DOCSLIB.ORG

Manea & Whittlesea Stations Enhancements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manea & Whittlesea Stations Enhancements MANEA & WHITTLESEA STATIONS ENHANCEMENTS GRIP 3A Option Selection Report eB Ref – 154815-NRS-REP-MPM-500031 Version 5.0 Infrastructure Projects 11 July 2018 Document management Signature: Prepared by: Tim Milford Date: 11 July 2018 Job Title: Design Engineer Signature: Reviewed by: David Exeter Date: 11 July 2018 Job Title: Programme Manager Signature: Endorsed by: David Exeter Date: 11 July 2018 Job Title: Programme Manager Version Control Date Version Originator Checker Comments First issue with no cost estimation and 02/11/2017 1.0 Shiva Krishna Apostolos Pitsolis construction programme Updated issue incorporating DRN 01/12/2017 2.0 Shiva Krishna Apostolos Pitsolis comments Final Issue incorporating constructability 07/12/2017 3.0 Tim Milford Apostolos Pitsolis comments 09/04/2018 4.0 Tim Milford David Exeter Updated following VM2 workshop Updated following comments received 11/07/2018 5.0 Tim Milford David Exeter from FDC MANEA & WHITTLESEA STATION ENHANCEMENTS 11 July 2018 Network Rail Infrastructure Projects - Strictly Private and Confidential Page i GLOSSARY Acronym Definition ABCL Automatic barrier crossings, locally monitored AHBC Automatic half barrier crossings AOCL Automatic open crossings, locally monitored ARMS Asbestos Risk Management System BGL below ground level BGS British Geological Society Closed Circuit Television: often used for station security and CCTV monitoring level crossings CDM Construction and Design Management Regulations (2015) CRD Client Requirement Document CRP Community Rail Partnership CR-T Contract Requirement - Technical DfT Department for Transport DR Disaster Recovery eB Enterprise Bridge (document management system) ELR Engineering Line Reference EMP Ely March and Peterborough Line. ERORA Efficient Recovery Of Redundant ERTMS European Rail Traffic Management System ETCS European Train Control System FDC Fenland District Council Geo-RINM Rail Infrastructure Network Model GRIP Governance for Railway Investment Projects GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic IDC Inter-Disciplinary Check IDG Infrastructure Design Group IDR Inter-Disciplinary Review IPSD Infrastructure Projects Southern Development LCU Local Control Unit MANEA & WHITTLESEA STATION ENHANCEMENTS 11 July 2018 Network Rail Infrastructure Projects - Strictly Private and Confidential Page ii LED Light Emitting Diode LiDAR Light Detection and Ranging LV Low-Voltage MCB Manually controlled Barriers MCG Manually controlled Gates NR Network Rail OLE Overhead Line Equipment OOU Out of Use ORBIS Offering Rail Better Information Solutions ORR Office of Rail & Road PHCC Points Heating Control Cubicle PVP Positional Video Pixels RAM Route Asset Manager REB Re-locatable Equipment Building RRD Route Requirement Document RRV Road Rail Vehicle RTL Road Traffic Lights SDO Selective Door Operation SPAD Signal Passed at Danger SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest TOCs Train Operating Companies TSR Temporary Speed Restriction UTX Under Track Crossing UWCs User worked crossings (for vehicles) NB: Acronyms will be used throughout this document, please refer to the above table for definitions. MANEA & WHITTLESEA STATION ENHANCEMENTS 11 July 2018 Network Rail Infrastructure Projects - Strictly Private and Confidential Page iii CONTENTS Document management ................................................................................................................ i GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... ii 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1 2. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 3 2.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3 2.2 SCOPE AND EXCLUSIONS ........................................................................................ 3 3. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................. 4 4. SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 SITE SURVEYS ........................................................................................................... 6 4.1.1 Topographical Survey ..................................................................................... 6 4.1.2 Platform Gauging Survey ................................................................................ 6 4.2 DESK TOP SURVEYS ................................................................................................. 7 4.2.1 Drainage survey ............................................................................................. 7 4.2.2 Flood risk assessment .................................................................................... 9 4.2.3 Ecology / Environment Consideration ............................................................. 9 4.2.4 Structures Condition Survey ......................................................................... 10 4.2.5 Geotechnical desk top study ......................................................................... 13 4.2.6 Signalling Survey .......................................................................................... 14 4.2.7 Signal sighting assessment .......................................................................... 15 4.2.8 Track componentry ....................................................................................... 15 4.2.9 Track alignment and Gauging review ............................................................ 15 5. GENERAL DESIGN CONCEPT .......................................................................................... 16 5.1 PLATFORMS ............................................................................................................. 16 5.2 FOOTBRIDGE ........................................................................................................... 17 5.3 TRACK ....................................................................................................................... 17 5.4 SIGNALLING.............................................................................................................. 17 5.4.1 Altering existing systems – condition ............................................................ 17 5.4.2 Altering existing systems – compliance ........................................................ 20 5.4.3 Operational risk ............................................................................................ 23 5.4.4 Operational performance .............................................................................. 23 5.5 LEVEL CROSSINGS .................................................................................................. 24 5.6 ELECTRIFICATION CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................... 25 5.7 LV CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 26 5.7.1 Manea Station .............................................................................................. 26 5.7.2 Whittlesea Station ......................................................................................... 26 MANEA & WHITTLESEA STATION ENHANCEMENTS 11 July 2018 Network Rail Infrastructure Projects - Strictly Private and Confidential Page iv 6. MANEA STATION .............................................................................................................. 28 6.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 28 6.2 EXISTING FEATURES .............................................................................................. 29 6.2.1 Existing layout .............................................................................................. 30 6.2.2 Platforms ...................................................................................................... 30 6.2.3 Station buildings ........................................................................................... 31 6.2.4 Track and Gauging ....................................................................................... 31 6.2.5 Signalling ...................................................................................................... 31 6.2.6 Level crossings ............................................................................................. 33 6.2.7 Drainage ....................................................................................................... 33 6.2.8 NR land ownership ....................................................................................... 34 6.2.9 Buried/other services .................................................................................... 34 6.2.10 Car parking / transport links .......................................................................... 34 6.2.11 Security ........................................................................................................ 34 6.2.12 Accessibility .................................................................................................. 35 6.2.13 Environmental/Heritage/SSSI considerations ............................................... 35 6.2.14 Asbestos......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Union Station Conceptual Engineering Study
    Portland Union Station Multimodal Conceptual Engineering Study Submitted to Portland Bureau of Transportation by IBI Group with LTK Engineering June 2009 This study is partially funded by the US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. IBI GROUP PORtlAND UNION STATION MultIMODAL CONceptuAL ENGINeeRING StuDY IBI Group is a multi-disciplinary consulting organization offering services in four areas of practice: Urban Land, Facilities, Transportation and Systems. We provide services from offices located strategically across the United States, Canada, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. JUNE 2009 www.ibigroup.com ii Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................... ES-1 Chapter 1: Introduction .....................................................................................1 Introduction 1 Study Purpose 2 Previous Planning Efforts 2 Study Participants 2 Study Methodology 4 Chapter 2: Existing Conditions .........................................................................6 History and Character 6 Uses and Layout 7 Physical Conditions 9 Neighborhood 10 Transportation Conditions 14 Street Classification 24 Chapter 3: Future Transportation Conditions .................................................25 Introduction 25 Intercity Rail Requirements 26 Freight Railroad Requirements 28 Future Track Utilization at Portland Union Station 29 Terminal Capacity Requirements 31 Penetration of Local Transit into Union Station 37 Transit on Union Station Tracks
    [Show full text]
  • INDIAN RAILWAYS SCHEDULE of DIMENSIONS 1676Mm Gauge (BG)
    INDIAN RAILWAYS SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONS 1676mm Gauge (BG) REVISED, 2004 SCHEDULE OF DIMENSIONS-1676mm, GAUGE SHEDULE OF DIMENSIONS-1676MM GAUGE Schedule of Dimensions for Indian Railways, 1676mm Gauge Dear Sir/Dear Sirs, With their circular letter No. 735-W. of 1922, the Railway Board issued a Schedule of Maximum, Minimum and Recommended Dimensions to be observed on all 1676mm gauge Railways in India. In that Schedule, certain dimensions of the previous schedule of the year 1913 were modified with the object of permitting the use of enlarged rolling stock. 2. The Schedule of Dimensions of 1922 contained two distinct sections, namely, a schedule of "Maximum and Minimum Dimensions" which was considered to enable the proposed larger vehicles to run with about the same degree of safety as that which was previously obtained on the older Railways with existing stock, and a schedule of "Recommended Dimensions" intended to provide approximately the same clearances from fixed structures for the future larger vehicles as the 1913 schedule gave for existing vehicles. 3. In their circular letter No. 232-Tech.dated the 8th February, 1926, the Railway Board gave instructions that the Recommended Dimensions given in the 1922 Schedule were to be observed on important Railways in all new works and alterations to existing works. These orders were modified in letter No. 232-Tech. of the 26th April, 1926, which allowed a relaxation in the case of certain recommended dimensions, the adoption of which would involve heavy expenditure in remodeling works. 4. In 1929, it was found desirable further to amend the Schedule of 1922 in order to introduce certain improve- ments in the light of experience gained since it was issued, and to provide the clearances required by electric traction equipment on lines which were likely to be electrified in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Safety Distances on Platforms Danger Zone
    Bundesamt für Verkehr BAV Office fédéral des transports OFT Ufficio federale dei trasporti UFT Federal Office of Transport FOT Safety Distances on Platforms Danger Zone – Safety Zone Research Report 2011 Publication details Published by Federal Office of Transport (FOT) CH-3003 Bern Project coordination Federal Office of Transport (FOT) Safety department Nicolas Keusen Text Federal Office of Transport (FOT), Bern Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), Bern Figures Federal Office of Transport (FOT), Bern Daamen, W., Delft, Netherlands (photographs in Figure 8) [8] VSS, Zurich (Figure 9) [5] Citations Federal Office of Transport (FOT), 2011, Research Report - Safety Distances on Platforms, Bern Available from Free of charge from the internet: www.bav.admin.ch French edition: Distances sur les quais – Rapport de recherche Title photo Warning notice for rail passengers 'Safety Distances on Platforms' Research Report Contents III CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND DESIGNATIONS 5 1. SUMMARY 6 1.1 Danger zone 6 1.2 Safety zone 6 2. INTRODUCTION 7 2.1 Background to this report 7 2.2 Layout of the report 7 3. TERMINOLOGY 8 DANGER ZONE 9 4. INTRODUCTION 10 4.1 Subject matter 10 4.2 Purpose 10 4.3 Scope of the study and area to which it applies 10 5. REFERENCE DOCUMENTS 11 6. PROCEDURE AND METHODOLOGY 12 7. DETERMINING PERMISSIBLE AND IMPERMISSIBLE RISKS 13 8. DETERMINING THE STUDY PARAMETERS 14 9. STUDY AND DISCUSSION OF PARAMETERS AND CONSEQUENCES 15 9.1 Clearance profile 15 9.2 Contact 15 9.3 Aerodynamics 17 9.3.1 Theoretical and experimental documents 18 9.3.2 Danger threshold 19 9.3.3 Analysis of the results 20 9.3.4 A comparison between the two studies 21 9.4 Effect of surprise 22 9.4.1 Cause 22 9.4.2 Reaction 22 9.4.3 Conclusion 22 9.5 Noise level 22 9.5.1 Beneficial effect 23 9.5.2 Unfavourable effect 23 9.6 Dust 23 9.7 Behaviour of people on the platform 23 9.8 Local circumstances 24 'Safety Distances on Platforms' Research Report IV Contents 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Llght Rall Translt Statlon Deslgn Guldellnes
    PORT AUTHORITY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT V.4.0 7/20/18 STATION DESIGN GUIDELINES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) provides public transportation throughout Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. The Authority’s 2,600 employees operate, maintain, and support bus, light rail, incline, and paratransit services for approximately 200,000 daily riders. Port Authority is currently focused on enacting several improvements to make service more efficient and easier to use. Numerous projects are either underway or in the planning stages, including implementation of smart card technology, real-time vehicle tracking, and on-street bus rapid transit. Port Authority is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors – unpaid volunteers who are appointed by the Allegheny County Executive, leaders from both parties in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate, and the Governor of Pennsylvania. The Board holds monthly public meetings. Port Authority’s budget is funded by fare and advertising revenue, along with money from county, state, and federal sources. The Authority’s finances and operations are audited on a regular basis, both internally and by external agencies. Port Authority began serving the community in March 1964. The Authority was created in 1959 when the Pennsylvania Legislature authorized the consolidation of 33 private transit carriers, many of which were failing financially. The consolidation included the Pittsburgh Railways Company, along with 32 independent bus and inclined plane companies. By combining fare structures and centralizing operations, Port Authority established the first unified transit system in Allegheny County. Participants Port Authority of Allegheny County would like to thank agency partners for supporting the Light Rail Transportation Station Guidelines, as well as those who participated by dedicating their time and expertise.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents
    Northeast Corridor One-Year Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2017 September 2016 Congress established the Northeast Corridor Commission to develop coordinated strategies for improving the Northeast’s core rail network in recognition of the inherent challenges of planning, financing, and implementing major infrastructure improvements that cross multiple jurisdictions. The expectation is that by coming together to take collective responsibility for the NEC, these disparate stakeholders will achieve a level of success that far exceeds the potential reach of any individual organization. The Commission is governed by a board comprised of one member from each of the NEC states (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland) and the District of Columbia; four members from Amtrak; and five members from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). The Commission also includes non-voting representatives from four freight railroads, states with connecting corridors and several commuter operators in the Region. 2| NEC One-Year Implementation Plan: FY17 Contents Introduction 6 Funding Summary 8 Baseline Capital Charge Program 10 1 - Boston South Station 12 16 - Shore to Girard 42 2 - Boston to Providence 14 17 - Girard to Philadelphia 30th Street 44 3 - Providence to Wickford Junction 16 18 - Philadelphia 30th Street - Arsenal 46 4 - Wickford Junction to New London 18 19 - Arsenal to Marcus Hook 48 5 - New London to New Haven 20 20 - Marcus Hook to Bacon 50 6 - New Haven to State Line 22 21 - Bacon to Perryville 52 7 - State Line to New Rochelle 24 22 - Perryville to WAS 54 8 - New Rochelle to Harold Interlocking 26 23 - Washington Union Terminal 56 9 - Harold Interlocking to F Interlocking 28 24 - WAS to CP Virginia 58 10 - F Interlocking to PSNY 30 25 - Springfield to New Haven 60 11 - Penn Terminal 32 27 - Spuyten Duyvil to PSNY* 62 12 - PSNY to Trenton 34 28 - 30th St.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessibility in Rail Facilities
    9/7/2017 Accessibility in Rail Facilities Kenneth Shiotani Senior Staff Attorney National Disability Rights Network 820 First Street Suite 740 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 408-9514 x 126 [email protected] September 2017 1 ADA Transportation Provisions Making Transportation Accessible was a major focus of the statutory provisions of the ADA PART B - Actions Applicable to Public Transportation Provided by Public Entities Considered Discriminatory [Subtitle B] SUBPART I - Public Transportation Other Than by Aircraft or Certain Rail Operations [Part I] 42 U.S.C. § 12141 – 12150 Definitions – fixed route and demand responsive, requirements for new, used and remanufactured vehicles, complementary paratransit, requirements in new facilities and alterations of existing facilities and key stations SUBPART II - Public Transportation by Intercity and Commuter Rail [Part II] 42 U.S.C. § 12161- 12165 Detailed requirements for new, used and remanufactured rail cars for commuter and intercity service and requirements for new and altered stations and key stations 2 1 9/7/2017 What Do the DOT ADA Regulations Require? Accessible railcars • Means for wheelchair users to board • Clear path for wheelchair user in railcar • Wheelchair space • Handrails and stanchions that do create barriers for wheelchair users • Public address systems • Between-Car Barriers • Accessible restrooms if restrooms are provided for passengers in commuter cars • Additional mode-specific requirements for thresholds, steps, floor surfaces and lighting 3 What are the different ‘modes’ of passenger rail under the ADA? • Rapid Rail (defined as “Subway-type,” full length, high level boarding) 49 C.F.R. Part 38 Subpart C - NYCTA, Boston T, Chicago “L,” D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • DOT/FRA/ORD-09/07 April 2009
    DRAFT DOT/FRA/ORD-09/07 April 2009 Form Approved REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 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. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED April 2009 Final Report April 2009 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS The Aerodynamic Effects of Passing Trains to Surrounding Objects and People BB049/RR93 6. AUTHOR(S) Harvey Shui-Hong Lee 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration DOT-VNTSC-FRA-04-05 John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration DOT/FRA/ORD/09-07 Office of Research and Development 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, D.C. 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
    [Show full text]
  • The Urban Rail Development Handbook
    DEVELOPMENT THE “ The Urban Rail Development Handbook offers both planners and political decision makers a comprehensive view of one of the largest, if not the largest, investment a city can undertake: an urban rail system. The handbook properly recognizes that urban rail is only one part of a hierarchically integrated transport system, and it provides practical guidance on how urban rail projects can be implemented and operated RAIL URBAN THE URBAN RAIL in a multimodal way that maximizes benefits far beyond mobility. The handbook is a must-read for any person involved in the planning and decision making for an urban rail line.” —Arturo Ardila-Gómez, Global Lead, Urban Mobility and Lead Transport Economist, World Bank DEVELOPMENT “ The Urban Rail Development Handbook tackles the social and technical challenges of planning, designing, financing, procuring, constructing, and operating rail projects in urban areas. It is a great complement HANDBOOK to more technical publications on rail technology, infrastructure, and project delivery. This handbook provides practical advice for delivering urban megaprojects, taking account of their social, institutional, and economic context.” —Martha Lawrence, Lead, Railway Community of Practice and Senior Railway Specialist, World Bank HANDBOOK “ Among the many options a city can consider to improve access to opportunities and mobility, urban rail stands out by its potential impact, as well as its high cost. Getting it right is a complex and multifaceted challenge that this handbook addresses beautifully through an in-depth and practical sharing of hard lessons learned in planning, implementing, and operating such urban rail lines, while ensuring their transformational role for urban development.” —Gerald Ollivier, Lead, Transit-Oriented Development Community of Practice, World Bank “ Public transport, as the backbone of mobility in cities, supports more inclusive communities, economic development, higher standards of living and health, and active lifestyles of inhabitants, while improving air quality and liveability.
    [Show full text]
  • Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, the Republic of the Philippines
    Study on Economic Partnership Projects in Developing Countries in FY2014 Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, The Republic of The Philippines Final Report February 2015 Prepared for: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC Japan External Trade Organization Prepared by: TOSTEMS, Inc. Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. Japan Transportation Planning Association Reproduction Prohibited Preface This report shows the result of “Study on Economic Partnership Projects in Developing Countries in FY2014” prepared by the study group of TOSTEMS, Inc., Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. and Japan Transportation Planning Association for Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. This study “Study on Medium Capacity Transit System Project in Metro Manila, The Republic of The Philippines” was conducted to examine the feasibility of the project which construct the medium capacity transit system to approximately 18km route from Sta. Mesa area through Mandaluyong City, Ortigas CBD and reach to Taytay City with project cost of 150 billion Yen. The project aim to reduce traffic congestion, strengthen the east-west axis by installing track-guided transport system and form the railway network with connecting existing and planning lines. We hope this study will contribute to the project implementation, and will become helpful for the relevant parties. February 2015 TOSTEMS, Inc. Oriental Consultants Global Co., Ltd. Mitsubishi Heavy
    [Show full text]
  • Public Transport Buildings of Metropolitan Adelaide
    AÚ¡ University of Adelaide t4 É .8.'ìt T PUBLIC TRANSPORT BUILDII\GS OF METROPOLTTAN ADELAIDE 1839 - 1990 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Architecture and Planning in candidacy for the degree of Master of Architectural Studies by ANDREW KELT (û, r're ¡-\ ., r ¡ r .\ ¡r , i,,' i \ September 1990 ERRATA p.vl Ljne2}oBSERVATIONshouldreadOBSERVATIONS 8 should read Moxham p. 43 footnote Morham facilities p.75 line 2 should read line 19 should read available Labor p.B0 line 7 I-abour should read p. r28 line 8 Omit it read p.134 Iine 9 PerematorilY should PerernPtorilY should read droP p, 158 line L2 group read woulC p.230 line L wold should PROLOGUE SESQUICENTENARY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT The one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the establishment of public transport in South Australia occurred in early 1989, during the research for this thesis. The event passed unnoticed amongst the plethora of more noteworthy public occasions. Chapter 2 of this thesis records that a certain Mr. Sp"y, with his daily vanload of passengers and goods, started the first regular service operating between the City and Port Adelaide. The writer accords full credit to this unsung progenitor of the chain of events portrayed in the following pages, whose humble horse drawn char ò bancs set out on its inaugural joumey, in all probability on 28 January L839. lll ACKNO\ryLEDGMENTS I would like to record my grateful thanks to those who have given me assistance in gathering information for this thesis, and also those who have commented on specific items in the text.
    [Show full text]
  • Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007
    WATERBURY TRAIN STATION VISUAL INSPECTION REPORT January 2007 Prepared by the Bureau of Public Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Overview: The Waterbury Train Station is located near the city’s central business district. Adjacent to the facility is the old Union Station, now owned and occupied by the Waterbury Republican newspaper. Its 245-foot bell tower provides a landmark for locating the station. Using local roads to access the facility is not as easy due to a lack of trailblazing. Upon arriving at the station, one may have trouble locating the parking lot entrance, which is located several hundred feet south. A station sign has been placed at the entrance. The drive is partially obscured by a bank building and its poorly situated exit, which is only several feet from the parking lot driveway. The station itself consists of a short high- level platform, a ramp, two shelters and a parking lot. The station area is clean with only an occasional tossed item. However, the area across from the platform consists of abandoned tracks and railroad debris. The shelters are clean with benches. A recycling bin is located next to the shelters. Between the station and Meadow Street are an abandoned parking structure and vacant office building. The old driveway behind the platform is barricaded against use by commuters. A kiosk is situated at the north end of the platform. Maintenance Responsibilities: Owner: CDOT Operator: CDOT Platform Lights: Metro-North Trash: Metro-North Snow Removal: Metro-North Shelter Glazing: CDOT Platform Canopy: CDOT Platform Structure: CDOT Parking: City Page 2 Waterbury Train Station Visual Inspection Report January 2007 Station Layout: Aerial Photo by Aero-Metric, Inc.
    [Show full text]