Firelock761.3 BILLION for a bridge? Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to?
GADOT is going to replace the interchange between two freeways - GA400 and I-285 - at a cost of $1.0B. So, maybe $1.3B isn't too ridiculous.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Consider this:
It is stated that 450 trains a day cross "the bridge". Approximately.
Amtrak schedules 38-45 (?) trains a day. Approximately.
So, one might think that the Feds would pay 10%, and the locals would pay 90%.
Or maybe even nothing for the Feds. Because I doubt the two track bridge has a problem with 45 trains a day.
BUT.
The bridge is owned by Amtrak. And if the bridge is old and falling down and a barge can't get under it, why then AMTRAK should repair their stupid old bridge.
And pay a lot more than 10% of the cost.
Right?
Ed
7j43k If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want.
I'm not sure how that fits with the concept of the waterway "being there first".
Being able to vote money out of your pocket and into mine under the guise of "the greater common good" is a fundemental foundation stone of this democracy. Where WOULD we be without it?
7j43k But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70.
But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70.
But you forgot that the tug dead heads to and from the sludge plant so that doubles the number of openings. That is in the report.
blue streak 1 7j43k But elsewhere it was stated it takes about a week to load the barge. Which would then be 17 loads out and 17 empties in. Thus 34, instead of 70. But you forgot that the tug dead heads to and from the sludge plant so that doubles the number of openings. That is in the report.
Well, "forgot" is perhaps too kind a word. But thanks for the correction. So, 70 it is. Per 4 months.
Convicted One 7j43k If ya can't fit, don't go there. Or, better yet: THEY pay US so THEY can go where THEY want. I'm not sure how that fits with the concept of the waterway "being there first".
As far as I can tell, the only reason that a replacement bridge would have to provide more clearance is because the Coast Guard says so. It is of no benefit to the railroad. It IS a benefit for boats that would currently be obstructed. So, should the new bridge be built, they would get a windfall profit.
Thus I proposed that those benefiting from the increased clearance pay for that.
That said, I generally have no problem with people "profiting" peripherally from a government project. Up to a point. So, if increased clearance is possible at minimal (???) cost, I'm for it. If it's more than that ill defined minimum, perhaps the beneficiaries should contribute to the expenses.
People DO charge for toll roads--improvement over previous roadways. One thinks.
And neither do I see what it has to do with the waterway "being there first".
Someone needs to refresh us with a few facts. Amtrak decided to route the Empire service to NYP from GCT. To accomplish that refurbishment of the Spuyten Duyvil swing bridge had to be done.
The bridge was lifted off its pivot, placed on a barge, and sent to a facility for refurbishment. Was it found that there was undetected damage to the pivot and its receiver and other points ? As well replacement of the cogs ? Do remember some extra steel work was required. Did it turn out that it took longer to complete the refurbishment ? How long ? A repeat may worry Amtrak since there can be undiscovered damage / problems due to past PC neglect.
Would certainly place out of service the present Portal bridge if the pivot failed and bridge had to be lifted off pivot.
7j43kAnd neither do I see what it has to do with the waterway "being there first".
I offered that in response to your "or don't go there at all" comment...meaning that reply isn't an option. I suspect that they made the existing span moveable as an accomodation to the needs of waterway traffic, so a more restrictive arrangement seems unlikely.
As Wizlist stated earlier: "Law is that any maritime traffic that wants the bridge open has the right of way (navigation came before the railroads). "
Swing spans are considered draw bridges. Lifting spans are either bascule or true lift.
7j43k Murphy Siding 7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move. Cool. Quoting is restored. All hail the internet god(s). Mr. Siding. If I may. You are correct that I am a bit fired up. But I don't see where you have the right to define my choices about why that might be so. But I do see that you are expressing concern. In your quote of a previous gentleman, you will note that there is stated that various tracks across the Hackensack "cannot be denied". Actually, they can. I live far far away. And it is partly MY money that will apparently be spent for these extra tracks. If it were only you and the other gentleman, I would have absolutely no objection to YOU spending YOUR money on this project. I can and will suggest that you send a check to support this project, so that I can keep my money for my own projects. And then, going further with your own quote, that same gentleman says "arguments...are moot". Apparently because he wants/needs more bridges across the Hackensack River. So, it appears that his view is that he wants more bridges and therefore arguments are moot. Mr. Siding. Do you think that is truly a rational argument? Attending to your very own comments, you express concern about the bridge falling into the river. I, for one, am against that. And so we agree. That is not the smartest move. And you also reference "people a lot smarter than you and me". I know it appears arrogant. And it may indeed be true. But I do not concede that those people are smarter than me. And so I do not concede that they are correct. I will also note that people who are NOT smarter than me have been "righter" than I am. Frank: That's Life. But, if you insist, I will agree that they are smarter than you. (Sorry, dude. You walked into that one.) Ed
Murphy Siding 7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.
7j43k blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot. The bridge CAN be denied. Becaus they lied. And so I dance the poot. And hope someone brings a suit to investigate the galoot who stands to rake in the loot. Ed
blue streak 1 MC: Yep 2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.
MC: Yep
2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied. So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.
The bridge CAN be denied.
Becaus they lied.
And so I dance the poot.
And hope someone brings a suit
to investigate the galoot
who stands to rake in the loot.
Which part are you so fired up about? The part where a lot of people a lot smarter than you and me say the bridge is worn out and needs to be replaced? Or the sticker shock of what things cost these days? I suppose, we could just ignore the bridge until it fell in the river, but that doesn't seem like the smartest move.
Cool. Quoting is restored. All hail the internet god(s).
Mr. Siding. If I may. You are correct that I am a bit fired up. But I don't see where you have the right to define my choices about why that might be so.
But I do see that you are expressing concern.
In your quote of a previous gentleman, you will note that there is stated that various tracks across the Hackensack "cannot be denied". Actually, they can. I live far far away. And it is partly MY money that will apparently be spent for these extra tracks. If it were only you and the other gentleman, I would have absolutely no objection to YOU spending YOUR money on this project. I can and will suggest that you send a check to support this project, so that I can keep my money for my own projects.
And then, going further with your own quote, that same gentleman says "arguments...are moot". Apparently because he wants/needs more bridges across the Hackensack River.
So, it appears that his view is that he wants more bridges and therefore arguments are moot.
Mr. Siding. Do you think that is truly a rational argument?
Attending to your very own comments, you express concern about the bridge falling into the river. I, for one, am against that. And so we agree. That is not the smartest move.
And you also reference "people a lot smarter than you and me". I know it appears arrogant. And it may indeed be true. But I do not concede that those people are smarter than me. And so I do not concede that they are correct. I will also note that people who are NOT smarter than me have been "righter" than I am. Frank: That's Life.
But, if you insist, I will agree that they are smarter than you. (Sorry, dude. You walked into that one.)
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy,
You have a 15 element list and say that the "statements come off this way"
They perhaps come off that way to you.
It appears that most or all are misinterpretations of my statements.
I will look at three:
1) I never said they don't need a new bridge. I certainly expressed doubt. You will notice that my first post on the subject was in seeking more information on the subject. I have gotten some. And I appreciate and thank those who contributed it. If you can find me asserting "they don't need a new bridge", I would appreciate it if you would point that out.
11) A "certain" amount? I s'pose. But you will note that I lauded my coworkers. Who were government employees. I was a government employee. I do not disdain myself. But I have, indeed, "been around". And I assure you there are government workers worthy of my disdain.
As to professional engineers, I haven't met many. The most recent was in the last several years, and I found him to be excellent. Smart. Helpful. A credit to his profession. So, no disdain there.
15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional". I am an electrical contractor, and civilians question my decisions frequently. And I do my best to defend them. I will note that I have education in the engineering field, including civil.
I don't intend to keep going with the list.
I would suggest you study my words more carefully instead of leaping to conclusions based on what you wish to think I am saying.
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
7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed
Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime.
Murphy Siding 7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals.
Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals.
It really is 2257 years.
7j43k Murphy Siding 7j43k Six full time employees billed out at $50 per hour is $576,000 per year. If you divide 1.3 BILLION dollars by that number, you could hire the guys for 2257 years. Assuming no overtime. Ed Math check: $1.3 billion divided by $576,00 is 22.57 years, not 2257 years. There's a reason they hire professionals. It really is 2257 years. Ed
Murphy Siding So you're saying a "civillian" can't question your math? Me questioning your math makes as much sense as you suggesting that you know more than the "professionals".
So you're saying a "civillian" can't question your math? Me questioning your math makes as much sense as you suggesting that you know more than the "professionals".
Gosh, no. I'm not saying that. In fact, if you read what I said, you will see nothing there that SAID you can't question my math.
THAT would have looked different. Something like: "Who do you think you are to question my math?" You will notice I said nothing at all like that.
I think it's great that you question my math. You have every right. And I ran the numbers again. And got the same result that I got 3 times before. And then I did it again.
Your math is simply incorrect. Your answer is wrong. And mine is right.
7j43k 15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional". Ed
15) I am not sure why you think that a "civilian" may not question the decisions of a "professional".
This comes up frequently here on the forum.
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.
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
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.
- Paul North.
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
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
Paul,
Thank you for your comments.
$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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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 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
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.