park several (?) train sets in the old tunnels. That seems highly unlikely in the long run.
WoodyinNYC
Conductor
Could we (could I?, no, feeling ultra lazy LOL) get a document with the goals, whatever it is, say 2:15 run time for Avelia service NYC-D.C., and the estimated Billions needed to reach that time goal.
The current schedule has a 2:46 run on a couple of Acela departures, but most claim 2:53 end to end.
Take the current time, 2 hrs 53 min, subtract the goal, say 2 hrs 15 min, gives us the savings needed to make that goal, or 38 minutes.
I can't remember the last estimate for this segment, but I'm too lazy tonight to search for it. So, I'll estimate $38 Billion in upgrades needed, for a cost of a Billion per minute.
Now where we gonna get 38 minutes of time saved?
The new Portal Bridge between Newark and NYC is ready to go, needing about a $1.5 Billion investment for 1 minute of time saved. Then adding tracks thru the marshes between Newark and the Hudson Tunnel entrance, another $1 Billion and another 1 minute. Optimists say the new Gateway Tunnels could save 2 minutes, with a preliminary estimate of $24 Billion. A new Susquehanna Bridge could save 1 minute and cost $2 Billion. Constant tension catenary, signaling, undercutting the tracks etc will cost more Billions.
Should this list include the new Avelia equipment or only fixed infrastructure? I'm stumbling a bit here without more work to get better figures, and I can't get a good number for cost per minute saved. But by the seat of my pants, the estimated $4 Billion for 2 min 30 sec from the new Baltimore tunnel does not seem out of line for helping to reach 38 minutes saved to meet a 2 hr 15 min running time goal.
That's before giving value to replacing the 100-year-old tunnel before it collapses, and the added capacity allowing many more Amtrak and MARC trains in the future. A project giving good value for the $4 Billion.
Last edited by a moderator:
CraigDK
Service Attendant
I believe the specs (for the Acela II) trainsets have a certain schedule they need to be able to meet on the current route. Certainly one could figure out the overall cost per minutes saved (from the various projects mentioned) but I will offer two thoughts. First, it would probably be better to discuss it in another thread (there may already be one on the subject buried around here) so as to keep this thread on-topic. Second (and more importantly) any time savings from replacing the current tunnel should really be consider as a fringe benefit of the project, otherwise someone will claim that since it cost ~$2B to save a minute its not worth doing.
Last edited by a moderator:
west point
Engineer
Taking some of these projects as minute saving projects is definitely the wrong approach. From NYP south the following projects are all needed to prevent a complete or partial shutdown of the NEC.
1. Gateway tunnels - One North river tunnel down 75% traffic reduction with probably every other weekend no traffic.
2. Portal bridge -- Old bridge fails complete shutdown south of NYP. Saw tooth bridge same
3. Susquehanna bridge --- Complete disruption PHL <> BAL.
4. Other 2 bridges ------- Same as 3
6. B&P tunnel collapse --- Shut down route from BAL to BWI
North of NYP
7. Walk bridge ------ Shut down some where New Haven <> New Rochelle
8. Other bridges Same Bridges east of new haven -- Any fails then shutdown.
Now there are many NEC projects that will reduce enroute times but they all seem to be much less expensive than these essential projects to protect the NEC. Any failure of listed above would probably INCREASE enroute time by at least 1 - 3 hours
1. Gateway tunnels - One North river tunnel down 75% traffic reduction with probably every other weekend no traffic.
2. Portal bridge -- Old bridge fails complete shutdown south of NYP. Saw tooth bridge same
3. Susquehanna bridge --- Complete disruption PHL <> BAL.
4. Other 2 bridges ------- Same as 3
6. B&P tunnel collapse --- Shut down route from BAL to BWI
North of NYP
7. Walk bridge ------ Shut down some where New Haven <> New Rochelle
8. Other bridges Same Bridges east of new haven -- Any fails then shutdown.
Now there are many NEC projects that will reduce enroute times but they all seem to be much less expensive than these essential projects to protect the NEC. Any failure of listed above would probably INCREASE enroute time by at least 1 - 3 hours
Last edited by a moderator:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Shutting down one Hudson Tunnel reduces throughput by 66% not 75%.
There is no Sawmill Bridge. It is Sawtooth Bridge, and while replacing it is a good idea, it is unlikely to just collapse one day. Its maintenance cost just keeps going up.
There is no Sawmill Bridge. It is Sawtooth Bridge, and while replacing it is a good idea, it is unlikely to just collapse one day. Its maintenance cost just keeps going up.
west point
Engineer
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
If Amtrak thinks 8 slots instead of 24 per hour is 75% then that might explain why their accounting is so screwed up too.
Or they may just be providing more dramatic slightly alternate facts for better effect.
