DOCSLIB.ORG

An Assessment of the Crashworthiness of Existing Urban Rail Vehicles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportation Final Report Urban Mass Transportation Administration August 1973 - June 1975 Office of Research and Development 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington DC 20590 15. Supplementary Notes U.S. Department of Transportation, transportation Systems Center, *Under contract to: Kendall Square Cambridge. MA Q2142 16. Abstract The crashworthiness of existing urban rail vehicles (passenger cars) and the feasibility of improvements in this area were investigated by Calspan Corporation under contract to the Transportation Systems Center of the U.S. Department of Trans- tation in its role as systems manager for the Urban Mass Transportation Administra- tion's Urban Rail Supporting Technology Program. Both rail-car structural configur- ations and impact absorption devices were studied. From this work, recommendations for engineering standards for urban rail vehicles will be developed. This final report issued under the crashworthiness effort covers: 1. The development of analytical tools to predict passenger threat - environment during collision. 2 . Criteria for predicting passenger injury due to train collisions. 3. An application of injury criteria and analytic models to predict passengei injuries resulting from collisions of trains that represent existing construction types. 4. A preliminary investigation of applying impact absorption devices to transit vehicles. 5. A design study of car structural configurations for improved impact energy management. 6 A review of engineering standards for Urban Rail Car Crashworthiness. The report consists of three volumes: Volume I: Analyses and Assessments of Vehicles, Chapters 1 Through 7 Volume II: Analyses and Assessments of Vehicles, Chapters 8 Through 12, Appendixes and References O Volume III: Train Collision Model User's Manual. Pro 'Vi? 17. K ey Words 18. Distribution Statement i Railway Car Crashworthiness, Train THE PUBLIC Crashes, Transportation Safety, Mass DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THROUGH THE NATIONAL TECHNICAL Transit, Urban Rail Car, Rapid Transit INFORMATION SERVICE, SPRINGFIELD, Car, Crashworthiness, Commuter Rail Car VIRGINIA 22161 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 206 (8-72) Form DOT F 1700.7 Reproduction of completed page authorized PREFACE In support of the Rail Technology Division of the Office of Research and Development of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) , the Transportation Systems Center (TSC) has been assigned systems management responsibility for the UMTA Urban Rail System Supporting Technology Program. As part of this program, TSC is conducting analytical and experimental studies directed towards improved urban rail system safety. A specific goal in the area of safety is reduction of both the number and the severity of injuries that may result from the collision of two trains. On 16 August 1973, TSC contracted with Calspan Corporation to perform this study for the assessment of the crashworthiness of existing urban rail vehicles. This report presents a compilation of relevant background studies conducted prior to the start of this contract and an overall description of the work done during the course of this study conducted for the Rail Technology Division of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration under the TSC Urban Rail Supporting Technology Program. This report is being published in three volumes. Volume I contains analyses and assessments of vehicles, chapters 1 through 7. Volume II contains chapters 8 through 12, all appendixes, and all references. Volume III contains a Train Collision Model User's Manual. The authors take this opportunity to acknowledge the technical contributions to this report made by the program's technical monitor, Dr. Robert Raab of the Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts; and by the Program Manager, Mr. Frederick Rutyna, also of Transportation Systems Center. The contributions of Mr. David J. Segal of Calspan Corporation are also recognized. Mr. Segal developed the computer program used for the analysis and applied this program to the many cases studied. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 1.1 Introduction 1-1 1.1.1 Background 1-1 1.1.2 Scope of Report 1-5 1.2 Summary 1-8 1.2.1 Train Crash Injury Criteria Development 1-8 1.2.2 Rail Car Crashworthiness Analyses 1-9 1.2.3 Cost Effectiveness of Structural Improvements 1-13 1.2.4 Specifications and Standards 1-16 2. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-1 2.1 Major Conclusions 2-1 2.2 Recommendations for Further Study 2-2 3. INJURY-PREDICTION METHODOLOGY FOR TRAIN CRASHES 3-1 3.1 Introduction 3-1 3.2 Present Injury Criteria and Their Applicability to Rail-Car Crashworthiness 3.3 Prediction of Impact Injuries 3-8 3.4 Prediction of Injuries in General Collision Environment 3-14 4. INTEGRATED TRAIN /OCCUPANT CRASH MODELING 4-1 4.1 Introduction 4-1 4.2 Model Description 4-1 4.2.1 Purpose and Overall Operation 4-1 4.2.2 Functioning 4-2 4.3 Application of Model 4-6 5. CHARACTERISTICS OF EXISTING RAILCARS 5-1 5.1 Selection of Representative Cars 5-1 5.2 Car Descriptions 5-7 5.2.1 Silverliner Car 5-7 5.2.2 R-33 Car 5-11 5.2.3 R-44 5-14 v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Page 5.2.4 BART Car 5-16 5.2.5 Silverbird Car 5-20 5.3 General Crashworthiness Data 5-21 5.4 Generation of Car Structural Model 5-47 5.5 Force Versus Deflection Characteristics 5-50 5.6 Relationship Between Structural Crashworthiness and Generic Construction Types 5-60 5.7 Interior Characteristics 5-70 5.7.1 Silverliner 5-72 5.7.2 R-33 Car 5-73 5.7.3 R-44 Car 5-74 5.7.4 BART Car 5-74 5.7.5 Silverbird Car 5-75 6. STRUCTURAL AND INTERIOR INPUTS FOR COLLISION MODEL 6-1 6.1 Introduction 6-1 6.2 Generalized Inputs Representing Existing Car Construction 6-3 6.3 Inputs Representing Deviations from Existing Car Construction 6-6 7. RESULTS OF CRASH SIMULATIONS 7-1 VOLUME TWO 8. RAILCAR OVERRIDE 8-1 8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Previous Collisions 8-2 8.3 Kinematics of Override 8-11 8.4 Initiation of Climbing Loads Between Cars of the Same Design 8-18 8.5 Climbing Conditions at Successively Severe Stages of the Collision 8-25 8.6 Elementary Override Model 8-31 8.7 Calculation of Override Forces and Motions 8-38 9. PRIORITY AREAS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COST EFFECTIVE IMPROVED CAR STRUCTURES 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Relationship of Design Characteristics to Train Crashworthiness 9-2 9.3 Design Concepts 9-7 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) Section Page 9.3.1 Body Construction 9-7 9.3.2 Energy Absorbers 9-18 9.4 Approximate Weight and Cost Estimates of Design Concepts 9-26 9.4.1 General 9-26 9.4.2 Cost Methodology: Initial and Recurring Costs 9-27 9.4.3 Weight and Cost Estimates for Car Body Structural Additions 9-31 9.4.4 Weight and Cost Estimates for Energy Absorbers 9-33 10. PRELIMINARY DESIGN STUDY OF IMPACT ENERGY ABSORBING DEVICE 10-1 10.1 Introduction 10-1 10.2 Energy Absorption Potential 10-1 10.3 Design Investigation 10-10 11. COST EFFECTIVENESS OF STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS 11-1 12. DEVELOPMENT OF UNIFORM STANDARDS 12-1 12.1 Introduction 12-1 12.2 Review of Existing Standards 12-1 12.3 Permanent Standards and Interim Standards 12-11 12.3.1 General Approach 12-11 12.3.2 Scope 12-11 12.3.3 Design Criteria 12-12 12.3.4 Applicability of Design Guidelines, Design Standards and Performance Standards 12-12 APPENDIX A. REVIEW OF INJURY CRITERIA DEFINED IN LITERATURE A-l APPENDIX B. REPORT OF INVENTIONS B-l REFERENCES R-l vii LIST OF FIGURES 3- Figure4- Page 3-15- Train Crash Dynamics 3-7 3-2 Flow Chart, Crash to Injury 3-9 3 Degree of Injury Severity 3-15 1 Simplified Schematic Diagram of Typical Train Configuration Modeled 4-4 1 Exterior of Silverliner Car 5-7 5-2 Interior of Silverliner Car 5-9 5-3 Changing Facing Direction of Silverliner Seats 5-10 5-4 Exterior of R-33 Car 5-11 5-5 Interior of R-33 Car 5-13 5-6 Exterior
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]
  • November 14, 2014 in Honor of Veterans Day This Week, My Thanks
    Dear All: November 14, 2014 In honor of Veterans Day this week, my thanks go out to the men and women of yesterday, today and tomorrow who have and who will sacrifice so much for the U.S.A. It seems to me, the train world really comes alive during the holidays to help us remember years gone by. So many of you volunteer your time to set up and run a layout at various locations, how amazing it is because you are touching the lives of so many in a positive and healthy way. Bravo! I would love to include YOUR story with the next e‐ blast that connects your family memories with the holiday season and the world of trains. I think it would be great to share these stories over the next several weeks leading up to the end of 2014! What did you say? You have pictures to go along with the story, well send them along to me and as long as they are family friendly I’ll share them with those that read the eblast. As a reminder, the eblasts and attachments will be placed on the WB&A website under the “About” tab for your viewing/sharing pleasure http://www.wbachapter.org/2014%20E‐ Blast%20Page.htm The attachments are contained in the one PDF attached to this email in an effort to streamline the sending of this email and to ensure the attachments are able to be received. If you need a PDF viewer to read the document which can be downloaded free at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrviewer/acrvd nld.html.
    [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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Trips, Excursions, Special Journeys, Outings, Tours, and Milestones In, To, from Or Through New Jersey
    TRANSPORTATION TRIPS, EXCURSIONS, SPECIAL JOURNEYS, OUTINGS, TOURS, AND MILESTONES IN, TO, FROM OR THROUGH NEW JERSEY Bill McKelvey, Editor, Updated to Mon., Mar. 8, 2021 INTRODUCTION This is a reference work which we hope will be useful to historians and researchers. For those researchers wanting to do a deeper dive into the history of a particular event or series of events, copious resources are given for most of the fantrips, excursions, special moves, etc. in this compilation. You may find it much easier to search for the RR, event, city, etc. you are interested in than to read the entire document. We also think it will provide interesting, educational, and sometimes entertaining reading. Perhaps it will give ideas to future fantrip or excursion leaders for trips which may still be possible. In any such work like this there is always the question of what to include or exclude or where to draw the line. Our first thought was to limit this work to railfan excursions, but that soon got broadened to include rail specials for the general public and officials, special moves, trolley trips, bus outings, waterway and canal journeys, etc. The focus has been on such trips which operated within NJ; from NJ; into NJ from other states; or, passed through NJ. We have excluded regularly scheduled tourist type rides, automobile journeys, air trips, amusement park rides, etc. NOTE: Since many of the following items were taken from promotional literature we can not guarantee that each and every trip was actually operated. Early on the railways explored and promoted special journeys for the public as a way to improve their bottom line.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Data on Suspension Systems of Selected Rail Passenger Cars RR 5931R 5021
    Design Data on Suspension U.S. Department Systems of Selected Rail of Transportation Federal Railroad Passenger Cars Administration Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 ~ail Vehicles & lonents 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. 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. Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMS No. 0704-0188 " Public reporting bulden for this collection of infonnation is estimated to average 1 hourper response. including the time for naviewing instructions. sean:hin9 existing data sources. gathering and maintaining the data needed. and completing and naviewing the collection of information. send comments regarding this bulden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information. including suggestions for reducing this bulden. to WashingICn Headquarters services Dinactorata for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway. SUite 1204, Arlington. VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperworlc Reduction Project (07~188). Washington. DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND OATES COVE~EO July 1996 Final Report ~ober1993-December1994 4. TITLE AND SUBnTLE S. FUNDING NUMBERS Design Data on Suspension Systems of Selected Rail Passenger Cars RR 5931R 5021 6. AUTHORS Alan J. Bing. Shaun R. Berry and Hal B. Henderson 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZAnON NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANlZAnON Arthur D.
    [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]