This link on page 20 ( expect to blow it up to about 400 % ) will give an overview of the portal south bridge as part of Gateway. ( the link will take a lot of memory ). Notice how the Gateway plan does not have the new tracks going thru Secacus
http://www.necfuture.com/pdfs/tier1_deis/appendix/app_a.pdf
On the last paragraph of this link is the statement that the Portal swing bridge will not be decommisioned until Portal south is built as part of the Gateway project. So once Portal north is in service there will be 4 tracks from near the NJ portals thru Secacus to Newark Penn.
Note this poster is skeptical that the 4 tracks will be in service shortly after Portal north is in service but maybe.
http://www.nec-commission.com/cin_projects/portal-bridge-north-south/
The link for the EIR on the FRA website doesn't work anymore.
Ed
The fact sheet says the new bridge will be good for 90 mph. They've got plenty of room for 90 mph curves to a new bridge that leaves plenty of room for the old bridge to open during construction. (Or after construction, for that matter.)
Remember that EIR (or whatever it was) online a few years ago that had maps and profiles of the two new Portal bridges and their approaches? Can anyone find that now? (Not that any of its plans are going to happen.)
MC is correct the north side bridge will be as close as possible to the present portal bridge. That will allow for the planned relocation of the approaches long enough so no speed restrictions. The new bridge appears to have its center span longer than the present swing bridge. Suspect that is so the new bridge piers will not interfer with the operation of the present swing. Also getting enough distance from present piers may be a consideration.
Thanks for the photo Wanswheel! Great shot, and it makes me just a little homesick, especially this time of year. The Hackensack Meadows with "The City" peeking up over the horizon.
Bear in mind I mean absolutely no disrepect to the rest of the country when I say as far as I'm concerned North Jersey is "Christmas Country." The climate, the lights on homes, the food, all of it.
Or maybe it's because it's home, and with all it's annoyances and frustrations that drive so many of us away it always will be.
Here is artwork showing the first bridge installed. You can see what looks like piers of the old bridge:
Here is artwork that shows two bridges with the piers removed:
And here is a reminder that artwork does not necessarily reflect reality:
The geometry of speed and the fact all the surrounding real estate is occupied on the approaches pretty well keeps a new bridge in the same place.
What would the logistics be in replacing the bridge? Would a temporary span be built in order to ultimately use the same alignment or would the new bridge be built on a new alignement along side the exsiting?
Thanks
Anthony V.
Thanks. Neat photo.
Forget to mention (understandably) - there was a rather poor 1968 comedy movie titled "Don't Raise the Bridge, Lower the River" - see:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061591/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_Raise_the_Bridge,_Lower_the_River
. . . never mind . .
- Paul North.
MidlandMike - Right, I did note that the Long bridge was 135 ft.; wasn't sure about Hell Gate, but did think it was higher than the proposed Portal Bridge. My use of Hell Gate was to point out a similar (though not identical) situation nearby for those familiar with it.
Paul_D_North_Jr No idea if this "Movable Bridge Engineers" company ever had anything to do with the Portal Bridge, but it's clear they have a lot of expertise (and include Amtrak as one of their clients): http://www.sbengineering.net/ - Paul North.
No idea if this "Movable Bridge Engineers" company ever had anything to do with the Portal Bridge, but it's clear they have a lot of expertise (and include Amtrak as one of their clients):
http://www.sbengineering.net/
As well as BNSF, CSX & NS, but surpisingly not KCS or UP.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Paul, thanks for the pro's assesment of this bridge project. The only quibble I had was your seeming comparison of the Portal project to Hell Gate Bridge. Hell Gate and Huey P Long Bridges are both 135 ft above water, about 2 1/2 times highe than the Portal project.
From reading the report, Amtrak/FRA had a professional bridge inspector inspecting Portal Bridge. It would appear that that person may not have done an adequate job. Whether that was from lack of training, lack of ability, or negligence is not clear. I don't see that simply contracting the job out would help.
The bridge can be operated manually. If the power goes out. It is undoubtedly slower than motor operation. But if it is infrequent, then manual operation would suffice.
I do not think there is a standby generator for the bridge. As built, the bridge had two 70 HP motors. That's equivalent to 105 kw. A very rough ball park price for a generator that size would be $10,000. In fact, before it would all be done, likely the price would go up to at least $50,000. But properly maintained, that generator could be resold. Alternately, one could be leased.
I would think an analysis of power failures to the bridge would answer whether an alternate power supply would be a good idea.
The bridge has a data recorder, so that information is certainly available.
Looking a little farther, I think I might raise that price to $100,000.
A question for our draw bridge experts. Would you say that inspection & maintenance and more inspection of some mechanical portions on any draw but especially swing bridges is so specialized that they would be done by contract personell ?
Another point. Remember when the Thames river bridge lost all its power due to feeder failures ? That made the bridge unable to raise..
Anyone know if the present Portal bridge has a second set of electrical feeders ? If its primary electrical source is still the CAT feeders then there is a bigger cost to maintain obsolete 25 Hz mechanisims, motors, and equipment . As well does it have a standby generator ? All more maintenance costs.
7j43k BaltACD Amtrak has NEVER had a maintenance budget to bring it's facilities to a state of 'good repair'. Like any other person or organization that is trying to get the most bang for their bucks - money gets allocated on a 'what can we get by with' form of priority. Under those circumstance, sometimes you will lose your gamble. That doesn't let them off the hook, but it is why some maintenance items don't get FIXED as soon as they are noticed. I am not very informed on Amtrak maintenance budget and the efficiency in which they use it. But you make a good point. Perhaps there was not enough money. Perhaps it wasn't allocated properly. Perhaps it wasn't used efficiently. Perhaps management was incompetent. I will say that in reading the report, the "bottom level" (grunts) of Amtrak came off looking real good. If there was a failing with them, it was that they didn't have good enough training. See management. The report is, as I said, great reading. Ed
BaltACD Amtrak has NEVER had a maintenance budget to bring it's facilities to a state of 'good repair'. Like any other person or organization that is trying to get the most bang for their bucks - money gets allocated on a 'what can we get by with' form of priority. Under those circumstance, sometimes you will lose your gamble. That doesn't let them off the hook, but it is why some maintenance items don't get FIXED as soon as they are noticed.
Amtrak has NEVER had a maintenance budget to bring it's facilities to a state of 'good repair'. Like any other person or organization that is trying to get the most bang for their bucks - money gets allocated on a 'what can we get by with' form of priority. Under those circumstance, sometimes you will lose your gamble. That doesn't let them off the hook, but it is why some maintenance items don't get FIXED as soon as they are noticed.
I am not very informed on Amtrak maintenance budget and the efficiency in which they use it. But you make a good point.
Perhaps there was not enough money. Perhaps it wasn't allocated properly. Perhaps it wasn't used efficiently. Perhaps management was incompetent.
I will say that in reading the report, the "bottom level" (grunts) of Amtrak came off looking real good. If there was a failing with them, it was that they didn't have good enough training. See management.
The report is, as I said, great reading.
Amtrak, since the day it was formed, has never had a budget that would allow their equipment and facilities to ever be brought to a state of 'good repair'. One needs to look no further than Congress for the cause of this.
7j43k Paul_D_North_Jr I wouldn't fault Amtrak's maintenance of the bridge too much, without knowing more facts. Well, there's this statement by the NTSB: "The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of Amtrak management to foster an environment that promoted adequate inspection, maintenance, and repair of the miter rail assemblies on Portal Bridge and to permanently correct defects in the miter rail sidebars that were discovered 10 months before the accident." While it's only talking about one maintenance failure 20 years ago (happily, no one was killed), there is no reason to think that Amtrak's behavior in this instance was anomalous. The quote was taken from the document I mentioned earlier. I finally had some time to read the whole thing. It is really interesting. The details are fascinating. I recommend on railfans read it. Ed
Paul_D_North_Jr I wouldn't fault Amtrak's maintenance of the bridge too much, without knowing more facts.
I wouldn't fault Amtrak's maintenance of the bridge too much, without knowing more facts.
Well, there's this statement by the NTSB:
"The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of the accident was the failure of Amtrak management to foster an environment that promoted adequate inspection, maintenance, and repair of the miter rail assemblies on Portal Bridge and to permanently correct defects in the miter rail sidebars that were discovered 10 months before the accident."
While it's only talking about one maintenance failure 20 years ago (happily, no one was killed), there is no reason to think that Amtrak's behavior in this instance was anomalous.
The quote was taken from the document I mentioned earlier. I finally had some time to read the whole thing. It is really interesting. The details are fascinating. I recommend on railfans read it.
7j43k $125 per hour seems a bit steep for a guy holding a flag. It might be informative to break down the labor burden for that employee. But, as I said, mine was just a ballpark guess--an order of magnitude sort of thing.
$125 per hour seems a bit steep for a guy holding a flag. It might be informative to break down the labor burden for that employee. But, as I said, mine was just a ballpark guess--an order of magnitude sort of thing.
In reality, $125/Hr is actually kinda cheap - especially in that part of the country and with union labor to boot. The associated costs that support that employee in the background continue to rise. (Used to be all movable bridges had bridge tenders. This tired old bridge required those bridge tenders still be there instead of being remotely controlled from Philadelphia only.)The west coast bridges in no way handle the loading cycle frequencies of the Portal Bridge.
Amtrak internally keeps the bridge inspection records. FRA has the right to review those records plus makes their own random checks with their limited staff (bridge people inside FRA are few in number in spite of recent attempts to add staff). FOIA might get the FRA records, but the Amtrak in house data is going to be harder to access.(private railroad data even harder than quasi public Amtrak)
Only way I know of for an 'outsider' to obtain the actual bridge inspection reports is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, unless one has 'inside' contacts. Perhaps the PR people will be willing to provide one in lieu of the FOIA headache.
Deggesty[snipped - PDN] At the least, [BNSF] does not have to go hat in hand to anyone to obtain the necesary funds to maintain its property.
450 trains per day;
Say 500 passengers avg. per train ==> 200,000 passengers per day
At $1.00 per ticket 'surcharge' ==> $200K per day added funding.
x 5 = $1M per week, $50M per year.
To 'payback' $1.3B = $1,300M would be 26 years. So 30-year bonds would work, with a little more refinement of the numbers - mainly adding the interest costs.
Doubt if this would hurt the ridership much. With the alternative costs of tolls into and parking in Manhattan, the surcharge could probably be $10 per ticket during the peak hours (= business / commuter travel), and still not affect ridership much, IMHO.
Paul,
Thank you for your comments.
Re: Amtrak and maintenance on the bridge. I don't doubt that Penn Central may have come up short on maintenance. Or even PRR. So when Amtrak took over and received and evaluated this bridge, they knew it had received inadequate maintenance. I wonder what the bridge inspection report said when that happened. And what they decided to do.
But that may well be (salt) water under the bridge.
Your thoughts on the bridge structure and its supports are welcome.
Do you know how to access the inspection reports for this bridge?
Murphy Siding Whether you mean to or don't mean to, your statements come off this way:
7j43k, that's about what they sounded like to me too.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Thank you, Paul, for your comments.
As you wrote of the BNSF and its bridge replacement program, we are aware that the BNSF is a profitable road and it wants to continue being so--thus it invests money in the property that enables it to be profitable. At the least, it does not have to go hat in hand to anyone to obtain the necesary funds to maintain its property.
Johnny
Sorry, Murphy, I get 2,257 years, too, for the $576K per year ($1.3B = $1,300M divided by $0.576M/ year = roughly 2,600 years as an 'order of magnitude' estimate).
The $576,000 appears to be based on 40 hrs. per week for 48 weeks a year ($96K per person per year).
The $50 per hour rate = $400 per 8-hr. day may be way too low. For example, CSX* sugggests using $1,000 per day for a flagman ($125 per hr.), and $1,200 to $1,500 per day for an inspector ($150 to $187.50 per hr.). Using the $1,000 per day x 52 weeks x 5 days = $260K per person per year, x 6 = $1.56M per year. That would 'shorten' the 'payback' period to about 833 years . . .
(* https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/library/files/customers/property-real-estate/permitting/permit-information-packet/ , page 3 = 5 of 14 of the PDF format version)
In addition to some of the above well-thought out comments:
One component of the proposed new bridge not mentioned yet is the lengthy, high, and hence very expensive 'ramps' up to the new bridge on both sides. Consider:
New clearance over water: 53 ft.
Existing clearance over water: 23 ft.
Increase: 30 ft. (assuming same depth for bridge deck and supporting beams, etc.)
Assume allowable grade of 1% (for 90 MPH) ==> 3,000 ft. from PVI to PVI.
Assume allowable Delta G of 0.10% per 100 ft. (per AREMA; only 0.05% in sags, but use 0.10 anyway) ==> 1,000 ft. added (500 ft. each end of each ramp). Note that at 90 MPH = 132 ft./ second, the change in slope would be about 7.5 seconds, about 0.13% per second.
So each ramp would be around 4,000 ft. long. It would be like another Hell Gate Bridge over on the other side of Manhattan, but not quite as much as the Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans (135 ft. above the water, 2% approach grades IIRC).
I wouldn't fault Amtrak's maintenance of the bridge too much, without knowing more facts. As blue streak 1 alludes to above, the deferred maintenance likely started before this bridge became Amtrak's in 1976. Since the route segment including this bridge is and was almost exclusively used for passenger service, likely the maintenance on it started to decrease circa 1955 when the PRR started to realize that passenger service was going to be a money-loser for the forseeable future. Penn Central would only have continued that practice, so by the time Amtrak got it in 1976 there had been 20 years of under-maintenance not going on. That would be like a cancer - no way of recovering it or getting it out without removal and reconstruction.
Otherwise, all those laced pieces between the main members are a wonderful place for all sorts of dirt, debris, and acid rain to collect - thankfully, not coal dust, etc., since no freight or steam locomotives used this route - and start the corrosion and decay process, much like your teeth when you don't brush and floss them regularly.
I'd also wonder about the foundations at the end abutments and under the center pivot. I've not seen any detailed documentation of their construction, but even though they're masonry, I doubt if they're resting on bedrock - likely pilings instead, perhaps even timber ones. In that swamp, I'd wonder about their present condition - no practical way to inspect them - and with that construction and traffic levels, nor to replace them, either. Modern construction would also use piles, but steel instead, and more intensive field-testing and instrumentation.
A little-known fact is that more bridges are lost to scour = erosion around the abutments and piers due to fast-moving water, than to overload conditions or other structural failures. I'm now employed by a joint venture on a project to replace about 558 bridges in Pennsylvania over 3 years, and the vast majority will have pilings under each abutment and the middle piers, precisely to prevent that failure if scour does occur - in a worst-case scenario, the bridges will be like on stilts above the streambed.
While many of those old railroad bridges were indeed overdesigned and overbuilt, this one was never intended to have steam locomotives operating on it - only electrics, with more uniform wieghts and impacts - so the added strength to resist the steamer's dynamic augment from the rotating rods may not have been considered.
Also, the surplus strength may not be uniform. Typically, the main members are OK, but the deck - floor cross-beams and longitudinal stringers and their cross-bracing, etc. - are the ones that are the most deteriorated. They're also the hardest to replace because they're right below the track, and require the track to be removed to accomplish much of anything in the way of replacement.
Finally, consider that other railroads - notably BNSF - have been replacing their similar swing spans across Midwestern rivers (fresh water) such as the Missouri for several decades now; also, UP's Kate Shelley Bridge. Those are motivated by a variety of factors, but age, deterioration, load limitations, speed restrictions, navigation issues, etc., all play a part. Being for-profit organizations, they must be convinced that the benefits are worth the cost. Seems to me that the Portal Bridge is of like kind.
Murphy Siding 7j43k I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying. Ed Fair enough, I suppose. I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't understand what you're trying to say. Suggesting I study your words more carefully is to suggest that studying them will somehow make me understand what thry're supposed to mean. If I'm leaping to conclusions based on what I wish to think you are saying, it's because you're not that clear. I imagine that you see this reply as simply another misinterpretation of your statements, so I'll just leave it at that. If you can't explain what you mean and expect others to understand, they can only interpret your thoughts based on your words and your tone, and they will judge for themselves.
7j43k I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying. Ed
I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying.
Fair enough, I suppose. I don't think I'm the only one that doesn't understand what you're trying to say. Suggesting I study your words more carefully is to suggest that studying them will somehow make me understand what thry're supposed to mean. If I'm leaping to conclusions based on what I wish to think you are saying, it's because you're not that clear. I imagine that you see this reply as simply another misinterpretation of your statements, so I'll just leave it at that. If you can't explain what you mean and expect others to understand, they can only interpret your thoughts based on your words and your tone, and they will judge for themselves.
Looks like, in the words of Strother Martin, "What we've got here is failure to communicate."
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.