Trains.com

What's "structurally" wrong with Portal Bridge

9274 views
107 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 11:23 PM

So, suddenly I can't quote anymore.  I click on it, and it ignores me.  Sort of like some people I know.

So.

Yes.  I have found out that salt water doesn't come up to Vancouver on the Columbia River.  So, clearly, that bridge is not susceptable to salt water corrosion.  

That would be the swing bridge that is older than the Portal Bridge.  

So then the problem with the Portal Bridge is salt water corrosion.  Right?  I look forward to hearing more about that.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:58 PM

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.

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,447 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:55 PM

7j43k

 

  I'll note that SP&S also has a swing bridge across the Columbia at Vancouver (the American one).  It is two years older than Portal.  And I suspect that salt water comes up the River that far, though I am not sure.  It's in good working order, and is opened far more often than Portal.

 

Ed

 

 

The Columbia River has a strong flow, and salt water only gets about 30 miles upriver during low flow.  It does not reach anywhere near Portland.  There are 3 swing bridges on the former SP&S Astoria line, and the one closest to Astoria is probably within 30 miles of the ocean.  Nevertheless, salinity currents follow the bottom of the river, and the fresh water flow tends to over-ride it.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 10:54 PM

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

 

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 9:15 PM

MC:  Yep

2 additional tracks across the Hackensack river cannot be denied.  So arguments about not building the new bridge are moot.

 

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Saturday, December 19, 2015 8:27 PM

Balt: Great Grandpa Grumbles can only see through the filter of a balance sheet. No sense having a war of wits with an unarmed individual. At some point PDN will drop in,  but even he may not be able to get thru to GGG.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,290 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, December 19, 2015 8:08 PM

Since some are questioning the cost of a bridge over troubled waters; what about a hole in the ground?

B&P Tunnel replacement in Baltimore $60M for preliminary design work, $3.7B to $4.2B for construction.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-rail-tunnel-study-20151218-story.html

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:54 PM

I'd assume the sludge is coming from a sewage treatment plant.  I know there's one in the Hackensack Meadows somewhere, not sure where though.  The sludge is what's left over from the treatment process, and I believe it's barged off the Jersey coast and dumped far offshore where the ocean can take care of the dilution process.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:43 PM

Now, THIS makes some interesting reading.  I had a quick skim.  Oh, yes.  I've got a couple of questions.  I've got to read it more thoroughly:

 

http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/8000/8400/8417/SIR9701.pdf

 

 

RAILROAD SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

REPORT

DERAILMENT OF AMTRAK TRAIN NO. 12 AND

SIDESWIPE OF AMTRAK TRAIN NO. 79 ON PORTAL

BRIDGE NEAR SECAUCUS, NEW JERSEY,

NOVEMBER 23, 1996

 

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:39 PM

Great minds and all.....

My idea was to use a conveyor belt.

I've gotta find out about this sludge stuff.  Like, is there a sludge mine?  Or is it somehow GROWING?  And why right there? 

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:32 PM

Probably a lot cheaper in the long run to build a pipeline for the sludge to an area south of the bridge, eliminating barges entirely, and just welding the bridge permanently shut.

Why not?  Especially if the barges are the only marine traffic that need an opening bridge.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 7:23 PM

blue streak 1

About shifts  8 hour shifts for bridge 4 bridge tenders, 4 bridge maintainers, 4 signal maintainers, 4  MOW persons.  It add up.  Not counting the various `management persons.  May also occasionally need some CAT maintenance persons.

Four bridge tenders.  For a bridge that's opened every 4 days.  Oh, THAT is a sweet job.

And four signal maintainers?  Full time signal maintainers for a bridge?  That opens every 4 days?  THAT may or may not be a sweet job.  But I do wonder what they do.  Maybe change lightbulbs in a signal somewhere.  Or sand contacts.

Now bridge maintainers.  Yup.  Now, I'm assuming they get out there and sand the rust off and paint and all.  'Cause that's what I see guys doing on the Bay Bridge.  THAT may not be a sweet job.  Perhaps the bridge tenders who are waiting and waiting and waiting for a barge could come out and help sand and paint.  Perhaps.  

MOW?  Four guys.  Doing what?  

 

 

 

1997 Report states ~300 openings had ~30 failures of various times.  Reliability of just 90%   bad.

 Hey.  Maybe they need MORE bridge maintainers.  I'd sure like to see the report when it describes the failures.  Even one failure is pretty pathetic.  

The bridge is a swing bridge span of 300 feet.  That gives a passage clearance of ~140 - 145 feet on each side of pivot. More likely of barge to strike present supports. New bridge appears to be 325 -350 clearances for channel straightening. Believe Coast guard now requires clearances of 200+ feet for new installations.   

 

I'm pretty sure I read in the paper, just yesterday or so, that there was 70 bargeloads of sludge past the bridge plus 15 other openings a year.  And we're spending 1.3 BILLION so the sludge can keep moving?  If the sludge stayed where it was, maybe someone could build condos-with-a-view-of-New-York on top.  Just a thought.

Anyway, if there was a potential problem of a barge striking the fenders, it just really can't cost 1.3 BILLION to replace them with something much more sturdy.  Like concrete.  And steel.  Sorta like the new bridge, but much smaller.  And cheaper.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:25 PM

About shifts  8 hour shifts for bridge 4 bridge tenders, 4 bridge maintainers, 4 signal maintainers, 4  MOW persons.  It add up.  Not counting the various `management persons.  May also occasionally need some CAT maintenance persons.

The First bridge ( north bridge )  will enable 4 tracks to be placed in service from the North River portals thru Secacus to Newark Penn station.  As plans now stand ( subject to change ) the Portal swing bridge will remain in service including outages until the south bridge with additional 2 - 3 tracks is built and put into service. The first new bridge will speed up those trains from present portals to Newark Penn that use the new high bridge. Then when new Gateway tunnels in service trains will not be restricted by 2 tracks across the Hasensack.  

1997 Report states ~300 openings had ~30 failures of various times.  Reliability of just 90%   bad.

The bridge is a swing bridge span of 300 feet.  That gives a passage clearance of ~140 - 145 feet on each side of pivot. More likely of barge to strike present supports. New bridge appears to be 325 -350 clearances for channel straightening. Believe Coast guard now requires clearances of 200+ feet for new installations.   

 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:18 PM

MidlandMike
 

 

I assume they do extra maintenance, but it is still not going to totally mitigate the effcts of salt water getting on and into the bridge and its working parts.

 

 

I agree.  But while not total, there will be a certain amount of mitigation.  We do not know the extent of that mitigation.  Or the extent of degradation of the structure due to salt air/water.

A person could declare that the maintenance was done to perfection and blocked all salt damage.  Or a person could say that salt has ravaged the bridge so much that it won't last the decade.  Each could be true.  Or it could be anywhere between those extremes.  COULD.  Not IS.  

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 6:03 PM

Norm48327
 
Firelock76
1.3 BILLION for a bridge?

 

Don't forget they have to pay off the politicians.

(Sarcasm intended.)

 

Being from New Jersey myself, left in 1987, I suspect they'd have to pay off the right "godfather" as well to ensure they don't have any union trouble.

A little more sarcasm intended, but remember, for something to be funny it has to contain a grain of truth.

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Southeast Michigan
  • 2,983 posts
Posted by Norm48327 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 5:48 PM

Firelock76
1.3 BILLION for a bridge?

Don't forget they have to pay off the politicians.

(Sarcasm intended.)

Norm


  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,447 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Saturday, December 19, 2015 5:08 PM

7j43k

 

 
MidlandMike

 

Salt water was mentioned by another poster.  Are you dismissing salt waters effect on steel?

 

 

 

 

Gosh, no.  I am sure that maintenance on a bridge near salt water is (much) more extensive than one that is not.

 

Ed

 

I assume they do extra maintenance, but it is still not going to totally mitigate the effcts of salt water getting on and into the bridge and its working parts.

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 3:20 PM

blue streak 1

 

Read somewhere that bridge requires 4 - 6 full time employees to maintain the bridge.  so four four shifts = $ ?.

 

 

What is "four four shifts"?  

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.

Hopefully nothing will break that will require an obsolete part to be custom built.

 

 

 

I suppose I could divide the cost of the custom built part into 1.3 BILLION.

 

Ed

 

  

  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 25,290 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, December 19, 2015 3:06 PM

7j43k
Firelock76

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?  Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to?

 That number's just a ballpark.  I think it's a few million more.

Ed

Prices vary between rural Washington state and the urban environs of New York City and the Northeast Corridor.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

  • Member since
    December 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 11,919 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 2:58 PM

A big cost will be the columns to support the bridge..  Amtrak just got $30M + to do preliminary work to build the replacement bridge.  That is just for access roads and clearing of debri near the construction site.  Then casions will have to be sunk for many  (?) feet to the bedrock.  All this in a swamp land.

Read somewhere that bridge requires 4 - 6 full time employees to maintain the bridge.  so four four shifts = $ ?.

The accident when Amtrak went in the water at Portal was fortunatel that no one was killed.  Hopefully nothing will break that will require an obsolete part to be custom built.

 

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 2:23 PM

Firelock76

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?  Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to? 

 

 

 That number's just a ballpark.  I think it's a few million more.

 

 

Ed

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 2:16 PM

cx500

 

 
A couple of points.
 
Those SP&S bridges may be not be directly comparable.  In the early years of the 20th century train weights were increasing rapidly so a difference of only a few years will likely mean a more robust bridge design from the beginning.  On the GN main line many bridges, from presumably the same general era, later were substantially strengthened by the addition of extra supports.  An extreme example is the bridge at Rock Island WA that had new trusses tied to the outside of the original ones.  I assume the floor system was upgraded at the same time.  It can be done but takes a lot of labor, cheap then but very expensive now.
 

 
The 3 bridges I'm talking about are about three years older than Portal Bridge.  They're pretty much your basic steel truss bridge.  And they handle mainline trains--coal-oil-double stack-generic. And, as far as I can tell, there's no special speed limit through those bridges.  Considering that the Pennsy built Portal, I would expect it to be designed more conservatively than if it was built by the SP&S.  I don't know if there was any upgrade work on these bridges over the years.  And the same holds true for Portal.
 
 
Secondly, over many years some of the steel members will lose section (become thinner).  Microflexing at a connection can gradually cause wear, and of course surface corrosion is inevitable even if painted regularly.  While each is minor individually, it all adds up.  Steel composition and quality control at the mill was not as sophisticated back then either.
 
 
That's why I picked bridges that were of roughly the same age.  Now, they are definitely not near salt water.  I expect I could find one or more that was.  But none came to mind.  I follow the SP&S, and have a bit of familiarity with those particular bridges.
 
Swing spans present a unique challenge for the bridge engineer.  When closed they are supported at both ends as well as in the middle.  But when open the stresses are completely different as they become essentially a cantilever, supported only in the middle.
 

  I'll note that SP&S also has a swing bridge across the Columbia at Vancouver (the American one).  It is two years older than Portal.  And I suspect that salt water comes up the River that far, though I am not sure.  It's in good working order, and is opened far more often than Portal.

 

Ed

 

 

  • Member since
    May 2012
  • 5,015 posts
Posted by rcdrye on Saturday, December 19, 2015 2:07 PM

It's not just the bridge itself.  Because the Portal Bridge can't be replaced in place the new approaches, trackage, electrification parts all have to be built in a nearly inaccessible location with punitive environmental restrictions.  The original Portal bridge could be built from the railroad right of way with no traffic interference as the route to Penn Station didn't go anywhere in 1907.  The current Portal Bridge sees several hundred movements per day.

  • Member since
    August 2010
  • From: Henrico, VA
  • 8,955 posts
Posted by Firelock76 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 12:01 PM

1.3 BILLION for a bridge?  Maybe I'm naiive, but can anyone tell me just where that 1.3 billion is going to? 

Look, after 150 years of railroad building and engineering in this country there should be no mysteries about putting up a bridge.  Any well-trained engineer at this late date should be able to come up with a replacement design with his eyes closed. Environmental impact studies?  There's been a rail line and bridge there for 100 years, what else is there to know?  Matierials studies?  If they don't know the strengths of the required matierials by now then someone's slept through classes.

Then, I'm no engineer, so if someone could explain it to me I'll certainly listen.

  • Member since
    October 2008
  • From: Calgary
  • 2,047 posts
Posted by cx500 on Saturday, December 19, 2015 11:11 AM

7j43k
.................................... 
 

..........

 Ed

 

 
A couple of points.
 
Those SP&S bridges may be not be directly comparable.  In the early years of the 20th century train weights were increasing rapidly so a difference of only a few years will likely mean a more robust bridge design from the beginning.  On the GN main line many bridges, from presumably the same general era, later were substantially strengthened by the addition of extra supports.  An extreme example is the bridge at Rock Island WA that had new trusses tied to the outside of the original ones.  I assume the floor system was upgraded at the same time.  It can be done but takes a lot of labor, cheap then but very expensive now. 
 
Secondly, over many years some of the steel members will lose section (become thinner).  Microflexing at a connection can gradually cause wear, and of course surface corrosion is inevitable even if painted regularly.  While each is minor individually, it all adds up.  Steel composition and quality control at the mill was not as sophisticated back then either.
 
Swing spans present a unique challenge for the bridge engineer.  When closed they are supported at both ends as well as in the middle.  But when open the stresses are completely different as they become essentially a cantilever, supported only in the middle.
  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Saturday, December 19, 2015 9:56 AM

MidlandMike

 

Salt water was mentioned by another poster.  Are you dismissing salt waters effect on steel?

 

 

Gosh, no.  I am sure that maintenance on a bridge near salt water is (much) more extensive than one that is not.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,447 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, December 18, 2015 11:43 PM

7j43k

 

 
MidlandMike

 

 
7j43k

...

But, so far, all I've heard is "It's old!", as if that's a reason to replace the bridge. It is not.  BNSF, for example, is still using bridges along the Columbia River that were installed when SP&S was first built--about 100 years ago. ...

 

 

 

The Columbia River is fresh water, well above where it enters the ocean.

 

 

 

 

Yes.  But the claims against a hundred year old bridge were based on multiple stress cycles and age fatigue.  And I supplied an example of such bridges that are still in service.

 

Ed

 

Salt water was mentioned by another poster.  Are you dismissing salt waters effect on steel?

  • Member since
    May 2004
  • 7,500 posts
Posted by 7j43k on Friday, December 18, 2015 11:24 PM

MidlandMike

 

 
7j43k

...

But, so far, all I've heard is "It's old!", as if that's a reason to replace the bridge. It is not.  BNSF, for example, is still using bridges along the Columbia River that were installed when SP&S was first built--about 100 years ago. ...

 

 

 

The Columbia River is fresh water, well above where it enters the ocean.

 

 

Yes.  But the claims against a hundred year old bridge were based on multiple stress cycles and age fatigue.  And I supplied an example of such bridges that are still in service.

 

Ed

  • Member since
    September 2011
  • 6,447 posts
Posted by MidlandMike on Friday, December 18, 2015 10:56 PM

7j43k

...

But, so far, all I've heard is "It's old!", as if that's a reason to replace the bridge. It is not.  BNSF, for example, is still using bridges along the Columbia River that were installed when SP&S was first built--about 100 years ago. ...

 

The Columbia River is fresh water, well above where it enters the ocean.

  • Member since
    July 2008
  • 2,325 posts
Posted by rdamon on Friday, December 18, 2015 10:41 PM
No right minded politician would want to have his name on a “refurbished” bridge, but rather a brand new bridge constructed with his voting base taxpayer money!

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy