Susquehanna Bridge Repair/Replace Status

I agree with many of the recommendations except for the open bridge deck. I believe that a ballasted bridge deck will allow for higher speed and better maintenance.

I was always impressed that the current bridge even allows 90 mph, which ain't a terrible speed restriction, but it sure looks its age! Whenever I see photos like this I weep for this nation's lack of infrastructure investment:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 4&nseq=105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Matt Johnson wrote:I was always impressed that the current bridge even allows 90 mph, which ain't a terrible speed restriction, but it sure looks its age! Whenever I see photos like this I weep for this nation's lack of infrastructure investment:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 4&nseq=105" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With >20% Unemployment, I don't know if Spain is the best example of sound public policy. But I know where you're coming from.

Visiting Germany and Switzerland will REALLY make you weep.

Seems this has been going on for a while; I saw something online today concerning a public info meeting.

Upcoming Public Outreach Information Session

Thursday, April 14, 2016
5:00 PM to 8:00 PM

Havre de Grace Activity Center
351 Lewis Lane
Havre de Grace, MD 21078

This open house will also serve as a Section 106 consulting parties meeting.

Here's the web-site:

http://susrailbridge.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

According to the updated project schedule, it looks like this is just pushing paper until Spring 2017. Lots of other interesting info, though.

The Susquehanna River Rail Bridge is a two-track bridge located in the City of Havre de Grace in Harford County, Maryland and the Town of Perryville in Cecil County, Maryland. The 110-year-old bridge is owned by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). It is used by Amtrak, Maryland's MARC Commuter Rail and Norfolk Southern Railway to carry passenger and freight trains across the Susquehanna River.

The U.S. Secretary of Transportation selected the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) for an award of $22 million through a cooperative agreement between the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and MDOT for the preliminary engineering and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) phases of the Susquehanna River Rail Bridge Project. FRA, MDOT, the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and Amtrak are working together to study various alternatives to improve this rail crossing along the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor (NEC).

Good to see the engineering and NEPA process continuing to move forward on this important project.

<Cough> dust.... </cough>

Been a while... here's an update: Havre de Grace Patch

New Bi-level Bridge Proposal Challenges Amtrak's Dual Bridge Plan For Susquehanna

HAVRE DE GRACE - On Tuesday, Perryville Mayor Matt Roath announced a new proposal to create a bi-level rail bridge across the Susquehanna, challenging Amtrak's original plans to build two new bridges.

AmeriStarRail, in collaboration with Kleinfelder and Toole Design, propose that Amtrak and Maryland DOT finance and build just one bi-level bridge to be completed by 2030 without demolishing the current bridge. This would allow the existing Amtrak bridge to be converted into the "Trailway Across the Susquehanna," a new pathway for bicyclists and hikers.
...
The Susquehanna River Bridge is the longest movable bridge on the Northeast Corridor. According to Amtrak, more than 110 Amtrak and MARC passenger and freight trains cross the two-track bridge daily. The current bridge suffers from capacity limitations, which require trains to slow down to a maximum of 90 mph while crossing.

According to AmeriStarRail, the bi-level bridge solution will eliminate direct operating conflicts between Amtrak trains, MARC commuter trains, and Norfolk Southern freight trains, allowing Amtrak trains to operate up to 200 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.
...

Have the Susquehanna bridge track speeds ever been over 90 mph? If so, and they've been reduced, then there's a long term problem that Amtrak has mitigated over the decades which justifies full replacement and expansion.

The other thing is: How are you going to get passengers in Perryville from one side of the MARC tracks to the other?
You're going to be moving track and building interlocks, so you're going rebuild the station anyway. Plus there's two road tunnels to contend with. They'll probably build a crossover bridge.

What the Ameristar report want to do is essentially build two bridges, one on top of the other... and you design the bottom one to handle the weight of both... and somehow get passengers to the other side with full ADA access.

Oh, and you gotta keep the freight wye too. The perceptual diagram shows you nothing.

In other words, the proposal is a half-baked idea that's requires more proper engineering that what these mooks have produced, would cost a hell of a lot more, and likely wouldn't stand up to a major storm. File it in the bin.

Much like some of their other ideas, which seem to not have anyone looking at with Google maps, much like a site visit.

We can see this to turn into a fight much like BNSF is having on their new bridge in SD.

How's this for an "el cheapo" way to handle the PRR Susquehanna River bridge problem.

Route Amtrak over the B&O bridge. It's a fixed span.

Gilbert B Norman wrote: ↑Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:48 am How's this for an "el cheapo" way to handle the PRR Susquehanna River bridge problem.

Route Amtrak over the B&O bridge. It's a fixed span.

Many miles of new track and CAT but in all seriousness that should be done in case of complete failure of present bridge.

About the only thing I like about this idea is keeping a foot/bike bridge.
Right now if one wants to bike this route (or I suppose walk it) there is no safe way to do it for miles. Route 372 upstream is perhaps the first safe and practical non-car (or train) solution (and look at that on Google maps, I'd be very reticent to cross this on my bicycle.)

Which option is this project going to be?
1. Build 2 track high bridge and keep present bridge for both Amtrak and NS?
2. Amtrak just use 2 track high bridge
3. Build 2 high bridges 2 track each much like North and South portal

west point wrote: ↑Mon Oct 02, 2023 10:43 pm Which option is this project going to be?
1. Build 2 track high bridge and keep present bridge for both Amtrak and NS?
2. Amtrak just use 2 track high bridge
3. Build 2 high bridges 2 track each much like North and South portal

Amtrak's intent is #3, with additional dismantling of the old bridge.

Mr. Moore, if you would be reluctant to X on your trike over the Norman Wood Bridge (PA 372), try the one over the Conowingo Dam, which is US1. I did that once in this life, playing "shunpike" on a drive from Wash to Greenwich. That was in an auto - and guess what is coming the other way - a semi!!!!

Of course, the best way to see the Susquehanna was to ride the C&PD; something possible during "early Amtrak"; A-Day until circa '74, and on a fan trip or two afterwards.