HEARTLAND CORRIDOR CLEARANCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

James N. Carter, Jr.

Norfolk Southern

Chief Engineer Bridges and Structures

1200 Peachtree Street NE

Atlanta, GA 30309

(404) 529-1408

jncarter@nscorp.com

ABSTRACT

The Heartland Corridor Project is part of a regional Public-Private initiative to provide a

direct, double stack container train route from the Ports of Virginia through Virginia,

West Virginia, and Eastern Kentucky and into Central Ohio. Once complete the

Heartland route will cut approximately 230 miles off the trip and improve shipment

availability to customers by one day.

In the Preliminary Engineering stage, 42 existing tunnels were assessed and 29 were

found to need clearance improvements to allow the use of double stack trains. Alternative

tunnel enlargement methods were developed to achieve the desired clearance

improvements, while maintaining structural integrity and minimizing disruption to train

traffic. During the Final Engineering Phase the tunnels were investigated in greater

depth, and the proposed clearance improvement methods were finalized. Additionally

three overhead bridges, seven thru-trusses, and nine slide fence locations were modified

to provide adequate clearances. All of the repairs methodologies were designed based on

operation constraints on track times and operations.

Construction work began in July 2007 at Bridge N-634.74 near Waverly, Ohio. Tunnel

work began October 20, 2007 at Cowan Tunnel near Radford, Virginia. The project will

be totally completed in August 2010.

This paper briefly summarizes the development of the Public Private Partnership,

engineering investigations of the existing tunnels, and the preferred methodologies

employed to achieve the desired clearances at each of the locations, and discusses the

construction of the project.

INTRODUCTION

The Norfolk Southern (NS) Heartland Corridor extends from the Ports of Virginia

westward through Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and terminating at

Chicago, Illinois. It’s a prime rail corridor for moving freight from the East Coast of the

United States to the heartland. It’s well engineered, almost entirely double-tracked,

diligently maintained and blessed with excess capacity. But for decades, most container

freight moving by rail from the ports of Virginia to Chicago has gone by longer, less

direct routes.

The Heartland Corridor will serve the recently constructed Rickenbacker Intermodal

Facility in Columbus Ohio, a planned intermodal site at Pritchard, WV, and a planned

intermodal site near Roanoke, VA. The clearance project took place between Walton,

VA and Columbus, OH.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The Heartland Corridor is comprised of the former Norfolk & Western Main through

Virginia, West Virginia, and Ohio. The section of the Heartland Corridor with the

majority of the clearance restrictions is primarily a coal hauling railroad, although general

freight and intermodal trains do operate there also.

The line was originally constructed in two major segments; the line was constructed to

Bluefield in 1883, and was extended from Elkhorn to Kenova in 1890. The line was

upgraded and realigned, with the current alignment and structures predominately

constructed between 1900 and 1927. The improvements made over the course of its life

have improved the route; however it still has numerous curves with curvature up to 12

degrees, and gradients up to 1%. The line is predominately double track, and carries

about 80 MGT annually with a typical Maximum Allowable Speed of 35 MPH

During the 1980’s the route was cleared for the 19’- 6” tall covered tri-level automobile

carriers. Many of the tunnel locations were cleared by lowering the track and tunnel

invert.

In the early 1980s, American railroads discovered that they could achieve a quantum leap

in efficiency in the inland movement of international shipping containers by stacking

them on dedicated trains. This way, one intermodal train could haul twice the load

without adding to its length. But there was a catch. Wherever the stack trains ran, bridges,

tunnels and other overhead obstacles had to be modified to allow them pass. By the

decade’s end, all of the major railroads had implemented clearance projects to

accommodate stack trains, and every major port could boast stack service to inland

destinations.

Railroad intermodal traffic has grown nearly 400% since 1986, and is expected to

continue to grow. The growth in intermodal traffic, coupled with the continued growth in

the total freight handled resulted in capacity issues on specific line segments of the North

American railroad network. Capacity issues caused by the increase in intermodal traffic

are not just limited to the railroads, prior to the economic downturn of 2008/2009. The

ports along the Pacific coast of Mexico, America, and Canada were all facing capacity

issues. The container shipping companies had shifted container ship routes from

operating along the Pacific Rim, to making transits through the Suez Canal to eastern

American ports. The construction underway that will increase the maximum ship size in

the Panama Canal also promises to bring additional containers into eastern ports along

the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts.

But not every inland destination had stack service to the ports. In West Virginia,

transportation and economic development officials recognized the importance of

intermodal service to the development of the regional economy. They knew they needed

a rail-to-truck container terminal in the industrial western part of the state to attract

businesses that need efficient access to global markets. In Ohio, the city of Columbus was

in the process of expanding Rickenbacker International Airport into one of the largest

integrated logistics complexes in the U.S. The plan included a major intermodal facility

providing key access to Midwest markets.

But stack trains bypassed the region. Norfolk Southern’s line between Columbus and

Norfolk – that prime rail corridor – passes through the region, but the route also included

28 tunnels in the Appalachian Mountains and 24 other overhead obstructions such as

power lines and bridges with insufficient vertical clearance for double-stacked trains.

Norfolk Southern’s stack service to the Midwest ran from Roanoke southwest to

Knoxville, TN then north into the Midwest, or north to Harrisburg, PA before turning

west again towards the Midwest. Without stack service, an intermodal terminal in West

Virginia would be superfluous.

The Heartland Corridor route not only provides both the capacity required to

accommodate future growth in intermodal and total fright traffic, and a more efficient

route from the Ports of Virginia for containers bound for the Midwest, and offers a stack

route to the Port for West Virginia.

Figure 1

Figure 1 shows the current routes used by double stack containers via Harrisburg, PA

(1,264 miles) and Knoxville, TN (1342 miles) and the Heartland Corridor route (1,031

miles).

Funding

Funding for the Heartland Corridor Clearance Improvement Project (HCCIP) required the

formation of a Public Private Partnership (PPP) to leverage the private funding available

from NS with public funding for this important corridor. In his paper Central Corridor

Double-Stack Initiative: Final Report, Center for Business and Economic Research,

Marshall University, March, 2003, Professor Mark Burton outlined the public benefits of

a stack terminal in the West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky, and Southern Ohio region. The

PPP evolved through a series of iterations to finally include public funds from the Federal

Government, the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The HCCIP was listed in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity

Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) legislation as a “Project of National and

Regional Significance”. The SAFETEA-LU funds were provided for sites in Virginia,

Ohio, and West Virginia. Ohio’s Rail Development Commission (ORDC) provided a

portion of the funding for five sites in Ohio, and Virginia’s Department of Rail and

Public Transportation (VDRPT) provided funding for four sites in Virginia. NS provided

the matching funds for all of the sites. The Federal Highway Administration’s Eastern

Federal Lands Division (EFLD) was selected as the lead agency for the project. EFLD

also provided the environmental clearance work for the project.

PPP Agency Coordination

Since the HCCIP involved both public and private monies, controls were put into place

that provided the local agencies and Eastern Federal Lands Division with the ability to

review and comment on the project design. The controls were codified in a series of

Memoranda of Agreement (or Understanding). VDRPT, WVDOT, ORDC, and EFLD

were all provided plans for review, comment and approval at 70%, 95%, and Final plans

stages. The Agencies all worked diligently to meet the aggressive schedule and the

reviews went smoothly.

PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INVESTIGATIONS

In early 2005 NS contracted with a team headed by Hatch Mott MacDonald (HMM) to

provide an investigation and analysis of the work required to achieve the needed

clearances on 30 tunnels at 28 sites that range in length from 174 LF to 3302 LF., with a

total length of 31,112 LF. Ten of the tunnels were single track tunnels; the other 20 were

double track tunnels. However, three of the double track tunnels only had a single track.

Most of the tunnels were concrete lined, but one was unlined and three were masonry

lined over some portion of their length. Twenty-three of the 28 sites are in West

Virginia, 4 are in Virginia and one is in Kentucky. The initial series of field

investigations was conducted over a six-week period in March and April 2005.

NS contracted with a team headed by HMM in late 2006 to provide the Final Design of

the work required to achieve the needed clearances. HMM’s PE team was adjusted to

reflect the needs of the final design by the addition of STV/Ralph Whitehead and HDR.

The scope of the Final Engineering Phase was also increased to include design of the

bridge modifications to seven through truss bridges in West Virginia and Ohio, and

modifications to other structures such as slide fences and two overhead bridges that have

clearance restrictions.

MILEPEOST LOCATION TRACK OBSTRUCTION METHOD

N-305.43 Cowan, VA Single Cowan Tunnel Replace Liner

N-316.15 Eggleston, VA Single Eggleston No 1 Line Track

N-317.02 Eggleston, VA Single Eggleston No. 2 Line Track

N-319.83 Pembroke, VA Single Pembroke Line Track

N-351.91 Ingleside, WV 2 Slide Fence Relocate

N-362.25 Bluefield, WV 1 & 2 OH Bridge Remove Bridge

N-364.25 Bluefield, WV 1 & 2 Wire Remove

N-374.26 Bluestone, WV 1 & 2 Cooper Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-378.64 Maybuery, WV 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

N-379.9 Maybuery, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-379.72 Maybuery, WV 2 Signal Replace

N-387.15 Northfork, WV 2 Signal Replace

N-88.47 Superior, WV 2 Signal Replace

N-392.06 Kimball, WV 1 & 2 West Vivian Enlarge Tunnel

N-394.24 Big Four, WV 1 & 2 Big Four No. 1 Enlarge Tunnel

N-395.07 Huger, WV 1 & 2 Big Four No. 2 Enlarge Tunnel

N-395.56 Huger, WV 1 & 2 Huger Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-398.89 Welch, WV 1 & 2 Welch Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-399.9 Hemphill, WV 1 Slide Fence Modify

N-400.15 Hemphill, WV 1 & 2 Hemphill No. 1 Enlarge Tunnel

N-400.42 Hemphill, WV 1 & 2 Hemphill No. 2 Enlarge Tunnel

N-400.92 Farm, WV 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

N-403.71 Mohegan, WV 1 & 2 Antler No. 1 Enlarge Tunnel

N-405.07 Mohegan, WV 1 & 2 Antler No. 2 Enlarge Tunnel

N-406.1 Davy, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-407.71 Twin Branch, WV 1 & 2 Twin Branch No.

1

Enlarge Tunnel

N-408.11 Twin Branch, WV 1 & 2 Twin Branch No.

2

Enlarge Tunnel

N-408.79 Twin Branch, WV 1 & 2 Wire Remove

N-412.08 Roderfield, WV 1 & 2 Vaughan Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-413.07 Roderfield, WV 1 & 2 Roderfield

Tunnel

Enlarge Tunnel

N-414.09 Rogers, WV 1 & 2 Laurel Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-415.07 Rogers, WV 1 & 2 Gordon Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-418.3 Wilmore, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-422.5 Wilmore, WV 1 Signal Replace

N-434.5 War Eagle, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-439.47 Glen Alum, WV 1 & 2 Glen Alum

Tunnel

Enlarge Tunnel

N-446.5 Devon, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-462.09 Sprigg, WV 2 Hatfield Tunnel Enlarge Tunnel

N-462.3 Sprigg, WV 2 Through Truss Modify

N-467.2 Sycamore, WV 2 Slide Fence Modify

N-471.62 Williamson, WV 1 & 2 Williamson

Tunnel

Enlarge Tunnel

NA-3.3 Panco, WV Single Big Sandy No. 1 Enlarge Tunnel

NA-6.02 Grey Eagle, WV 2 Big Sandy No. 2 Enlarge Tunnel

NA-6.82 Grey Eagle, WV Single Big Sandy No. 3 Enlarge Tunnel

NA-12.68 Bull, WV Single Big Sandy No. 4 Enlarge Tunnel

N-576.93 Coal Grove, OH 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

N-579.83 Ironton, OH 1 & 2 OH Bridge Shift Track

N-631.5 Glen Jean, OH 1 & 2 Wire Remove

N-634.74 Glen Jean, OH 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

N-653.84 Lunbeck, OH 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

N-693.96 Ashville, OH 1 & 2 Through Truss Modify

Table 1

Table 1 shows a list of all the clearance obstructions addressed in the project.

SCOPING OF INVESTIGATIONS

The impact of field investigations on the daily operations of a busy railroad, led to the

design philosophy for the project. The investigations had to develop adequate amounts of

data to support a credible design and construction estimate that had appropriate

contingencies, yet minimize disruption of the operations.

The Observational Method

There are three basic approaches that can be used to design and construct the clearance

improvements while recognizing the likelihood that the investigations will not locate

every condition that will be encountered in the field.

Minimum Risk Approach

A minimum risk approach will be very conservative from an engineering and cost

estimating standpoint. This approach assumes the worst possible conditions that could be

expected at each tunnel location based on the limited data collected, and from that data to

specify a uniform improvement method. This approach will certainly result in a safe

facility, but with unnecessary cost and disruption to the railroad during construction. The

contractual risks are reduced, but as with any underground or renovation activity, not

entirely eliminated due to the variability of existing conditions.

Extensive Testing Program Approach

The approach using an extensive testing program would conduct an exhaustive lining

thickness and rock mass evaluation prior to finalizing the design. This approach would

result in a series of differing improvement methods along the length of the tunnel based

on the results of the detailed investigations. This approach has the potential to reduce the

construction cost but at the expense of exhaustive investigations and resultant disruptions

to the railroad. The contractual risks are reduced, but as with any underground or

renovation activity, not entirely eliminated due to the variability of existing conditions.

Observational Approach

The third approach is to adopt an “observational” approach where a ‘cafeteria menu’ of

improvement methods is provided in the contract documents with the specific criteria as

to the conditions where each method can be implemented. The observational approach is

an adaptation of the standard practices used at the heading of Sequential Excavation

Tunnels (SEM), and requires Construction Phase monitoring by engineering and

inspection staff familiar with tunneling and geology.

The types of field investigations performed during the Engineering Phase were limited to

the level of detail necessary to base the final design on. The use of the observational

method allowed accommodating a short time frame for the Engineering Phase

investigations since the Investigative Probing Program (IPP) would be performed during

the construction operations.

Based on the field investigations at each tunnel location, the contract documents provide

the anticipated limits of each of the improvement methods. Contractors bid based on the

anticipated limits and expected conditions detailed in a Geotechnical Baseline Report

(GBR), but the construction process incorporates confirmations of the expected

conditions (lining thickness, joint planes, etc.) within a framework of the IPP conducted

by the contractor ahead of the construction activities at each tunnel. The contracts have

payment mechanisms that allow adjustments to the quantity of the clearance

improvement methods with appropriate compensation to the contractor when conditions

differ from those anticipated in the GBR.

DESIGN REPAIR METHODOLOGIES

Laser car data was combined with the survey data to produce a series of tunnel cross

sections and a longitudinal tunnel profile. NS supplied a clearance envelope shown in

Figure 2 that was used as the template to determine the clearance requirements.

Figure 2

Track Realignment/Lowering

Track Realignment/Lowering was evaluated as one of the primary methods of achieving

clearance at most locations. However, since many locations have bridges in the

immediate area of the tunnel, the maximum amount of lowering was limited by the run

off of the lowering to meet the bridges. The bearing configuration at the majority of the

bridges limited the amount of lowering that could be performed at the bridge. The

clearance work in the 1980’s had also lowered the track so that the bottom of the ballast

section was at, or near the bottom of footing elevations. As a result the track lowering

was limited to profile adjustments to provide vertical curves and tangents at the tunnel

approaches.

Three of the tunnels in Virginia were double track tunnels with only a single track in the

tunnel. At these locations the track was realigned to the center of the tunnel and lowered

to provide the required clearances.

Liner Notching

At lined tunnels where the amounts of additional clearance required was minimal,

notching was considered. Notching was split into either minor notching or deep

notching.

Minor Notching

Minor Notching was defined as locations where the amount of material removed for the

notch left sufficient liner thickness to allow the liner to support the tunnel without

additional modifications. Initial calculations indicated that about 4 to 6 inches can be

locally removed before shear stresses in the concrete at the notch exceed acceptable

values and additional support measures are required.

Figure 3

Figure 3 shows a typical double-width tunnel with minor notching. The single-width

tunnels would be similar.

Deep Notching

Deep Notching was defined as locations where the amount of material removed for the

notch resulted in liner conditions where additional modifications to the liner were

required to maintain the structural integrity of the tunnel.

Figure 4

Figure 4 shows a deep notching concept where untensioned rock dowels are installed to

develop arching action within the rock surrounding the tunnel, thereby allowing a stress

transfer of the current tunnel lining loads from the concrete liner to the reinforced rock

arch as the lining is notched. The maximum depth of notch has been set to maintain at

least 10” of intact concrete in the lining.

Crown Replacement

At locations where the additional clearance required the removal of more of the liner than

Deep Notching, the crown of the tunnel was removed and replaced with a series of

ground supports.

Figure 5

Figure 5 shows a liner replacement concept. A section of lining will be removed along

the length of the tunnel with any rock above the lining needed for clearance. Rock bolts

and mesh would be installed immediately and in advance of the next train. That

operation would be followed by additional excavation support measures including

multiple layers of shotcrete reinforcement, lattice girders, spiling, etc., depending on the

level of excavation support required for the actual ground conditions encountered.

Daylighting

Daylighting essentially removes the tunnel entirely, leaving a simple rock cut. Starting

from the surfaces above the tunnel, ground would be removed independent of the railroad

operations. Once the excavation exposed the roof of the tunnel, the tunnel lining would

be removed during scheduled track availability windows.

FINAL DESIGN

Underlying Philosophy

Final design, lead by Hatch Mott MacDonald, began in October 2006, and was driven by

four underlying tenets in priority order:

The safety of those working on the project and operating through the project while

construction was underway.

The ability to construct the project as designed safely within the 10 hour work blocks,

and meet the overall schedule.

The quality and reliability of the final constructed product.

Cost control.

Ground Support Types

The design team developed a set of ground support types that could be applied to the

clearance improvements at each tunnel. The ground support types are linked to the

expected rock conditions above the tunnel liners. Supplemental rock bolts will be used in

addition to the Ground Support Type to address specific detail issues, such as loose

blocks, at the tunnel locations.

Ground Support Type A

Type A support is expected to be the predominant methodology used for the HCCIP

clearance improvements. Type A is installed at locations where the rock mass above the

tunnel liner is of good quality. Figure 6 shows the arrangement of the rock bolts and

shotcrete lining.

Figure 6

Ground Support Type B

Type B support will be used at locations where the rock mass above the tunnel has a

lower quality than the Type A locations. Type B support is similar to Type A, but bolt

spacing is tightened.

Ground Support Type C

The geology of the tunnel locations are characterized by incised river valleys that form

points of lands on the inside of the river meanders, and bluffs on the outside of the river

meander. The tunnels cut through the points to create straighter track alignments. As the

points are formed, the removal of the strata allows the remaining rock strata to ‘relax’ to

equalize stresses. This relaxation produces fractures within the rock mass that parallel

the face of the point. These fractures are called ‘Hill Seams’ and can be small fractures,

or larger fissures that may be filled by alluvial materials.

The Type C support was developed to be used where fissure sized hill seams are found

and in the more weathered areas that are typical near the tunnel portals. The first design

used included spiles (horizontal piles) and grouting are used to create a support canopy to

prevent the alluvial materials in the hill seam from running into the tunnel as the lower

materials are excavated. Figure 7 show a typical Type C installation.

Figure 7

Once construction began, contractors suggested partial liner removal with steel sets and

shotcrete as an alternate to the spiling method. This alternate, shown in Figure 8 was

approved and was the predominate method of support used in Type C ground on the

project.

Figure 8

Portal Support

Support at the portals was designed to deal with the extremely variable conditions found

at the portals, and based upon the standard plans. Portal areas are difficult to construct

and severe overbreak is typically encountered. The standard plans show stacked

cordwood and dry packing above the portal. The investigations showed that the areas

above the portals contained significant amounts of broken rock.

Like the Type C support, spiles and grouting are used to create a canopy above the tunnel

that will support the loose material above the portal. Figure 9 shows the support at the

portals.

Figure 9

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

In May 2007 Norfolk Southern selected a team led by STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates

to provide construction management services for HCCIP. Other team members include

AMEC and Jacobs Associates. Their tasks included a peer review of design, which was

found to be very valuable and led to design enhancements and a more constructible final

design.

Operations

While design work was ongoing, NS’ Service Planning Group conducted an exhaustive

study along with modeling of the operations in the HCCIP area and found that through a

series of innovative solutions that the trains passing through the construction sites during

the work windows could be eliminated. NS developed a strategy to reroute several of the

general merchandise trains around the HCCIP, and reschedule others. NS also attempted

to re-route an intermodal train pair, but could not meet the customer’s needs. Coal

business in the area tends to increase from Monday through Friday, and fortunately, the

intermodal trains operate with schedule that allows a 10 hour window Saturday through

Wednesday on the HCCIP. The coal trains that form the majority of the traffic in the

project area are held outside of the work windows by the addition of more helper

locomotives and crews.

Construction Staging

The fundamental need to maintain the operation of the railroad as fluidly as possible

coupled with available contractor capacity to complete the highly specialized work

dictated breaking the tunneling work into three phases. Bridge, signal, slide fence and

other ancillary work was scheduled around the tunnel work.

Figure 10 shows the tunnels color coded by phase located on the project map.

Figure 10

CONSTRUCTION

NS B&B forces began HCCIP construction work in July 2007 with modifications to the

through truss Bridge N-634.74 near Waverly, Ohio. They also completed Bridge N-

653.84 near Lunbeck, Ohio and Fenton Rigging performed steel modifications to Bridge

N- 576.93 near Ironton, Ohio prior to the onset of winter weather in 2007.

In 2007 grading was performed for a new track alignment to provide clearance beneath

the overhead bridge at Milepost N-579.83 in Ironton, Ohio. The track will be shifted in

2008.

Tunnel Work

Since the tunnel work by its nature, grinding and demolishing concrete, pumping grout to

fill voids behind liner portions that would remain, and applying shotcrete overhead,

would tend to foul ballast, the track in all tunnels was flooded with ballast prior to the

advent of contractor activity. This was advantageous because it provided a good working

platform for rubber tired equipment and a safer environment for contractor employees

while walking. The track through all tunnels that required structural modification was

removed and replaced by Norfolk Southern forces after the contractors completed their

work, resulting in about eight miles of total track replacement.

On October 1, 2007, NS issued notice to proceed to Johnson Western Gunite, Inc. for

work at the 3,302 ft. long Cowan Tunnel, near Radford, Virginia – the first tunnel

contract for HCCIP. Johnson Western began construction at Cowan on October 21, 2007

and work was completes in September 2008. All work in Cowan was crown replacement.

NS forces began undercutting the 925 ft. long Eggleston No. 1 tunnel near Eggleston,

Virginia in November 2007. They began undercutting the 1,195 ft. long Eggleston No. 2

Tunnel and the 299 ft. long Pembroke Tunnel at Eggleston, Virginia in March 2008.

Work on these two tunnels was completed in April 2008.

In November 2007, Johnson Western Gunite was also awarded a four tunnel contract

including the 1,113 ft. long Vaughan Tunnel, the 924 Ft. long Roderfield Tunnel, the 803

ft. long Laurel Tunnel, and the 1,271 ft. long Gordon Tunnel, all near Roderfield , West

Virginia. Construction activities for this contract began January 15, 2008, and were

completed in May 2009. Tunnel modifications in this group included a combination of

deep notching and crown replacement.

In January 2008, LRL Construction was awarded a four tunnel contract for the 613 ft.

long Antler No. 1 Tunnel, the 613 ft. long Antler No. 2 Tunnel, the 760 ft. long Twin

Branch No.1 Tunnel, and the 883 ft. long Antler No. 2 Tunnel, all near Davy, West

Virginia. Construction activities began on February 23, 2008. The IPP resulted in

classification of the entire Antler No. 1 tunnel as Ground Support Type C. This contract

included a combination of deep notching and crown replacement. Construction was

completed in May 2009.

A bypass was built around the 380 foot long Big Sandy Tunnel 2 that only carried Main 2

track. The bypass was completed in January 2008.

In May 2008, R. J. Corman Railroad Construction was awarded a two tunnel contract for

the 864 ft. long Hemphill No. 1 Tunnel and the 1,142 ft. long Hemphill No. 2 Tunnel

near Welch, West Virginia. The work started in early July 2008 and the contract has a

completed in April 2009. This contract included a combination of deep notching and

crown replacement. Corman was also awarded a contract for the 1,335 foot long Welch

Tunnel included a combination of deep notching and crown replacement that also

included a combination of deep notching and crown replacement. Work began in October

2008 and was completed in July 2009.

LRL was awarded a four tunnel contract for the 698 ft. long Cooper Tunnel, that was

entirely Class C ground except for the tunnel portals, the 680 foot long West Vivian

tunnel that included a combination of deep notching and crown replacement, and the 645

foot Big Four No.1 and 174 foot Big Four No. 2 that were predominately notching.

Cooper had extensive voids above its brick lining that reached as high as 20 feet. A steel

set and channel lagging liner was initially installed as construction progressed, and in the

area of the large voids, four feet of concrete above top center of the sets was placed, in

addition to a four inch minimum steel fiber reinforced shotcrete layer below so that the

liner can withstand the rock falls that will occur in the future. Work began in January

2009 and was completed in April 2010.

It was decided to award a contract for the IPP alone to take advantage of the track outage

that was required for the construction underway, and Johnson Western was awarded that

contract for Glen Alum, Hatfield, Williamson, Big Sandy Tunnel 1, Big Sandy Tunnel3,

and Big Sandy Tunnel 4. Work began in November 2008 and was completed in April

2009.

Johnson Western was awarded the contract for the 1,302 foot long Glen Alum tunnel that

was entirely notching. Work began in May 2009 and was completed in September 2009.

Johnson Western was also awarded the work at the 977 foot long Hatfield Tunnel for

track two. This tunnel was the only part of the project located in Kentucky and was the

only unlined tunnel on the route. The shale tunnel was enlarged and a rock bolt and steel

fiber shotcrete liner installed. Work began in May 2009 and was completed in September

2009.

Johnson Western was awarded the 678 foot long brick lined Williamson Tunnel that

required crown replacement throughout. Work began in June 2009 and was completed in

March 2010.

Johnson Western was awarded the work at the 2,627 foot long Big Sandy Tunnel 1, and

the 1,848 foot long Big Sandy Tunnel 3. Work began at Tunnel 1 in July 2009 and at

Tunnel 3 in August 2009. Both of these tunnels required crown replacement throughout,

and Tunnel 1 included C ground beneath US Highway 52 at the east portal, where

extensive spiling was required, along with lane closure on 52 as the work was done

beneath the highway. Both tunnels should be completed in August 2010.

R. J. Corman was awarded the work at Big Sandy Tunnel 4. Tunnel 4 is 2,068 feet long

and the majority of the clearance improvement needed was achieved by notching.

However the west end of the tunnel included some C ground and 100 feet east of the west

portal received a new precast concrete lining that was installed by cut and cover after a

micropile foundation was installed. The tunnel is on a very sight grade and has a large

amount of water intrusion. A pumping system was installed to improve drainage. The

tunnel floor is shale rock and is degraded rapidly by ballast. An asphalt underlayment

will be installed when the track is replaced. Work began in October 2009 and will be

completed in July 2010.

While the different contractors have different methodologies and equipment, the similar

nature of the work led to similarities in the progression of the work. The IPP was always

the first activity in those contracts that included it and generally consisted of vertical core

holes and recovered cores which were drilled up through the liner at 250 ft. centers. In

addition, two inch diameter radial probe holes were installed at 45 degrees to the spring

line, and forward incline probe holes were drilled near the center line of the tunnel in

single track or staggered over track centers in double track at intervals ranging from 17.5

ft. to 23.5 ft. These probe holes varied in depth from 29 to 38 feet dependent upon the

void or loose material behind the liner, and all were video logged. The probe hole

information was used by, the Construction Management team to classify the ground and

specify the type of support needed within designated limits from the contract menu.

A single tunnel may have had several different repair methodologies, and several

different types of support for each methodology. Sidewall grouting and bolting would be

one of the first activities beginning soon after the IPP, and was generally conducted

simultaneously within a contract package. If the tunnel was to be notched, roof grouting

would follow as the next activity, before the notching began. Where crown removal was

the required method, a sufficient amount of sidewall bolts must be installed. A cut line

was established by saw cutting or line drilling before any crown demolition began. Once

the crown removal process started, the specifications required that all required roof bolts

and an initial layer of shotcrete or wire mesh must be installed within the panel removal

limits before the end of the shift to allow safe passage of trains.

Contractors elected to use either rail mounted or hyrail equipment to perform tunnel work

and the IPP drilling was performed from high platforms on hyrail trucks. At the Johnson

Western sites, crown demolition was been primarily performed by road headers or

pavement breakers mounted on excavators. Material being demolished fell directly into

side dump cars or gondolas fitted with side wings. The gondolas were emptied between

track windows. Crown rock bolts were installed from high platforms on hyrail trucks.

Grouting and shotcrete operations were been flatcar mounted. LRL elected a different

method using breakers for demolition, letting the demolished material fall onto protective

mats, and then reloading muck into hyrail rotary dumps.

Work on all the projects has progressed substantially as planned, and remains on schedule

to meet the 2010 planned completion. Variations from the planned five day per week, ten

hour per day work schedule have been very limited on the part of either NS or the

contractors. With very few exceptions, the track windows have been available as

scheduled and have been returned for rail service as planned. The extensive planning on

the part of NS’s Service Planning group and Division Transportation employees allowed

the railroad to operate successfully as planned.

CONCLUSIONS

The Heartland Corridor Clearance Improvement Project was a complex project. There

were 57 project sites spread along 379 miles of railroad. The nature of the public private

partnership, the inherent risk associated with any tunnel modification project, the need for

exclusive, uninterrupted long daily windows of track occupancy over a long period of

time for the tunnel work, and the sheer scope of the project necessitated extremely close

cooperation between planners, designers, various government agencies, railroad

transportation planners, construction managers, and contractors, from the conception of

the project to its ongoing construction phase. The level of cooperation required is

exceeded by few construction projects.

The scope of the project is exemplified by the material quantities. The contractors

installed about 32,000 rock bolts that would stretch over 94 miles laid end to end. They

also installed another 1,900 cable bolts that would stretch an additional 10 miles. They

installed over 500 steel sets, weighing over 830 tons. They used over 81,000 tons of

cement for grout, and over 24,000 tons of cement for shotcrete.

The benefits will begin immediately. Norfolk Southern intermodal trains will knock more

than 200 miles off their current routes, improve transit time between Norfolk and

Chicago from three days to two, and free up previously unavailable capacity. The

Virginia ports, where a new container terminal is set to begin construction in 2017, can

immediately begin touting a competitive advantage, while localities along the corridor

can tout their access to world markets. Trucking companies will take advantage of the

economics of rail and move more of their containers to rail for intercity transport,

relieving the stress on the nation’s highway infrastructure, making the roads safer,

improving air quality and easing the demand for fuel.

From “what if” speculation a decade ago to the grinding away of solid rock, the

Heartland Corridor saga is one of shared vision, careful negotiations, public and private

commitment, thorough engineering, and imaginative solutions to operational challenges.

The result is an environmentally and economically beneficial project certain to help a

nation meet a looming infrastructure crisis and serve as a model for more such projects to

come.

TABLE AND FIGURE LIST

Table 1 – List of clearance obstructions initially identified.

Figure 1 - The current routes used by double stacks and the Heartland Corridor route.

Figure 2 - The template to determine the clearance requirements.

Figure 3 - Typical double-width tunnel with minor notching.

Figure 4 - Typical double-width tunnel with minor notching.

Figure 5 - A liner replacement concept.

Figure 6 – Crown Removal – shotcrete and rock bolt arrangement

Figure 7 – Type C installation

Figure 8 – Alternate Type C installation

Figure 9 – Typical portal support

Figure 10 – Tunnel location map with phases color coded