ORNHOO BaltACD the expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC. Oddly enough, that was going to be my proposal for the Miami-Key West-Havana-San Juan route.
BaltACD the expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC.
Oddly enough, that was going to be my proposal for the Miami-Key West-Havana-San Juan route.
I don't think people understand the number of navigable bodies of water that the NEC crosses - nominally at a level is not that much above mean high water of the body - a level that requires a movable bridge for water traffic to be able to pass through the area the bridge crosses.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDthe expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC.
SD60MAC9500A thought occurred to me today: what with the seemingly ever increasing use of tunnel boring machines, just maybe the logical replacement for NEC drawbridges would actually be tunnels? You would even need those tunnels. Do what China has done, build viaducts, and high clearance bridges over these areas where available.
You would even need those tunnels. Do what China has done, build viaducts, and high clearance bridges over these areas where available.
Residents would love a 'viaduct' 50 - 75 or 100 feet in the air running for miles and mile all up and down the NEC - residents through the area are so understanding of structures being built to obstruct their 'views and vistas'.
ORNHOO blue streak 1 Do not expect any more Amtrak trains New Rochelle - New Haven for a long time in the future. MNRR is not going have its whole 4 main tracks available for years. Each drawbridge replacement will cause mostly 3 tracks across present bridges when replacement construction is proceeding and for several time during construction only 2 main tracks. At present the Walk bridge replacement has 3 main tracks in service and at future tiimes ( several times for months ) only 2 tracks. So bridges needing replacement in no particular order of priority are Stratford, Westport, Cos Cob, . 5 - 8 years each for engineering, EIS, Construction, and most importantly money we can expect it may 2050 before MNRR can handle more trains both NYG and Amtrak trains.. The lift bridges are going to be 2 track eack to allow for continued service in case one bridge malfunctions. That requires the 2 north tracks to be off set to the north for the middle lift tower(s). The far north track will occupy new ROW and the inside north track will occupy the space that the present outside track is now in place over the bridge. A thought occurred to me today: what with the seemingly ever increasing use of tunnel boring machines, just maybe the logical replacement for NEC drawbridges would actually be tunnels?
blue streak 1 Do not expect any more Amtrak trains New Rochelle - New Haven for a long time in the future. MNRR is not going have its whole 4 main tracks available for years. Each drawbridge replacement will cause mostly 3 tracks across present bridges when replacement construction is proceeding and for several time during construction only 2 main tracks. At present the Walk bridge replacement has 3 main tracks in service and at future tiimes ( several times for months ) only 2 tracks. So bridges needing replacement in no particular order of priority are Stratford, Westport, Cos Cob, . 5 - 8 years each for engineering, EIS, Construction, and most importantly money we can expect it may 2050 before MNRR can handle more trains both NYG and Amtrak trains.. The lift bridges are going to be 2 track eack to allow for continued service in case one bridge malfunctions. That requires the 2 north tracks to be off set to the north for the middle lift tower(s). The far north track will occupy new ROW and the inside north track will occupy the space that the present outside track is now in place over the bridge.
A thought occurred to me today: what with the seemingly ever increasing use of tunnel boring machines, just maybe the logical replacement for NEC drawbridges would actually be tunnels?
You wouldn't even need those tunnels. Do what China has done, build viaducts, and high clearance bridges over these areas where available.
BaltACDconsidering grades that would be necessary to go from ground level to tunnel level the expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC.
BaltACD...the expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC.
I think they call it hyperloop.
ORNHOOjust maybe the logical replacement for NEC drawbridges would actually be tunnels?
In order to work you would have in excess of 30-35'drop and then rise at each river crossing. All the approach on both sides would be in trench well below local sea level. The issue is not so much the potential for leakage through the tunnel structure but runoff into it, with all the fun of storm surge added when the hurricanes intensify. Then there is the question of either diverting traffic while the tunnels are built, or redirecting the line to one side 'as completed' -- a true high-speed service really favoring a 'flyover' height solution instead of a buried one, especially when the consequences of even an unexpected foot or two of water in a high-speed tunnel are considered.
At least some of the ground to be traversed -- I am thinking in particular of Portal at the Hackensack estuary -- is ghastly to contemplate tunnelling through. You'd need to freeze the ground, grout intensively, or have very good slipforming of well-defined wall structure to make the trick work. I believe Gateway under the Hudson was designed to run deep enough that the tidal differences that so alarmingly affected the PRR tunnels will not be a factor; while the rivers north/east are less dramatic I believe the Connecticut in part has periodic flooding that would greatly increase the 'works' needed to keep water out.
Meanwhile there is the issue of launching and recovering the TBM at what is essentially submarine depth. On many of the current projects it appears that there is little value in recovering the (very expensive even if the Boring Company experiments succeed!) machine for re-use; this might be different for progressive re-use at other sites on the NEC... but I'd have to see it costed-out.
ORNHOOA thought occurred to me today: what with the seemingly ever increasing use of tunnel boring machines, just maybe the logical replacement for NEC drawbridges would actually be tunnels?
Boring the entire NEC route? I have no ideas how deep each of the rivers are that have drawbridges used in crossing them and I don't know how deep a tunnel has to be under an active river to be safe from the potential of water incursion - considering grades that would be necessary to go from ground level to tunnel level the expedient would be to bore a tunnel the entire length of the NEC.
blue streak 1Do not expect any more Amtrak trains New Rochelle - New Haven for a long time in the future. MNRR is not going have its whole 4 main tracks available for years. Each drawbridge replacement will cause mostly 3 tracks across present bridges when replacement construction is proceeding and for several time during construction only 2 main tracks. At present the Walk bridge replacement has 3 main tracks in service and at future tiimes ( several times for months ) only 2 tracks. So bridges needing replacement in no particular order of priority are Stratford, Westport, Cos Cob, . 5 - 8 years each for engineering, EIS, Construction, and most importantly money we can expect it may 2050 before MNRR can handle more trains both NYG and Amtrak trains.. The lift bridges are going to be 2 track eack to allow for continued service in case one bridge malfunctions. That requires the 2 north tracks to be off set to the north for the middle lift tower(s). The far north track will occupy new ROW and the inside north track will occupy the space that the present outside track is now in place over the bridge.
Frankly, the article may be little more than a promo for a dubious scheme, given the author. Just sayin'.
BaltACDIt is easy to spend other peoples money
matthewsaggieWhat I dont see in any of this is who in the private sector is going to invest all of this money? One of these proposals mandates the private operator invest in corridor infrastructure a minimum of $1.2B, that's billion, in private money every year for 50 years. On top of their operating costs and these folks expect that this private group will make their money back on just trackage charges. Oh, and dont forget they will reduce trackage charges to commuter agencies to the marginal costs. I think these folks must be from Colorado and are smoking.
OPM other peoples money
It is easy to spend other peoples money
What I dont see in any of this is who in the private sector is going to invest all of this money? One of these proposals mandates the private operator invest in corridor infrastructure a minimum of $1.2B, that's billion, in private money every year for 50 years. On top of their operating costs and these folks expect that this private group will make their money back on just trackage charges. Oh, and dont forget they will reduce trackage charges to commuter agencies to the marginal costs. I think these folks must be from Colorado and are smoking.
Do not expect any more Amtrak trains New Rochelle - New Haven for a long time in the future. MNRR is not going have its whole 4 main tracks available for years. Each drawbridge replacement will cause mostly 3 tracks across present bridges when replacement construction is proceeding and for several time during construction only 2 main tracks. At present the Walk bridge replacement has 3 main tracks in service and at future tiimes ( several times for months ) only 2 tracks.
So bridges needing replacement in no particular order of priority are Stratford, Westport, Cos Cob, . 5 - 8 years each for engineering, EIS, Construction, and most importantly money we can expect it may 2050 before MNRR can handle more trains both NYG and Amtrak trains.. The lift bridges are going to be 2 track eack to allow for continued service in case one bridge malfunctions. That requires the 2 north tracks to be off set to the north for the middle lift tower(s). The far north track will occupy new ROW and the inside north track will occupy the space that the present outside track is now in place over the bridge.
OvermodThe issue in all these proposals is to have one trainset do the job of several in separate circulation, not add trains to congested parts of the NEC. The Harrisburg-to-Springfield train, for example, does the job of one Keystone service train, then one New York to New Haven train's worth of service, then a New Haven to Springfield train (either 'in place of' or supplementing capacity for the existing service on that line). This is little different from the idea of an LD train as serving all the demand between intermediate destination pairs in the target direction as it goes, 'at no additional charge'.
The problem is that the existing trains NY to New Haven are commuter trains making lots of stops using different equipment. Unless you are going to divert ATK Boston trains to Springfield, the new plan puts more trains on the crowded NY-NH segment (which is actually MetroNorth rather than "NEC").
In New York it was always just "Change at Jamaica". And it was (reputedly) a zoo that no one liked...
It's as I remember "Change trains at Jamaica!!"
BaltACD blue streak 1 Transfers between commuter trains go very well. Take the changes between 3 trains at the LIRR that takes places several times an hour.
blue streak 1 Transfers between commuter trains go very well. Take the changes between 3 trains at the LIRR that takes places several times an hour.
Backshop BaltACD Overmod BaltACD When traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight? I do all the time when it saves enough money to justify any inconvenience; I get scads more flyer miles out of the practice as well. Much of the issue getting between what might be greatly separated gates can be avoided by requesting assistance from those electric carts most terminals have. It takes a special kind of person that desires to be inconvienced in transit for money. Most people do not fit that mold. If it works for you - Good. You get a lot more miles using an airline's credit card than you do actually flying.
BaltACD Overmod BaltACD When traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight? I do all the time when it saves enough money to justify any inconvenience; I get scads more flyer miles out of the practice as well. Much of the issue getting between what might be greatly separated gates can be avoided by requesting assistance from those electric carts most terminals have. It takes a special kind of person that desires to be inconvienced in transit for money. Most people do not fit that mold. If it works for you - Good.
Overmod BaltACD When traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight? I do all the time when it saves enough money to justify any inconvenience; I get scads more flyer miles out of the practice as well. Much of the issue getting between what might be greatly separated gates can be avoided by requesting assistance from those electric carts most terminals have.
BaltACD When traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight?
I do all the time when it saves enough money to justify any inconvenience; I get scads more flyer miles out of the practice as well. Much of the issue getting between what might be greatly separated gates can be avoided by requesting assistance from those electric carts most terminals have.
It takes a special kind of person that desires to be inconvienced in transit for money. Most people do not fit that mold. If it works for you - Good.
You get a lot more miles using an airline's credit card than you do actually flying.
Having retired - I want to get where I am going with a minimum of muss and fuss. The last time I was in the air was for my son's wedding in 2008. Direct flights both way's on Southwest. In fact, before I retired I wanted to get where I was going.
blue streak 1Transfers between commuter trains go very well. Take the changes between 3 trains at the LIRR that takes places several times an hour.
Are there through train alternatives?
Transfers between commuter trains go very well. Take the changes between 3 trains at the LIRR that takes places several times an hour.
In Germany, at least, dwell time of through trains is usually 2-3 minutes. If there is a sole connection, it's usually cross platform with a few minutes headway, depending on the number of tracks. If the connection is to some lesser branchline, the equipment might be diesel, battery or hydrogen cell power. The elderly seem to have no problems.
BaltACDWhen traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight?
The issue in all these proposals is to have one trainset do the job of several in separate circulation, not add trains to congested parts of the NEC. The Harrisburg-to-Springfield train, for example, does the job of one Keystone service train, then one New York to New Haven train's worth of service, then a New Haven to Springfield train (either 'in place of' or supplementing capacity for the existing service on that line). This is little different from the idea of an LD train as serving all the demand between intermediate destination pairs in the target direction as it goes, 'at no additional charge'.
Note that ch said 'coordinated'. This means something a bit different in Europe, where the norm is reliable across-the-platform connection with minimal dwell and passengers requiring no luggage assistance. If there is no ease in going between the trains, or any difficulty finding a seat for the ongoing trip, or confusion in boarding -- then as noted customers will dislike the situation, and it may easily tip them into using a different mode if either the expectation or the experience involves such details.
There is a complicating factor of sorts in many European examples, though: transfer between trains is often effectively one-way due to necessarily short pathed dwell times. Unless you amend the schedule both to have 'slack' at certain stations and an extended planned dwell there, you will not have passengers able to go 'both ways' between trains. (The usual practice is, I suspect, to have 'local' passengers detrain an adequate length of time to go to boarding stations for expresses, so the latter can observe an appropriate sub-minute station dwell...)
MidlandMikeAs I recall, the Keystone service is already oprating this way, engine and cab-control car (although electric). This is needed since the train reverses direction midway at 30th St Station. As you say, no need for dual cab engines here.
Consdiering the state of PA invested heavily in the Keystone service - I doubt they'll want that equipment going to Springfield.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdoWhat is the aversion to a cross-platform, coordinated change of trains to get to those less-frequented endpoints? It's done in Europe all the time. The insistence on a one-seat service increases complexity and cost.
When traveling by air you want to make a flight plan with 3 connections rather than a direct flight? [/sarcasm]
Customers don't want connections if they can be avoided.
A one-seat ride can be a major selling point. In 1953, Chicago Aurora & Elgin cut back its service from Wells St Terminal in the Loop to Forest Park due to construction of the Congress Expressway. Although excellent connections with the "L" were provided, ridership fell off considerably.
charlie hebdo What is the aversion to a cross-platform, coordinated change of trains to get to those less-frequented endpoints? It's done in Europe all the time. The insistence on a one-seat service increases complexity and cost.
What is the aversion to a cross-platform, coordinated change of trains to get to those less-frequented endpoints? It's done in Europe all the time. The insistence on a one-seat service increases complexity and cost.
Agreed. The plan also creates a lot of extra trains in the middle of the NEC, which is already about saturated with commuter traffic.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.