Potential Improvements to the Washington-Richmond Railroad
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
ERTMS/ETCS Railway Signalling
Appendix A ERTMS/ETCS Railway Signalling Salvatore Sabina, Fabio Poli and Nazelie Kassabian A.1 Interoperable Constituents The basic interoperability constituents in the Control-Command and Signalling Sub- systems are, respectively, defined in TableA.1 for the Control-Command and Sig- nalling On-board Subsystem [1] and TableA.2 for the Control-Command and Sig- nalling Trackside Subsystem [1]. The functions of basic interoperability constituents may be combined to form a group. This group is then defined by those functions and by its remaining exter- nal interfaces. If a group is formed in this way, it shall be considered as an inter- operability constituent. TableA.3 lists the groups of interoperability constituents of the Control-Command and Signalling On-board Subsystem [1]. TableA.4 lists the groups of interoperability constituents of the Control-Command and Signalling Trackside Subsystem [1]. S. Sabina (B) Ansaldo STS S.p.A, Via Paolo Mantovani 3-5, 16151 Genova, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F. Poli Ansaldo STS S.p.A, Via Ferrante Imparato 184, 80147 Napoli, Italy e-mail: [email protected] N. Kassabian Ansaldo STS S.p.A, Via Volvera 50, 10045 Piossasco Torino, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 233 L. Lo Presti and S. Sabina (eds.), GNSS for Rail Transportation,PoliTO Springer Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-79084-8 234 Appendix A: ERTMS/ETCS Railway Signalling Table A.1 Basic interoperability constituents in the Control-Command -
Virginia Railway Express Strategic Plan 2004-2025
VRE STRATEGIC PLAN Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................V Current State of the Railroad ..............................................................................................................v The Strategic Planning Process..........................................................................................................vi The VRE Ridership Market................................................................................................................vii Strategic Plan Scenarios and Recommendations .............................................................................viii Core Network Needs...........................................................................................................................ix Potential Network Expansion ..............................................................................................................x Phased Service Improvement and Capital Investment Plan ..............................................................xii Financial, Institutional and Organizational Issues ..........................................................................xiii VRE Moving Forward ......................................................................................................................xiv 1. CURRENT STATE OF THE RAILROAD..........................................................................................1 VRE SYSTEM OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................1 -
GAO-02-398 Intercity Passenger Rail: Amtrak Needs to Improve Its
United States General Accounting Office Report to the Honorable Ron Wyden GAO U.S. Senate April 2002 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Amtrak Needs to Improve Its Decisionmaking Process for Its Route and Service Proposals GAO-02-398 Contents Letter 1 Results in Brief 2 Background 3 Status of the Growth Strategy 6 Amtrak Overestimated Expected Mail and Express Revenue 7 Amtrak Encountered Substantial Difficulties in Expanding Service Over Freight Railroad Tracks 9 Conclusions 13 Recommendation for Executive Action 13 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 13 Scope and Methodology 16 Appendix I Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes, Fiscal Year 2001 18 Appendix II Amtrak Route Actions, January 1995 Through December 2001 20 Appendix III Planned Route and Service Actions Included in the Network Growth Strategy 22 Appendix IV Amtrak’s Process for Evaluating Route and Service Proposals 23 Amtrak’s Consideration of Operating Revenue and Direct Costs 23 Consideration of Capital Costs and Other Financial Issues 24 Appendix V Market-Based Network Analysis Models Used to Estimate Ridership, Revenues, and Costs 26 Models Used to Estimate Ridership and Revenue 26 Models Used to Estimate Costs 27 Page i GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking Appendix VI Comments from the National Railroad Passenger Corporation 28 GAO’s Evaluation 37 Tables Table 1: Status of Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions, as of December 31, 2001 7 Table 2: Operating Profit (Loss), Operating Ratio, and Profit (Loss) per Passenger of Each Amtrak Route, Fiscal Year 2001, Ranked by Profit (Loss) 18 Table 3: Planned Network Growth Strategy Route and Service Actions 22 Figure Figure 1: Amtrak’s Route System, as of December 2001 4 Page ii GAO-02-398 Amtrak’s Route and Service Decisionmaking United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 April 12, 2002 The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate Dear Senator Wyden: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is the nation’s intercity passenger rail operator. -
Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2006-24 CSX Transportati
Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Headquarters Assigned Accident Investigation Report HQ-2006-24 CSX Transportation (CSX) Richmond, Virginia April 22, 2006 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report made by the Secretary of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration under 49 U.S.C. §20902 may be used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT FRA File # HQ-2006-24 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 1.Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation [CSX ] CSX R000022015 2.Name of Railroad Operating Train #2 2a. Alphabetic Code 2b. Railroad Accident/Incident N/A N/A N/A 3.Name of Railroad Responsible for Track Maintenance: 3a. Alphabetic Code 3b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation [CSX ] CSX N/A 4. U.S. DOT_AAR Grade Crossing Identification Number 5. Date of Accident/Incident 6. Time of Accident/Incident Month Day Year 04 22 2006 05:19:00 AM PM 7. Type of Accident/Indicent 1. Derailment 4. Side collision 7. Hwy-rail crossing 10. Explosion-detonation 13. Other (single entry in code box) 2. Head on collision 5. Raking collision 8. RR grade crossing 11. Fire/violent rupture (describe in narrative) 3. Rear end collision 6. Broken Train collision 9. Obstruction 12. Other impacts 01 8. Cars Carrying 9. HAZMAT Cars 10. Cars Releasing 11. People 12. Division HAZMAT Damaged/Derailed HAZMAT Evacuated 0 0 0 0 FLORENCE 13. Nearest City/Town 14. -
CBTC Test Simulation Bench
Computers in Railways XII 485 CBTC test simulation bench J. M. Mera, I. Gómez-Rey & E. Rodrigo CITEF (Railway Technology Research Centre), Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain Abstract Due to its safety characteristics, signalling equipment requires a great amount of testing and validation during the different stages of its life cycle, and particularly during the installation and commissioning of a new line or upgrade of an existing line, the latter being even more complicated due to the short engineering periods available overnight. This project aims to develop a tool to reduce the above-mentioned efforts by simulating the CBTC trackside, fulfilling the interfaces between subsystems and elements of these subsystems, and using some real elements. In this way, a testing environment for signalling equipment and data has been developed for the CBTC system. The aims of the project that were set out at the beginning of the development and completed with the present simulator are as follows: Real CBTC equipment trials and integration: CBTC on-board equipment, CBTC Radio Centre, etc. Other signalling elements trials and integration: interlockings and SCCs. CBTC track data validation. In order to achieve these objectives, various simulation applications have been developed, of which the most important are the following: Infrastructure, Automatic trains, Train systems, Planning and Control Desk, etc. This system has been developed, and is currently adding new modules and functionalities, for companies of the Invensys Group: Westinghouse Rail WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 114, © 2010 WIT Press www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) doi:10.2495/CR100451 486 Computers in Railways XII Systems in the UK and Dimetronic Signals in Spain, which are using it for the new CBTC lines under their responsibility. -
Appendix O: Hazardous Materials Site Information
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITE O INFORMATION D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL FALLS CHURCH CITY BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 1 ! CFP 110 (!(! (!(! (! BEGIN ALTERNATIVE AREA 2 (!I3(! CRYSTAL CITY STATION (! (! (((!!! ARLINGTON COUNTY (! (! ¨¦§395 ¨¦§295 [ ALEXANDRIACITY OF Washington, D.C. (!(! ¨¦§66 (!(! ALEXANDRIA (! ! ( ¨¦§395 STATION (!! (!( ¨¦§95 (! (!(! (! (! (!(!(! (! !! I3(!(!(! (!(! (!(((! (!! (!I (!(! (!(!(! (!(! CFP 105 (!(! ¨¦§95 (! ! O-1(! (!(!(! (!( (!(!(!(!(! (! (! (!(!(!(!( \\cltsmain\gis_data\GIS\Projects\011545_VADeptofRails-PublicTransportation\0239056_RAPS-4AltDev-ConceptEng\map_docs\mxd\DEIS\Tech Reports\Hazardous Materials\DC2RVA_AppO_FigO-1_Hazmat_8.5x11_DEIS_BW.mxd | Last Updated: 06.16.2017 CFP 100 ! 495 ¨¦§ ¨¦§195 ¨¦§295 Richmond 0 Richmond ¨¦§95 FAIRFAX Colonial Heights 0.5 COUNTY ¨¦§64 Mile State Projection:Plane Virginia@ Lambert8.5 1North inch x Conformal 11FIPS = inches4501 1 mile FeetConic Basemap: 2015 USGS Topographic Map Data Source:North VDOT American CEDAR; Datum ERIS, of 2016. 1983 Legend 1 (! Potential HAZMAT or [ Petroleum Contamination (! SUPERFUND/ CERCLA/ (! NPL Known HAZMAT Release (! Hazmat Facility I3(! (! Potential Petroleum IFRANCONIA-SPRINGFIELD Contamination (! I3 Petroleum Facility (! STATION I3 Amtrak Station II3 VRE Station II3 Amtrak/VRE Station ! VRE/WMATA Station CSXT Mileposts DC2RVA Project Corridor Alternative Area Limits Virginia Rail Lines 1,000-foot Study Area County/City Boundaries Hazardous Materials (! Figure O-1 ((!! Sites Sheet 1 of 15 !( !(!( !( ! !(( ¨¦§495 !( !!((!(!( !(( !!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!((( ! ¨¦§395 !( !( I3!( IFRANCONIA-SPRINGFIELD !(!( STATION [ Washington, D.C. ¨¦§66 ¨¦§395 !( ¨¦§95 !!(( !( CFP 095 !( ! ! ¨¦§95 ( !( !( !( I3 ¨¦§295 LORTON STATION ¨¦§195 Richmond !( LORTON AUTO 0 ¨¦§64 I3 ¨¦§95 TRAIN STATION Colonial Heights !( 0.5 !( Mile !( 1 inch = 1 mile 1 !( Projection:@ 8.5Lambert x 11 Conformal inches Conic !( State Plane Virginia North FIPS 4501 Feet Basemap:North 2015 American USGS Datum Topographic of 1983 Map !( Data Source: VDOT CEDAR; ERIS, 2016. -
DC2RVA Tier II Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(F)
PURPOSE AND NEED 1 FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION D.C. TO RICHMOND SOUTHEAST HIGH SPEED RAIL 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (DRPT) propose passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements in the north-south travel corridor between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, VA. These passenger rail service and rail infrastructure improvements are collectively known as the Washington, D.C. to Richmond Southeast High Speed Rail Project (DC2RVA Project). The Project will increase capacity to deliver higher speed passenger rail, expand commuter rail, and accommodate growth of freight rail service, in an efficient and reliable multimodal rail corridor. While there is overlap in how intercity passenger rail and commuter rail services are defined, typically intercity passenger rail facilitates business and leisure travel between central business districts. Intercity passenger rail includes both regional and long-distance services; long-distance passenger rail covers distances longer than 750 miles and does not receive financial support from the states it serves. Regional passenger rail includes routes less than 750 miles and receive funding support from states. Typically, the termini for regional passenger rail service fall within geographic areas that share similar characteristics, such as economic, environmental, infrastructure, and historical/cultural ties. Commuter rail service can travel through multiple central business districts but generally provides short-haul rail service with morning and evening peaks in ridership and service levels that facilitates travel to work. The increased capacity will improve passenger rail service frequency, reliability and travel time in a corridor shared by growing volumes of passenger, commuter, and freight rail traffic, thereby providing a door-to-door time-competitive option for travelers between Washington, D.C. -
May 22, 2017 Volume 37
MAY 22, 2017 ■■■■■■■■■■■ VOLUME 37 ■■■■■■■■■■ NUMBER 5 A Club in Transition 3 The Semaphore David N. Clinton, Editor-in-Chief CONTRIBUTING EDITORS Southeastern Massachusetts…………………. Paul Cutler, Jr. “The Operator”………………………………… Paul Cutler III Cape Cod News………………………………….Skip Burton Boston Globe Reporter………………………. Brendan Sheehan Boston Herald Reporter……………………… Jim South Wall Street Journal Reporter....………………. Paul Bonanno, Jack Foley Rhode Island News…………………………… Tony Donatelli Empire State News…………………………… Dick Kozlowski Amtrak News……………………………. .. Rick Sutton, Russell Buck “The Chief’s Corner”……………………… . Fred Lockhart PRODUCTION STAFF Publication………………………………… ….. Al Taylor Al Munn Jim Ferris Web Page …………………..…………………… Savery Moore Club Photographer……………………………….Joe Dumas The Semaphore is the monthly (except July) newsletter of the South Shore Model Railway Club & Museum (SSMRC) and any opinions found herein are those of the authors thereof and of the Editors and do not necessarily reflect any policies of this organization. The SSMRC, as a non-profit organization, does not endorse any position. Your comments are welcome! Please address all correspondence regarding this publication to: The Semaphore, 11 Hancock Rd., Hingham, MA 02043. ©2017 E-mail: [email protected] Club phone: 781-740-2000. Web page: www.ssmrc.org VOLUME 37 ■■■■■ NUMBER 5 ■■■■■ MAY 2017 CLUB OFFICERS BILL OF LADING President………………….Jack Foley Vice-President…….. …..Dan Peterson Chief’s Corner ...... …….….4 Treasurer………………....Will Baker A Club in Transition….…..13 Secretary……………….....Dave Clinton Contests ................ ………..4 Chief Engineer……….. .Fred Lockhart Directors……………… ...Bill Garvey (’18) Clinic……………..….…….7 ……………………….. .Bryan Miller (‘18) ……………………… ….Roger St. Peter (’17) Editor’s Notes. ….…....… .13 …………………………...Rick Sutton (‘17) Form 19 Orders .... ………..4 Members .............. ….…....14 Memories ............. .………..5 Potpourri .............. ..……….7 ON THE COVER: The first 25% of our building was Running Extra ..... -
Ceo Report February 2021
CEO REPORT FEBRUARY 2021 FEBRUARY 2021 The Virginia Railway Express, a joint project of the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission and the Potomac Rappahannock Transportation Commission, will provide safe, cost‐effective, accessible, reliable, convenient, and customer responsive commuter‐oriented rail passenger service. VRE contributes to the economic vitality of its member jurisdictions as an integral part of a balanced, intermodal regional transportation system. FEBRUARY 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS CEO REPORT I FEBRUARY 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUCCESS AT A GLANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ON‐TIME PERFORMANCE ................................................................................................................................... 4 AVERAGE DAILY RIDERSHIP ................................................................................................................................ 6 SUMMONSES ISSUED ......................................................................................................................................... 7 TRAIN UTILIZATION ............................................................................................................................................ 8 PARKING UTILIZATION ....................................................................................................................................... 9 FINANCIAL REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2020 ......................................................................................................... -
VRE Summer 2018 Intern Presentation Reinaldo
MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY TO VRE STATIONS REINALDO GERMANO PLANNING INTERN VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS 1 MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY TO VRE STATIONS 1. BACKGROUND a. Why should multimodal accessibility to VRE stations be improved? b. What are the benefits of multimodal accessibility? c. How can we encourage multimodal accessibility? 2. CASE STUDY a. How and from where users access VRE? b. How different stations compare? c. How to boost active and public transportation as a way to access VRE stations? 3. FUTURE STUDIES AND LESSONS LEARNED VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS 2 THE EASIER IT IS TO ACCESS THE SYSTEM, THE MORE LIKELY PEOPLE ARE TO USE IT TRIP FIRST MILE VRE LAST MILE 4% 4% 7% 5% 4% 6% 20% 62% 87% VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS 2017 VRE Master Agreement Survey 3 WHY SHOULD MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY TO VRE STATIONS BE IMPROVED? • Although the streets and infrastructure that comprise the first and last mile fall outside the boundaries of VRE jurisdiction and control, they remain critical components of an effective service. • It is possible to increase ridership without increasing the need to provide more parking if fewer people drive alone to stations and more people carpool, take the bus, bike, or walk to stations. • Federal, state, regional, and local policies support increased use of public transportation as a means to ease roadway congestion, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support economic and physical health in communities. VIRGINIA RAILWAY EXPRESS 4 BENEFITS OF MULTIMODAL ACCESSIBILITY VRE + Multimodal accessibility = User Economic Ridership -
Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor
VOLUME I Executive Summary and Main Report Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor Federal Railroad Administration United States Department of Transportation January 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 as of the date of publication, the references 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-04/02 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date January 2004 Technical Monograph: Transportation Planning for the Richmond–Charlotte Railroad Corridor⎯Volume I 6. Performing Organization Code 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. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. -
RCED-98-151 Intercity Passenger Rail B-279203
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees May 1998 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial Performance of Amtrak’s Routes GAO/RCED-98-151 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-279203 May 14, 1998 The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Chairman The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable Frank R. Wolf Chairman The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives Since it began operations in 1971, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has never been profitable and has received about $21 billion in federal subsidies for operating and capital expenses. In December 1994, at the direction of the administration, Amtrak established the goal of eliminating its need for federal operating subsidies by 2002. However, despite efforts to control expenses and improve efficiency, Amtrak has only reduced its annual net loss from $834 million in fiscal year 1994 to $762 million in fiscal year 1997, and it projects that its net loss will grow to $845 million this fiscal year.1 Amtrak remains heavily dependent on substantial federal operating and capital subsidies. Given Amtrak’s continued dependence on federal operating subsidies, the Conference Report to the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to examine the financial (1) performance of Amtrak’s current routes, (2) implications for Amtrak of multiyear capital requirements and declining federal operating subsidies, and (3) effect on Amtrak of reforms contained in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997.