blue streak 1Is it posible or a very strange coincidence that Amtrak had major CAT problems Saturday night Sunday morning at or at least near Portal Bridge.? Settlement or shifting of casion supporting of 1 or more CAT verticle poles?
Also a coincidence there was heavy rain at that time?
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
7j43kTrue. I wonder how much savings in maintenance would be realized, compared to the cost of the new bridge and trackage.
I don't understand your argument, the bridge is well over 100 years old and needs to be replaced anyway. The replacement will be fixed span as well. To me that means safer and higher speed limit across it. Even if they weld the old bridge closed and attempted an upgrade vs replace that is going to cost big bucks and you would not have much of a revised life span and I have my doubts you would have a higher speed limit. The new bridge is already under construction as well from what I understand.
Is it posible or a very strange coincidence that Amtrak had major CAT problems Saturday night Sunday morning at or at least near Portal Bridge.? Settlement or shifting of casion supporting of 1 or more CAT verticle poles?
blue streak 1Chief bridge engineer / manager fired. No speculation but wonder what caused this? NJ Transit fires manager of new Portal Bridge construction, part of Gateway tunnel project (yahoo.com)
NJ Transit fires manager of new Portal Bridge construction, part of Gateway tunnel project (yahoo.com)
Sounds like a direct 'personality' conflict. The question has to be - was there too much or too little corruption taking place as that area of the country has had a history of corruption on many levels.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Chief bridge engineer / manager fired. No speculation but wonder what caused this?
Project finally going ahead as New York and New Jersey agree on funding contributions:
Article about repairing the south tube ( reported in worse shape ).
Amtrak Forces Improve Safety, Reliability in North River Tunnel - Amtrak Media
blue streak 1 All these arguments appear moot as NJT has supposedly now received funding for Portal South as well. Now Amtrak will have 2 identical 2 track fixed ballast deck bridges with enough clearances, Then the present bridge can finally be dismantled.
All these arguments appear moot as NJT has supposedly now received funding for Portal South as well. Now Amtrak will have 2 identical 2 track fixed ballast deck bridges with enough clearances, Then the present bridge can finally be dismantled.
I'm pretty sure they were moot years ago, at least as far as having ANY effect on what would really happen.
What's being discussed here, among other things, is whether it was a good decision.
But I'm sure there's a tug boat operator in the area who is relieved to find that, maybe 10 years from now, the task of getting through the bridge will be eased. Lucky guy!
Ed
Thanks. Interesting stuff.
Sounds like inadequate maintenance causing the crash. I wonder if there's an NTSB report on it.
Of course, if the bridge is made non-rotating, that-all is a thing of the past.
I wonder what caused the overhead wires to overheat, especially right there. Usually, wires overheat because there's too much power being transmitted. Wonder if that's the case, or something else.
If the catenary is run straight through the bridge, and the structures that are there to allow a gap at each end of the bridge are removed, there should be little reason that that particular section of catenary would be any riskier than any other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Bridge
1996 derailment
The bridge was site of a derailment on November 23, 1996[10] when the swing bridge failed to close properly. Amtrak's northbound Fast Mail train #12, with twelve passenger and mail coaches pulled by two locomotives on a Washington-to-Boston run with 88 passengers and 20 crew members, derailed as it reached the bridge. It sideswiped the southbound Carolinian, but continued across the bridge, prevented from plunging through the trestles into the river by guide rails that parallel the main tracks. Then its twin locomotives, a baggage car, and three passenger coaches plunged over an embankment.[10]: 1–5  There were no deaths; thirty-four people were hospitalized.[20] The reason for the derailment was that a rail was 5 inches higher than it was supposed to be, and acted as a ramp.[10][21] As a result of the derailment, the maximum speed on the bridge was lowered to 60 mph (97 km/h),[1] making the bridge a choke point for the entire Northeast Corridor. The cost of the derailment was estimated at $3.6 million.[10]: 8 
Fires
On May 13, 2005, the bridge caught on fire. NJ Transit engineers believe that the 13kV overhead electrical wires overheated, sending shards of metal towards the creosote-covered wooden fenders at the base of the bridge.[22] The immediate result of the fire was to block all traffic until the next morning.[12] The cost of the incident was $5 million.[23]
On August 4, 2014, the bridge caught on fire, interrupting rail traffic for half an hour.
blue streak 1 let us see what has been ignored. 1. Portal north is necessary to provide the first of 2 bridges there. There are going to be 4 tracks from the exit of the new North river tunnel portals thru Secacus to Newark Penn station. So at least another bridge has to be built anyway for those additional tracks. If you have to build one bridge might as well build both (Portal south). Once the Gateway project is complete the plans are to increase thru put to almost double. That includes hourly Acela-2s, more LD, regional trains, and more NJT trains.
let us see what has been ignored.
1. Portal north is necessary to provide the first of 2 bridges there. There are going to be 4 tracks from the exit of the new North river tunnel portals thru Secacus to Newark Penn station. So at least another bridge has to be built anyway for those additional tracks. If you have to build one bridge might as well build both (Portal south). Once the Gateway project is complete the plans are to increase thru put to almost double. That includes hourly Acela-2s, more LD, regional trains, and more NJT trains.
Yes. If you want 4 tracks through there, you'll need another bridge.
With Portal north built the hazards navigating thru swing bridge may be more hazardous.
"may". May not. And to what extent. Could, of course, keep trucking the poop as has been happening for a number of years.
Nevertheless, barges have been going through the existing opening for quite some time, with no evidence of a problem (scrapes on wood protectors).
2. The present swing bridge has a permanent 60 MPH slow order and had a 30 MPH one when I went over it. 90 MPH limit for south bound approaching Newark Penn. North bound not sure?
There must be a reason for that. A person could suggest that if the bridge were converted to non-rotating, the reason(s) would be gone. I do.
3. What is the present swing bridge Coouper rating? New one will have a higher one. The higherthe rating the less wear on a bridge.
I don't know, but it must have been high enough to handle the locomotives and freight of the main line of the PRR up until Conrail. I assume Amtrak equipment is much lighter than what was used back then, so I don't see a problem.
4. Am not sure of design of center pivot but some swing bridges have to be opened to do maintenance on the pivot. Believe Long bridge ( center pivot premanly closed since last opening for upstream bridge) does not but Balt may enlighten us.
If it doesn't pivot anymore, any maintenance on said pivot would be seldom.
5. The pivot is in brackage waters and has wooden pilings that may need. replacing in a few years. Portal North will get pilings out of water.
I see no evidence of wooden pilings supporting the present Portal Bridge.
6. Bridges now built have provisions to enable replacement of steel members while in service. Spuyten Duyvill bridge ( swing ) had to be removed to change out members and pivot. Closing Empire service there for several months. Result was the detour to GCT. Not sure present Portal will need the same TLC?
So you can take out a piece of one of those steel arches, and the bridge won't fall? I doubt that very much.
7. Steel does not last forever when close to waters. Now weathering steel today lasts much longer.
It can do awfully well when properly maintained. Periodic bridge inspections will reveal to what extent the bridge has degraded.
I found an FRA document discussing the replacement of the Connecticut River Bridge:
https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/fra_net/15548/May%202014%20Amtrak%20Conn%20River%20Environmental%20Assessment%20REDUCED.pdf
It is one of the several hundred year old movable bridges that Amtrak will likely replace and makes a good general standin for the other bridges.
There is a brief discussion of the failings of the current bridge.
There is no mention of salt water damage.
The failings all appear to be related to the lift mechanism. I see nothing in those descriptions that are irrepairable.
Note that I am proposing making the Portal Bridge non-moving. So if it has failings in its movement mechanism, those can be discounted.
7j43kPoint one: Note that I advocate for making this bridge non-rotating: a fixed truss bridge with a clearance of 23'. Point two: The clear span of the rotating bridge is about 140'. It's been that way for over 100 years, and all up-river shipping design has been based on that. Among other things. So 140' has been deemed adequate. Yes, it would be more pleasant if it were 300'. But it's not. And it doesn't appear to need to be. And it is NOT the task of Amtrak to make it more pleasant. So, if a new lift bridge were installed, there would be no reason to increase the 140' span, except to make upriver more attractive to shipping. Which is NOT the task of Amtrak. As it is, it appears the existing bridge offers two choices of a 140' passageway. And it has been so used for over 100 years. Ed
Note that I advocate for making this bridge non-rotating: a fixed truss bridge with a clearance of 23'.
Point two:
The clear span of the rotating bridge is about 140'. It's been that way for over 100 years, and all up-river shipping design has been based on that. Among other things. So 140' has been deemed adequate.
Yes, it would be more pleasant if it were 300'. But it's not. And it doesn't appear to need to be. And it is NOT the task of Amtrak to make it more pleasant.
So, if a new lift bridge were installed, there would be no reason to increase the 140' span, except to make upriver more attractive to shipping. Which is NOT the task of Amtrak.
As it is, it appears the existing bridge offers two choices of a 140' passageway. And it has been so used for over 100 years.
100+ years in contact with salt water - what could possibly structurally degrade over that time.[/sarcasm]
Remember in the rubber tire world The Interstate System is 65 years old and was constructed with a 50 year lifespan. Railroad facilities may be constructed to have a longer lifespan - however, that lifespan is not 'forever' as some think. If and when you replace a capital project, you design it for its NEXT lifetime, not its past lifetime. Remember, the way of our world is - BIGGER, FASTER, HEAVIER.
7j43kI would like to learn more about the replacement of these bridges, and what failures caused the need. I do not recall seeing such about the Portal Bridge.
They have replaced the Nantic bridge, and are in the process of replacing the Norwalk bridge, both in Conn. I hear Perryville bridge is next.
7j43kIn particular, could you please find a link or something that supports your statements. For a project such as this, there should have been a whole lot of engineering reports that are available to the public.
I am not disputing the replacement of Portal, and since I am not an engineer, I wouldn't be able to anyway. If you are disputing the engineering, why aren't you reviewing the plans already?
Keep in mind that a 140' clearance is not that great. That's only about 30' wider than the locks on the Great Lakes. Also, watercraft can drift from side to side so a narrow passage increases the chances of striking the center pier.
Since the existing swing bridge is a navigational hazard, the Coast Guard will have a say in this matter.
Point one:
blue streak 1 Portal is nearing the end of its structural life.
Portal is nearing the end of its structural life.
I've heard that. It seems to be coming from people who want to build a new bridge. For two billion dollars.
I am curious about how the lifespan of a bridge, this bridge, is calculated.
The bridge is going to need complete replacing anyway. That takes a new alignment . The picture even shows the rusting of the steel members and paint will not fix the normal rusting away.
I have seen rust on steel bridge members. And I have seen crews dealing with it. Rust is not a surprise.
You keep ignoring that center pivot that in accesable when bridge is in place.
I don't think so. But neither have I spent much time on it. Right now, it's the center support of a two truss system. It appears to be doing its job fine.
Ask river pilots what they think of swing bridges.
I would think they view them as an unpleasant fact of working life that they have to deal with.
BaltACD Swing bridges, wherever they exist are impediments to navigation with the point that facilitates the swing being in the middle of the area that the bridge crosses. From a navigation standpoint a 'wide open' area created by lift bridges and/or bascule bridges are preferable.
Swing bridges, wherever they exist are impediments to navigation with the point that facilitates the swing being in the middle of the area that the bridge crosses. From a navigation standpoint a 'wide open' area created by lift bridges and/or bascule bridges are preferable.
Yup.
And I wonder how much concern for the occassional tug driver's ease of passage drove the decision to replace the bridge. For 2 billion dollars.
I also wonder what complaints on the matter have been made by people using the passageway, over the years.
I looked at on-line photos of the bridge supports, and found no evidence of contact. It does seem that if using the passage was troublesome, there would be evidence of repairs.
So, while it would certainly make the tug driver's job more pleasant, I don't see that it is anywhere necessary.
Portal is nearing the end of its structural life. The bridge is going to need complete replacing anyway. That takes a new alignment . The picture even shows the rusting of the steel members and paint will not fix the normal rusting away. You keep ignoring that center pivot that in accesable when bridge is in place.
7j43k MidlandMike The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements. Mike, I would like to learn more about the replacement of these bridges, and what failures caused the need. I do not recall seeing such about the Portal Bridge. From what I've read, the big problems with the Portal Bridge are related to its ability to rotate and lock. If that were the case, and such ability were removed, then the big problems would be removed. In particular, could you please find a link or something that supports your statements. For a project such as this, there should have been a whole lot of engineering reports that are available to the public. I am sure you have engineering reports and such to back up your statement; I would just like to read them over for myself. Thanks, Ed
MidlandMike The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements.
The NEC has about a dozen movable bridges. All but the few that have been replaced are over 100 years old and are approching, or at the end of, their practical lifespan. This is only the latest in a long line of necessary replacements.
Mike,
I would like to learn more about the replacement of these bridges, and what failures caused the need. I do not recall seeing such about the Portal Bridge.
From what I've read, the big problems with the Portal Bridge are related to its ability to rotate and lock. If that were the case, and such ability were removed, then the big problems would be removed.
In particular, could you please find a link or something that supports your statements. For a project such as this, there should have been a whole lot of engineering reports that are available to the public.
I am sure you have engineering reports and such to back up your statement; I would just like to read them over for myself.
Thanks,
So then the reason to spend 2 billion dollars is because someone someday MIGHT make a wrong turn and bash the bridge that hasn't been bashed yet in 110 years?
Got a solution for that:
I'll be flippant and say that the folks in the marina would be told that the free beverages for life stop when the bridge gets damaged in such a manner.
It would probably work, but it it IS a bit unorthodox.
Alternately, 50 million dollars (or some other appropriate sum) could be spent to make sure the bridge couldn't be hit.
Since the only traffic under that bridge seems to be the poop scow (the cargo of which has been traveling on land for some years now), might just block off ship access to the bridge. Can't get to the bridge, can't damage the bridge.
Replacing this bridge for two billion dollars is a good idea why?
7j43kWell, yes. Seems kind of obvious. Bridges hit by large moving masses will likely be damaged. The barges are lower than the bridge clearance. The tug can be. That is the sum of the heavy river traffic. So I have trouble seeing how the subject bridge is threatened by river traffic if it is rigged permanently closed. Ed
The barges are lower than the bridge clearance. The tug can be. That is the sum of the heavy river traffic. So I have trouble seeing how the subject bridge is threatened by river traffic if it is rigged permanently closed.
All depends upon who is lost in the fog. Bayou Cannot had not had any issues for 70 or 80 years until it did.
Well, yes. Seems kind of obvious. Bridges hit by large moving masses will likely be damaged.
7j43kFrom Wikipedia: "The bridge was struck by the Mauvilla at about 2:45 am. The span had been designed to rotate so it could be converted to a swing bridge by adding suitable equipment. No such conversion had ever been performed but the span had not been adequately secured against unintended movement. The collision forced the unsecured end of the bridge span approximately three feet out of alignment and severely kinked the track." I am seeing the word "unsecured" there. And more. I propose securing the Portal Bridge when making it non-rotatable. Ed
"The bridge was struck by the Mauvilla at about 2:45 am. The span had been designed to rotate so it could be converted to a swing bridge by adding suitable equipment. No such conversion had ever been performed but the span had not been adequately secured against unintended movement. The collision forced the unsecured end of the bridge span approximately three feet out of alignment and severely kinked the track."
I am seeing the word "unsecured" there. And more. I propose securing the Portal Bridge when making it non-rotatable.
Very few if any bridges are 'secure' when impacted by thousands of tons of floating monentum. The Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa Bay was taken down by a vessel in 1980 - it was a high level bridge - not a swing span. Thousands of moving tons can damage anything - no matter how well it is 'secured'.
From Wikipedia:
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.