# Houston Heavy Rail plans



## GP35 (Jul 11, 2006)

http://metrosolutions.org/go/site/1068/

Today Houston rails are too clogged for commuter trains. So if this project is set begin construction in 2007, the 1 billion dollar rail project to move 97% of Houston freight traffic to 3 new double track corridors must have been approved. Anyone knows anything about this?


----------



## sechs (Jul 17, 2006)

I can't speak to this particular project, but TxDOT has been working to move main freight lines out of cities. I'm sure that this is part of that.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 25, 2006)

This has nothing to do with freight and almost nothing to do with commuter trains. It is mostly "bus rapid transit" with some light rail. If you look at the map, very litte of this is on or near existing rail lines.

The line along US 290 is UP's former SP former H&TC line to Dallas wich has very little traffic south of Bryan, since most now uses the former MoPac IGN line.

The GH&H line to Galveston is shown as a "maybe someday" dashed line.

This is one they ought to get serious about. Houston may be a humongous blob, but Galveston is a walkers town and I 45 south is a parking lot.

George


----------



## printman2000 (Jul 25, 2006)

George Harris said:


> The line along US 290 is UP's former SP former H&TC line to Dallas wich has very little traffic south of Bryan, since most now uses the former MoPac IGN line.


I lived less than a mile from this line just over a year ago (290 & Hwy 6 area) and I noticed a great increase in traffic once the line was removed along I-10.


----------



## GP35 (Jul 27, 2006)

George Harris said:


> This has nothing to do with freight and almost nothing to do with commuter trains. It is mostly "bus rapid transit" with some light rail. If you look at the map, very litte of this is on or near existing rail lines.
> The line along US 290 is UP's former SP former H&TC line to Dallas wich has very little traffic south of Bryan, since most now uses the former MoPac IGN line.
> 
> The GH&H line to Galveston is shown as a "maybe someday" dashed line.
> ...


Look again. The terminal is being built with Commuter rail platform. I have a very very very reliable source that the commuter trains will run in 2011 within the Houston area and extention to Galveston and Bryan later, and an extention to Beaumont (this part is very early) I will know more in the coming weeks on how this could work giving Houston clogged up rail traffic.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 28, 2006)

GP35 said:


> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> > The line along US 290 is UP's former SP former H&TC line to Dallas wich has very little traffic south of Bryan, since most now uses the former MoPac IGN line.
> ...


The comuter rail platform would be for the H&TC line train, and as you note for if they ever get it to Galveston. What is the explanation for it taking 5 years to get it started?

Also surprised to see that Printman says the traffic on this line has increased recently.

Here is what the 2003 employee timetables that used to be available on the web have to say about this line:

Eureka Subdivision, Eureka to Navasota, 65.2 miles

mp 0 to 15, 25 mph; mp15 to 48, 40 mph except 25 mph through Hempstead; mp 48 to 65.2, 25 mph

Galveston Subdivision (ex. GH&H line), S. GH&H Jct. to Galveston, 46.4 miles

mp 0 - 9.6, 20 mph; 9.6 - 16, 35 mph; 16 - 36.5, 25 mph; 36.5 - 37.2, 35 mph; 37.2 - 46.4, 20 mph.

Alternate route to the Eureka Subdivision is the former MoPac line from Valley Junction to Spring, which is 60 mph territory except for a few restrictions, mostly to 50 mph. It would appear that most of the freight that used to be on the ex-SP is now going on this ex MoPac line, particularly since part of the former SP mainline in the Bryan to Navasoa area has been abandoned and the part remaining from Bryan north to Hearne is shown as having a 10 mph speed limit.

George


----------



## GP35 (Jul 30, 2006)

The delay is to make room for the Commuter trains. The rail plan I saw was to double line from Stanford to the ship channel, tunnel under the ship channel, then north along the 146 corridor. I wonder if that means to double track from 146 to Beaumont. If so, then that leaves the MO-pac line free for commuters.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 30, 2006)

GP35 said:


> The delay is to make room for the Commuter trains. The rail plan I saw was to double line from Stanford to the ship channel, tunnel under the ship channel, then north along the 146 corridor. I wonder if that means to double track from 146 to Beaumont. If so, then that leaves the MO-pac line free for commuters.


This work will take A LOT more than 5 years. 10 would be more likely. Is there a web site with information on this? If so I would appreciate knowing what it is.

George


----------



## sechs (Jul 30, 2006)

Tunnel under the ship channel?


----------



## Guest_gp35_* (Jul 31, 2006)

George Harris said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > The delay is to make room for the Commuter trains. The rail plan I saw was to double line from Stanford to the ship channel, tunnel under the ship channel, then north along the 146 corridor. I wonder if that means to double track from 146 to Beaumont. If so, then that leaves the MO-pac line free for commuters.
> ...


Hmmm, not really. The line to near the ship channel already exist. It just needs to be doubled. It's only about 10 miles. The ship channel up to the 146 to Dayton, already exist. Parts are already doubled. The hardest part would be to tunnel under the ship Channel. How long would it take to dig a tunnel 50ft feet deep under a narrow river?

We are assume this is the plan. I would turn the line north at the ship channel, connect with the Baytown line running near I-10 east and the Belt way, double track that line to Baytown, then as the current line turns south, I would build a new line north of Baytown to connect to the 146. This way would eliminate the tunnel. The tracks already exist except for the last 4 miles north of Baytown.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 31, 2006)

I do not know how I can begin to explain in a few simple word what a hugely expensive and difficult job a tunnel of this nature is. Just getting permission from all agencies involved is in itself a major task. In the early 90's a new tunnel parellel to the existing tunnel was built at Port Huron Michigan, and one of the statements made about the work was that it entailed abtainion over 400 different permits before the work could start.

What tyoe if tunnel are they talking about? mined? sunken tube? dewatered and cast in place? singel track? - I hope not. Double track? - at the least it should be. triple track?

There are also signinficant ventilation, drainage, and fire life safety issues with any tunnel of this nature.

What is the depth of channel? The rail level is likely to be about 100 feet below sea level. Consider channel depth - 45 feet to 60 feet, some cover over the tunnel - should be at elast 10 feet, thickness of top of structure - 3 to 5 feet, internal clearance - 24 ft min up to 27 feet if they wish to allow room for ultimate electrification, and probably also need much of it for ventilation, as well, track, drains, bottom of structure - another 8 to 10 feet. This puts the bottom of you tunnel no higher than 100 to 115 feet below sea level, and you want to do this in some extremely poor soil conditions with a very high water table. $200 million to $500 million as a wild guess. Just for the tunnel.

George


----------



## sechs (Aug 1, 2006)

As the ship channel is artificially maintained already, I doubt that a tube would work. In fact, I think that they dredged it deeper recently.

The question is, how far below ground do they need to go. Depth takes money, time, and land.

If I wanted to get to the other side of the ship channel, I'd put my money on a bridge; but considering the height that such a bridge would be, the tunnel might still be cheaper.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2006)

Generally, tunnel cost is about three times bridge cost. Due to probably having to provide at least 135 feet of clearance, it may be less here, but it will probably still be at least twice the bridge. Shipping interests like tunnels because tunnels don't have piers, so sometimes political pressure gets you a tunnel where it makes no economic sense. All it takes is one pilot who can't hit the opening and you have major problems, which the shipping interest always try to blame on the bridge, even if the opening is over twice the width of the ship. From the railroad point of view, the problem is about the same, a 110 to 120 foot or thereabouts change in elevation ot deal with.

George


----------



## GP35 (Aug 1, 2006)

There use to be an auto-tunnel going under the ship channel. I dont know what type of rail tunnel, but the whole project cost was estimated at $1 billion.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 1, 2006)

GP35 said:


> There use to be an auto-tunnel going under the ship channel. I dont know what type of rail tunnel, but the whole project cost was estimated at $1 billion.


OUCH ! !

Sounds like my wild guess was way low.


----------



## saxman (Sep 22, 2006)

George Harris said:


> GP35 said:
> 
> 
> > There use to be an auto-tunnel going under the ship channel. I dont know what type of rail tunnel, but the whole project cost was estimated at $1 billion.
> ...


I remember the auto tunnel. It was 146, two lanes wide. Now replaced by the quite impressive Fred Hartman Bridge which cost $117.5 million to complete.

I'm just waiting for the day to see commuter rail to Galveston. I wish I could have taken the Texas Limited there as I lived just a few miles from the League City stop. There's just short freight traffic on the line that follows SH 3. It'd be great for Ellington Field, NASA...well the entire Clear Lake area.


----------

