Amtrak Gateway Tunnels

I posted that over on the NJT forum and totally forgot to post it here. Thank you rr503 for covering for my oversight.

I think it is a shame that someone who understands the needs of Manhattan as well as the President must is putting more obstacles in the way of the completion of this project.

rr503 wrote:I feel this bears posting......
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... iver_index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note how the newspaper takes a pot shot at Governor Christie for cancelling the ARC tunnel project. "At least on this issue, Gov. Christie is accepting his responsibility to take on the President. Don't forget, it was our governor who canceled New Jersey's last major trans-Hudson tunnel project in 2010, grabbed all the money that had been set aside for it, and walked away without offering a Plan B."

ARC would have built 2 new tunnels to a 6 track stub end terminal with no rail connectivity to NY Penn Station. Cancelling it was the correct decision. Amtrak's Gateway is superior by several orders of magnitude.

NYS&W142Fan wrote:I have come to take a lot of what the Ledger says with a grain of salt. In reading their article, they speculate, saying "It could", no positive proof. I would like more data/information before saying it's dead.

A ton of grains of sand. Note how the newspaper takes a pot shot at Governor Christie for cancelling the ARC tunnel project. "At least on this issue, Gov. Christie is accepting his responsibility to take on the President. Don't forget, it was our governor who canceled New Jersey's last major trans-Hudson tunnel project in 2010, grabbed all the money that had been set aside for it, and walked away without offering a Plan B."

ARC would have built 2 new tunnels to a 6 track stub end terminal with no rail connectivity to NY Penn Station. Cancelling it was the correct decision. Amtrak's Gateway is superior by several orders of magnitude.

Yes, that stub ended terminal design was a huge mess that deserved to be cancelled, but Governor Christie was so interested in becoming President Christie that he didn't bother to offer a Plan B, just as the paper stated.

It would have been nice if he had weighed in on what the problems with the original plan were so as to educate the average voter...something we need to spend a ton of time doing, on both sides, to get this country back on track again.

Governor Christie could easily have had an alternative plan drawn up for the tunnels, but his mind was elsewhere.

SemperFidelis wrote:Yes, that stub ended terminal design was a huge mess that deserved to be cancelled, but Governor Christie was so interested in becoming President Christie that he didn't bother to offer a Plan B, just as the paper stated.

It would have been nice if he had weighed in on what the problems with the original plan were so as to educate the average voter...something we need to spend a ton of time doing, on both sides, to get this country back on track again.

Governor Christie could easily have had an alternative plan drawn up for the tunnels, but his mind was elsewhere.

To be fair to NJT, Amtrak wanted no part what-so-ever with the original tunnel project at that time. They didn't even wanted to contribute financially. Then Hurricane Sandy happen, and Amtrak and MTA attitudes changed when the existing tunnels flooded. The new Gateway is now billed as a secondary tunnel so they can detour trains so they can repair or refurbish the original tunnels as much as it is needed for additional capacity.

As long as we're boring new tunnels...

Are they going to make them taller than the old ones? I realize there would be little benefit as the two outbound (old) tunnels will still be shorter, but wouldn't it make sense to make these tunnels taller so if, one day in the distant future, the old tunnels are replaced, we can run full size multilevel trains?

It would have made sense to transition to taller tunnels (under the Hudson and under Baltimore) to carry Superliner bi-level cars while these tunnels are being built or rebuilt for the NEC HSR. While it would not have been cheap, it was considered possible.

Rebuilding Penn Station with lower tracks, or removing Madison Square Garden and an office skyscraper that sit above the tracks, that was deemed impossibly expensive.

the Star Ledger otherwise known to most people today as NJ dot com is an extreme liberal newspaper with nothing but hate for Trump and anyone who breathes anything other than EXTREME Left. Granted we have a Republican Gov. who cares nothing more than about himself that doesn't really reflect republican views so it certainly helps fuel the Star Ledgers writings. So I wouldn't take anything you read there other than the police blotter seriously.


Now politics aside I do find it very surprising that this would happen as he was advocating for bigger and better trains during his campaign. And as someone mentioned he is big NYC business based and knows that if a tunnel shuts down and over a million people are affected it's not going to be pretty. Until you see it set in stone don't believe what you see on TV and read online. I've come to realize in my career that a lot of what the news reports is what they want to report. I work at EWR with the FAA and the PA Ops.Dep. and let me tell you if I had a dollar for the amount of times the news reported that a plane was on fire when in fact nothing of such occurred I would have a larger tax return than Trump! If I had a dollar for the amount of times the monorail broke down I would be Richard Branson.

Yes, the "extremely liberal" newspaper...that endorsed Governor Christie's reelection bid. Rabidly liberal!

Despite what people would have us believe, Not everything that doesn't 100% agree with our point of view has to be labelled as extreme.

Well the article is marked as an opinion letter, so you can't really say it is a news story. It shouldn't really be taken as one. I don't really understand either how a new president, campaigning on infrastructure, took all of the infrastructure out of the budget. Of note, this is only the president's proposal and will surely be changed many times before it is actually approved by Congress. This being a very high profile project, I can't see how it doesn't get through.

Cannot build larger tubes please note the following page 24 comment 50 and reply.

http://www.hudsontunnelproject.com/docu ... nt%20C.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Baltimore B&P tunnel replacement already has provisions for 4 bores built for freight clearances.

http://www.bptunnel.com/images/BPT_Draft_PASR.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From the Hudson Tunnel Scoping document:

The existing East River tunnel connecting PSNY to Queens limits equipment height to 14 feet 6 inches from top of rail, much less than virtually any freight car design. By comparison, the standard double-stack freight requires either 20 feet 6 inches or 21 feet depending upon whether it conforms to East Coast or national standards.

Is that top of rail to caternary line? Or is there room for the caternary? Because 14' 6" is the height of a Bombardier MultiLevel Coach (aka the MARC IV coach -- yeah I'd like to see them shove a MARC IV under NY Penn Station...).

the 14"6 is equipment clearance, any thing higher would do damage it does not matter what it would damage.

Trumpsortation is supposed to replace these other pesky funding sources, which he views as liberal funding sources. Kill the other sources of established funding, wipe the board clear, start over with his plans. That seems to be the goal.

DutchRailnut wrote:the 14"6 is equipment clearance, any thing higher would do damage it does not matter what it would damage.

That confuses me. Is 14' 6" rail-to-caternary or will such a vehicle clear the caternary? If it's going to hit the caternary it might as well scrape the walls and collapse the tunnel!