Derailment closes world's longest Rail Tunnel in Switzerland until 2024

[i2icer]

Revenue is the freight train priority reason.
It would seem to me that it would be a massive plus to put a powered switch locations at the end of the tunnels and just run trains through the tunnel that is open on a schedule that would make it feasible to operate and have minimum delays for both classes

There could be an air quality problem or liability problem also associated with the site that precludes the passenger traffic .

 

[jiml]

Revenue is the freight train priority reason.
It would seem to me that it would be a massive plus to put a powered switch locations at the end of the tunnels and just run trains through the tunnel that is open on a schedule that would make it feasible to operate and have minimum delays for both classes

There could be an air quality problem or liability problem also associated with the site that precludes the passenger traffic .

See the last paragraph of Post #11 for the answer.

 

[i2icer]

Absolutely Understandable to do that, but there are single tunnels like the Seikan around the world, Not quite as long of course but they run passenger trains there.

Not too much of an inconvenience to get up a couple of hours early and in a couple late for a while to be safe though.

 

[west point]

Absolutely Understandable to do that, but there are single tunnels like the Seikan around the world, Not quite as long of course but they run passenger trains there.

Most of those single bores still have an escape tube much smaller but with emergency ventilation. Then there are the North River tunnels that have no access to the other tunnel. All about being grandfather in. The new Gateway tunnel bores require a cross link to other tube. As for these Gotthard base tunnel rules we have no idea what is required by Swiss authorities.

 

[jis]

Most of those single bores still have an escape tube much smaller but with emergency ventilation. Then there are the North River tunnels that have no access to the other tunnel. All about being grandfather in. The new Gateway tunnel bores require a cross link to other tube. As for these Gotthard base tunnel rules we have no idea what is required by Swiss authorities.

Additional consideration for providing escape routes other than the basic tunnel is relatively new, something that happened in the last 50-60 years. There are lots of old tunnels that do not have such. I think the real impetus to think through escape routes came as a result of the 1999 Mont Blanc Tunnel fire disaster which killed 39. Though the likes of Eurotunnel had already built elaborate escape routes before that.

You are correct though in that ultimately it is what the local fire code requires. It has nothing to do with what the Japanese do in one specific tunnel.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

One reason for keeping freight running is that it would mean trucks on roads over the alps which the Swiss really push hard to avoid (I've always understood Switzerland to be one of the more anti-car countries in Europe for what it's worth). That was one of the reasons for building the tunnel iirc.

 

[Willbridge]

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 room

You beat me to it! I had this sudden flash of catalog pages and names like Fleischmann, Lilliput, etc. when I saw the photo. And the compressed elevation to squeeze the layout into a European basement.

 

[Gemuser]

One reason for keeping freight running is that it would mean trucks on roads over the alps which the Swiss really push hard to avoid (I've always understood Switzerland to be one of the more anti-car countries in Europe for what it's worth). That was one of the reasons for building the tunnel iirc.

I wouldn't say anti car, I would say anti big trucks. It's the big trucks that the Swiss objected to and they threaten to impose very large tolls on non Swiss trucks transiting the country. The Alpine base tunnels & other traffic streamlining works were the result of a comprise between the EU & the Swiss.

 

[George Harris]

Absolutely Understandable to do that, but there are single tunnels like the Seikan around the world, Not quite as long of course but they run passenger trains there.

Google can be your friend here. For reference, the Gotthard Base Tunnel is 57.09 km = 35.47 miles.

"The Seikan Tunnel is a 53.85 km (33.46 mi) dual-gauge railway tunnel in Japan, with a 23.3 km (14.5 mi) portion under the seabed of the Tsugaru Strait."

So, yes it can be said, "not quite as long" but that is a fairly small "not quite" 3.24 km out of 57. It is double track, single bore with no dividing barrier of any kind between tracks. It carries both passenger trains and freight trains. At its low point it is around 240 meters below sea level, with a 1.2% grade maximum grade down to that point. We rode through it in 2005 or 6 on a Japanese standard gauge (1067 mm) train as that was several years before the Shinkansen line reached it. The tracks each had a third rail added to provide for the 1435 mm Shinkansen trains. This third rail was not there when we visited the place, as this was something like 10 years before the Shinkansen system accessed Hokkaido. They had a nice little museum that we visited that could only be accessed from the trains. Whether that is still there or has moved or simply closed after the Shinkansen trains started running, I don't know.

 

[slasher-fun]

I wouldn't say anti car, I would say anti big trucks.

Yes, Switzerland is not really "anti car" (and I can't really think of any "anti car" country really...)

 

[Gemuser]

Google can be your friend here. For reference, the Gotthard Base Tunnel is 57.09 km = 35.47 miles.

"The Seikan Tunnel is a 53.85 km (33.46 mi) dual-gauge railway tunnel in Japan, with a 23.3 km (14.5 mi) portion under the seabed of the Tsugaru Strait."

So, yes it can be said, "not quite as long" but that is a fairly small "not quite" 3.24 km out of 57. It is double track, single bore with no dividing barrier of any kind between tracks. It carries both passenger trains and freight trains. At its low point it is around 240 meters below sea level, with a 1.2% grade maximum grade down to that point. We rode through it in 2005 or 6 on a Japanese standard gauge (1067 mm) train as that was several years before the Shinkansen line reached it. The tracks each had a third rail added to provide for the 1435 mm Shinkansen trains. This third rail was not there when we visited the place, as this was something like 10 years before the Shinkansen system accessed Hokkaido. They had a nice little museum that we visited that could only be accessed from the trains. Whether that is still there or has moved or simply closed after the Shinkansen trains started running, I don't know.

After the Mt Blanc crash mentioned above [& others] the Swiss have become very anti two way tunnels beyond a certain length [not sure what that length is, I suspect it is situation dependent.] It does not matter what mode of transport it is, one way is prohibited.
Examples:
1) The two base tunnels
2) The Vereina tunnel, single line with two passing loops & a walkway along side the track . From Klosters to the Inn valley, operated by the RhB. This tunnel was authorised when the Swiss Motorway authority wanted to build one to the Lower Inn Valley, a pretty isolated part of Switzerland, but the safety authorities said NO, too long. The comprise was a rail tunnel that provides car shuttle services plus normal RhB services.
3) The new Albula tunnel. This one is an oddity, they couldn't justify a twin bore tunnel, but the old one was becoming a maintenance nightmare so they built the new one more or less parallel to the old one but missing the underground glacial lake [!] & other bad ground. When it opens in the next couple of years the old tunnel will be closed and totally refurbished as an escape tunnel, cross connected to the new tunnel.
4) The new/old/replacement Goddard Road Tunnel. The current tunnel is old & two lane. They are building a new tunnel nearby, also two lane, when that is finished they will divert all traffic to the new tunnel & close & refurbished to the old to the latest standard. When that is done each bore will be reduced to one lane only, the temporay second lane will become the emergency access lane. The two tunnels will be crossed connected. Apparently the Swiss law that authorised the base tunnels & approved by referendum, like most major Swiss laws, contained a provision that NO new car lanes could be provided across the Alps!

 

[BlackDiamond]

I will be following what happens with the restoration of this tunnel as we have a trip planned in November 2024 that requires traveling from Zurich to Milan. I suppose having to use the longer more scenic old line via Wassen and Airolo wouldn't be the end of the world though.

 

[jis]

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...hard-base-tunnel-reopens-for-freight-traffic/

 

[BlackDiamond]

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...hard-base-tunnel-reopens-for-freight-traffic/

With 100 freights a day using the single track, I wonder how they will get time to work on cleaning up the wreck and installing new track and doors? Seems that would be hard to do with continual traffic on the adjacent track.

 

[MARC Rider]

With 100 freights a day using the single track, I wonder how they will get time to work on cleaning up the wreck and installing new track and doors? Seems that would be hard to do with continual traffic on the adjacent track.

Doesn't the tunnel consist of two separate tubes? If so, it would seem to me that the operating trains won't really affect the cleanup work.

 

[jis]

Doesn't the tunnel consist of two separate tubes? If so, it would seem to me that the operating trains won't really affect the cleanup work.

That is correct. There may be some impact only when they are working on fixing the door.

 

[slasher-fun]

And a temporary new door has already been installed a few days ago.

I will be following what happens with the restoration of this tunnel as we have a trip planned in November 2024 that requires traveling from Zurich to Milan. I suppose having to use the longer more scenic old line via Wassen and Airolo wouldn't be the end of the world though.

Definitely will be fixed by then. This is not Orange County trying to fix a landslide

 

[cirdan]

I wouldn't say anti car, I would say anti big trucks. It's the big trucks that the Swiss objected to and they threaten to impose very large tolls on non Swiss trucks transiting the country. The Alpine base tunnels & other traffic streamlining works were the result of a comprise between the EU & the Swiss.

I have lived and worked in Switzerland for many years and I do think that maybe saying anti-car is being too hard but that there is definitely a pro-transit mindset in everything. For example plans to build new subdivisons or shopping malls have often been turned down because the promotors failed to adequately show how they would provide public transportation, or the proposals they put forward were considered not good enough. In major cities such as Zurich car parking is strictly regulated and they are by law required to reduce the number of parking lots over time. If an investor or developer creates new parking facilities as part of a new development, they are required to remove parking lots elsewhere to compensate.

 

[slasher-fun]

That's not being "anti-car", that's being "not only car", and having in mind the huge space required for every car trip (the surface footprint per car passenger on the streets is *huge*, both when driving and for parking) and the huge cost of this mode of transportation (both for the person using it and for the taxpayer).

Too often in the last decades places have been designed so that if you don't move around by car, your trip will be long and/or uncomfortable and/or unsafe, Switerland just doesn't want that anymore, without preventing anyone to drive a car if they'd like.

 

[George Harris]

Fairly good picture of the derailed equipment showing the crossover vault and the temporary track on the left for single track operation.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/derailment-damages-close-worlds-longest-rail-tunnel-next-septemberAccording to the article the closure will be significantly longer than originally anticipated.
High points in the article:
......The rail tunnel won't be fully reopened to train traffic until next September,
......Damage was much more significant than first imagined.
......Rail tracks need to be entirely replaced over 4.2 miles. (6.8 km)
......Cost of the repairs is expected to be 100 to 130 million Swiss francs (about US$110 to $140 million).
......Limited passenger and cargo train traffic through the tunnel is continuing.

A couple of comments from looking at the picture:
First, if there was ever a door between tracks here, where was it and how was it mounted? No evidence in the picture of there ever being one.
Second, for those unfamiliar, and I am sure Jis is not one of those, note the coupling system on the end of the freight car. It has the buffers at the corners and the hook and screw system in the middle. This sort of coupling was outlawed in the US by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 (or there abouts. Not sure of the exact year, but pre 1900.) It operates by placing a link on the end of one car over a hook on the end of the adjacent car. Applying the hook can be done by a pole from outside the car, or else someone has to step between cars to set the link, and of course hook up the air brake line. To hook up the air brake line also requires stepping between cars with the AAR style knuckle coupler, but at least you do not have to dunk under the buffers to get in and out. Either way, someone has to step in to spin the threads in the link to get the buffers to stay in contact. A large buff force can make the link pop off the hook, thereby separating the train. This and the general weakness of the system is why a 30 car train is probably at or near the maximum in most of Europe. (I recall a number of years ago reading a discussion in Railway Gazette International about one of the European systems studying the possibility of operating 5,000 tonne freight trains. My first thought was, what is this? 1900?)
Thirdly, look at the tunnel size in relation to the equipment size. My first thought in looking at this is that they have violated what to me is the first rule in setting clearance standards: DON'T SHRINK WRAP THE EQUIPMENT!!!!!! There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, a close clearance section in tunnels increases operating costs because it increases train resistance as there is a smaller area for air to go around the train. This is significant, particularly as speeds increase and length of tunnel increases. Second, you have precluded yourself from ever running larger equipment. Large clearances in the US go back to at least the 1920's, mostly to 22 feet vertical and 8 feet horizontal from track centers. Thus, for most of the country outside the northeast first piggyback and then tri-level auto carriers and then double stacks could be operated with minimal work on structures. I go on for a while here, but I think I will shut up now.

 

[jis]

I am surprised that the hook and link couplers are still used in Europe.

 

[cirdan]

Additional consideration for providing escape routes other than the basic tunnel is relatively new, something that happened in the last 50-60 years. There are lots of old tunnels that do not have such. I think the real impetus to think through escape routes came as a result of the 1999 Mont Blanc Tunnel fire disaster which killed 39. Though the likes of Eurotunnel had already built elaborate escape routes before that.

The 1970s Channel Tunnel, had it been built, would have had an escape tunnel pretty much equivalent to the one the present Channel Tunnel has.

Many longer highway tunnels of the period also had escape / service tunnels. I am not sure what the first instance was.

In Switzerland many cold-war era highway tunnels were connected to utility tunnels and refuge chambers with the intention that these could be used to shelter civilians, or be used for military purposes in the case of an invasion. To bring this a little bit more back on topic, several of these were also rail connected, both assisting the construction and permitting equipment and supplies to be delivered. Some of these tracks are still visible today, with spur tracks mysteriously peeling away from the main line and disappearing into tunnels whose entrances are protected by heavy steel gates or even bricked off.

 

[slasher-fun]

First, if there was ever a door between tracks here, where was it and how was it mounted? No evidence in the picture of there ever being one.

There you go:
- before: https://www.railjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/1497015651-tor-jpg.jpg
- after: https://www.lfm.ch/wp-content/uploa...degats-dans-le-tunnel-du-gothard-archives.jpg
The door is not visible on the picture in your article because there's the train in front of it

Second, for those unfamiliar, and I am sure Jis is not one of those, note the coupling system on the end of the freight car. It has the buffers at the corners and the hook and screw system in the middle. This sort of coupling was outlawed in the US by the Railway Safety Appliance Act of 1895 (or there abouts. Not sure of the exact year, but pre 1900.) It operates by placing a link on the end of one car over a hook on the end of the adjacent car. Applying the hook can be done by a pole from outside the car, or else someone has to step between cars to set the link, and of course hook up the air brake line. To hook up the air brake line also requires stepping between cars with the AAR style knuckle coupler, but at least you do not have to dunk under the buffers to get in and out. Either way, someone has to step in to spin the threads in the link to get the buffers to stay in contact. A large buff force can make the link pop off the hook, thereby separating the train.

Yup, that's how it's done over here so far. The hook is mechanically tightened, so no it cannot "pop off".

This and the general weakness of the system is why a 30 car train is probably at or near the maximum in most of Europe. (I recall a number of years ago reading a discussion in Railway Gazette International about one of the European systems studying the possibility of operating 5,000 tonne freight trains. My first thought was, what is this? 1900?)

No the main reasons are:
- the signalling systems, designed for trains up to 750 meters long in most places
- the sidings, also designed for trains up to 750 meters long in most places

Thirdly, look at the tunnel size in relation to the equipment size. My first thought in looking at this is that they have violated what to me is the first rule in setting clearance standards: DON'T SHRINK WRAP THE EQUIPMENT!!!!!! There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, a close clearance section in tunnels increases operating costs because it increases train resistance as there is a smaller area for air to go around the train. This is significant, particularly as speeds increase and length of tunnel increases. Second, you have precluded yourself from ever running larger equipment. Large clearances in the US go back to at least the 1920's, mostly to 22 feet vertical and 8 feet horizontal from track centers. Thus, for most of the country outside the northeast first piggyback and then tri-level auto carriers and then double stacks could be operated with minimal work on structures. I go on for a while here, but I think I will shut up now.

Don't worry, the Swiss are experts when it comes to trains, they know what they're doing
Trains can reach 250 km/h there, so train resistance is definitely not an issue with this tunnel section.

 

[cirdan]

Don't worry, the Swiss are experts when it comes to trains, they know what they're doing
Trains can reach 250 km/h there, so train resistance is definitely not an issue with this tunnel section.

Yes, true, it is not always easy to estimate the amount of space just by looking at pictures.

When it comes to tunnel aerodynamics, it is not always necessarily efficient to push the air aside which would mean compressing it, which absorbs a lot of energy and generates additional heat in a location that is difficult to cool. Pushing a column ahead of the train may be more efficient, depending on how long that column is. I am sure this has been studied at length and that the tunnel designers took all these considerations into account.

By the way, for the purposes of evacuating people from stranded trains, I understand there is a walkway alongside the tracks, so its not as if the trains fit tightly with only inches to spare.

 

[BlackDiamond]

Looking at the video above posted by @slasher-fun, I wonder if in Europe they have any equivalent of Blue Flag protection to prevent movement of the train while someone is between the cars.

Getting back to the tunnel itself, I understand that some passenger trains are using it particularly on weekends when there is less freight traffic. Mostly double deck trains which cannot run via the old route and also provide more capacity.