DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents DESIGN CRITERIA SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1234 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19107 SEPTA FRAZER SHOP & YARD EXPANSION STV INCORPORATED 1818 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1410 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-3616 NOVEMBER 25, 2015 This Page Intentionally Blank SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter Table of Contents CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 General 5 1.1 Introduction 5 1.2 Design Codes 5 1.3 Frazer Functional Design Criteria 6 1.3.1 Design Life 6 1.3.2 Service Proven 6 1.3.3 Project Integration 6 2.0 Environmental 7 2.1 Introduction 7 2.2 Design Codes 7 2.3 Frazer Design Criteria 7 3.0 Operations 9 3.1 Introduction 9 3.2 Codes 10 3.3 Frazer Operations Criteria 10 3.3.1 General Requirements 10 3.3.2 Temporary Structures 10 3.3.3 Rail Equipment 10 3.3.4 Railroad Operations 11 3.3.5 Construction Plans 12 3.3.6 Railroad Flagging; De-Energizing the Overhead Contact System 12 3.3.7 Construction Work Windows (Package 1 Only) 13 4.0 Civil 15 4.1 Introduction 15 4.2 Design Codes 15 4.3 Frazer Design Criteria 16 4.3.1 Roadway Widths 16 4.3.2 Parking Area 16 4.3.3 Lighting 16 4.3.4 Pavement Design 16 4.3.5 Compaction 17 4.3.6 Seeding 17 4.3.7 Drainage, Stormwater Management, and Erosion & 17 Sediment Control November 25, 2015 Page 1 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter Table of Contents CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 5.0 Track Alignment and Vehicle Clearance 19 5.1 Introduction 19 5.2 Codes and Standards 19 5.3 Track Alignment 19 5.3.1 Design Speed 19 5.3.2 Horizontal Curvature 19 5.3.3 Track Centers 20 5.3.4 Vertical Alignment 20 5.3.5 Turnout Geometry and Layout 21 5.4 Track Clearances 21 5.4.1 Overhead Clearances 21 5.4.2 Side Clearances 21 5.4.3 Exemptions 21 6.0 Trackwork 23 6.1 Introduction 23 6.2 Design Codes 23 6.3 Frazer Design Criteria 23 6.3.1 Rail 23 6.3.2 Crossties 24 6.3.3 Rail Fastening Systems 24 6.3.4 Ballast and Subballast 24 6.3.5 Special Trackwork 24 6.3.6 Grade Crossings 25 6.3.7 Bumping Posts, Derails and Rail Bonds 25 6.3.8 Inner Guard Rail 25 6.3.9 Track Underdrains 25 7.0 Traffic (Not Used) 27 8.0 Utilities 29 8.1 Introduction 29 8.2 Design Codes 29 8.3 Frazer Design Criteria 29 8.3.1 General 29 8.3.2 Sanitary Sewer 30 9.0 Architectural (Not Used) 31 November 25, 2015 Page 2 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter Table of Contents CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 10.0 Geotechnical 33 10.1 Introduction 33 10.2 Design Codes 33 10.3 Frazer Geotechnical Criteria 33 10.3.1 Geotechnical Investigation 33 10.3.2 General Foundation Considerations 34 10.3.3 Retaining Wall 35 10.3.4 Final Geotechnical Foundation Report 35 10.3.5 Instrumentation and Monitoring During Construction 35 11.0 Structural 37 11.1 Introduction 37 11.2 Design Codes 37 11.3 Frazer Design Criteria 37 11.3.1 Materials 37 11.3.2 Design Live Loads 38 11.3.3 Global Stability 38 11.3.4 Retaining Wall Design Requirements 39 11.3.5 Limitations 39 11.3.6 Architectural Treatment 39 12.0 Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (Not Used) 41 13.0 Plumbing and Fire Protection Systems (Not Used) 43 14.0 Industrial Equipment (Not Used) 45 15.0 Facilities Electrical (Not Used) 47 16.0 Corrosion Control Grounding and Bonding 49 16.1 Introduction 49 16.1.1 Corrosion Control 49 16.1.2 Grounding and Bonding 49 16.2 Design Codes 51 16.2.1 Corrosion Control 51 16.2.2 Grounding and Bonding 51 16.3 Frazer Design Criteria 52 16.3.1 Corrosion Control 52 16.3.2 Grounding and Bonding 53 November 25, 2015 Page 3 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter Table of Contents CHAPTER TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page 17.0 Traction Power (Not Used) 55 18.0 Overhead Contact System 57 18.1 Introduction 57 18.2 Design Codes and References 57 18.3 Catenary 57 18.4 Loading Requirements 58 18.5 Loading Combinations and Load Factors 58 18.6 Design and Analysis 58 18.7 Materials 58 18.8 Steel Design Details 59 18.9 Foundation Design 59 18.10 Miscellaneous 59 19.0 Communications (Not Used) 61 20.0 Fire/Life Safety and Security (Not Used) 63 November 25, 2015 Page 4 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter 1.0 – General 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Introduction This document specifies the design criteria that shall be adhered to while preparing calculations, drawings, and specifications that are used to procure and construct the Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project. The Frazer Shop & Yard project design criteria is arranged in a series of chapters that address traditional rail-transit design disciplines, and each chapter includes the following sections: • Introduction – specifies the scope of design covered by a respective chapter • Codes – list of applicable codes, standards, or other industry recognized best- practice publications that define minimum design requirements • Frazer Criteria – special design requirements that are unique to the Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project. The provisions specified by this document are intended to establish a minimum standard of design for the Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project. Any suggested changes to the Frazer Shop & Yard design criteria must be approved by Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) before being adopted for design or construction. SEPTA may periodically issue updated versions of the project design criteria, which will include a detailed revision log. If justified, SEPTA may accept a specific variance to the Frazer Shop & Yard design criteria, provided the written variance demonstrates that there is no degradation of system related performance and safety. In all cases, a variance to the design criteria must be submitted in writing, and approved by SEPTA before it is adopted for design and construction. All Frazer Shop & Yard design work shall conform to the minimum provisions specified by these criteria, which were developed using a traditional standard of care. The project design criteria serve as guidelines and are not a substitute for engineering judgment and sound engineering practice. The Engineer-of-Record is responsible to notify SEPTA, in writing, of any conflicts or other requirements that are contrary to best practice. The Engineer-of-Record shall retain responsibility to comply with all applicable laws and ordinances that govern design and construction of public works projects. 1.2 Design Codes All design shall conform to or exceed the requirements of the latest version of the codes or standards that are identified throughout every Chapter of these criteria. The codes are presented in order of precedence and in the event of a conflict; the most restrictive provision shall govern. If a new edition or amendment to a code or standard is issued before the design is completed, SEPTA shall determine if the new edition or amendment is to be used. November 25, 2015 Page 5 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter 1.0 – General There are code requirements for Chapter 1.0 – General. 1.3 Frazer Functional Design Criteria 1.3.1 Design Life New components for the Frazer Shop & Yard facility shall be designed, fabricated and constructed to achieve the following minimum design-life objectives without major refurbishment or replacement during normal use. • fixed facilities: 100 years • trackwork: 30 years • major systems components (shop machinery): 30 years • minor systems components (electrical and signal components): 20 years 1.3.2 Service Proven The Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project shall be designed using service-proven concepts, subsystems, and hardware. All major subsystems including shop equipment, mechanical systems, electrical components, trackwork and spare parts shall be supplied by established manufacturers with a documented operating history of previous and current usage, and where practical be readily available as an off-the-shelf item. A waiver to these requirements will be considered if an alternative subsystem offers substantial technical and cost advantages, is in an advanced level of development, and is supported by comprehensive test data compiled from near-revenue conditions. 1.3.3 Project Integration The Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project integration requirements are summarized as follows: • Minimize disruption to existing maintenance operations during design, construction, testing, and commissioning of the Frazer Shop & Yard Expansion project • Accommodate concurrent infrastructure improvement projects • Minimize adverse operational, aesthetic and environmental impacts. These functional system integration requirements shall be periodically assessed during final design and construction of the Frazer facility. November 25, 2015 Page 6 Rev. 00 - Final SEPTA Frazer Shop & Yard Design Criteria Chapter 2.0 – Environmental 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL 2.1 Introduction The environmental design criteria presented herein shall govern the design of the following project elements: • Site subsurface environmental characterization • Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) • Lead-Containing Materials 2.2 Design Codes Unless specified otherwise herein, the environmental design shall be governed by the current editions of the following codes or manuals: • National Emission Standards for Hazard Air Pollution (NESHAP) (cited as 40 CFR Part 61 Subpart M). • OSHA 29 CFR 1926.62, Lead • OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart D, Contingency Plan • Title 25, Part 1, Subpart C Article III, Chapters 123, 133, 137, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) • Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 101 (Hazardous Substances) • Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 91.34 (PA Water Quality Program) • PADEP Act 2 of 1995; The Land Recycling and Environmental Remediation Standards Act • Pennsylvania Asbestos Occupations Accreditation and Certification Act of 1990 (Act 194 and Act 161) 2.3 Frazer Design Criteria There are no supplemental environmental design requirements.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division
    Case: 1:05-cv-00437-MHW Doc #: 155 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:05cv437 v. Judge Michael R. Barrett General Electric Company, Defendant. OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant General Electric Company’s (“GE”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits. (Doc. 92). Plaintiff American Premier Underwriters, Inc.’s (“APU”) filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 123), and GE filed a Reply (Doc. 142). GE has also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 148), to which APU filed a Response (Doc. 149) and GE filed a Reply (Doc. 150). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff APU is the successor to the Penn Central Transportation Company (“Penn Central”). This action arises from contamination at four rail yards operated by Penn Central prior to April 1, 1976: (1) the Paoli Yard, located in Paoli, Pennsylvania; (2) the South Amboy Yard, located in South Amboy, New Jersey; (3) Sunnyside Yard, located in Long Island, New York; and (4) Wilmington Shops and related facilities, located in Wilmington, Delaware. During the period when Penn Central operated these rail yards, it owned and used passenger rail cars with transformers manufactured by Defendant GE. APU claims the GE transformers contaminated the rail yards by leaking polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). The PCBs were contained in “Pyranol,” which was Case: 1:05-cv-00437-MHW Doc #: 155 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID> the trade name of the fluid used by GE in the transformers as a cooling and insulating fluid.
    [Show full text]
  • Crisis Planning & Management
    CRISIS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SEPTA SILVERLINER V ISSUE JEFFREY D. KNUEPPEL, PE GENERAL MANAGER CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT REGIONAL SERVICE PROFILE • 13 Regional Rail lines with over 150 stations • Regional Rail Ridership over 37M annually and has increased 52% since 1998 • 770 trains per day on weekdays (570 per day on weekends) • Total track miles: 474 – 234 SEPTA track miles – 240 Amtrak track miles CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW - CHRONOLOGY • June 29th: Inspector notices a problem with a Silverliner V car and removes it from service for further evaluation • June 30th: Silverliner V defect identified at Overbrook Shop • Upon inspection, Vehicle Maintenance personnel found more cracks in several cars which indicated a fleetwide equalizer beam problem • July 1st: Entire 120 car Silverliner V fleet grounded CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY • Silverliner V’s constitute 30% of Regional Rail fleet • Silverliner V cars are new! • 58% of fleet is 40+ years old! • DNC coming to Philly in 3 weeks • City labor contract expires on 10/31/16!! CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT EQUALIZER BEAM Equalizer Beam Equalizer ‘Foot’ – welded onto beam Equalizer Seat Equalizer Pad (1/2 inch resilient pad) CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT WORKING TOGETHER • SEPTA immediately retained LTK Engineers at the start of the Silverliner V issue • Hyundai Rotem, SEPTA, and LTK worked cooperatively on computer modeling, metallurgical evaluation, vehicle instrumentation and developed temporary and then permanent repair schemes CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT
    [Show full text]
  • Atglen Station Concept Plan
    Atglen Station Concept Plan PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Chester County Planning Commission Urban Engineers, Inc. June 2012 601 Westtown Road, Suite 270 530 Walnut Street, 14th Floor ® Chester County Planning Commission West Chester, PA 19380 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Acknowledgements This plan was prepared as a collaboration between the Chester County Planning Commission and Urban Engineers, Inc. Support in developing the plan was provided by an active group of stakeholders. The Project Team would like to thank the following members of the Steering Advisory and Technical Review Committees for their contributions to the Atglen Station Concept Plan: Marilyn Jamison Amtrak Ken Hanson Amtrak Stan Slater Amtrak Gail Murphy Atglen Borough Larry Lavenberg Atglen Borough Joseph Hacker DVRPC Bob Garrett PennDOT Byron Comati SEPTA Harry Garforth SEPTA Bob Lund SEPTA Barry Edwards West Sadsbury Township Frank Haas West Sadsbury Township 2 - Acknowledgements June 2012 Atglen Station Concept Plan Table of Contents Introduction 5 1. History & Background 6 2. Study Area Profi le 14 3. Station Site Profi le 26 4. Ridership & Parking Analysis 36 5. Rail Operations Analysis 38 6. Station Concept Plan 44 7. Preliminary Cost Estimates 52 Appendix A: Traffi c Count Data 54 Appendix B: Ridership Methodology 56 Chester County Planning Commission June 2012 Table of Contents - 3 4 - Introduction June 2012 Atglen Station Concept Plan Introduction The planning, design, and construction of a new passenger rail station in Atglen Borough, Chester County is one part of an initiative to extend SEPTA commuter service on the Paoli-Thorndale line approximately 12 miles west of its current terminus in Thorndale, Caln Township.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharing the Spirit of Innovation
    00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page C1 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013 NUMBER 284 TR NEWS Sharing the Spirit of Innovation Examples from the States Plus: Solving Highway Congestion Lessons for Climate Change Mapping Natural Hazmats 00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page C2 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2013 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chair: Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia National Academy of Sciences Vice Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing National Academy of Engineering Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Institute of Medicine National Research Council Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. The Transportation Research Board is one Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock of six major divisions of the National William A. V. Clark, Professor of Geography (emeritus) and Professor of Statistics (emeritus), Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Research Council, which serves as an James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas independent adviser to the federal gov- John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix ernment and others on scientific and Paula J. C. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia technical questions of national impor- Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort tance, and which is jointly administered Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, by the National Academy of Sciences, the Massachusetts National Academy of Engineering, and Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • Specification for the Suburban Station Revenue Equipment Maintenance (Rem) and Accessible Travel Center (Atc) Expansion Project
    SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 1234 MARKET STREET, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107 SPECIFICATION FOR THE SUBURBAN STATION REVENUE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (REM) AND ACCESSIBLE TRAVEL CENTER (ATC) EXPANSION PROJECT SPECIFICATION # F-A-16-12 DATE: September 2016 SPECIFICATION FOR THE SUBURBAN STATION REVENUE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE (REM) AND ACCESSIBLE TRAVEL CENTER (ATC) EXPANSION PROJECT DIVISION 1 – GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01010 – Summary of Work 01010-1 to 01010-7 01011 – Summary of Project 01011-1 to 01011-3 01025 – Measurements and Payment 01025-1 to 01025-1 01041 – Project Coordination 01041-1 to 01041-4 01045 – Cutting and Patching 01045-1 to 01045-4 01060 – Regulatory Requirements and Safety 01060-1 to 01060-19 01065 – Railroad Safety Requirements 01065-1 to 01065-6 01100 – Special Project Procedures 01100-1 to 01100-2 01200 – Project Progress Meetings 01200-1 to 01200-3 01300 – Submittals 01300-1 to 01300-8 01305 – Requests for Information 01305-1 to 01305-3 01380 – Construction Photographs 01380-1 to 01380-2 01400 – Inspection and Test Plans 01400-1 to 01400-6 01500 – Construction Facilities & Temporary Controls 01500-1 to 01500-5 01505 – Mobilization 01505-1 to 01505-2 01580 – Project Identification and Directional Signage 01580-1 to 01580-4 01600 – Material and Equipment 01600-1 to 01600-3 01700 – Contract Closeout 01700-1 to 01700-3 01710 – Final Cleaning 01710-1 to 01710-3 01720 – Project As-Built Documents 01720-1 to 01720-4 01830 – Operation and Maintenance Data 01830-1 to 01830-5 DIVISION 2 – SITE WORK 02060 – Demolition
    [Show full text]
  • Best Practices and Strategies for Improving Rail Energy Efficiency
    U.S. Department of Transportation Best Practices and Strategies for Federal Railroad Improving Rail Energy Efficiency Administration Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-14/02 Final Report January 2014 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the content or use of the material contained in this document. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
    [Show full text]
  • The Feasibility of Retrofitting Lifts on Commuter and Light Rail Vehicles
    1 H b 1 8.5 . A3 7 no . DOT- TSC- REPORT NO. UMTA-MA-06-0025-80-1 U MTA - 80-39 THE FEASIBILITY OF RETROFITTI NG LIFTS ON COMMUTER AND LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES F . T . Me I nerney TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS CORP. (TRAAC) 2020 14th Street North Suite 400 Arlington V A 22201 TR < OF 4a , SEPTEMBER 1980 FINAL REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE N AT I ON A L T ECH N I CA L INFORMATION SE R V I CE SP R I F I E L D, , NG VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Technology Development and Deployment Office of Rail and Construction Technology Washington DC 20590 . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. 1 1 I ho. Technical Report Documentation Page 1 . Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. Ek-I M7P+ UMTA-MA-06-0025-80-1 P& 8-1- !3o«f 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote September 1980 THE FEASIBILITY OF RETROFITTING LIFTS ON 6. Performing Organization Code COMMUTER AND LIGHT RAIL VEHICLES DTS-722 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Authors) F.T. Mclnerney D0T-TSC-UMTA-80-39 9.
    [Show full text]
  • Defective SEPTA Train Cars
    Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers, Inc. 1601 Walnut St., Ste. 1129 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-RAILWAY www.dvarp.org DVARP remarks on SEPTA Silverliner V mechanical defects and their effect on SEPTA passengers Prepared testimony for House Democratic Policy Committee hearing Philadelphia: July 19, 2016 Good morning. My name is Matthew Mitchell; I’m vice president of DVARP: the Delaware Valley Association of Rail Passengers. DVARP is an independent, non-profit, member- supported organization representing the rail and transit riders of the greater Philadelphia area. DVARP was established in 1974. We scrutinize the budgets of SEPTA and other area rail and transit operators. We meet regularly with officials from SEPTA, Amtrak, PATCO, and NJ Transit to discuss quality of service. We review and comment on plans for service expansions. We speak out in the community about the benefits of passenger rail for the economic health and quality of life in our region. And we publish a highly-acclaimed newsletter to keep our members and elected officials informed about passenger rail issues. Among our recent accomplishments are getting quiet cars on SEPTA, PATCO, and NJ Transit, stopping a coffee ban on the SEPTA commuter rail system, and securing a partial fare rollback that saved SEPTA riders two million dollars. On Saturday afternoon, July second, we got a call from Kim Heinle, chief of customer service and constituent relations at SEPTA. He informed us that earlier in the day, SEPTA had removed all of its Silverliner V cars from service because cracks had been discovered in the truck equalizer beams of some of those cars.
    [Show full text]
  • BULLETIN - JUNE, 2013 Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol
    The ERA BULLETIN - JUNE, 2013 Bulletin Electric Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated Vol. 56, No. 6 June, 2013 The Bulletin MANHATTAN RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION Published by the Electric COMPLETED 110 YEARS AGO Railroaders’ Association, Incorporated, PO Box 3323, New York, New York 10163-3323. At the turn of the 20th century, most transit was tested on Sixth Avenue, transporting a systems were converting to electric traction, train with 192 invited guests from Rector to th For general inquiries, but Manhattan Railway was still operating 58 Streets in 19 minutes. contact us at bulletin@ reliable little Forney steam locomotives. The Compressed air locomotives were also test- erausa.org or by phone company’s officials were reluctant to experi- ed on the Second Avenue Elevated. On Oc- at (212) 986-4482 (voice ment with the new invention—electricity. tober 27, 1881, four cars weighing 81 tons in mail available). ERA’s Meanwhile, several inventors were testing a train propelled by a compressed air loco- website is www.erausa.org. electric motor devices on Manhattan Rail- motive were able to keep to their schedule way’s lines. On August 27, 1885 the first while operating from Harlem to South Ferry, Editorial Staff: electric train ran on the Ninth Avenue’s mid- with the air pressure diminishing from 600 Editor-in-Chief: dle track between 14th and 50th Streets. Dur- PSI to 195 PSI en route. On September 1, Bernard Linder News Editor: ing intervening years, several such test trains 1897 a five-car train with a load representa- Randy Glucksman were then operated. Before making a perma- tive of 100 passengers per car compared the Contributing Editor: nent installation the company also experi- performance of steam to compressed air.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor
    VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation March 2004 Disclaimer: This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation solely in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof, nor does it express any opinion whatsoever on the merit or desirability of the project(s) described herein. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Any trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Note: In an effort to better inform the public, this document contains references to a number of Internet web sites. Web site locations change rapidly and, while every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of these references, they may prove to be invalid in the future. Should an FRA document prove difficult to find, readers should access the FRA web site (www.fra.dot.gov) and search by the document’s title or subject. 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FRA/RDV-04/05.I 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the March 2004 Philadelphia–Harrisburg “Keystone” Railroad 6. Performing Organization Code Corridor⎯Volume I: Executive Summary and Main Report 7. Authors: 8. Performing Organization Report No. For the engineering contractor: Michael C. Holowaty, Project Manager For the sponsoring agency: Richard U. Cogswell and Neil E. Moyer 9.
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Crashworthiness of Existing Urban Rail Vehicles
    AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CRASHWORTHINESS OF EXISTING URBAN RAIL VEHICLES Volume I: Analyses and Assessments of Vehicles Chapters 1 Through 7 R . J . Cassidy D . J . Romeo , Ql NOVEMBER 1975 FINAL REPORT DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD. VIRGINIA 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION URBAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION Office of Research and Development Washington DC 20590 . NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Govern- ment assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse pro- ducts or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are con- sidered essential to the object of this report. 1 *I .457 fjO> Technical Report Documentation Page wr 1 . Report No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. fst' UMTA-MA-06-0025-7 5-16. 4. Title and Subtitle AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CRASHWORTHINESS OF 5. Report Date EXISTING URBAN RAIL VEHICLES. November 1975 —* CT ^ I ^ 6. Performing Organization Code f Volume I: Analyses and Assessments of Vehicles, V.l Chapters 1 Through 7 - 3. i i ^-e-f^e rTTmrg O-rg aril tJ t i u Report Nc 7. Authors) - 3- 0 R.J. Cassidy and D.J. Romeo DOT-TSC-UMTA-75-21.I 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) UM604/R6745 Calspan Corporation* 1 1 . Contract or Grant No. P.O. Box 235 DOT-TSC-681 Buffalo NY 14221 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Analyzing the Potential for Commuter Train Run-Through Service at New York Penn Station August 7, 2014
    Analyzing the Potential for Commuter Train Run-Through Service at New York Penn Station August 7, 2014 Prepared by Amtrak Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Investment and Development And Amtrak Operations Research Groups Abstract This paper provides a brief review of Amtrak research on the potential of through running of commuter operations in Penn Station, New York. It is intended to help inform the larger community interested in the concept as well as to assist in the planning and analysis within a number of studies of Penn Station and the Northeast Corridor that are currently underway. The paper describes through running concepts in general, and then identifies operational and infrastructure conditions specific to Penn Station which should be addressed in order to undertake a successful revenue service. Analysis discussed in this paper finds that: commuter trains would lead to fewer peak a) absent the construction of purpose-built period trains and/or less reliable operations facilities to provide wider station platforms under representative service scenarios and, b) the introduction of more robust evaluated. vertical passenger access, a through running service with high performance service Potential Through Running Territory characteristics found in other railway systems is not achievable at Penn Station. Further, current operations are optimized around the existing terminal infrastructure with its two main support yards serving in a critical role to achieving very high levels of performance. Without investment in new station facilities to compensate for the utility provided by yards, the introduction of a through running revenue service with Table of Contents Who is interested in through running and why? .............................................................................
    [Show full text]