DOCSLIB.ORG

Experience Areas of Specialization

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Experience Areas of Specialization Theodore von Rosenvinge IV, P.E., D.GE Senior Principal EXPERIENCE GeoDesign, Inc. - 2/95 to Present Berger, Lehman Associates, P.C. - 5/92 to 1/95 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. – Boston & CT 7/80 to 4/92 T.W. Lambe (MIT) 1979-80, other firms - 2 years 1975-78 co-op Composite Construction 1973-1975 EDUCATION AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION M.S., 1980, Civil Engineering (geotechnical specialization), MIT Geotechnical Engineering B.S., 1978, Civil Engineering, Northeastern University Constructibility/Peer Review M.B.A., 1993, University of Connecticut (Finance) Foundation Engineering Dispute Resolution Board Training, 2003 Soil Mechanics/Slopes Deep Foundations/Excavation PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION Registered Professional Engineer: NY, TN, NJ, CT, MA, ME, VT, NH, RI, MI, PA, TX, FL, MD, LEED AP PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Mr. von Rosenvinge began his career as a union construction worker in Boston before engineering school for structural engineering and an advanced degree in geotechnical engineering. Geotechnical engineering experience includes field engineer to principal in the responsible charge of hundreds of projects involving foundation engineering for hi-rise buildings, major bridges, rail facilities, marine projects, earthwork/underground construction, earth retention structures and slopes, computational analysis for soil structure interaction, slope stability, soil and rock mechanics, rock engineering, blasting/vibration analysis, forensic/expert witness, field and lab testing, geotechnical instrumentation. Founding GEODesign, Inc. in 1995 the consulting firm currently has 30 employees in five states (CT/VT/NJ/OR and NY-Manhattan) specializing in geotechnical, geostructural and construction engineering. He has published numerous professional papers and articles on underground construction, analysis and foundation engineering. Chair – Town of Weston, Connecticut Conservation Commission, member 2012 to present SELECTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE Consultant for Blasting – including assignments for Town of Scarsdale, Village of Ardsley, Westchester County NY, Connecticut Light and Power Towers (Route 7 Extension, Brookfield, CT), Vets Explosives (Prepared blasting plan, Greenwich, CT project), ConnDOT (I-95 Bridge rock blasting specifications, Westport, CT), Rockland County/Sewer District MTA 7 Line, Site P Station Excavation, Manhattan, NY – Excavation support of soil, and rock stabilization/reinforcement with rock bolting for 100 foot deep subway station excavation through 20 ‘ of soil and 80’ of rock. Analysis of Rock Slope Failure, Taquesi River Project, Hydroelectrica Boliviana, Bolivia – inspection, review and analysis of 120 foot high slope following rock slide along roadway. Geological review, joint measurement and mapping of discontinuities and stability analysis. Report for international insurance company on cause ($60 million design build project) – see publications. Vibration Monitoring Program, Greenwich, CT – design and implementation of vibration monitoring for pile driving to replace seawall within feet of existing building . Page 1 CONNECTICUT • NEW JERSEY • NEW YORK CITY • VERMONT www.geocompanies.com Theodore von Rosenvinge IV, P.E., D.GE Senior Principal Geotechnical Peer Review for 60 story building with four levels of underground Parking, Boston, MA – basement concrete slurry retaining walls constructed down to bedrock with up-down method within feet of two adjacent high-rise buildings, retained by developer (Millennium Partners) to peer review the design. Blueberry Hill Healthcare, Beverly, MA – geotechnical consultant for foundation design including rock removal by blasting with 5 feet of existing nursing home Shriner’s Hospital for Children, Springfield, MA – ground improvement by vibroflotation directly adjacent to operating hospital using vibratory method to densify deep loose sands Soil Nail Wall Analysis and Design for Slope Stabilization, Farmington, CT –analysis and design of permanent nail wall, UCONN Health Center (50+ foot high – technical reviewer for GeoDesign design) Design of 40 foot high rock slope, Danbury, CT – blasting recommendations including requirement to pre- split rock face to expand parking behind existing hotel with steep slope and manufacturing facility above cut I-84 Interchange Improvements, Farmington, CT – geotechnical consultant for interchange reconstruction and improvement where Rtes. 4, 9 and Mainline I-84 merge. Widening of 4 bridges, two new bridges and overall widening of highway embankments Millennium Tower, San Francisco – expert retained by structural engineer of record during post construction providing analysis and design concepts for stabilization of foundation for new 58 story residential tower Sky Building (71 Stories) 605 West 42nd Street, Manhattan, NY – geotechnical consulting/design of multilevel underground excavation support system for high rise building construction including lateral support system wall design, and basement excavation in rock below adjacent hi-rise building, design of rock bolting support. Mystic Marinelife Aquarium Expansion, Mystic, CT – geotechnical foundation design for $45 million (1996 $) of new buildings, outdoor exhibits, whale tanks and construction within the existing facility. Pile driving and rock anchor installation in extremely sensitive environment. Ground improvement by blasting for 500,000 square foot industrial building at Westover Air Force Base Park - densification by blasting of loose liquefaction-susceptible soils. Rare use of this technique at the time (circa 1990) – see publications MetroNorth Hudson Line Embankment Stabilization, Hudson River – Peekskill, NY – Geotechnical engineer in charge of embankment stabilization to support Hudson Line tracks next to 100 feet deep river. Designed drilled shaft tangent pile, tied back retaining wall socketed into underwater bedrock slope. ENR 2014 Merit Award and ACEC NY Engineering Excellence Platinum Award (2015). Consultant to Connecticut Department of Transportation - Tomlinson Bridge Foundations - technical assistance/consultation for drilled shaft rock sockets, expert witness 120-million $ claim including review of caisson rock socket installation DSC claim and analysis of cofferdam collapse. Testimony/presentation in mediation and arbitration proceedings. Kittery, Maine Waterfront Bulkhead – expert witness report and arbitration testimony related to drilled shaft installation for rock socketed king piles Analysis of Highway Wall Failure - Central Artery Contract CO7A, Third Harbor Tunnel, East Boston, MA - Analysis of cause of excessive movement of tied-back soil mix wall for 25 meter deep excavation in . Page 2 CONNECTICUT • NEW JERSEY • NEW YORK CITY • VERMONT www.geocompanies.com Theodore von Rosenvinge IV, P.E., D.GE Senior Principal Boston Blue Clay, causing Logan Airport Taxiway to settle, expert witness/mediation for general contractor insurance co. Tennessee DOT/Attorney General – Consultant to state of Tennessee for claims related to highway slopes, retaining walls and earth retention systems for highway improvements in Chattanooga, Nashville area, Memphis (multiple projects). Chattanooga project included multiple levels of tied-back permanent retaining walls to facilitate highway widening through rock hillside. Teton Village, WY – construction phase consultation and analysis of cut below water table for two levels of basement in glacial soils, recommendations to restore and maintain bottom stability Mine Tunnel Collapse, Cheshire, CT - evaluation of abandoned barite mine tunnels in rock and surface sinkhole collapse/damages to residential neighborhood. Geotechnical investigations, analysis, and foundation design 19-story City Place II, Hartford, CT Tunnel Damage, Kingston, NY - consultant for municipality for deep combined sewer tunnel in soil and rock damaged during jet grouting repairs Slope Failure, Municipal Facility, Glastonbury, CT – evaluation of boat house and community facility on banks of Connecticut River 20-story 99 Summer Street, 31-story 101 Federal Street and 399 Boylston Street. For the 101 Federal Street Slurry Shafts - Engineer-in-charge for design of first project in Boston (1986) to use the slurry method to install drilled caissons. Caissons were up to 87 inches in diameter, 100 feet long, and socketed 5 to 26 feet into bedrock to support a 31 story building (see publications list). Summer House Tower, Stamford CT – geotechnical engineer for 250 ton micropile foundations for 22 story luxury residential tower Due Diligence Peer Review for Major Corporate Investor, Tremley Point Warehouse Development, Linden, Union County, New Jersey – 350 Acre Site, 4 million square feet Bridgeport Harbor Project (CT) - $300 million power plant (Siemens/Fluor Daniel/Duke Energy/United Illuminating) subsurface explorations, geotechnical design support, and field inspection for foundations consisting of over 500 2-foot diameter drilled shafts, rock-socketed into schistose gneiss 10 to 20 meters below ground surface. Emergency Response – geotechnical consultant to MetroNorth RR and Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) during Tropical Storm Irene – Fast track design of emergency measures to address storm damage causing miles of highway embankment failures, design of remedial measures, slope stability analysis, remediation of foundation collapses and erosion including highway and railroad bridge replacements I-91 Highway Embankment Stabilization - Geotechnical consultant for analysis and redesign of highway embankment stabilization using caissons for US Army Corps
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Potential Options Table
    POTENTIAL OPTIONS CODE WORKING GROUPS TOS TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AND SAFETY GM GOODS MOVEMENT TS TRANSIT SERVICES BP BIKE/PEDESTRIAN ENV ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT # CODE NO. DESCRIPTION (**) 1 TOS-1 Encourage employers to offer flexible schedules so traffic is not always congested at the same times. 2 TOS-2 Improve signage along Cross Bronx Expressway. 3 TOS-3 Establish breakdown lane and shoulders on major roadways. 4 TOS-4 Examine local and mainline bridges to facilitate traffic flow. 5 TOS-5 Eliminate TDM measures to divert traffic to alternate routes-this hurts local communities. 6 TOS-6 Create an exit on Cross Bronx Expressway near the Sheridan Expressway (near Boston Road) in the area of the former industrial park (174 – 176th Streets) which will become a 136,00 square ft. retail center. 7 TOS-7 Improve road conditions in the Bronx. 8 TOS-8 The intersection of Devoe Avenue and 177th Street should be examined so that its congestion problem can be improved. 9 TOS-9 Improve operational/geometric conditions along parallel major arterials in Major Deegan Expressway corridor (e.g., University Avenue and Grand Concourse). 10 TOS-10 Construct service roads/c-d roads on Major Deegan Expressway. Options are continuous, partial and directional (nb/sb) service/c-d roads. 11 TOS-11 Improve mainline horizontal geometry on Major Deegan Expressway, south of 145th Street. 12 TOS-12 Examine option to divert Cross Bronx Expressway-Henry Hudson Parkway traffic to Washington Bridge as alternative route to the Alexander Hamilton Bridge. Option to increase outer lane usage and to reduce congestion on inner lanes on Trans- Manhattan Expressway.
    [Show full text]
  • NYSDOT "Rail Program-Report 1985"
    ~.. ~~\ . , t····_, & NEW YORK STATE RAIL PROGRAM REPORT ·1985 . Prepared by the Rail Division November 1985 NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MARIO M. CUOMO, Governor FRANKLIN E. WHITE, Commissioner NEW YORK STATE RAIL PROGRAM REPORT 1985 Prepared in compliance with the rules and regulations for the: State Rail Pian, per Section 5 (j) of the Department of Transportation Act; and Annual Report to the State legislature, per Chapter 257, Section 8, of the Laws of 1975 and Chapter 369, Section 2 of the laws of 1979. TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE INTRODUCTION iv CHAPTER 1: NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL PROGRAM 1 A. PROGRAM ELEMENTS 1 B. ACHIEVEMENTS 3 CHAPTER 2: NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL POLICY 6 A. AUTHORITY 6 B. POLICY 6 C. PLANNING PROCESS 9 CHAPTER 3: NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL SYSTEM 12 A. NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL FREIGHT SYSTEM 12 B. INTERCITY RAIL PASSENGER SERVICE 13 CHAPTER 4: RAIL ISSUES 18 CHAPTER 5: PROGRAM OF PROJECTS 29 A. PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS 29 B. CURRENT PROGRAM OF RAIL PROJECTS 30 C. PROJECTS UNDER REVIEW FOR FUTURE FUNDING 33 MAP 1 - NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL/HIGm~AY SYSTEM M.l MAP 2 - NEW YORK STATE'S RAIL SYSTEM M.2 APPENDIX I - PROJECTS COMPLETED UNDER NEW YORK STATE'S Al.1 RAIL PROGRAM A. 1974 BOND ISSUE Al.1 B. 1979 BOND ISSUE A1.3 C. FEDERAL LOCAL RAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM A1.4 D. STATE RAILASSISTANCE PROGRAM Al.5 E. RAILROAD BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Al.6 APPENDIX II - RAIL ABANDONMENTS A2.1 A. RAIL LINES ABANDONED DURING 1983-84 WITH NO A2.1 CONTINUATION OF SERVICE B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Structuring of Rail Concessions
    RAIL FREIGHT IN NEW YORK CITY: A Global View Transportation Research Forum New York City 6 May 2002 Henry Posner III, Chairman Railroad Development Corporation I am truly honored to be here today as I know so many of you in the audience. I would like to give you my personal opinions about New York, which are also the official positions of Railroad Development Corporation (RDC). The agenda today is therefore to provide some background on RDC; the U.S. short line industry; the overseas rail privatization industry; case studies concerning overseas railways and New York City; and to draw some conclusions. Let me first apologize for the extremely pretentious title of this presentation. I really tried to think up something that would be less pretentious. The idea is not to pompously shove any out-of-town opinions down anyone’s throat; but rather to raise people’s consciousness as to how rail freight in New York stacks up against the world on the other side of the Hudson River and also the world on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. Background on RDC RDC is a small company and one could say that we are probably among the least successful of the short line companies, at least in the USA. We are a privately held company and, while we have not been particularly successful in the USA, we have found a niche for ourselves in what we describe as Emerging Corridors in Emerging Markets – rail privatizations with related businesses like ports, etc. in smaller countries, and in particular developing countries.
    [Show full text]
  • Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan (2005)
    National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Canadian Pacific Railway CSX Transportation MTA Metro-North Railroad New York State Department of Transportation Hudson Line Railroad Corridor Transportation Plan Final Report (Document No. M40801-11/9518/STU-137) November 2005 Prepared by: In association with: ZETA-TECH Associates, Inc. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1 2. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE HUDSON LINE SCENARIOS ...................2 2.1. Development and Calibration of the Simulation Model (2002 Baseline)......... 2 2.1.1. 2002 Baseline Inputs ....................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2. 2002 Baseline Simulation Results ................................................................................. 6 2.2. Future Year (2022) Baseline ........................................................................................ 7 2.2.1. 2022 Baseline Inputs ....................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. 2022 Baseline Simulation Results ................................................................................. 8 2.3. Future Year (2022) Alternatives................................................................................10 2.3.1. 2022 Scenario 1 Inputs..................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in Mobility
    Investing in Mobility FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN THE HUDSON REGION THE EAST OF HUDSON RAIL FREIGHT OPERATIONS TASK FORCE Investing in Mobility FREIGHT TRANSPORT IN THE HUDSON REGION Environmental Defense and the East of Hudson Rail Freight Operations Task Force On the cover Left:Trucks exacerbate crippling congestion on the Cross-Bronx Expressway (photo by Adam Gitlin). Top right: A CSX Q116-23 intermodal train hauls double-stack containers in western New York. (photo by J. Henry Priebe Jr.). Bottom right: A New York Cross Harbor Railroad “piggypacker” transfers a low-profile container from rail to a trailer (photo by Adam Gitlin). Environmental Defense is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people, including the right to clean air, clean water, healthy food and flourishing ecosystems. Guided by science, we work to create practical solutions that win lasting political, economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-effective and fair. The East of Hudson Rail Freight Operations Task Force is committed to the restoration of price- and service-competitive freight rail service in the areas of the New York metropolitan region east of the Hudson River. The Task Force seeks to accomplish this objective through bringing together elected officials, carriers and public agencies at regularly scheduled meetings where any issue that hinders or can assist in the restoration of competitive rail service is discussed openly. It is expected that all participants will work toward the common goal of restoring competitive rail freight service East of the Hudson. ©2004 Environmental Defense Printed on 100% (50% post-consumer) recycled paper, 100% chlorine free.
    [Show full text]
  • New York State Freight Transportation Plan Background Analysis (Deliverable 1)
    NEW YORK STATE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PLAN BACKGROUND ANALYSIS (DELIVERABLE 1) JUNE 2015 PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NEW YORK STATE FREIGHT TRANSPORTATION PLAN BACKGROUND ANALYSIS (DELIVERABLE 1) PREPARED FOR: NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ III 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 COMMON GOALS AND THEMES................................................................................................... 2 2.1 | Goals Identification ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 | Theme Identification ...................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 | Gap Identification......................................................................................................................... 10 Gaps in Geographic Coverage......................................................................................................................................... 10 Gaps in Modal Coverage ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Gaps in Coordination ......................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 7338-252 / I-95 Nerops Tech Memo 1
    I-95 Corridor Coalition Northeast Rail Operations Study (NEROps) Phase I Final Report July 2007 Northeast Rail Operations Study (NEROps) Phase I Final Report Prepared for: I-95 Corridor Coalition Sponsored by: I-95 Corridor Coalition New York State Department of Transportation Connecticut Department of Transportation Rhode Island Department of Transportation Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation Vermont Agency of Transportation New Hampshire Department of Transportation Maine Department of Transportation Prepared by: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Steve Slavick of New York State Department of Transportation for leading the project Steering Committee, and to all those from the public and private sector who contributed to the report. A full list of participants can be found in the Appendices. July 2007 This report was produced by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, a partnership of state departments of transportation, regional and local transportation agencies, toll authorities, and related organizations, including law enforcement, port, transit and rail organizations, from Maine to Florida, with affiliate members in Canada. Additional information about the Coalition, including other project reports, can be found on the Coalition’s web site at http://www.i95coalition.org. Questions about the NEROps Phase I Final Report should be directed to: Marygrace Parker I-95 Corridor Coalition Freight, Mobility, Safety & Security Coordinator Northeast Rail Operations Study (NEROps) Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • View of Harlem River Looking Fig
    Beile Yin, Ph.D., PE, F. ASCE 14Wcee 2008 05-02-0061 SEISMIC DESIGN OF TWO NEW YORK BRIDGES Beile Yin, Ph.D., PE, F. ASCE, Hardesty & Hanover, LLP, New York, USA ABSTRACT The Third Avenue Bridge and Willis Avenue Bridge are two adjacent bridges each carrying one directional traffic across Harlem River in New York City. The replacement of 100-year old Third Avenue Bridge is complete. The new 5-lane crossing consists of 17 approach spans and a 107-m long swing span for an overall bridge length of 457m. Including on-grade approaches, the overall project length is 1067m. Construction of the $118.8 million bridge replacement project began in 2001 and completed in 2005. The Willis Avenue Swing Bridge over the Harlem River is being replaced under a $612 million project which is massive in scope as it extends over a mile in length, passes over the Harlem River and an adjoining railyard and provides connections between two major highways as well as three major arterial streets. The new alignment not only dramatically improves the alignment from that of the 100 year old existing bridge but also facilitates maintaining 70,000 vehicles per day of roadway traffic as well as maintaining navigation on the river. The project centerpiece is a new four lane, 106 meter long swing span. This paper focuses on the seismic analysis and seismic design of the two bridges. Challenges faced by the designers of the new bridge, and solutions developed to meet these challenges will be introduced. Since similarities exist between these two bridges, more detailed description will be on one of them, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Network and Infrastructure
    TECHNICAL MEMO NYMTC Regional Freight Plan Update 2015-2040 Interim Plan Task 2.1.2 Rail Network and Infrastructure REVISED, JANUARY 2014 technical memorandum Task 2.1.2 Technical Memorandum Rail Network and Infrastructure Revised, January 30, 2014 Task 2.1.2 Technical Memorandum Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0 Institutional Structure ........................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Background .................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Class I Carriers and Affiliates ................................................................... 2-4 CSX................................................................................................................ 2-4 Norfolk Southern (NS) ............................................................................... 2-6 Conrail Shared Assets ................................................................................ 2-9 Canadian Pacific (CP) ............................................................................... 2-10 2.3 Short Line and Regional Firms ............................................................... 2-10 Housatonic Railroad ................................................................................. 2-10 New York and Atlantic Railway ............................................................. 2-10 New York New Jersey Rail .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Viabilityofoakpoint
    State of New York Office of the State Comptroller Division of Management Audit NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF STUDY: THE VIABILITY OF THE OAK POINT LINK AND HARLEM RIVER YARD PROJECTS REPORT 95-D-43 H. Carl McCall Comptroller State of New York Office of the State Comptroller Division of Management Audit Report 95-D-43 Mr. John B. Daly Commissioner NYS Department of Transportation State Office Building Campus - Building #5 Albany, New York 12232 Dear Mr. Daly: The following is our staff study of the viability of the Oak Point Link and the Harlem River Yard projects. We did this study according to the State Comptroller's authority as set forth in Section 1, Article V of the State Constitution and Section 8, Article 2 of the State Finance Law. We list major contributors to this report in Appendix A. February 5, 1997 In an effort to reduce the costs of printing, if you wish your name to be deleted from our mailing list or if your address has changed, contact Raymond W. Cecot at (518) 474-3271 or at the Office of the State Comptroller, Alfred E. Smith State Office Building, 13th Floor, Albany, NY 12236. Executive Summary New York State Department Of Transportation Staff Study: The Viability Of The Oak Point Link And Harlem River Yard Projects Scope of Study In the early 1970s, the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the City of New York identified a series of capital improvements (that included raising rail clearances) to improve the rail freight network in the downstate region of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • EMPLOYEE TIMETABLE Timetable No. 4 Effective February 5, 2006
    EMPLOYEE TIMETABLE Timetable No. 4 Effective February 5, 2006 FOR EMPLOYEES ONLY R. E. Lieblong Senior Vice President – Operations GO 413 (4-10) Employee Timetable INTRODUCTION The Employee Timetable contains four parts, plus Track Charts which are provided for information only. Line Special Instructions contain Line- and Branch-specific information and rules. Each section has a prefix identifying the Line or Branch, and is numbered as shown in the table below. Hudson Line Special Instructions are separated into two sections: • GCT 41 through GCT 48 apply only to the portion of the Hudson Line between GCT and the southerly limit of CP 8 (MP 6.9). • HUD 41 through HUD 48 apply only to the portion of the Hudson Line between the southerly limit of CP 8 (MP 6.9) and Division Post/CSX (MP 75.8), inclusive. Hudson Line New Haven Line New New CP8 CP8 to Branch Branch Branch Branch Canaan Canaan Divison Divison Division Division Danbury Danbury CP 112 to to 112 CP Post/CSX LineHarlem Beacon Line Line Beacon Waterbury Waterbury GCT to CP8 GCT to CP8 Subject Post/Amtrak STATIONS HUD 40 HAR-40 NHV 40 NCN 40 DAN 40 WBY 40 BEA 40 MAX AUTH SPEEDS GCT 41 HUD 41 HAR 41 NHV 41 NCN 41 DAN 41 WBY 41 BEA 41 EQUIP. RESTR. GCT 42 HUD 42 HAR 42 NHV 42 NCN 42 DAN 42 WBY 42 BEA 42 ELECTRICAL OPER. GCT 43 HUD 43 HAR 43 NHV 43 NCN 43 DAN 43 WBY 43 BEA 43 HIGHWAY GRADE GCT 44 HUD 44 HAR 44 NHV 44 NCN 44 DAN 44 WBY 44 BEA 44 CROSSINGS LOCATION OF BULL.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch Accident Investigation Report HQ-2013-18
    Federal Railroad Administration Office of Railroad Safety Accident and Analysis Branch Accident Investigation Report HQ-2013-18 CSX Transportation Intermodal (CSXT) New York City, NY July 18, 2013 Note that 49 U.S.C. §20903 provides that no part of an accident or incident report, including this one, 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. U.S. Department of Transportation FRA File #HQ-2013-18 Federal Railroad Administration FRA FACTUAL RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT TRAIN SUMMARY 1. Name of Railroad Operating Train #1 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. CSX Transportation Intermodal CSXT 000118580 GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Name of Railroad or Other Entity Responsible for Track Maintenance 1a. Alphabetic Code 1b. Railroad Accident/Incident No. Metro North Commuter Railroad Company MNCW 2013071844 2. U.S. DOT Grade Crossing Identification Number 3. Date of Accident/Incident 4. Time of Accident/Incident 7/18/2013 8:29 PM 5. Type of Accident/Incident Derailment 6. Cars Carrying 7. HAZMAT Cars 8. Cars Releasing 9. People 10. Subdivision HAZMAT 0 Damaged/Derailed 0 HAZMAT 0 Evacuated 0 Hudson Line 11. Nearest City/Town 12. Milepost (to nearest tenth) 13. State Abbr. 14. County New York City 9.9 NY BRONX 15. Temperature (F) 16. Visibility 17. Weather 18. Type of Track 91 ̊ F Dusk Clear Main 19. Track Name/Number 20. FRA Track Class 21. Annual Track Density 22. Time Table Direction (gross tons in millions) 2 Freight Trains-40, Passenger Trains-60 North 10.4 U.S.
    [Show full text]