NEC Portal Bridge Thread - Operation, Replacement Etc.

[EuroStar]

As per some sources the projected 10% increase in passengers over the new bridge compared to the existing one comes from using MLV cars instead of single level coaches, not from the increased speeds. I really hope NJT did not bundle a request for more money for train cars together with the bridge as that is likely to be a point of contention and cause further paperwork delays.

[35dtmrs92]

Bundling MLVs in an infrastructure project and using them to claim a capacity increase is problematic, especially when the tunnel project's environmental documents emphasize 4 tracks NYP-SEC will not increase capacity (because they have to say that to avoid getting sued), but highway project proponents use fuzzy math all the freaking time. Holding up the bridge cash over this sort of thing would absolutely be a double standard.

[EuroStar]

A new animation of the North Portal Bridge has been made available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tifnDhyzpfw. While I would not read too much into its details (the interlocking details are certainly wrong unless they intend to cripple the operations until the South Portal Bridge is built), there are some insights for the curious.
1. On the east side the divergence to the north from the current right of way occurs somewhat east of the intersection with the old Boonton line.
2. On the west side the divergence north from the old right of way will occur around SWIFT interlocking. There will be new bridges over the Newark-Jersey City Turnpike and Belleville Turnpike.
3. The "duck-under" for the Lackawanna lines can be seen at 2:04. It is just east of Belleville Turnpike. This "duck-under" will connect to the South Portal Bridge if it ever gets built.
4. The extent of the construction platforms can be seen in multiple locations. Compared to what has already been built, they have quite a lot more to go.
5. I see no specific future allowances for the Secaucus Loop, but that detail might not have made it into the animation.

[R&DB]

EuroStar » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:08 am

I find it interesting that Amtrak and NJ Transit can find the money to have this video and the one on the Gateway tunnels produced. Seems to me the funds spent on this could have been more effectively used on actual construction.

[ExCon90]

I'm not familiar with the costs of TV production, but I suspect the cost of making those videos would be lost in rounding in the overall construction budgets. The videos may have been made to impress legislators with the importance of the projects; if they succeed in getting more money they will have been well worth it.

[R&DB]

ExCon90 wrote:

The videos may have been made to impress legislators with the importance of the projects; if they succeed in getting more money they will have been well worth it.

Good point. My guess on production costs for the 2 would be around $100 - $125k each.

[gokeefe]

You're both wrong. This is likely derived from the CAD engineering design currently in progress. The software has a built in capability to record video and the ability to manipulate perspective. Services like this are routinely included as part of an engineering and design contract or could likely be done in house.

[R&DB]

Mr Gokeefe wrote:

The software has a built in capability to record video and the ability to manipulate perspective.

I'm familiar with the CAD capabilities, that's the low-cost part of the productions. The expensive parts are the on-location interviews and editing hours.

Services like this are routinely included as part of an engineering and design contract or could likely be done in house.

I've worked in both the engineering and entertainment industries and am somewhat familiar with both. Those 'in-house' services still cost money. (time is money) The animation was produced by HNTB. From Wiki: "HNTB Corporation is an architecture, civil engineering consulting and construction management firm that was founded in 1914." So the animation was produced 'in-house' but believe me, HNTB definitely charged for it!

[gokeefe]

By "in-house" I meant Amtrak's own PR/Media. I've met them. They are more than capable of something like this. Regardless this video is indeed very helpful.

[R&DB]

Regardless this video is indeed very helpful.

If it gets more $ from Congress for Gateway, yes I agree completely. It would be a good return on investment.

[EuroStar]

July's Board Meeting minutes of NJT make an interesting read when it comes to the Portal Bridge due to the insights of the public comments. While I believe that the majority of the comments are fighting yesterday's battles by arguing for a three track North Portal Bridge, here are some of the interesting bits mixed up with my take on them.

The FTA grants that NJT is applying for require projects to provide at least 10% capacity increase. Anything below 10% is not eligible for the grants. Given that the proposed North Portal Bridge is only two tracks, the same as the old one there are limited avenues to increase capacity. One is to increase the speed of the trains and therefore the throughput, but they cannot really do this because they cannot push more trains through the tunnels. So NJT came up with the trick of increasing capacity by bundling into the bridge project an order for more multilevel cars which are to replace the remaining single level trains. Given that multilevel cars can and do run on the existing bridge, this strikes me as likely to be against the spirit of the FTA grant requirements, if not against the legal verbiage that spells those requirements. The connection between the new cars which provide the required 10% capacity increase and the bridge is tangential. Apart form that some comments indicate that the way NJT calculated the 10% capacity increase might be flawed because some of the increase already occurred when NJT replaced single level cars with multilevel ones in the past. To me all this when coupled with the current Administration's adverse view of anything and everything New York/New Jersey makes it likely that come January 2019 the likely outcome will be rejection of NJT's application for federal money.

I am no expert on federal grants, but the 10% increase in capacity requirement seems really tough to do for the Portal Bridge by itself because no more trains can be run into the tunnels. A three track North Portal Bridge, both the North and the South together or the new North and the existing one would not provide the capacity increase in spite of the increased number of tracks because of the tunnels. These options could have worked if the bridge was the limiting factor in the capacity, but the bridge really is a reliability problem, not a capacity problem.

[electricron]

The FTA grants that NJT is applying for require projects to provide at least 10% capacity increase. Anything below 10% is not eligible for the grants. Given that the proposed North Portal Bridge is only two tracks, the same as the old one there are limited avenues to increase capacity. One is to increase the speed of the trains and therefore the throughput, but they cannot really do this because they cannot push more trains through the tunnels. So NJT came up with the trick of increasing capacity by bundling into the bridge project an order for more multilevel cars which are to replace the remaining single level trains. Given that multilevel cars can and do run on the existing bridge, this strikes me as likely to be against the spirit of the FTA grant requirements, if not against the legal verbiage that spells those requirements.

Worse yet, they'll cry to high heaven when the FTA sees through this and declines to fund this project with this program. They'll take up political name calling politics instead of looking at themselves getting caught trying to pull a fast one. What's so wrong applying for funding that actually matches your project?

[dowlingm]

A non opening Portal is immediately a massive increase in nominal throughput - could NJT turn a certain number of trains at Secaucus to claim the additional capacity?

In the alternative, and admittedly this is *quite* the reach, is it anything other than madness to propose building a third track and curve onto the NYSW Northern Branch to allow some NJT single level diesel service to operate to a platform beside Tonnelle Avenue HBLR?

[EuroStar]

Couple of interesting facts from the latest Gateway Program Development meeting:
1. There are optical cables "attached to the Portal Bridge" that are "the main lines into NYC and provide data transmission for Wall Street". Some of these cables are being relocated for by the preliminary work. That was news to me. I have to ponder where the fiber optic cables cross the Palisades and the Hudson river. If it is the existing tunnels under the river that would be just WOW!
2. 60% of the water in Jersey City is provided by an 1860 cast iron water main pipe that crosses the Northeast corridor tracks. That is definitely something that adds to the project cost as clearly they need to take all precautions possible to avoid damaging the pipe during construction given that the new approaches to the bridge will need to cross the pipe too.

[east point]

Couple of interesting facts from the latest Gateway Program Development meeting:
1. There are optical cables "attached to the Portal Bridge" that are "the main lines into NYC and provide data transmission for Wall Street". Some of these cables are being relocated for by the preliminary work. That was news to me. I have to ponder where the fiber optic cables cross the Palisades and the Hudson river. If it is the existing tunnels under the river that would be just WOW!
2. 60% of the water in Jersey City is provided by an 1860 cast iron water main pipe that crosses the Northeast corridor tracks. That is definitely something that adds to the project cost as clearly they need to take all precautions possible to avoid damaging the pipe during construction given that the new approaches to the bridge will need to cross the pipe too.

Cannot speak to item 1 exact routing. However the routing of the fiber optic cable can be very important. Do believe that the actual routing over Portal is either underwater or parallel to the elevated 69 kV lines . Someone post a good picture of the bridge including the high voltage lines. If they were in a duct in a North River tunnel bore they probably were immune to salt water during "Sandy" ? Or they might be in one of the PATH tubes ? Speculation only as this is certainly classified .

The water line is being protected by a new heavy equipment bridge over the water line. That is part of the preliminary work contract that is now being done. The bridge over the water line will be or has been done so heavy equipment can access the river to build the work dock. Then of course the cranes and all heavy equipment to build the portal bridge itself will cross the water line bridge !. What will not be known is all the lost underground "stuff" that will be buried along the consstruction roadway being built. Just hope nothing critical is damaged !