Cost for bigger tunnels in the Northeast?

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bjartmarr

Service Attendant
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
130
I understand that the main reason why Amtrak runs single-level cars is because of low tunnels around New York and Baltimore. Clearly, embiggening these tunnels would be expensive. But I read (skimmed) the Amtrak long-term plan and was surprised to find no discussion at all of plans to enlarge or bypass these tunnels -- not even an explanation of why it would be infeasible.

I understand that there are several tunnels reaching their end-of-life, and several new tunnel projects in various stages of planning/stagnation, But nowhere have I read of plans for these tunnels to be high enough to accomodate dual-level railcars (Superliners, or double-stacked shipping containers).

Since dual-levels are cheaper per-passenger to buy and to haul and they need shorter platforms, and going all-dual-level would significantly reduce the number of different models of cars that Amtrak would need to service, I am surprised to find little (no?) discussion of finding a way to make more routes Superliner-capable.

Is there a discussion somewhere of what work would have to be done to make the various East-coast trains into double-deckers?
 
I have had a similar idea rattling around my brain when thinking of the 20 billion number folks have thrown around for the NY tunnel project,,, perhaps it is time to think outside the box?

Would we better served , and excuse me for being ignorant of the geography, by building an LD station on the good side of the river and providing some sort of link into the city? I would assume some place in NJ would hold they yard and terminal and folks having to get into the city would transfer there while the rest of the traffic would be undisturbed? Surely land costs and building would be a lot less expensive than on the island, and you could sell off some of the pricy real estate to finance it,,,

In simple terms separate the LD from the Commuter?

I do not want to be a heretic and I am sure my ignorance shows, but I leaned a long time ago you don't always have to have a round pizza.
 
Several reasons:

It's all or nothing. You can't enlarge just ONE tunnel, you need to enlarge ALL of them. And raise the roof at Penn Station if you want to run Superliner sized equipment into it.

We can't get money to build 2 new Gateway tunnels, let alone enlarge the existing tunnels along the route.

In addition, then you'd need to LOWER all the high level platforms.

And except in commuter service, you don't gain all that much. A Superliner has 84 seats. An Amfleet II has I think 60+?

So not quite 30% more.

Now you could compare Surfliner to Amfleet I to see what might be gained in a corridor train, but the ratio I suspect would be about the same.

You'd have a hard time justifying the costs above to gain the capacity below.
 
There is a difference between doing this with the intent to immediately run bi-level equipment, and doing it to keep open the option of doing so at some unspecified point in the future.

Often, when you're actually digging, making the tunnel some inches higher is not going to blow the costs out of the water, but this can be seen as some sort of future proofing.
 
There is a difference between doing this with the intent to immediately run bi-level equipment, and doing it to keep open the option of doing so at some unspecified point in the future.

Often, when you're actually digging, making the tunnel some inches higher is not going to blow the costs out of the water, but this can be seen as some sort of future proofing.
But it's not something as simple as a few inches. A Superliner is 16' 2". The NJ Transit bilevels (the biggest that can fit through the current tunnels) are 14' 5". So you need to make the tunnel approximately 2' larger in diameter. That's not an insignificant amount.

You can't go UP, since you're under the Hudson, so you have to go 2' deeper. They're already concerned about the grades, so this doesn't help.

And considering Penn Station is 100 years old and unlikely to go any place any time soon, you'd be building tunnels you might not use for a century. And by then when transporters are common place, folks will be wondering why you wasted your money on tunnels that were never fully used.
 
Several reasons:

It's all or nothing. You can't enlarge just ONE tunnel, you need to enlarge ALL of them. And raise the roof at Penn Station if you want to run Superliner sized equipment into it.

We can't get money to build 2 new Gateway tunnels, let alone enlarge the existing tunnels along the route.

In addition, then you'd need to LOWER all the high level platforms.

And except in commuter service, you don't gain all that much. A Superliner has 84 seats. An Amfleet II has I think 60+?

So not quite 30% more.

Now you could compare Surfliner to Amfleet I to see what might be gained in a corridor train, but the ratio I suspect would be about the same.

You'd have a hard time justifying the costs above to gain the capacity below.
The rough ratios are 74 (Superliner) to 59 (Amfleet II) and 90 (California Car) to 72 (Amfleet I). Note that I believe there was, at one time, an 84-seat Amfleet configuration...but you could probably pack some more seats into a California Car or another bilevel car by slightly reshaping them (the California cars are smaller downstairs and you have a 2-1 configuration as a result) and if you can cut luggage space.

Edit: There's one place you could drag some extra capacity out of such an operation, and that would be by having the cafe be replaced by a coach-cafe. Hypothetically replacing a nine-car Regional (566 seats: 7 coaches/72 each and 1 BC/62 each) with California Car equipment, you'd get 777 seats (7 coaches/90 each, BC/75 each, and coach-cafe/72 each), about a 37% bump, assuming you didn't bother using a cab car. Still, between the platforming issues and what-have-you, this would be highly problematic and likely give you a horrid relative return on investment compared with a bunch of other changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Several reasons:

It's all or nothing. You can't enlarge just ONE tunnel, you need to enlarge ALL of them. And raise the roof at Penn Station if you want to run Superliner sized equipment into it.

We can't get money to build 2 new Gateway tunnels, let alone enlarge the existing tunnels along the route.
In these discussions that pop up from time to time about clearances on the NEC, the focus tends to be just on the Baltimore and NY tunnels. What about the many road and highway bridges over the NEC? Some of them may have too little clearance for a raised catenary plus the height needed for a Superliner. Then there are the stations, not just NYP, but Newark, 30th Street, BAL which were built for the current clearances which have building and/or overhead structures that would get in the way of increasing the height clearances.

The cost would likely be mind-boggling to increase the clearances along the entire 453 miles of the NEC. And would be a terrible use of already insufficient funds.
 
I wonder how much more economical it is to actually run super liners. When you consider all of the costs involved in having two equipment types is that 30% increase in capacity really worth it?
 
For all practical purposes Commuter double deckers (which is by far the most predominant traffic into and out of New york) already fit in the 14'6" envelope. What does not fit is the 16' double deckers. The double decker high speed trains that exist all mostly fit the 14'6" envelope. The Japanese ones neither fit the 14'6" height nor the 10'6" width. So all in all there is very little to be gained by even planning to fit 16" cars in the far far future. it is at best going to be yet another boondoggle eating up money that is better spent elsewhere.

Honestly, there are so few LD trains and so few that ever will be to NY that there is zero cost justification to worry about bringing Superliners to NY, except among the foamers of course :p

Anyway, that (except the foamare part) happens to Amtrak's and NEC Future PEIS's official position. It is not something that is currently under any serious consideration.
 
As long as we are contemplating the impossible, wouldn't it be nice if the Autotrain came all the way up to at least NY or NJ, not to mention Boston? But with the height of those auto carriers, that is really dreaming.
 
As long as we are contemplating the impossible, wouldn't it be nice if the Autotrain came all the way up to at least NY or NJ, not to mention Boston? But with the height of those auto carriers, that is really dreaming.
The increased capital cost and operating cost may not fully get recouped by the possible additional ridership, is what I have heard. It will definitely require at least one more, possibly two more consists, even if one were able to get the other obvious logistical problems fixed. So yeah, ain't gonna happen.
 
I just think it's surprising that I couldn't find any discussion on it that went any deeper than what's been posted in this thread: basically, "Nope, not gonna happen, not worth talking about, not worth studying, not worth even thinking about. New tunnels gonna be tunnel-sized; what you talkin' about with your crazy 'big tunnel' nonsense." It's as if somebody proposed a bike path to the moon.

I would have thought that somebody somewhere would have enumerated the obstacles to running taller equipment at least on a portion of the tracks. The freight companies, if nothing else -- they would stand to reap huge savings. I bet they have done so, actually; I just can't find it.
 
I just think it's surprising that I couldn't find any discussion on it that went any deeper than what's been posted in this thread: basically, "Nope, not gonna happen, not worth talking about, not worth studying, not worth even thinking about. New tunnels gonna be tunnel-sized; what you talkin' about with your crazy 'big tunnel' nonsense." It's as if somebody proposed a bike path to the moon.

I would have thought that somebody somewhere would have enumerated the obstacles to running taller equipment at least on a portion of the tracks. The freight companies, if nothing else -- they would stand to reap huge savings. I bet they have done so, actually; I just can't find it.
You'd probably have to go to the corporate archives of the Pennsylvania Railroad or Amtrak. It's not something that the railroads themselves would have published on the internet - even if it had been invented at the time.

jb
 
"It's as if somebody proposed a bike path to the moon."

It's about as likely as that, yes.

I'm not sure why you think anyone would publish documents pertaining to private business analyses on the Internet.
 
Actually this has been discussed over and over and over again in the various Public Liaison Committee meetings during the initial scoping discussion back in 1995, then during the ARC EIS and SEIE, and the again at each early meeting of the NEC Future in the New York area. I personally attended many of them. So you can choose to trust me or not.

The idea that freight railroads are dying to send their freight train across the harbor is a myth borne out of ignorance of the freight railroads' developing operational plans for the New York area. Only thing that anyone wants to send is some carloads i.e. a dying business with containers taking over. Indeed, the trend has been for the freight railroads to move their container transhipment point away from the New York area, except for the containers that are being transshipped to ships in the harbor, and that is all on the NJ side, since large container ships cannot really berth on the NY side due to lack of suitable land access that is viable relative to ultimate destination of said containers.

Actually the Nadler tunnel would be neat for providing a second passenger route to LI from NJ, but that would all be subsidized traffic. The proposition for freight railroads is quite iffy from what I have been told by people who actually look at the business case for such things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not a matter of trust, Jis.

I like thinking about this stuff. I like speculating. I like playing what-if. I would enjoy reading a detailed analysis, if one were available.

Surely you folks here can understand that. From what I can tell, about half the posts on AU are playing what-if.
 
It's not a matter of trust, Jis.

I like thinking about this stuff. I like speculating. I like playing what-if. I would enjoy reading a detailed analysis, if one were available.

Surely you folks here can understand that. From what I can tell, about half the posts on AU are playing what-if.
Oh yeah. I understand. I wasn;t particularly pointing at you in that remark. Sorry if I came across that way.
Actually, on the whole I think it would be an excellent idea to build such a tunnel, but not for some mystical freight to materialize, but to provide better passenger connectivity. It should be done fully realizing what the money was being spent for and what the returns in growth in economic activity would be, just like zillions have been spent on highways, not necessarily as much in vain as is implied by some in AU. All I feel sad about is people building up castles in the air to justify something.
 
I just think it's surprising that I couldn't find any discussion on it that went any deeper than what's been posted in this thread: basically, "Nope, not gonna happen, not worth talking about, not worth studying, not worth even thinking about. New tunnels gonna be tunnel-sized; what you talkin' about with your crazy 'big tunnel' nonsense." It's as if somebody proposed a bike path to the moon.

I would have thought that somebody somewhere would have enumerated the obstacles to running taller equipment at least on a portion of the tracks. The freight companies, if nothing else -- they would stand to reap huge savings. I bet they have done so, actually; I just can't find it.
If you want detailed analysis on the Baltimore tunnels and rail clearances in the Baltimore region for both freight and passenger, the FRA wrote 2 studies on possible Baltimore rail tunnel replacements: one in 2005 and the final report in 2011. FRA eLibrary page for the January 2011 report Baltimore’s Railroad Network: Analysis and Recommendations. (34 MB PDF). The 2011 report is in effect the feasibility study for the follow-on $60 million B&P Tunnel replacement engineering and engineering study.

The FRA study looks at 2 replacement tunnels for the west side of Baltimore, a 2 track passenger rail tunnel for the NEC and a parallel plate H clearance freight tunnel to replace the CSX Howard St tunnel. CSX is not apparently all that interested in replacing the Howard St tunnel because the replacement great circle freight tunnel would run a billion dollars or more. CSX is spending their money at present on replacing the Virginia Ave tunnel in Washington DC with a 2 track double stack clearance tunnel (Virginia Ave tunnel website) and increasing clearances to allow double stack trains through DC to Pittsburgh. Google CSX National Gateway project for details. There are reports and studies out there, just have to find them.

The B&P tunnel replacement engineering study is underway, and that will presumably result in a tunnel design with increased clearances over the 1870s B&P tunnel. But I doubt if providing clearances to run Superliners is anywhere in the requirements.
 
A long subject. Tall cars that are full double deck do not have to have low level boarding points in the middle of the car. . They can be built with standard height vestibule doors only with or without low level steps in vestibule.

First the Gateway tunnel box being built is designed for double deck cars taller than present superliners. So we can expect that the Gateway tunnels will have at least the same clearance. The Penn south station design also has this clearance height. Naturally these cars could not go onto the present NYP tracks 1 - 29.

The planned #5 & #6 East river tunnel design also has the same clearance height. The Harold interlocking underpass of the LIRR also is being built for this height. Sunnyside yard CAT definitely would need to be raised.

Second The new Portal bridges planned are planned for the higher height. Do not know present Portal draw clearance or Secaucus station.

Third Newark Penn station and the Dock draw (?) have definite problems, Platform Canopy would need to be raised or new tracks built. The old CNJ RR bridge over the south end of Newark Penn will need to be removed.

Fourth - The Trenton Underpass can be undercut but that will present a further problem with the flooding from the Delaware river.

Fifth - The tracks 1-7 or 1-9 at Philadelphia do not have clearance but higher number tracks to the west has a much higher clearance.

Sixth - The tunnels north of Baltimore may need under cutting. The proposed plans for the new B&P do seem to allow for plate "H" cars which would allow any passenger car size previously mentioned. Note the present B&P tunnel has a Gauntlet track ( for NS freights ) down the middle of the two tracks that will allow any size passenger car but limits the tunnel to one way traffic.

Seventh - CAT clearance at Washington Union Station is only 6" above superliner heights on just some tracks. That will require CAT to be raised there and at Ivy City terminal.

Conclusion; No plans at present for tall Superliner type cars but all projects are being built to allow in the distant future. Not in my lifetime. That may be the only way to handle future traffic both Amtrak and Commuter.
 
I wonder how much more economical it is to actually run super liners. When you consider all of the costs involved in having two equipment types is that 30% increase in capacity really worth it?
I wonder this too. I love the Superliners and would be upset if my beloved CL didn't have them, but I do question their existence in the first place.
 
I wonder how much more economical it is to actually run super liners. When you consider all of the costs involved in having two equipment types is that 30% increase in capacity really worth it?
I wonder this too. I love the Superliners and would be upset if my beloved CL didn't have them, but I do question their existence in the first place.
The Superliners work fine where they are used. There's no need to have the same equipment on every train in the system. They will never be used on trains using the NEC. That shouldn't rule out their use where clearances permit.
 
As long as we are contemplating the impossible, wouldn't it be nice if the Autotrain came all the way up to at least NY or NJ, not to mention Boston? But with the height of those auto carriers, that is really dreaming.
The increased capital cost and operating cost may not fully get recouped by the possible additional ridership, is what I have heard. It will definitely require at least one more, possibly two more consists, even if one were able to get the other obvious logistical problems fixed. So yeah, ain't gonna happen.
Furthermore, as we have discussed on other threads, by starting south of the NEC, the Auto train caputres NEC based traffic very well. If people had to first drive north to catch a train going south, this would lessen the perceived usefulness of the train.

Intermediate stops for the Auto Train casue logistical challenges requiring eitehr cars to be switched or very long stops. So there would be no way to serve both Lorton and Boston with one train. The next best option would thus be to run two separate trains. I don't know if there is enough demand in the Boston and beyond area to fill a second train.

And even if there was, it might be more rational to run that second train with single-level equipment (and European style auto carriers)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top