Western Railroad Discussion > Why does the Eastern United States have shorter tunnels?

Amtrak only operates Viewliner cars east of Chicago because of tunnel clearances. Why do Western railroads use taller tunnels? They are just as old as the East coast tunnels. No?

Will the tunnels on the east coast ever be heightened to allow Superliner cars?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/21 00:53 by Sp1110.

           Taller mountains in the west. . . . . 

dcfbalcoS1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>            Taller mountains in the west. . .
> . . 

I think the question has to do with tunnel clearance heights... if so: lots of western tunnels have had their clearances raised (they probably started with roughly the same height as the eastern tunnels) to accommodate double stacks, auto racks... and Superliners. As far as why eastern tunnels haven't had their clearances raised, why they can't/don't accommodate Superliners, it's a good question.   A couple of thoughts: it may have to do with cost-effectiveness for the railroads; there are more routes in the east, more ways to get from point A to point B, which means that it's probably easier in some cases for the railroads to just find a different routing to get doublestacks between two points (a routing that may not make sense for passenger service) than to do a lot of expensive tunnel work. Whereas in the west, you're going to HAVE to go through tunnels to get your doublestacks from Seattle to Chicago, one way or other, in the east there might be other options. So more tunnel clearance projects have probably been done in the west, out of necessity. More doublestacks in general in the west, too (all those imports), which I'm sure has factored into the economic calculus.

My other thought is that there may be more large stations in the east, or routes entering those stations, that pass under buildings and so on, that couldn't have their clearances altered, or at least not in any kind of economical way. 

 

At this point the limitations are probably more due to the clearance restrictions on Amtrak leaving the New York area and on the NEC than anything. The Capitol Limited of course runs with Superliners and has done so for years. The Cardinal has run with them in the past but I can’t remember if they do at present. The rest of the long distance trains in the east run on the NEC under wires and through clearance restricted tunnels leaving New York which IIRC are the primary clearance issue. I would not imagine this is likely to change.

Posted from iPhone



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/21 05:06 by DJ-12.

New York and Baltimore tunnels are one issue. Overhead wires are another.

Posted from Android

Just as old? No.   Most of the western RR tunnels were built after the invention of dynamite, many eastern ones were built with black powder. 

And many of the more troublesome eastern tunnels are under water (NYC, Baltimore) which complicates enlargement and day to day operations as well.  Hudson River tunnels sustained major damage due to salt water flooding during Sandy a few years back. 

Did the Cardinal run into NY Penn with Superliners?  My recollection is Amtrak initiated that run from DC

I remember when the tunnel on the MILW at Tunnel City, WI was raised by lowering the floor. Very smart, actually. Concrete was poured along the walls and then the floor was excavated to lower the track. Double stackers can now pass through the tunnel easily.
SR2

Posted from Android

Viewliners run in the east as opposed to Superliners because of clearance issues in the urban areas in the big cities. You could call them tunnels, but they are a different animal than what you generally think of as a tunnel through a mountain.

As mentioned, both the Cardinal and Capitol Limited have run with Superliners through the Alleghenies but their terminus was Washington DC as opposed to NY where clearance issues exist as well as Baltimore and perhaps other cities.

Posted from Android

> Did the Cardinal run into NY Penn with Superliners?

As you suspected, that was out of the question --
as I recall the height limit there is 14 ft 8 inches.

Probably Superliners could have run Baltimore
to Washington when the tunnel had a gantlet --
the gantlet is gone now? So dunno if they'll fit
there now.

> Will the tunnels on the east coast ever be
> heightened to allow Superliner cars?

Superliners won't run to NY -- they won't exist
long enough.

It's only a few spots that exclude Superliners,
but the spots are enough to block the likely
passenger routes. Superliners may be able
to run Chicago to Philadelphia to Hoboken;
maybe they can even run Hoboken to Florida,

Amtrak's (technically the Washington Terminal Company's) First Street Tunnel in DC was undercut thirty years ago, to allow VRE's bilevels and gallery cars to operate into Union Station. In addition to it former use by the Cardinal, which ran with Superliners until the early 2000s, there is the occasional deadhead move of Superliners to/from the Auto Train facility at Lorton.

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/21 11:08 by Dcmcrider.

If Amtrak built new tunnels under the Hudson River would Superliners or ex-ATSF hi-levels be able to enter Pennsylvania Station?

Sp1110 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If Amtrak built new tunnels under the Hudson River
> would Superliners or ex-ATSF hi-levels be able to
> enter Pennsylvania Station?

What about the overhead wire, with something like 25,000 volts in it?

The wires in the North / Hudson River tunnels compress to just a foot above the top of cars now.

Posted from Android

Amtrak's North East Corridor also has LOTS of Overhead Bridges that are too low for Superliners.

Brian

The failed ARC Tunnel proposal of the early 2000s had new Hudson River tunnels that seemed more square in profile, and seemed to have a lot more internal clearance.  Same for the new LIRR access into NY Grand Central Terminal

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The failed ARC Tunnel proposal of the early 2000s
> had new Hudson River tunnels that seemed more
> square in profile, and seemed to have a lot more
> internal clearance.  Same for the new LIRR access
> into NY Grand Central Terminal

But,,,,,,,,,,there would STILL be that "overhead wire", wouldn't there?

HotWater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The failed ARC Tunnel proposal of the early
> 2000s
> > had new Hudson River tunnels that seemed more
> > square in profile, and seemed to have a lot
> more
> > internal clearance.  Same for the new LIRR
> access
> > into NY Grand Central Terminal
>
> But,,,,,,,,,,there would STILL be that "overhead
> wire", wouldn't there?


Yes. But in a much taller tunnel.

I believe Amtrak's box tunnel under Hudson Yards in NY is squared off, too.

Posted from Android

The tunnel from Penn Sta to the NY Central, you mean?
Amtrak's timetable shows the same clearance limit
there as the rest of the NY area. You'd think they'd
have built it a little bigger, and maybe they did.