Gallitzin Tunnels

[Paul_D_North_Jr]

I've wondered the same myself. 

Portage Tunnel is only part of "The Slide" grade - that grade extends beyond / below / eastward of the Tunnel quite a distance, roughly a mile (would need a track chart for details).

Portage Tunnel is also quite a bit shorter than the other two tunnels, IIRC, so presumably less expensive to enlarge.  Also, it was double-track at one time, so I believe it had a higher arch, hence less material to remove for clearance for a single track in the middle, plus more side clearance and room for drainage ditches, etc.

The enlargement was entirely or mostly paid for by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as part of the state-wide double stack clearance project.  "He who has the gold makes the rules . . . ".

Something similar was done at the Spruce Creek Tunnels, about 50 miles further east - one is now a maintenance/ access road. 

- Paul North.   

[tomikawaTT]

Two reasons:

1. The Portage Tunnel is operated primarily downgrade.
2. The ground around the two Gallatzin tunnels is very poor.  The problems discovered during work on the larger bore (originally and currently double track) would have made reworking the other Gallatzin bore an adventure.  A busy railroad doesn't need adventures.

One other thing.  Clearance in the cut at the west end of the Gallatzin tunnels would have created access problems - kind of like trying to get past somebody rummaging in a closet in a narrow hallway.  Since the Portage Tunnel is off by itself there wasn't anything for construction to get in the way of.

Chuck

[GP-9_Man11786]

Does anybody know why Conrail opted to enlarge the one tunnel in Gallitzin and the steeper Portage Tunnel? It seems to me it would've made more sense to enlarge the two in Gallitzin and abandon the Portage tunnel.