Fredrick Douglass Tunnel (Replacement of the Baltimore and Potomac B&P Tunnel)

Wonding out-loud here: why are the speeds so slow in the B&P tunnel and why can they not be increased? And please follow the logic, it only seems to have one tight cure at the north or east end that would be speed restrictive.

Unlike a freight road where they are always battling the high car problem, AMTK has no real issue with the height of the tunnel. As for track structure and drainage the rails look to be on concrete. So why can't the track be aligned bolted down and jack up the speeds. (slow down at the end for the curve obviously) and be done with it. Why spend billions wanting a new tunnel when this one works?

Move the crossover out of the cut on the south or west end put in concrete ties and go faster in the straight parts. If swaying side to side is an issue for MARC bi-level cars notch the darn think like freight roads. But Amtubes should not have issues with the arched roof.

I realize AMTK might want more tracks and the focus of all transportation companies is now to get some government agency to pay for stuff like the state or MD. But realistically a 3 track tunnel would be amazingly expensive so they are likely to get nothing or another 2 track tunnel at the best.

Why not make the one you have work well until you get something else?

What is the speed today in the 30 mph range?

T2

What is the point in raising the speed? Going from a class 2 track to a class 3 track costs money and time. It is hardly worth the extra maintenance/inspections for (possibly) a mile of additional speed, which would top out at 45 at best.

The tunnel works, but it needs replacing. It has serious water issues that can hinder electric operations in the winter.

train2 wrote:Wonding out-loud here: why are the speeds so slow in the B&P tunnel and why can they not be increased? And please follow the logic, it only seems to have one tight cure at the north or east end that would be speed restrictive.

Unlike a freight road where they are always battling the high car problem, AMTK has no real issue with the height of the tunnel. As for track structure and drainage the rails look to be on concrete. So why can't the track be aligned bolted down and jack up the speeds. (slow down at the end for the curve obviously) and be done with it. Why spend billions wanting a new tunnel when this one works?

If you read the NEC planning documents, the B&P Tunnel is regarded as having no more than 10-15 years left before it is no longer usable. The current plan is to build a new 2 mile long 2 track tunnel (without the sharp curves). Then, after the new tunnel is operational, the B&P Tunnel will be closed and rehabilitated. The B&P Tunnel will be then be returned to service to provide 4 tracks southward from Baltimore station.

Whether the rehabilitation of the B&P Tunnel will include straightening of the curves, don't know, but since the phrase used is to rehabilitate the B&P, not to rebuild or modify it, probably not much straightening they would or could do. Amtrak recently issued a request for interest for contractors to begin the RFP process to select the contractor to perform the Preliminary Engineering design on the new tunnel and B&P tunnel rehabilitation, so the $60 million HSIPR grant project for PE & NEPA work for the B&P tunnel replacement is moving forward.

Believe it or not the current B&P tunnel mostly runs under surface streets and I am not sure that they would be able to bore a new one under anything except the same due to vibration and weight issues. The current tunnel runs under Winchester then turns up under Wilson from south to north. I suspect they would put the new tunnel under Laurens and then turn it under North Ave before the portal. I don't know what the plans call for, but there's more room on the north side of the existing tracks for new portals and such at either end.

Jersey_Mike wrote:Believe it or not the current B&P tunnel mostly runs under surface streets and I am not sure that they would be able to bore a new one under anything except the same due to vibration and weight issues. The current tunnel runs under Winchester then turns up under Wilson from south to north. I suspect they would put the new tunnel under Laurens and then turn it under North Ave before the portal. I don't know what the plans call for, but there's more room on the north side of the existing tracks for new portals and such at either end.

Don't forget there is the Baltimore Metrorail line, a lot of infrastructure, and probably many water pipes that were not there when the B&P tunnel was built. The plan is to bore a rather deep tunnel over what the FRA report calls the Great Circle Passenger Alignment. The tunnel would go down into the bedrock, follow a constant large arc route, and go under the Baltimore Metro line. The FRA published a second more extensive analysis report in 2011 which can be found on their website as 2 documents under the title Balitmore's Railroad Network dated Jan 2011. The study covered new tunnel alternatives for the NEC and alternate routes for a new Plate H clearance freight tunnel route through Baltimore. The Graphics Supplement report has overview engineering drawings of the proposed new NEC Great Circle alignment tunnel route.

As for why they can't keep using the current B&P Tunnel which began service in 1873, here is an excerpt from the FRA & MTA funded report:

An option investigated was to rebuild the B&P Tunnel. Recent evaluations have concluded that the B&P Tunnel needs to be replaced within the next 10-20 years as it is increasingly difficult and
expensive to maintain. Current conditions include: drainage through the tunnel’s walls, leakage from existing utility lines, poor drainage of the tunnel’s invert, and insufficient clearance. Reconstruction challenges include: safety of operating passenger and freight trains while under reconstruction, integrity of tunnel structure, unforeseen underground conditions, and potential damage to existing facilities. Also, it would be necessary to take one track out of service during the reconstruction period of over one year. Thus, the Amtrak NEC would be reduced to one track with the consequential cancelation of certain trains, delays to other trains, reduced service levels, and a major overall inconvenience to NEC patrons.

Anyone think it is a viable idea to reduce the NEC to a single track through Baltimore for over a year? I didn't think so. No, build a new faster 2 track tunnel, then shut down and rebuild or rehabilitate the B&P Tunnel without spending a fortune working around traffic going through the tunnel.

Do they have any plans under discussion to keep it active as a local traffic valve or secondary bypass after the new tunnel is built, or is there no practical choice with its condition but to abandon-abandon it. I know the freights don't need it with the CSX tunnel serving those needs through town, but is there any commuter rail angle?

Can anyone comment on the NS freight traffic using the tunnel currently? I was never up on the locals, but up until a few years back I had first hand knowledge of NS running coal to Bowie from Bayview via B&P. These moves were infrequent but the did happen and required pushers.

I have not frequented the Popes Creek line where this coal was going in a few years for first hand sightings, so do these moves still take place? (And I ask fully well knowing most Balto fans never knew they ran in the first place!)

T2

The FRA is proposing a tunnel that could be used by both CSX and Amtrak to augment/replace both the B&P and Howard Street tunnels. Might be helpful if it helps defray the cost of the Amtrak only option, but will probably be built as a CSX subsidy and Amtrak required to give them daytime slots for freight trains. I say build a new tunnel one block over on basically the same alignment which should clear the Metro tunnel.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Do they have any plans under discussion to keep it active as a local traffic valve or secondary bypass after the new tunnel is built, or is there no practical choice with its condition but to abandon-abandon it. I know the freights don't need it with the CSX tunnel serving those needs through town, but is there any commuter rail angle?

Yes, the plans, as I said, are to rehabilitate the B&P tunnel after the new tunnel is built. Amtrak posted a RFI on their Procurement Portal which stated in the description:

The objective of this Project is to provide a new two track tunnel approximately two miles long that is functionally parallel to the existing Baltimore & Potomac (B&P) Tunnel in Baltimore, MD and after this new tunnel is in service, rehabilitate the existing B&P tunnel, opened in 1873.

I would expect that the Acelas and Regionals will be given priority to use the new tunnel while MARC will use the rebuilt B&P, but that may depend on how the 4 tracks of the 2 tunnels route connect with the 4 tracks south of the tunnels. The new tunnel would only save around a minute and 40 seconds. The plan is to upgrade the NEC to four tracks from Baltimore to New Carrolton with BWI and New Carrolton getting center platforms providing access to all 4 tracks. Amtrak would use the two center tracks and MARC would use the outer local tracks. MTA (Maryland Transportation Authority) wants to expand MARC to seven days a week service on the Penn Line, so that is driving the expansion to 4 tracks. A 7 day a week MARC service connecting DC and the DC Metro system to a Baltimore with an improving transit system (Red Line LRT, Metro extended to White Marsh, long range plans for a Yellow LRT line between downtown and Towson) would make an all rail travel around and between the 2 cities easy.

The RFI for the Susquehanna Bridge Replacement PE & NEPA study states that the design is for new railroad bridge structures providing 4 track capacity. The decision appears to have been made to expand the NEC to four tracks between WIL and WAS except for a few short 3 track segments.

MTA (Maryland Transportation Authority) wants to expand MARC to seven days a week service on the Penn Line, so that is driving the expansion to 4 tracks.

Why would weekend service require 4 tracks? If weekday service can work on today's current number of tracks why would weekend service need more? Anyway, with the exception of the B&P tunnel which is falling down, I don't see any of those other upgrades ever being built. Austerity is here to stay.

If somebody's going to hire a tunnel boring machine and deal with utilities and crossing other ROW, what I don't get is why bore a tunnel to a station (Penn) that's in the wrong place (too far North) anyway?

Seems to me they should go directly for the Charles Center station that HSR needs anyway.

Jersey_Mike wrote:Why would weekend service require 4 tracks? If weekday service can work on today's current number of tracks why would weekend service need more? Anyway, with the exception of the B&P tunnel which is falling down, I don't see any of those other upgrades ever being built. Austerity is here to stay.

The long term plan for MARC is to increase frequency of service on the Penn Line on weekdays and from zero on weekends and holidays. Use a 10, 20, 30 years out perspective when considering the capacity needs of the NEC. Amtrak wants to run more daily trains between NYP and WAS, MARC wants to run more commuter trains between WAS and Perryville and to Newark DE.

The cost of adding a 4th track between Winans interlocking just south of the Halethorpe station to Landover interlocking will not be that large. Multiple hundreds of millions yes, if there are no overpass bridges that have to be rebuilt or moved, but not multiple billions. The Susquehanna, Bush, Gunpowder bridges will have to be replaced in the next several decades, might as well build 4 tracks for the new bridges.

As for austerity is here to stay, so there will be no money to upgrade the NEC as population along the NEC grows and oil becomes increasingly difficult to produce at the daily rate all the automobiles and airplanes gulp it down over the next 30 years? Think long term, not the next election cycle.

Arlington wrote:If somebody's going to hire a tunnel boring machine and deal with utilities and crossing other ROW, what I don't get is why bore a tunnel to a station (Penn) that's in the wrong place (too far North) anyway?

Seems to me they should go directly for the Charles Center station that HSR needs anyway.

If you take a look at the studies Mr. Figgatt linked to above, you'll see that the various "Central Sector" alternatives (including routing through Charles Center) were far more expensive than the "Great Circle" route. And Penn Station is, what, maybe a mile from Charles Center? And it's a pretty quick trip to the Inner Harbor on the light rail.

afiggatt wrote:I would expect that the Acelas and Regionals will be given priority to use the new tunnel while MARC will use the rebuilt B&P, but that may depend on how the 4 tracks of the 2 tunnels route connect with the 4 tracks south of the tunnels. The new tunnel would only save around a minute and 40 seconds. The plan is to upgrade the NEC to four tracks from Baltimore to New Carrolton with BWI and New Carrolton getting center platforms providing access to all 4 tracks. Amtrak would use the two center tracks and MARC would use the outer local tracks. MTA (Maryland Transportation Authority) wants to expand MARC to seven days a week service on the Penn Line, so that is driving the expansion to 4 tracks. A 7 day a week MARC service connecting DC and the DC Metro system to a Baltimore with an improving transit system (Red Line LRT, Metro extended to White Marsh, long range plans for a Yellow LRT line between downtown and Towson) would make an all rail travel around and between the 2 cities easy.

The RFI for the Susquehanna Bridge Replacement PE & NEPA study states that the design is for new railroad bridge structures providing 4 track capacity. The decision appears to have been made to expand the NEC to four tracks between WIL and WAS except for a few short 3 track segments.

MTA=Maryland Transit Administration (in charge of most of the Transit Services in the Balt-Wash Metro Area)
MdTA=Maryland Transportation Authority (akin to the NY/NJ Port Authority. in charge of toll roads, bridges, and tunnels)

As far as infrastructure is concerned the biggest priority for the MTA is an additional platform at BWI.

If the Bowie coal train is the one I think it is, it comes from DC and goes up to Bowie. It's CSX. I've only heard of one or two times they get coal from NS.

NS does run a local to the flex flow terminal that was built when the MTA double tracked the light rail and discontinued rail service on the light rail.

I think a mixed use tunnel is a great idea. CSX needs additional clearance and capacity that the Howard street tunnel can't provide due to the geology of the area.

It almost makes one ask, would it be more logical to build this instead of replacing NEC bridges that were overbuilt and still safe?