Indeed. There are massive steel doors installed at the crossovers so that the two bores can be kept separate in an emergency. Thee doors are normally kept closed and only opened when a train needs to use the crossover." 8 kilometers of track and 20,000 concrete sleepers need to be replaced. The track bed is severely damaged in the area of the Faido cross-over." Not clear in anything I have seen so far, but the derailment may have been at a crossover track between the tunnels, which would explain closure of both tunnels.
From the article, they are planning to continue to run freights using the single track, but detouring passenger trains. I guess the capacity would not be enough for both. Interesting that freight gets the priority here, something you would not expect in Europe.Note that there are two separate parallel bores, which leaves me baffled why they don't continue operations with a fewer number of trains and "fleeting" their operation.
I imagine that it may be easier to re-route passengers than freight? No actual knowledge, but I don't get the feeling that EU freight is prioritised over passengers. Maybe the high volume of freight, versus passengers also makes it a sensible decision?From the article, they are planning to continue to run freights using the single track, but detouring passenger trains. I guess the capacity would not be enough for both. Interesting that freight gets the priority here, something you would not expect in Europe.
One thinks freight trains are heavier and would require a helper to get over them hills. Additional you can hold up a freight train easily than a train full of passengers while waiting for a slot. So yes it’s interesting, but it may of been preplan this way.From the article, they are planning to continue to run freights using the single track, but detouring passenger trains. I guess the capacity would not be enough for both. Interesting that freight gets the priority here, something you would not expect in Europe.
Back to "only" one additional hour with trips cases where an extra transfer is required when the western tube reopens on 24 August.Oops that a lot of damage. Worse part is passenger may have to change train during the repair period. Not sure why but adding two hours to your trip might be enough to short turn equipment.
Well you're not supposed to have a train smash through that door in the first place though... and the door has already been replaced as of todayNo replacement door? Critical item not in stock. Hope SBB orders 2.
Yes, part of the train that derailed on the switch went on the track that leads to the other tunnel, and smashed the closed door.From what i understood the derailment has damaged such a steel door
Nope: the only reason not to have passenger trains on the single track is that the second track is planned to be used to evacuate passengers in case of a stranded train or an emergency. With only one track available, they can't do that, therefore only freight trains are allowed until the second track is repaired.I imagine that it may be easier to re-route passengers than freight? No actual knowledge, but I don't get the feeling that EU freight is prioritised over passengers. Maybe the high volume of freight, versus passengers also makes it a sensible decision?
According to all credible documentation that I can find so far the old tunnel vertical clearance is 7.1m, new tunnel vertical clearance is 5.2m.Suspect all western Europe is looking for retired single level passenger equipment. 2 level equipment will not clear old Gotthard tunnel.
It may also be pure practicality. The old Gotthard route has some stiff gradients and tight curves. Back in the day when all trains went over the old route this was only possible because they piled on lots of extra locomotives for the heavier freights. Sometimes they would cut helper locomotives into the middle of a consist in addition. The new route has avoided that need and I don't think they keep sufficient spare locomotives around to be able too step them up at short notice like this. On passenger trains on the other hand the power is sufficient for the old route as most of the trains in use today were already in use when they did use the old route, so no modifications necessary.I imagine that it may be easier to re-route passengers than freight? No actual knowledge, but I don't get the feeling that EU freight is prioritised over passengers. Maybe the high volume of freight, versus passengers also makes it a sensible decision?
They would not have built such a tunnel in this day and age, in another age, maybe...., so there is no fear whatsoever of them runing one of their freights through such a tunnelThe original post article said that the freight train only had 30 cars, and the cargo spilled was mostly wine and lemonade. I wonder what it would have been like if this service was being run by an American class 1 railroad. (like "Crash Smash and eXplode" )
Yes, the provision of a much flatter north-south route for freight was a significant part of the business case for the base tunnel (and the other one at Monte Ceneri).One thinks freight trains are heavier and would require a helper to get over them hills. Additional you can hold up a freight train easily than a train full of passengers while waiting for a slot. So yes it’s interesting, but it may of been preplan this way.
The Loetschberg base tunnel too on the BLS route.Yes, the provision of a much flatter north-south route for freight was a significant part of the business case for the base tunnel (and the other one at Monte Ceneri).
The tight curves on the south side include two spirals, of course. I made a special trip not long before the base tunnel opened. Here’s a - terrible, admittedly - shot of the route as we approach the tunnel from the north (heading to the right). There are no spirals on the north approach but you get some idea of the zig-zag from the photo. You can see the line one level below easily, but note (just) the line again in the distance on the extreme right.It may also be pure practicality. The old Gotthard route has some stiff gradients and tight curves. Back in the day when all trains went over the old route this was only possible because they piled on lots of extra locomotives for the heavier freights. Sometimes they would cut helper locomotives into the middle of a consist in addition. The new route has avoided that need and I don't think they keep sufficient spare locomotives around to be able too step them up at short notice like this. On passenger trains on the other hand the power is sufficient for the old route as most of the trains in use today were already in use when they did use the old route, so no modifications necessary.
The fog. the general blurriness, the intense green and the closeness of the houses in the village make it look like someone's really really good model train layout!The tight curves on the south side include two spirals, of course. I made a special trip not long before the base tunnel opened. Here’s a - terrible, admittedly - shot of the route as we approach the tunnel from the north (heading to the right). There are no spirals on the north approach but you get some idea of the zig-zag from the photo. You can see the line one level below easily, but note (just) the line again in the distance on the extreme right.View attachment 33629
The Faido triple spiral tunnels between the south portal of the old tunnel and Bellinzona certainly look like someone's good model railroad built to fit a small roomThe fog. the general blurriness, the intense green and the closeness of the houses in the village make it look like someone's really really good model train layout!
What on earth were these people thinking to build a new structure with such low clearances? You would think they would have built it to AT LEAST have no less vertical clearance than the old tunnel.According to all credible documentation that I can find so far the old tunnel vertical clearance is 7.1m, new tunnel vertical clearance is 5.2m.
Enter your email address to join: