Eastern Railroad Discussion > Howard St Tunnel: Why improvement cheaper now?

The Howard Street tunnel in Baltimore is a major bottleneck. Plans for improvement go back decades. Reports used state that it was not economically feasible to increase the tunnel clearance to accommodate double stack trains because other structures above and below the tunnel made this impossible.. The proposed solution was a new tunnel which would cost of some $2 billion.

Recently I have read that new construction techniques can allow the clearance of the existing tunnel to be increased at a quarter the cost of a new tunnel. See for example http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-double-stacking-20160911-story.html

What I cannot find is an explanation of these new construction techniques are and why no one thought of them earlier. Can any TO members help?

 

Mr Jeffcoat, the author of the article, is identified as a lawyer  in Baltimore.  It's possible that his firm has been egaged to represent people associated with the tunnel.

There was a conference in Baltimore last month about local economic development.  The participants felt that the Trump administration should consider the huge impact of the Howard Street tunnel when handing out cash for infrastructure.  The tunnel funding request had been turned down by the Obama administration, but there's hope that the new administration will give them the money they want. The January article suggests the amount will be about a half billion dollars, but doesn't offer any justification or basis.  Many public projects often start with a low ball and skyrocket once detailed analysis is done, change orders processed, and actual costs are seen

Baltimore Sun

mukinduri Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What I cannot find is an explanation of these new
> construction techniques are and why no one thought
> of them earlier. Can any TO members help?

mukinduri,
This video from WMAR TV news will probably answer your question and probably make you wonder who was doing the engineering studies and cost estimates all along especially since the "new" technique CSX "just discovered" was something already being done, even by CSX for a couple of decades. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E34Kt84UXg4

I wish I could open the link you sent but i cannot as I would like to see what it said. They need to improve clearances by 14 inches to handle 9'6 cons double stacked. I have always felt that the best Balto solution for all freight and all passenger would be a four track trench essentially along the current AMTK right of way like the Alameda Corridor in LA. Maybe that is why the Obama Administration objected. they believed in the necessity of both passenger and freight. But here we go with CSX's cheaper plan and method, still requiring Government assistance of some kind, and AMTK's own proposal detailed here in the Passenger Board within the last 3 months, which will also require $$$ from one or more Government agencies. How the new Federal Government will handle this remains to be seen. Somehow I think CSX will get what it needs and AMTK will not, with their pro-business only stance.  I wonder if 'drumpf' or his family members ever rode a NYC subway, which move at least 5 million riders per day.

JLinDE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wish I could open the link you sent but i cannot

TO does not make clickable links to YooToob. Copy and paste the url provided in to a new browser window and you'll get the video. Basically, it says that now they're planning to undercut the ballast and notch the tunnel to gain the needed clearance. These techniques have been used on most if not all tunnels along the B&O between DC and Pittsburgh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/17 18:31 by CPR_4000.

Thanks CPR_4000 for your explanation. It is good enough that i will not try to do what you suggest to read it as I am not good at that. Undercut the bottom and notch has been used for years by CSX as you say, NS with their Pokey route clearances, and others. You can also use concrete slab track, steel ties, etc, or all in combination, to get what you want for clearances. I used to believe that CSX had a real obstacle there in Howard St. I have an article that says the tops of auto racks are three feet below the trolley tracks and 100+ year old sewers underneath. Now, suddenly, CSX has found a solution, no different than other clearance solutions as you say. I smell a rat here now. They wanted more STATE money to do it. Even though Baltimore has a 50ft draft like Norfolk and ports of NY/NJ it is very far inland, like Philadelphia, requiring more ship transit time and pilot fees. (Ship pilots are not cheap; they make over $250,000 a year and that is a long time ago). Four pilots round trip to Balto. CSX has other ports like NJ, Norfolk, and those in the SE where the post-Panamax ships will go first because they are closer to the open sea. As for the domestic north - south USA  market along CSX's superior route than NS's between the same points, I think CSX was just happy with the intermodal traffic they had along a faster route and could charge more. Since CSX took over their part of CR in 1999 intermodal has grown very little if at all, but what we have kills carload freight service, which all railroads deem captive. They need to learn about driverless trucks. As for the Baltimore Port....I hope the double stack investment was worth it.

The attorney is not familiar with mining and construction methods apparently. If and when it begins it will be interesting to see if they use undercutters used in mining or a simple road miner after the track is ripped out and the ballast is removed in the tunnel.

It all depends on the tunnel roof and floors geology as the minute they begin undercutting they will have to be very very carefull not to undercut the tunnel walls if they use a Joy brand undercutter.

The hydraulic cylinders than move the undercutter boom can be assembled with stop tubes to prevent the boom and bar from moving too far left or right and undercutting the tunnel walls and causing problems from subsidence affecting the tunnel back(roof).

The thing is if they use an undercutter it will require more time to complete the excavation.why this is because the undercutter which is a 480 volt 3 phase powered piece of mining machinery and will require additonal ventilation just as using a diesel powered road miner with two Tier 4 engines would
require due to the rock dust created by the act of cutting rock.

Both the undercutter and the road miner will have to stop work to change the carbide rock bits but the road miner can cut to the depth needed without the need to notch the roof and portal entrances.

The problems with the undercutter is that as the rock comes out in slabs the undercutter will have to back all the way out of this tunnel and the rock will have to be removed with front loader that would have to drive in and back all the way out to dump the rock somewhere to be collected and disposed of in a landfill that can handle oily waste as the work advances as the cylinders will leak hydraulic oil.

One more issue with the use of an undercutter is the power needed.

A 4,000 volt three phase mine rated switchgear and a mine rated 4,000 to 480 transformer box that also provides single phase 110 volt power will be required to deliver power to the undercutter and the ventilation fans required in the tunnel as the fugitive rock dust cretaed by the act of undecutting
will need to be cleared out of the tunnel with a tube duct ventillation system where in the fans are connected to flexible tubing made from brattice cloth used to make stoppings to control and deliver fresh air ventilation to a mining area.

The flexible tube ventilation ducting can push fresh air to the work area and also push the dust laden air out to the opposite end of the tunnel as the undercutter works. The problem is time, machinery breakdowns, and the time need to repair the undercutter.as the machine will have to be physically
removed to replace ans repair major parts like the electric motors.

A water line with hose connections would have to hung on the tunnel wall to deliver water to the undercutter bar to help knockdown the rock dust(bug dust) created by the act of undercutting.  Its easily done using Certainteed Yellowmine pipe and would be done prior to the work commencing as the water line to the undercutter would have to be physically connected to it and then removed prior to the undercutter being removed to clear the rock out with a front end loader.

Mine ventilation fan tubing would be needed for the road miner as well to provide fresh air for the operator and the diesel engines and the ventilation fan can be placed outside the tunnel portal and the tubing hung in the tunnel roof or wall to push fresh air into the tunnel. the flexible duct tubing would be added to the existing tubing as the road miner advances in the tunnel. A separate fan on the exhaust side of the tunnel would pull the bad air out of the tunnel as long as the opposite portal is closed with brattice cloth to prevent the air in the tunnel from being short circuited and unable to keep and force the fresh air in the tunnel that is being pushed into the tunnel with the tubing that would pass through the brattice cloth wall seal at the portal. 

The road miner is equipped dozer tracks to crawl along the path mined out. It has a water tank that would have to be refilled as needed and a water truck would have to be backed into the tunnel to the road miner if the excavation is done in one pass.

The other issue is lubrication and oil leaks and the need to deliver hydraulic oil and cutter head oils to the machine and greasing the RZeppa universal joint every shift and purgng the unversal joint of old grease. The turntable of the undercutter which is used to move the cutter bar is now fitted with a metered hydraulic oil pump to lubricate the bronze bearings in the turntable mating surfaces. This means the rock waste would have to trucked to a landfill rather than simply carted away and used for fill soemwhere if a road miner was used.
 
The tunnel approach grades can be cut down and lowered to permit the double stacks to enter and exit safely at speed with the same road miner as well. 




 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/17 14:43 by leonz.

I don't know what is below the roadbed but for certain Howard St is above it along with the light rail line.  So going upward would most likely be impossible.
​The roadbed of the tunnel N of the Howard St tunnel was lowered by Empire Construction Co of Baltimore late 70's or very early 80's.  Not  sure why that was done without lowering Howard St tunnel roadbed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/17 08:22 by PennPlat.

Very interesting responses. The only additional comments I can add, talking to loco engineers that use it, having a track chart, and other comments are these. The tunnel is about 7000 feet long. I can re-check later. It is upgrade south to north geographically or west-east by TT direction. The tunnel clearance obstructions are not consistent throughout the tunnel. Some places may actually clear now or require only a few inches of additional clearances. The south end is actually a bit below sea level and it was extended when the ballpark was built years ago. It floods in heavy rains or unusually high tides. it probably rests on silt or sand or other loose material. The north end is getting close, if not already on, the 'Fall Line' which all along the East Coasts separates the alluvial plains to the East with the rocky base in the interior. (My house in Delaware actually sits on it). So different engineering solutions will be needed for different sections of the tunnel. obviously it is not simple engineering, as Leonz amply explains above. In addition I have heard a RUMOR from inside CSX. They are considering two plans to do the work. 1: Shutting down the tunnel over slower weekend traffic days (Sat-Mon); or 2:, shutting down for an extended period of time and do the whole thing at once. I forget what timeframe that would be, probably several months. The issue there will be customer service interuption; holding trains for a few days each week versus long term reroutes over alternate CSX routes or negotiated detours on other RR's (read NS). Time will tell.

Another thought is that the tunnel is already a helper grade for heavier trains, if they lower it they'll add to the NB grade.  In hindsight, they should have built a rail tunnel next to the Ft McHenry tunnel of I95 when they built that.  Already rail access on both sides would just have had to upgrade to main line specs instead of yard limits.

A rail tunnel next to the McHenry tunnel would solve a slew of problems.

Posted from Android

Unfortunately i cannot agree with Cole42 and Lackawanna484 for a rail tunnel at Fort McHenry near the I-895 road tunnel. Here is why. I have driven that tunnel a number of times .It must have three to four percent grades in each direction. The road tunnel is only 1.3 miles long. Maybe a rail alignment could begin further away in each direction but I still think the resulting grade would be two percent down and two percent up. It would be OK for a subway or light rail line but not two mile long freight trains. But I have a solution on the same general alignment. First, more facts on the Howard Street tunnel. I misstated that it is below sea level, at the South end. My 1986 track charts show it as 11 feet above sea level. But there is a short dip into the tunnel of 0.78% for about 0.2 miles. Then in the tunnel itself under Howard Street, which is 1.63 miles long using Google Earth (actual length is not in the track charts). But the tunnel itself only has a 0.80 percent ascending grade to Mount Royal Station. But there it jumps to 1.32, 1.07, 1.55, and 0.86 percent to a summit at Greenmount Ave 1.8 miles later. There are two curves over 10 degrees and other lesser curves in this stretch. This is why helpers are sometimes needed.

Now, back to a Fort McHenry alignment. Looking at Google Earth, and having river charts and following ships a bit, there is really very little commercial freight in SHIPS that goes north of the road tunnel. Six ships show. Three appear to be big Navy transports stored there. One is a small bulker at Locust Point. Also there is an auto carrier with ramp down but no vehicles nearby. Most auto ships go to Dundalk. The last ship looks to be the John Brown, a restored Liberty ship that does tours. The biggest driving source for double stacks thru Howard St tunnel is service to the Port of Baltimore's two container terminals that can already take the larger boxships that transit the new Panama Canal. Those two terminals are SE of the Fort McHenry tunnel, as well as the two coal export terminals and virtually all other Baltimore ship business. Ruckert Terminals is to the north of the highway but not sure how busy it is anymore.

What i suggest for a Fort McHenry alignment is a bridge for rail. Possibly it could raise up a bit to clear most pleasure craft and smaller sailboats. It could also have a lift span for the very occasional tall vessel passage. Most of the time it could be down for rail. If the PORT of Baltimore along with the city and state really want double stacks to the port they have to convince the remaining marine interests located above Fort McHenry to find alternatives. I think all that would be cheaper than rebuilding Howard Street tunnel. Alternatively, if deep vessel interests could be re-located elsewhere in Baltimore's many harbors, then maybe a rail tunnel could be built, but with much easier grades since it would not have to clear a deep ship channel (at least 35ft there), as the road tunnel had to do when built many years ago. But i still think the tunnel engineering would be more difficult on the East side (Canton) due to almost sea level access to reach the container terminals and a steep grade for thru trains to connect to NS and CS at Bay view.  

I have no facts to base this on:

​I would suspect it's next to impossible to get a new (vs. replacement) bridge approved across a navigable river in this Country.
​Look at the hoops Amtrak had to go through to REPLACE their bridges in Conn/Mass to make boaters and the community happy.

 

What's the sailing time up the Chesapeake Bay from the Harbor Tunnel area?  If it's a day up, and a day back, Baltimore is facing an uphill battle against Norfolk etc for time sensitive mega-ship calls.

The shippers have already said that fewer ports will be served by mega-ships. My guess is NY/NJ is one. Miami or Fort Lauderdale will be two. Jacksonville or Tampa might be three.   Norfolk gets the four post.   Boston is not in the running.  Philly, Wilmington DE, Baltimore, will prob duke it out for smaller ships and bulk carriers.  Wilmington NC, Charleston, Savannah will probably continue to get specialty cargo and auto.