Apology to form. Correct about jacking thru sediment. If you were a construction worker in that type of construction doesn't it give the willies ? Am correcting my post.
blue streak 1 The tunnels which are of iron construction actually move with the tides. That means constant bending of joints. How much will leave to others to inform us.
The tunnels which are of iron construction actually move with the tides. That means constant bending of joints. How much will leave to others to inform us.
I don't buy the "moves with tides" theory, and also implore others more expert to render their opinions. My understanding is that in a river, as opposed to an estuary, or the ocean, the tidal current lessens, and may even disappear, as one gets deeper. Remember that the Hudson River, although tidal, needs to drain a lot of fresh water from upstate New York. If all it ever did was let tide in and out and never let any of that fresh water out it would eventually become an estuary its entire length.
At some point of course it becomes more of an extension of the ocean, an estuary, not a river, but still the current on the surface could be much different, and probably with lower extremes, than the current on the bottom.
Wizlish I think before this goes on much more, everyone should read this: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42149/42149-h/42149-h.htm and take careful notes of the detail. It solves your questions.
I think before this goes on much more, everyone should read this:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/42149/42149-h/42149-h.htm
and take careful notes of the detail. It solves your questions.
When I have time I'll try it. Do you think it solves the question of if there's a bottom tidal current?
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
gardendanceAt some point of course it becomes more of an extension of the ocean, an estuary, not a river, but still the current on the surface could be much different, and probably with lower extremes, than the current on the bottom.
You've been sailing the boat too long.
The problem isn't tidal CURRENT, it's the depth of water over the tubes at a particular time due to the tides.
The tubes are full of air, and consequently they have displacement and buoyancy just like a submarine and try to rise, with only their mass and the (silt) overburden holding them down.
The actual vertical motion is about 2' max, and is in part resisted by the longitudinal strength of the tube. The effect was recognized when the tunnels began to be waterproofed during construction (before that, there was concern that the tubes were sinking in the silt due to the greater density of the tube construction including the iron liners). The explanation took a surprisingly long time to 'suggest itself', but the situation was well-recognized early on (and has continued to be recognized by engineers ever since). Here is a good reference that gives the contemporary perspective and some of the actions that were taken at the time.
I'd always thought of the motion as something of a curiosity, like watching airplane wings rise and fall (sometimes more than substantially!)under changing load. Certain it is that the tubes have been safe for well over 100 years, and to my knowledge there has been no ominous recent increase in leakage between segments that would indicate cumulative failure of any part of the tube structure under the 'cycling'. Spalling of the concrete 'benches' adjacent to the track inside the bores, due to Sandy salt is a much more significant problem -- which puts the thing in perspective.
Admittedly, I haven't read each of these posts, but I have a question that I haven't seen addressed so far.
Is there any thought being given this time to drilling new twin (or triple?) bores through the schist? If not, why not? Expense? Or are any new tunnels going to be merely new tubes laid on the river bed, as the current ones are?
Amtrak executive talking to NJ Senate today.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-Amtrak-Hudson-
River-Tunnel-Northeast-Corridor-Woes-321232081.html?partner=nbcnews
During Hurricane Sandy the tunnels were stretched even further by the weight of the water. And, on the East River, at least one of the tunnels bent in two places as the weight of the water pressed it down onto a rock shelf on one side and silt on the other.
Como " Its not my tunnel "
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/08/8573882/cuomo-paying-amtrak-tunnel-fix-no
NKP guyIs there any thought being given this time to drilling new twin (or triple?) bores through the schist? If not, why not?
In general you want to avoid 'rock operations' when you can use a TBM in softer materials. But that is peripheral to the question I think you're asking, which is why not put Gateway entirely through 'bedrock' to eliminate the problems with the existing North River tunnel structure. The short answer is vertical curvature (which has been touched upon in a couple of the TL:DR posts. There is no easy way to arrange a tunnel to be in rock under the river and not very far down in the rock on either 'side' -- particularly in Manhattan where there have to be multiple platforms and access at "achievable" track level in the Penn Station east-west 'footprint'. Likewise, the amount of approach tunnel under the Palisades increases as the "lowest" point in the river has to be depressed. (I provided a cross-section of the riverbed geology in a previous reference.)
Again, if I remember correctly, at least one of the proposed Gateway routes takes advantage of the capabilities of TBMs and actually swings south under the river to reduce the amount of grade (both in peak and average terms) in that portion of the tunnel. In my opinion this presupposes that some major use of the tunnel will be made by commuter trains, as the long-distance trains would benefit 'both ways' by having a relatively steep grade ascending into Manhattan right up to close to the west ends of the platforms.
... are any new tunnels going to be merely new tubes laid on the river bed, as the current ones are?
The existing North River tunnels are very far from being 'laid on the river bed' -- that method would apply to the BART construction, for which I believe the approach was fairly new at the time, but certainly not under the Hudson. Those tunnels involved a shield and compressed air, in the normal manner tunnels of that scale were driven at the time. The observed tendency of the funnels to sink when not fully sealed, and then to float with 'hydrostatic balance' when sealed, does not reflect the idea that they were built in sections and then sunk in a trench; it is a consequence of the type of river-bottom material (silt) that the relevant part of the construction happens to have been driven through.
The Detroit River tunnels were built around 1900 by laying the tubes in a pre-dug trench on the river bottom although this technique probably worked better in the blue clay which underlaid the region.
Great discussions about construcyion `techniques.
Now Amtrak tells us what we have all suspected that there may be future short time closures of an undetermined amount of time. The closures may occurr from time to time but not the 1+ year that will eventually happen.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/08/10/nj-amtrak-tunnel-hearing/
It appears that business through out the USA need educating on these future delays. Business can put the pressure on to get the construction started.. Then they can talk to their congress critters. Business persons will realize that for the next 15 years there will be more and more disruptions to their New York city and area operations for lack of employees.
As far a construction time. IMHO The constructions needs to start now as soon a preliminary engineering is complete. That is a design builld contract.; The EIS either be waived or run concurrently with preliminary engineering. Maybe can use the ARC EIS.
The articles keep coming. It is almost comical.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/1-2b-for-what-much-of-the-cash-spent-on-scrapped-plan-for-arc-tunnel-will-go-to-waste-1.1389339
Gateway progress report Spring 2015
http://nec.amtrak.com/content/gateway-program
I read this morning about the testimony in Congress and the even-less-time-than-we-thought problem for the new tunnels.
So it seems reasonable to me to imagine a scenario where one or both tunnels fails or needs to be repaired. Is anyone thinking of a ferry service, a la the PRR, to keep passengers moving across the river? Imagine hearing once again, "Jersey City, end of the line. Transfer to the ferries this way."
Someone had better think quick about alternatives.
Random thoughts: 1. Wizlish, that was a complete & fine answer to my earlier "boring" question. Thank you. 2. I'm gladder than ever that my Lake Shore Limited exits Penn Station and turns a sharp right on its way up the Hudson to the bridge at Albany.
Or, instead of ferries, perhaps commuter trains could travel up the West Shore RR to Albany, cross the river, then go down the HR RR to Penn Station or GCT. But that would probably take a few minutes extra. (just joking)
Better to think about ferries, perhaps.
Governors and US Senators meet with Fox Aug 18. There is another link in this link that has picture of bad cable.
Food for research.
There are now much better submarine cables that are used for power transmission. Believe the there is a very high voltage set of 3 phase cable(s) at bottom of Long Island sound from Ct to long island.
A question for Amtrak is how many feeder cables are there in each tunnel ? Are any considered a backup ? Will present day salt water submarine cables with same or greater current capacity fit in the present tunnel conduit ?. Would going to 12.5 Kv 60 Hz from East portal or Gate to west portal of North river tunnels be a help or a problem ?
http://www.nj.com/traffic/index.ssf/2015/08/christie_booker_to_meet_with_feds_on_rail_tunnel_funding.html#incart_river
Schumer throws out a real high number but is he just guessing. What is needed is an estimate of how each part is going to cost. From Newark east bound.
1. Cost of 4 tracking to
2. Portal bridge north &
3. Portal0 bridge south then. It may be when Portal north is built Amtrak could use the Portal swing bridge for additional track space.
4. 4 tracking to Secaucus & new Gateway tunnels and present tunnels. Sub item Secaucus revisions.
5. Gateway tunnels and all auxiliary support items. Sub item real estate acquisition
6. Rest of 9th ave - 11th ave tunnel box
7. Connecting tracks from all 4 tunnels to present and Penn south station. May require some changes to Empire route access to NYP.
8. Penn south Real estate acquisition
9. Penn south station and connections to NYP / Farley
10. Tail tracks for future connections to east river tunnels 5 & 6
11. East river tunnels 5 & 6
12..Connections on, under, & around Harold interlocking.
Any bets his number was even a WAG much less a SWAG ?
http://nypost.com/2015/08/11/schumer-says-new-hudson-river-tunnels-could-cost-25-billion/
Another NYT article but look at the picture and see how convoluted the CAT looks like. Good example of NEC CAT Of course 30 MPH speeds do not need as pristine CAT as 160 MPH constant tension. But still wonder how often NJT or Amtrak snags it ?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/nyregion/delays-for-nj-transit-train-riders-may-become-norm-amtrak-official-warns.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
For a real emergency, the logical steps would be to increase the capacity of th existing ferry-boat service at the NJT-former-DL&W Hoboken Terminal (to three Manahattan points), add a second track to the "Reverse-Kearney-Connection" that handles about four or five trains each way each day that stop at Newark Penn Station with their terminal or origan at Hoboken. (2 or 3 each way, both Jersey Coast and Raritan Valley) For the East River, Amtrak New England trains would be rerouted again to GCT leaving available tunnel capacity for the LIRR. Reestablishing a ferry service from Jersey City would not be pracitcal. Track capacity at Hoboken Terminal and associated yards could be expanded.
What an error I made! No AC catenary into GCT, and there probably never will be, because of even more restrictive tunnel clearances than Penn. Probably,if two or three of the East River tunnels were closed. Acelas would continiue to use what capacity remained for Amtrak, and Regionals would operate only north and east of New Haven, with passengers using Metro North to New York City. Although, during off-peak, the dual-power Conn-Dot MN locomotives could be used New Haven-GCT. These usually pull the rush hour Danbury-GCT through trains.
Schumer proposes a solution (sort of).
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Schumer-proposes-plan-for-new-Hudson-River-rail-tunnels--45385?email=drtrack@ymail.com&utm_medium=email&utm_source=prdailynews&utm_campaign=prdailynews08/12/2015
How many hundreds of layers of bureaucracies does it take to screw in a light bulb? There are so many agencies, organizations, committees, authorities, governments, companies, etc. which already exist which could do this project, why create another monster? Two top contenders: Amtrak...they already own the railroad, the station, the structures...or The Port Authority of NY and NJ because it is an interstate agency in place and in charge of similar properties
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Coma " no need to meet with feds " translation " I want to keep my head in the sand and can have plausible deniability that I was not informed of the dier problems with present tunnels "
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/08/8573772/cuomo-no-reason-meet-feds-about-cross-hudson-tunnel
Maybe investors from China (or anywhere) could buy in.
Excerpt from Politico, Aug. 11
"It’s not my tunnel," said Cuomo yesterday, in arguing against the idea that the state should play a role in paying for infrastructure used by Amtrak and NJ Transit.
That’s where Schumer comes in.
On Tuesday, he outlined a proposal to plan, finance, and build the tunnel.
He called for the creation of a “new partnership” called “the Gateway Development Corporation.”
It would marshal resources and staff from Amtrak, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the states of New York and New Jersey, New York City, New Jersey Transit and the M.T.A.
The total project, which includes more than just a new rail tunnel, would cost between between $20 and $25 billion, according to Schumer.
Together, these various parties would be able to access a wide array of revenue sources, leverage private capital, and issue debt.
wanswheel Maybe investors from China (or anywhere) could buy in. Excerpt from Politico, Aug. 11 "It’s not my tunnel," said Cuomo yesterday, in arguing against the idea that the state should play a role in paying for infrastructure used by Amtrak and NJ Transit. That’s where Schumer comes in. On Tuesday, he outlined a proposal to plan, finance, and build the tunnel. He called for the creation of a “new partnership” called “the Gateway Development Corporation.” It would marshal resources and staff from Amtrak, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the states of New York and New Jersey, New York City, New Jersey Transit and the M.T.A. The total project, which includes more than just a new rail tunnel, would cost between between $20 and $25 billion, according to Schumer. Together, these various parties would be able to access a wide array of revenue sources, leverage private capital, and issue debt.
Schumer is not among my favorites, but he is making a realistic proposal to get needed work done. We should give him some well-deserved credit, but some posters on here........
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Now appears pthat everyone wants new tunnels but no one wants to pony up even a part of the cost.
http://www.northjersey.com/news/analysis-hudson-rail-tunnel-plan-is-popular-but-no-one-wants-the-bill-1.1391222
I note that the cost to drive a car into Manhatten from New Jesey is $15.00 and $0.00 to return. Of course a car could be carrying up to eight passengers. If one takes the train from Newark (Penn) to NYC (Penn) the fare is $5.00. This is the same fare as Newark (Penn) to Hoboken. A ferry with a $9.00 charge is required to get to Manhatten from Hoboken. But the thought was what does NJT pay Amtrak for using the NYC (Penn) facilities that need improvement. If Amtrak was to add a surcharge of $9.00 or higher to pay for the construction, How much could be raised?
I also note that a PATH fare from Newark (Penn) to any other station is $2.75 so that raising the NJT fare could result in a sizable shift in ridership toward PATH.
One thought is since the Port Authority (P.A.) owns the bridges, tunnels, and PATH, they control the access to Manhatten, and may be a player in the Gateway Project. I suspect that the (P.A.) has its patronage areas just as Chicago has but perhaps they can get things going for Amtrak.
Electroliner 1935 ... A ferry with a $9.00 charge is required to get to Manhatten from Hoboken. ...
... A ferry with a $9.00 charge is required to get to Manhatten from Hoboken.
...
Would you prefer that the ferry not be required to get to Manhattan? It could go somewhere else?
Sorry, couldn't resist the grammatical comment. Your point about comparing fares, and its possible efects, is a very good one.
A friend reports that Cuomo is not transit-freindly. The new Tappan Zee Bridge will not have transit provisions, not even bus-only lanes.
The line from Connecticut to the former Shorham nuclear power plant switchyard is HVDC. It's pretty different from what Amtrak would require.
daveklepper A friend reports that Cuomo is not transit-freindly. The new Tappan Zee Bridge will not have transit provisions, not even bus-only lanes.
Fortunately, this is not true. The New Tappan Zee is being built with provisions for heavy rail to be built in the future.
"After more than a decade of delay, a New NY Bridge to replace the Tappan Zee is becoming a reality. The first span of the new twin-span bridge is scheduled to open in 2016, and the new bridge should be complete in 2018. The new bridge will be designed and constructed to last 100 years without major structural maintenance.
The New NY Bridge will mean less congestion for motorists, with eight traffic lanes, four breakdown/emergency lanes, and state-of-the-art traffic monitoring systems, as well as a dedicated commuter bus lane from the day it opens. Designed and constructed to be mass-transit-ready, the new crossing will be able to accommodate bus rapid transit, light rail or commuter rail. The bridge will also include a bike and pedestrian path."
http://www.newnybridge.com/about/index.html
Friends are not always reliable sources of factual information. If I read that correctly, the bridge will be able to accommodate bus rapid transit , light rail or commuter rail but they will not be there on opening day. Examination of the nex linked document (p 99->) shows rail will not be considered until 15 years minimum following bridge completion (2033or later?), i.e., the long term.
"Taking a longer-range view, the MTTF has recommended the following projects for implementation 15 years or more following completion of the NNYB:
* Passenger Service on the West Shore Line
* East-West Rail Options (Light Rail or Commuter Rail) These recommendations stem from the short- and mid-term recommendations and represent an evolution of the region’s transit system. This evolution could take the form of a more robust and sophisticated BRT system or a possible conversion to rail-based transit at some point in the future."
http://www.newnybridge.com/documents/2014-02-28-mttf-final-report.pdf
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.