DOCSLIB.ORG

Port Salford Freight Terminal GRIP 3 Option Selection Interim Report To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Port Salford Freight Terminal GRIP 3 Option Selection Interim Report To Port Salford Freight Terminal GRIP 3 Option Selection Interim report to align current Reference Design and inform the decision process Project No. B1762900 Date: October 2012 Document Reference: B1762900-03/PM/REP/0100 PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012 Document control sheet BPP 04 F8 version 14 July 2012 Project: Port Salford Rail Terminal Client: Peel Holdings Project No: B1762900 Document title: GRIP 3 Option Selection - Interim report to align current Reference Design and inform the decision process Ref. No: B1762900-03/PM/REP/0100 Originated by Checked by Reviewed by Approved by ORIGINAL NAME NAME NAME NAME Jeff Boden Dave MacLennan Richard Lindop Jeff Boden DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS 11/10/12 Document status For Issue REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document status REVISION NAME NAME NAME NAME DATE INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS INITIALS Document status Jacobs U.K. Limited This document has been prepared by a division, subsidiary or affiliate of Jacobs U.K. Limited (“Jacobs”) in its professional capacity as consultants in accordance with the terms and conditions of Jacobs’ contract with the commissioning party (the “Client”). Regard should be had to those terms and conditions when considering and/or placing any reliance on this document. No part of this document may be copied or reproduced by any means without prior written permission from Jacobs. If you have received this document in error, please destroy all copies in your possession or control and notify Jacobs. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document (a) should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole; (b) do not, in any way, purport to include any manner of legal advice or opinion; (c) are based upon the information made available to Jacobs at the date of this document and on current UK standards, codes, technology and construction practices as at the date of this document. It should be noted and it is expressly stated that no independent verification of any of the documents or information supplied to Jacobs has been made. No liability is accepted by Jacobs for any use of this document, other than for the purposes for which it was originally prepared and provided. Following final delivery of this document to the Client, Jacobs will have no further obligations or duty to advise the Client on any matters, including development affecting the information or advice provided in this document. This document has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Client and unless otherwise agreed in writing by Jacobs, no other party may use, make use of or rely on the contents of this document. Should the Client wish to release this document to a third party, Jacobs may, at its discretion, agree to such release provided that (a) Jacobs’ written agreement is obtained prior to such release; and (b) by release of the document to the third party, that third party does not acquire any rights, contractual or otherwise, whatsoever against Jacobs and Jacobs, accordingly, assume no duties, liabilities or obligations to that third party; and (c) Jacobs accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred by the Client or for any conflict of Jacobs’ interests arising out of the Client's release of this document to the third party. PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012 CONTENTS Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................4 2. LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................5 3. SCHEME OVERVIEW ..........................................................................................................................6 4. EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ...........................................................................................................9 5. KEY ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS .................................................................................................. 16 6. SUMMARY OF DISCOUNTED GRIP 2 OPTIONS ............................................................................ 18 7. REVIEW OF GRIP 2 OPTIONS RECOMMENDED TO BE TAKEN FORWARD .............................. 20 8. PRS – SUMMARY OF KEY REQUIREMENTS ................................................................................. 25 9. OPTION 4 - REFERENCE DESIGN OVERVIEW .............................................................................. 27 10. OUTLINE CONSTRUCTION REMIT ................................................................................................. 43 11. DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 49 12. DESIGNERS RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................... 50 13. PROGRAMME ................................................................................................................................... 51 14. ROGS REGULATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 55 15. CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................................... 57 16. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................... 58 PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Port Salford is a £138 million project with planning permission to develop the UK's first tri-modal (served by road, rail and short-sea shipping) inland port facility and distribution park on the Barton Strategic Site adjacent to the Manchester Ship Canal. It is proposed that the Port Salford Freight Terminal be connected by rail to the Liverpool – Manchester via Chat Moss line, between Astley and Patricroft to allow rail access to/from the West Coast Mainline via Parkside Jcn and Earlestown, and to/from the east for services via Manchester. The terminal is to be designed to handle the most modern rail traffic with capacity for 775m (30SLU) trains with up to 16 trains per day (8 in / 8 out) which need to be timetabled to align with the proposed operational planning flows for the route and achieved without impacting other services on the DSE line. A separate study has been commissioned directly by Peel to consider timetable and operational constrains, which have been used to inform the requirements for the form of connection, turnout speeds on/off the main line and extent of signalling The purpose of this Interim Option Selection Report is to align the current Reference Design and inform the decision process with respect to decisions made following submission of the GRIP2 report in February 201, and to: • Provide an overview of the findings contained within the GRIP2 report. • Identify how each of the potential options, that were recommended by the GRIP 2 report to be taken forward, have been considered • Consider the parameters and advantages / disadvantages of each option • Clarify the key constraints and required parameters for design • Provide an outline reference design for the recommended option, that it is anticipated will form the basis for the GRIP3 AIP design. Provide an overview of construction to enable consideration of possession requirements and application timescales therefore. For clarity it should be noted that the outline reference design included within this report is submitted as a basis for discussion and subsequent amendment and development through the GRIP3 process. The outline reference design has not been integrated fully with all RAM requirements within the Project Requirements Specification issued at the end of August 2012, it is however largely compliant therewith, and the requirements of the PRS will be fully integrated into the design as it is progressed. It is recommended, subject to acceptance in principal of the outcomes of the option selection process that has been undertaken to date, that this reference design be taken forward to an IDR1 stage review as the proposed base design. Full; supporting information to the outline reference design– such as Geotechnical Factual Reports, Estimates and Environmental assessment etc, were provided within the GRIP2 report and have not been included again herein as the purpose of this report is to inform the Network Rail Project team of the design progress to date and gain agreement to the baseline position to move forward to GRIP3 design. PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012 2. LOCATION Port Salford is located to the west of Manchester The new Freight terminal is to be constructed in the area bounded by the railway to the north, the M62 to the west, the M60 to the east, and the Manchester Ship Canal to the south. The Freight terminal is connected by rail to the Deal St – Edge Hill railway adjacent to the M62 motorway bridge, by road to the A57, and also be served by shipping along the Manchester Ship Canal from Runcorn PSFD - Options Report 121002R3_1 October 2012 3. SCHEME OVERVIEW The proposal for the operation of a new Freight Terminal at Port Salford is to connect to the Liverpool – Manchester DSE:Deal St – Edge Hill line (commonly referred to as the Chat Moss line), between Astley and Patricroft to allow rail access to/from the West Coast Mainline via Parkside Jcn and Earlestown, and to/from the east for services
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Santa Fe Railway Collection – L.M
    Santa Fe Railway Collection – L.M. HURLEY MANUSCRIPTS L. M. (Mike) HURLEY MANUSCRIPTS COLLECTION The Hurley Manuscripts Collection contains paper materials collected by Mike Hurley. He filed the documents in categories in a four-drawer filing cabinet. The filing cabinet is located in the southwest portion of the Archives within the area dedicated to the various collections which comprise the Santa Fe Railway Collection. The numbering system is Hurley’s. The document categories are: Amtrak and busses; baggage checks; blotters/calendars; books; classification cards; Consists of trains; correspondence of Claude Cravens; Date Nail List; depots; Dispatcher’s Sheet; Engines; Engine 1880 (in Military Park in Newton, KS); Foreign Lines; Harvey House and Dining Cars; Cyrus K. Holliday; I.D. Cards; Line Up and Progies; Lt. Wt.; Magazines; Manuscripts (Inventory of Santa Fe Records at the KHS Topeka, KS); Maps; Mergers; Morse Code; Newton History; Northern Pacific; Oil Lamps; Orders-Train; Passenger Schedules; Passes-Train; Pay Roll; Poems (Railroad); Railroad History; R.P.O.; Research Data; Retirees; Roundhouse; RX. Tower Movement; Seniority Roster; Railroad Slang; Street Cars and A.V.I. Ry; Strike; Telegrams and Line Ups; Tickets; Time Service Department; Track Warrants; Trade Marks; Union Pacific #844 and “City of Wichita”; Water Tower; Work Train Reports; and, Wrecks. FILE DRAWER 5: A-E Amtrak and Busses 1. Amtrak Tickets 25 May 1989 2. Amtrak News Article Topeka Daily Capital-Journal May 12, 1985 321. “All Aboard for Amtrak’s 20th Birthday Rocky Mountain News April 30, 1991 332. “Trains, A Part of Dodge City History, Threaten to Fade Away” Dodge City Daily Globe February 9, 1979 342.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of TTC 2015 06 Final.Pdf
    Status of the Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation Technology Center - 2015 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research, Development, and Technology Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-16/05 Final Report March 2016 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 Swindon and Cricklade Railway
    The Swindon and Cricklade Railway Construction of the Permanent Way Document No: S&CR S PW001 Issue 2 Format: Microsoft Office 2010 August 2016 SCR S PW001 Issue 2 Copy 001 Page 1 of 33 Registered charity No: 1067447 Registered in England: Company No. 3479479 Registered office: Blunsdon Station Registered Office: 29, Bath Road, Swindon SN1 4AS 1 Document Status Record Status Date Issue Prepared by Reviewed by Document owner Issue 17 June 2010 1 D.J.Randall D.Herbert Joint PW Manager Issue 01 Aug 2016 2 D.J.Randall D.Herbert / D Grigsby / S Hudson PW Manager 2 Document Distribution List Position Organisation Copy Issued To: Copy No. (yes/no) P-Way Manager S&CR Yes 1 Deputy PW Manager S&CR Yes 2 Chairman S&CR (Trust) Yes 3 H&S Manager S&CR Yes 4 Office Files S&CR Yes 5 3 Change History Version Change Details 1 to 2 Updates throughout since last release SCR S PW001 Issue 2 Copy 001 Page 2 of 33 Registered charity No: 1067447 Registered in England: Company No. 3479479 Registered office: Blunsdon Station Registered Office: 29, Bath Road, Swindon SN1 4AS Table of Contents 1 Document Status Record ....................................................................................................................................... 2 2 Document Distribution List ................................................................................................................................... 2 3 Change History .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Port Salford and Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme Environmental Statement Addendum
    Port Salford and Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme Environmental Statement Addendum June 2013 Port Salford and Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme Environmental Statement Addendum Contents 1. Introduction 2. Site Description 3. Amended Development Proposals 4. Planning Policy Context 5. Alternatives 6. Ground Engineering and Construction 7. Water Quality 8. Traffic and Transport 9. Air Quality 10. Noise and Vibration 11. Nature Conservation 12. Landscape and Visual Amenity 13. Archaeology 14. Heritage Features 15. Agricultural Land Quality 16. Socio-Economic 17. Hazard and Risk 18. Overall Conclusions 2 Port Salford & WGIS ES Addendum Rail Realignment June 2013 1. Introduction Introduction 1.1. In August 2009 planning permission (Ref: 03/47344/EIAHYB) was granted by Salford City Council (SCC) on behalf of Peel Investments (North) Ltd, for the development of the Port Salford (PS) multimodal freight interchange including rail served distribution warehousing, rail link and sidings, intermodal and ancillary facilities and strategic road improvements (referred to as the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS)). 1.2. The proposals were accompanied by a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment. 1.3. The WGIS and Port Salford proposals have now received a significant award from the Regional Growth Fund and are listed within Government’s National Infrastructure Plan 2011 in recognition of the economic benefits that the scheme will deliver. 1.4. In September 2012 two further permissions were granted to cover minor amendments to the approved A57 road alignment. At the same time the opportunity was taken to amend planning conditions to facilitate a phased approach and update policy references. The two permissions are: I) 12/61611/EIAHYB Application to vary or remove a number of conditions attached to planning permission 03/47344/EIAHYB; and II) 12/61631/EIA Construction of a highway in connection with the re-alignment of the Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme (WGIS) and planning application 12/61611/EIAHYB.
    [Show full text]
  • Colchester – Package 1 Share with Pride
    Colchester – Package 1 Share with Pride 23-Jul-14/ 1 Colchester Station – Project and Planning History PROJECT SCOPE Colchester Station is a key interchange on the Great Eastern Mainline (LTN1) and is historically difficult to block for engineering access. The route through Colchester carries mixed traffic, with large commuter numbers, the single point of access for Electric Freight to Felixstowe Port and a growing leisure market at weekends. The original scope was to deliver 36 Point Ends in Modern Equivalent Form and circa 4100 Linear Metres of Plain Line. The primary driver for the renewal was poor ballast condition leading to Track Quality issues and the associated performance issues. TRACK ACCESS The renewal work for the S&C and PL at Colchester was originally proposed to be delivered a number of years earlier (some elements as long ago as 2008/9). The original planning workshops with the Route, National Express and the Freight Operating Companies explored different vehicles for delivery: - 2x 8 Day Blockades – to complete all works. -1x 16 Day Blockade – to complete all works. - A series of “conventional” 28 and 52 hour Possessions – totalling 26x 52 hour weekends spread over 2 years. These options were discussed in detail with the TOCs and FOCs. There were a number of caveats concerning a blockade strategy. The FOCs would still have had to pass trains through Colchester due to a lack of capacity on the non electrified diversionary route and the TOCs requested to run a service in from both Country and London through the midweek elements of the blockade due to the physical number of passengers they needed to move.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dccconcepts “Modelling Advice” Publication
    A DCCconcepts “Modelling advice” publication DCC Advice #11 Page 1 Wiring Point-work & Special track conditions for DC or DCC Wiring the track… In plain English, with diagrams! If we had a $ or £ or € for every time we’ve been asked how to wire track and point-work, we’d be writing this on a beach somewhere while sipping a cold beer! A great layout needs good trackwork, so first - a word about trackwork and getting good performance. Choose carefully! DO think about making your own turnouts if you have even moderate skills. It is not as hard as you think, needs only basic skills and tools... and we do our best to make it easy with our top quality gauges, trackwork frets and templates. PLUS we will soon provide a detailed “How to make track” tutorial too. Interested? Then call or email us and we will do our best to help you. No matter what scale you will model in, DO NOT even consider using insulated frogs! Yes, lazy retailers who do not understand what they sell - and modellers who have never done a proper job of laying track so it runs well may well recommend it to you… but do NOT be tempted. No matter which brand makes the turnouts, if you use insulated frogs, you WILL have small locos stalling or also suffer from wider wheels bridging the frog tip and creating momentary shorts that are hard to fix and really are a source of constant frustration. Use more realistic rail sizes please: Usually this will be code 55 in N, or Code 75 and 83 in OO or HO Scale.
    [Show full text]
  • DART+ South West Technical Optioneering Report Park West to Heuston Station Area Around Heuston Station and Yard Iarnród Éireann
    DART+ South West Technical Optioneering Report Park West to Heuston Station Area around Heuston Station and Yard Iarnród Éireann Contents Chapter Page Glossary of Terms 5 1. Introduction 8 1.1. Purpose of the Report 8 1.2. DART+ Programme Overview 9 1.3. DART+ South West Project 10 1.4. Capacity Increases Associated with DART+ South West 10 1.5. Key infrastructure elements of DART+ South West Project 11 1.6. Route Description 11 2. Existing Situation 14 2.1. Overview 14 2.2. Challenges 14 2.3. Structures 15 2.4. Permanent Way and Tracks 17 2.5. Other Railway Facilities 19 2.6. Ground Conditions 19 2.7. Environment 20 2.8. Utilities 20 3. Requirements 22 3.1. Specific requirements 22 3.2. Systems Infrastructure and Integration 22 3.3. Design Standards 25 4. Constraints 26 4.1. Environment 26 4.2. Permanent Way 27 4.3. Existing Structures 27 4.4. Geotechnical 27 4.5. Existing Utilities 28 5. Options 29 5.1. Options summary 29 5.2. Options Description 29 5.3. OHLE Arrangement 29 5.4. Permanent Way 30 5.5. Geotechnical 31 5.6. Roads 31 5.7. Cable and Containments 31 5.8. Structures 31 5.9. Drainage 31 6. Options Selection Process 32 6.1. Options Selection Process 32 6.2. Stage 1 Preliminary Assessment (Sifting) 32 6.3. Preliminary Assessment (Sifting) 32 6.4. Stage 2: MCA Process – Emerging Preferred Option 33 DP-04-23-ENG-DM-TTA-30361 Page 2 of 40 Appendix A - Sifting process backup 35 Appendix B – Supporting Drawings 36 Tables Table 1-1 Route Breakdown 11 Table 2-1 Existing Retaining Walls 17 Table 5-1 Options Summary 29 Table 6-1 Sifting
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix J Haddington Branch Line Survey
    Appendix J Haddington Branch Line Survey AllanRail East Lothian Access STAG Physical feasibility of re-opening the Haddington Rail Branch Line Background The reopening of the Haddington Railway branch line from the East Coast Main Line (ECML) at Longniddry to Haddington is one of the options that are required to be considered in the East Lothian Access STAG. This initial report informs the appraisal work of the feasibility of re-opening the railway, some of the issues and problems that would need to be resolved, choices that are available and suggests an order of magnitude cost. Because the rest of the railway is electrified it is assumed that the Haddington branch will also be equipped with standard 25Kv overhead electrification equipment. The report is based on a physical site walk-over on 21 February 2019, carried out by David Prescott of AllanRail who has considerable experience in the initial development of re-opened railways in Scotland including walk-overs on the Stirling – Alloa – Kincardine, Airdrie- Bathgate and Borders Railway routes in the inception and pre-construction stages. This is not an engineering assessment, but an initial view based on observation and experience. The route is considered in the Longniddry to Haddington direction and the report is broken down into key route sections. Connecting to the ECML The ideal connection to the main line has several desirable operating and engineering requirements: · It should be on the Edinburgh side of Longniddry to minimise the occupation of the ECML; · It should provide as
    [Show full text]
  • Local Plan Call for Sites Consultation Form (July 2018)
    Regulation 18 Local Plan Call for Sites Consultation Form (July 2018) The Local Plan will make site specific allocations for housing, employment and green spaces, similar to those in the Revised Trafford UDP. As part of the Issues Paper consultation we welcome the submission of any sites you wish to be considered for development, protection or for some other purpose within Trafford. Each submission will be assessed in terms of its ‘fit’ with the Local Plan and against sustainability criteria, which may ultimately lead to the site being allocated. Sites submitted for development will be assessed to establish their capacity, suitability, availability and achievability, taking into account planning policy, the environment and local constraints and the extent to which they can be mitigated or addressed. Sites submitted to be considered for protection or another purpose will be assessed on their suitability for the proposed use. The Call for Sites will not determine whether a site should be allocated for a particular use, it is a technical exercise aimed at identifying the potential of sites for different allocations. Guidelines Use a separate Call for Sites form for each site Submit an Ordnance Survey map clearly showing the boundaries of the site. If there is more than one landowner, please ensure the land ownership boundaries are clearly defined on the map, and please provide confirmation that each landowner is in agreement of the consideration of the land for possible development. If the site is to be considered in conjunction with other sites, to form a larger development area, please ensure details are clearly provided within the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrification of the Freight Train Network from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the Inland Empire
    Electrification of the Freight Train Network from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to the Inland Empire The William and Barbara Leonard UTC CSUSB Prime Award No. 65A0244, Subaward No. GT 70770 Awarding Agency: California Department of Transportation Richard F. Smith, PI Xudong Jia, PhD, Co-PI Jawaharial Mariappan, PhD, Co-PI California State Polytechnic University, Pomona College of Engineering Pomona, CA 91768 May 2008 1 This project was funded in its entirety under contract to the California Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation, The William and Barbara Leonard University Transportation Center (UTC), California State University San Bernardino, and California Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government and California Department of Transportation assume no liability for the contents or use thereof. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California or the Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. 2 Abstract The goal of this project was to evaluate the benefits of electrifying the freight railroads connecting the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach with the Inland Empire. These benefits include significant reduction in air pollution, and improvements in energy efficiency. The project also developed a scope of work for a much more detailed study, along with identifying potential funding sources for such a study.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Document
    Vol. 7, No.5 June 1980 First AEM-7 Locomotive,_________ ----, I Enters Corridor Revenue Service Amtrak's AEM-7 high-speed elec­ tric locomotive for Northeast Corri­ dor service was officially christened and put into revenue service in a cere­ mony at Washington Union Station on Friday, May 9. The official christening was done by Congressman Robert Edgar (0- Penn.) who smashed the traditional bottle of champagne across the nose of locomotive No. 901. The train powered an Amfleet con­ sist that went out as Metroliner No. lOS . It returned as Metroliner No. 119, departing New York at 3 :30 p.m. The AEM-7 used for the ceremony is the second production unit received by Amtrak. The first, No. 900, has AEM-7 No. 901 leads a consist oj A II1Jleet cars frOIl1 WashinglUn Union Station on its first been sent to the -Department of revenue run. Transportation's test facility at Pueblo, Colorado, fo r endurance testing. Tom Hackney, Amtrak's group vice president, operations and main­ tenance, who was one of the speakers at the ceremony, said, "The AEM-7 has passed its acceptance tests with greater ease than any other locomo­ tive Amtrak has purchased. It is an­ ticipated that it is fully capable of meeting our eXlstmg Metroliner schedules and the two-hour-40-min­ ute schedules, between Washington and New York, to be implemented at the completion of the Northeast Cor­ ridor Improvement Project. "We certainly expect it will im­ Congresslllan Bob Edgar slllashes the challlpagne on No. 901 's nose. Wat ching.
    [Show full text]
  • Anesthesia CODE DESCRIPTION QTY 02-03-00001 N2 O +O2
    Anesthesia CODE DESCRIPTION QTY 02-03-00001 N2 O +O2 measuring apparatus 90 02-03-00002 ICU Ventilator 1,875 02-03-00003 Multi parameter monitor + capnograph 2,742 02-03-00004 Multi parameter monitor 1,674 02-03-00005 Anesthesia machine 933 02-03-00006 Ventilator 579 02-03-00007 Pediatric ventilator . 1,608 02-03-00008 Whirling hygrometer ,(5-50 C ) with measurement 129 ruler . 02-03-00009 Portable oxygen indicator 15 02-03-00010 Blood oximeter estimation unit with accessories and 15 spare parts 02-03-00011 Warmer humidifier for O2 outlet 300 02-03-00012 Anesthesia Ventilator 1,353 02-03-00013 Oxymeter (S-100 pulse oxymeter-ser, No. S0720 class 120 I type BF 02-03-00014 Cartridge for pressure monitoring :- a-mod. No. 7370 108 257 E2258 ser, No.011164 580 02-03-00015 b-mod. No. 7370 109 E2255 ser, No.1006412580 108 02-03-00016 Portable ventilators 1,101 02-03-00017 Pulse oximeter 1,500 02-03-00018 Respiratory humidifier 36 02-03-00019 Pressure recording machin 21 02-03-00020 Oxymeter 51 02-03-00021 Central oxygen flowmeter 200 02-03-00022 Puls Oxymeter : rechargable , portable , finger 100 sensor . 02-03-00023 Resuscitators (a-Good illumination , preferably 204 double light , b-Heater , preferably double light , c-Timer , d-O2 supply , e-Good support for the baby ,to prevent accident & falling down , f-Suitable for all pediatric age groups , g-Pressure transducer.) 02-03-00024 O2 Humedifier The head for fixing the bottle 200 containing the water is preferabley of special metalic material to prevent damage during fixing.
    [Show full text]