tunnel electrification and clearances

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Joel N. Weber II

Engineer
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
2,917
Location
Greater Boston, MA
If the railroads had dual mode locomotives that could operate on catenary at 12,000 to 25,000 volts AC as well as 600-800 V or 600-1000 V third rail power,

1) would that be a viable way to electrify the tunnel heading south from WAS (and would it be more economically desireable than enlarging the tunnel to make room for catenary, if there were a strong desire to have some form of electrification)?

2) would removing the catenary in the New York City tunnels and using third rail power through the tunnels provide enough clearance for Superliners through the existing tunnels?

Converting the 25 Hz infrastructure to 60 Hz so that the locomotives wouldn't need 25 Hz compatibility might help with providing space for the third rail equipment in the locomotive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. The tunnel south from Washington Union Station has catenary clearance. In the PRR days there was catenary through that tunnel and into Alexandria.

2. The problem for getting Superliners through the tunnels into New York is not just overhead clearance. The tunnels into New York are circular-shaped tubes. The side clearance to the left and right upper sides of the circles (10:30 and 1:30 using clock descriptions) will not permit Superliners. And even if that could be solved, a low-level platform would be needed at NYP, and that is not easy either.
 
1. The tunnel south from Washington Union Station has catenary clearance. In the PRR days there was catenary through that tunnel and into Alexandria.
That doesn't seem entirely consistent with some of the things George Harris says in this thread (and I'm not sure who's right, but I don't think PRR ever ran Superliner sized cars, and I'm specifically curious about tunnel clearance for electrified trains of Superliner height).

2. The problem for getting Superliners through the tunnels into New York is not just overhead clearance. The tunnels into New York are circular-shaped tubes. The side clearance to the left and right upper sides of the circles (10:30 and 1:30 using clock descriptions) will not permit Superliners. And even if that could be solved, a low-level platform would be needed at NYP, and that is not easy either.
That makes me curious, if the catenary were eliminated from the New York City tunnels, what the maximum acceptable height would be in 1' horizontal increments from left to right if a car were built to be as tall as practical to be able to go through those tunnels. The commuter bi-levels that are something like half a foot or a foot shorter than the superliners so that they fit through the New York City tunnels have flat roofs, right?

Or an alternative question to get at the same information, if you wanted to build a Superliner height car that was going to be narrower than a Superliner at the top so that it could fit through the New York City tunnels, with a flat roof, and a 90 degree angle to the sides of the car underneath tha roof, how wide could that car be? (I'm not suggesting actually physically building a car that way, just wondering how wide the uppermost part of a car with a slanted or rounded roof could be.)
 
Why not incorporate a lift up (pop top) roof which could be raised after leaving the tunnels. Amtrak could sell the upper berths at a reduced price, to allow for the draughts..

Ed.
 
Your Idea of removing catenary in New york and using third rail, would in one swoop render all ACELA's useless. ALL AEM-7's useless, All HHP-8 useless, all NJT Arrow's useless , all NJT ALP 44 and ALP 46 useless and all just to get superliners into NYP where they can't let people on or off since doors are about 38 " under edge of high level platforms ?????
 
1. The tunnel south from Washington Union Station has catenary clearance. In the PRR days there was catenary through that tunnel and into Alexandria.
That doesn't seem entirely consistent with some of the things George Harris says in this thread (and I'm not sure who's right, but I don't think PRR ever ran Superliner sized cars, and I'm specifically curious about tunnel clearance for electrified trains of Superliner height).
You know what? George may be right (he usually is). The PRR was electrified into Alexandria VA, but via the freight route. I always believed the short passenger segment from Union Station to the freight line was also electrified, but this bird's eye shot from maps.live suggests otherwise.

maps.live

The single-track line on the bottom is the old PRR freight line. The old cat structures are still there. The double-track line diverging north (up) is the passenger line to Union Station. There is no evidence of old cat structures. I think I was wrong about catenary in that tunnel. I hate when I'm wrong, and it happens so often.

Since those tunnels have Superliner clearance, I have to believe they could be electrified by catenary. However, I doubt that catenary could be added while retaining Superliner capability. So, the third rail option would be viable to allow Superliner and electrification to co-exist.

That makes me curious, if the catenary were eliminated from the New York City tunnels, what the maximum acceptable height would be in 1' horizontal increments from left to right if a car were built to be as tall as practical to be able to go through those tunnels. The commuter bi-levels that are something like half a foot or a foot shorter than the superliners so that they fit through the New York City tunnels have flat roofs, right?
Or an alternative question to get at the same information, if you wanted to build a Superliner height car that was going to be narrower than a Superliner at the top so that it could fit through the New York City tunnels, with a flat roof, and a 90 degree angle to the sides of the car underneath the roof, how wide could that car be? (I'm not suggesting actually physically building a car that way, just wondering how wide the uppermost part of a car with a slanted or rounded roof could be.)
This time I might be correct (I hope). The problem with the tunnels under the Hudson is not just the catenary but the tunnel shape. These tubes are literally steel pipes that are set just below the riverbed in saturated sand. As you get to the top of the tube, the shell is coming in and greatly limits the side height of the cars. The NJ Transit Multi-level cars are shaped to just clear the tunnel shell. The side wall to roof edge has a bevel. See this photo:

NJT Multilevel

That photo clearly shows how the car was shaped to just (by inches) clear the circular shape of the upper shell of the tunnel. Even if the catenary were removed from the tunnel, the top side constraints would still govern the size. The NJT cars are fine for commuter cars, but the ceiling heights of the upper and lower levels would not work for LD use if you wanted upper and lower berth capability. My opinion is that a multi-level LD car is not practical into Penn Station with or without catenary in-place.
 
Your Idea of removing catenary in New york and using third rail, would in one swoop render all ACELA's useless. ALL AEM-7's useless, All HHP-8 useless, all NJT Arrow's useless , all NJT ALP 44 and ALP 46 useless and all just to get superliners into NYP where they can't let people on or off since doors are about 38 " under edge of high level platforms ?????
It would certainly require retrofitting every single electric locomotive that was going to run into NYP through any tunnel where the catenary would be removed. Though some of the NJT locomotives might be able to go into NYPSE-only use until they get so old they're removed from service, and perhaps two of the east side tunnels could keep their catenary for LIRR-only service. Also, if this country demonstrates it's serious about getting rid of its dependence on Middle East oil as Obama has promised, we may see all of NJT's diesel lines converted to electric, and some of those might be able to use catenary-only locomotives.

And the real reason I think this might be a good idea as a long term project at all is that I bet retrofitting every single electric locomotive would be cheaper than building new tunnels.

I'm also not sure I was necessarily assuming that existing Superliner cars would be used. It's probably possible to build something with taller doors, and wheelchair lifts inside the car (perhaps along with some sort of folding staircase for efficient loading/unloading of passengers without mobility impairments) that would allow passengers to get on and off at high level platform stations, and once you start thinking about building that elevator, you might also find it easy to give that elevator access to the upper level, which would be beneficial to mobility impaired passengers even without the platform height compatibility challenges.

Also in the back of my mind is electrification of existing freight tracks. Building the locomotives to deal with third rail in the sections that lack catenary clearance may be cheaper than increasing clearances. (Then again, Wikipedia says that Moffet Tunnel has 24' clearance, which I think is enough for double stack + catenary.)
 
and perhaps two of the east side tunnels could keep their catenary for LIRR-only service.
The LIRR wouldn't know what to do with catenary. They have no equipment that could use catenary, everything they own is either third rail or diesel only.

And again, as discussed by PRR60, there is nothing to be gained by removing the catenary; except maybe spending money for no reason. Removing the catenary doesn't gain you any additional height in the tunnels. It's the curve of the tunnel that is the issue, not the catenary itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NJ Transit Multi-level cars are shaped to just clear the tunnel shell. The side wall to roof edge has a bevel. See this photo:
NJT Multilevel

That photo clearly shows how the car was shaped to just (by inches) clear the circular shape of the upper shell of the tunnel. Even if the catenary were removed from the tunnel, the top side constraints would still govern the size. The NJT cars are fine for commuter cars, but the ceiling heights of the upper and lower levels would not work for LD use if you wanted upper and lower berth capability. My opinion is that a multi-level LD car is not practical into Penn Station with or without catenary in-place.
Thanks for posting that link. It looks to me like the bevel is more vertical than a 45 degree angle would be, which makes me suspect that a center aisle, at least, could be Superliner height.

I'd been thinking about coach cars, and while I think I've seen the argument that large overhead luggage racks for long distance use don't work well in the commuter dimensioned cars, I do wonder if a design that separated the luggage racks from the passengers in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical plane in a dwarf long distance bi-level car would end up being more cost effective per passenger in capital and operating costs than a single level car.

The point about sleepers is an interesting one I hadn't been considering, but having some single berth roomettes would make sense, it might be possible to move all the restrooms and shower to the upper level (or even move the toilets into the roomettes, much as I know Green Maned Lion doesn't favor that approach) to make more space on the lower level for rooms with two berths, and it might be possible to split the cafe to the upper level of some car other than the lounge car, at which point both the lounge and cafe car could potentially have some bedrooms on the lower level.

If you consider a route that currently runs with three Viewliners, that's six regular Bedrooms, three Accessible Bedrooms, and somewhere around 30 Roomettes. (I can't remember if it's 10 or 12 per car, but then there are also some dorm roomettes, so even if it's 36 it probably typically works out to just over 30 revenue Roomettes.) If you switched to two dwarf bi-level sleepers plus a lounge/sleeper and a lounge/cafe, you could probably have a layout with an Accessible Bedroom, a Bedroom, and a Family Bedroom in the downstairs of each of the four cars, which would leave you with four Accessible Bedrooms, four regular Bedrooms, and four Family Bedrooms; the passengers from three of the double occupancy Roomettes in the Viewliner train could move into the larger rooms.

If you assume that exactly half of the Roomettes had been double occupancy, you now need 27 single occuplancy Roomettes for the first passenger from the remaining Viewliner Roomettes, plus 12 more more for the formely upper berth Roomette passengers who now need their own single occupancy Roomette. That's 39 roomettes for the train. If that's the only thing in the upper level of the sleeping cars, it should be very easy to fit 10 roomettes on each side of the car, and I suspect 12-14 roomettes per side would actually be possible, and so this configuration would probably allow very roughly 10 more sleeping car passengers to be carried with the same total number of cars by switching to dwarf bi-level.

Some sleeping spaces in the upper level of the cafe car might also be possible, if there's a desire to make the cafe less than full length.
 
I applaud your efforts in considering things like this, but sometimes I think you spend too much time contemplating pointless implausibles.
 
The Hudson River Tubes were originally powered with third rail. the catenary came later. Clearance is JUST BARELY asufficient. In all the discussion about going from 11,000 volt to 25,000 volt, has this been properly considered?

The tracks in the First Avenue Tunnels were lowered so that they just barely cleared the Superliners. Have heard that this was originally done for the sake of getting the Auto Train cars to Ivy City Yard for heavy maintenance. If catenary was added, at the best, it would have to be turned off for the passage of superliners. There are also some curve clearance issues in the curve between First Avenue and the D Street portal. When the tunnel was built the normal passenger car was around 70 feet ot 75 feet long. Streamlined cars were built 85 feet long and this has been the standard ever since. That means that the mid-car / end-car overhangs are greater than those of the equipment for which these tunnels were designed. When working in the WMATA yard construction in the early 70's, was told by one of the WTC track foremen that there were scratch marks on the tunnel walls in this curve in several locations, but I have not seen them first hand.
 
(Then again, Wikipedia says that Moffet Tunnel has 24' clearance, which I think is enough for double stack + catenary.)
The double stacks top out at 20'-2". The thought is that overhead should clear the car tops by not less than 24 inches. Normally the design height of catenary on lines to clear double stack is 23'-0"

I do not know what the minimum allowable clearance of a conductive object is from an object carrying 25,000 vols, which would mean wire and pantograph, but I would suspect that the Moffat Tunnel would be somewhere between just barely and no way. Maybe the track could be lowered, and maybe not. I think the Cascade Tunnel is 21 feet high inside. Therefore, it is in the no way category. When opened, it was electrified to 11,000 volts, but that was years before the idea of double stacks or even piggyback. The wires were removed after dieselisation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top