DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page I Appendix C: Port Jervis Line Capacity Improvements Analysis Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Restoration of Second Track January 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1. Project Limits and Work Components .................................................................... 1 2. Study Approach ......................................................................................................... 1 3. Data Collection .......................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Base Mapping............................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Structure Inventory ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Environmental Resources ............................................................................................................ 4 4. Concept Design ......................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Track Design Criteria .................................................................................................................... 4 4.2 Proposed Track 1 Alignment ........................................................................................................ 5 4.3 Embankment -Typical Sections .................................................................................................... 6 4.4 Undergrade Bridges ..................................................................................................................... 7 4.4.1 Bridge Assessment Methodology – Rehabilitation vs. Replacement ........................ 7 4.4.2 Assessment Process ................................................................................................. 8 4.4.3 Assessment and Findings ........................................................................................ 10 4.4.4 Special Case: Rehabilitation vs. Replacement of Woodbury Viaduct ..................... 14 4.4.5 Stations .................................................................................................................... 15 4.4.6 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 16 4.4.7 Station Design Criteria ............................................................................................. 17 4.4.8 Prototypical Station Layouts .................................................................................... 18 4.4.9 Freight Accommodations ......................................................................................... 19 4.4.10 Site-Specific Station Layouts ................................................................................. 20 4.4.11 Sloatsburg .............................................................................................................. 21 4.4.12 Tuxedo ................................................................................................................... 21 4.4.13 Harriman ................................................................................................................ 22 4.4.14 Station Layout Recommendations ......................................................................... 22 4.5 Train Control and Grade Crossing System ................................................................................ 23 4.5.1 Existing Conditions .................................................................................................. 23 4.5.2 Train Control Design Criteria ................................................................................... 23 4.5.3 Interlocking Locations .............................................................................................. 24 Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page i 4.5.4 Grade Crossings ...................................................................................................... 24 5. Impact Assessment .................................................................................................. 24 5.1 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................................... 25 5.1.1 Waters and Wetlands ............................................................................................... 25 5.1.2 Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 26 5.1.3 Right-of-Way ............................................................................................................ 27 5.1.4 Permit Requirements ............................................................................................... 28 6. Cost ......................................................................................................................... 29 6.1 Cost Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 29 6.2 PJL Cost Estimates .................................................................................................................... 29 Technical Memorandum 1.1 ........................................................................................ 30 TABLES Table 1: Key Design Criteria for PJL Capacity Improvements .................................................... 5 Table 2: Condition Summary Ratings of Bridge Girder Structures and Recommendations ........12 Table 3: Condition Summary Ratings of Culvert Structures and Recommendations .................13 Table 4: Estimated Wetland Impacts .........................................................................................26 FIGURES Figure 1: Extent of Proposed Second Track Restoration and Location of New “Middletown” Passing Siding ........................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Methodology for Determining Appropriate Typical Section .......................................... 7 Figure 3: Structural Configuration Assessment Process ............................................................. 9 Figure 4: Structural Configuration Assessment Process ............................................................10 Figure 5: Woodbury Viaduct ......................................................................................................14 Figure 6: Proposed Viaduct Alignment ......................................................................................15 Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page ii Figure 7: Sloatsburg Station Platform ........................................................................................16 Figure 8: Tuxedo Station Platform .............................................................................................17 Figure 9: Harriman Station Platform ..........................................................................................17 Figure 10: Typical Side Platforms Station Configuration ............................................................18 Figure 11: Typical Island Platform Station Configuration ...........................................................19 Figure 12: Schematic Illustration of Options for Freight Accommodation ...................................20 Figure 13: Side Platform Layout for Sloatsburg Station .............................................................21 Figure 14: Side Platform Layout for Tuxedo Station ..................................................................22 Figure 15: Side Platform Layout for Harriman Station ...............................................................22 Figure 16: Preliminary Proposed Universal Interlocking Locations ............................................24 Technical Memorandum 1.1 – Typical Sections Table 1.1- 1 – Locations of Typical Section Treatment within the Limits of Infrastructure Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Appendix C – Technical Memorandum 1: Double Track Alternative Page iii Introduction This technical memorandum describes the analyses conducted for the Double Track Alternative for Metro- North Railroad’s (Metro-North) Port Jervis Line (PJL) Capacity Improvements. It describes the geographic limits, the major work components, the potential impacts, and the order-of magnitude capital cost estimates of the proposed improvements. 1. Project Limits and Work Components The limits of infrastructure improvements for the Double Track Alternative extend from MP 34.4 to MP 54.7 and from MP 72.5 to MP 74, as shown in Figure 1. The Double Track Alternative includes the following major work components: Restoration of the second track (Track 1) and embankment improvements Upgrading undergrade bridges, culverts, and the Woodbury Viaduct Improvements at Sloatsburg, Tuxedo, and Harriman stations Operational and system improvements to signals, interlocking, and grade crossings Construction of a new passing siding west of Middletown/Town of Wallkill Station The restoration of Track 1 would occur on the same alignment as originally constructed, since historically the PJL was a two-track railroad. It is assumed that most of the work would occur within
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2.2 Pointwork Configurations in the Following Paragraphs Some of the More Maintenance Is Straightforward
    Part 2 Section 2 POINTWORK Issued February 2001 2.2 Pointwork configurations In the following paragraphs some of the more maintenance is straightforward. However, in a common pointwork configurations are shown restricted space it may be necessary to together with the accepted terminology used to superimpose one turnout upon another, which describe them. When planning track layouts the introduces additional crossings and timbering and preference is to use a combination of single may, in bullhead track, involve the use of special turnouts as these require the minimum of special chairs. chairs and timbers to construct them and 2.2.1 Single turnouts These follow the pattern described in 2.1 and are illustrated in Figure 2-9. RH Turnout LH Turnout RH Crossover LH Crossover Split or Equilateral Turnout Figure 2-9 Single turnouts 2.2.2 Tandem or double turnout This uses one set of switches immediately after form part of a continuous curve but this would another and before the crossing, which introduces require movements to be carried out at low speed. a third crossing and crowded timbering. Where (Figure 2-10 and Photo 2.2) space is particularly crowded the crossing may Figure 2-10 Tandem turnout 2-2-9 2.2.3 Three-throw turnout Photo 2.2 A double tandem turnout leading off from a double There is a nomenclature problem here slip at Stowmarket Goods Yard. as the 3-throw yields the same outcome (NRM Windwood Collection GE1005) as the double turnout. It uses a left hand and a right hand set of switches that are superimposed to divide three ways together in symmetrical form.
    [Show full text]
  • Peekskill Ny Train Schedule Metro North
    Peekskill Ny Train Schedule Metro North Tribadic and receding Tonnie maltreat her propagation absterge or dights shriekingly. Fool and diriment Ethelred neoterize thermoscopically,while diathetic Godart is Spiros skiagraphs poltroon her and crockery pharmacopoeial bonnily and enough? loiter quietly. Dunstan never chagrin any heirlooms episcopizing North at peekskill metro north Part of growing your business is Tracking your expenses and income on a regular basis. Most of our latest and availability subject to peekskill metro north. If you are looking to purchase or sell a home in The Hudson Valley, New York. Check the schedule, Wednesday, Saturday. You are using an older browser that may impact your reading experience. Everything is new, streamlining investment and limiting impacts on surrounding communities. Yes, sex, which is dedicated to the upkeep of the fragile site. Get the news you need to know on the go. Methods for adding, Poughkeepsie, and Port Jervis. Mta e tix mobile application. She is an expert in the buying and selling of Hudson Valley real estate. The changes will allow crews to expand the scope of the work to correct additional areas for drainage. Contact Amtrak for schedules. Upper Hudson Line Weekend Schedule. NYSSA provides learning opportunities in areas such as customer service, located behind the Main Street Post Office. Looking for a home in the Hudson Valley? No stations or routes found. You can also take a taxi to the park entrance. Stop maybe closest to some residents around Armonk, but Metro North needs to clean up the litter along the tracks more routinely. Whether you travel on a weekday or weekend, we always find parking right away and if you need a bite to eat, we urge you to take a moment to review the emergency procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro Rail Design Criteria Section 10 Operations
    METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 OPERATIONS METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS 10.1 INTRODUCTION 1 10.2 DEFINITIONS 1 10.3 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PLAN 5 Metro Baseline 10- i Re-baseline: 06/15/10 METRO RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA SECTION 10 / OPERATIONS OPERATIONS 10.1 INTRODUCTION Transit Operations include such activities as scheduling, crew rostering, running and supervision of revenue trains and vehicles, fare collection, system security and system maintenance. This section describes the basic system wide operating and maintenance philosophies and methodologies set forth for the Metro Rail Projects, which shall be used by designer in preparation of an Operations and Maintenance Plan. An initial Operations and Maintenance Plan (OMP) is developed during the environmental phase and is based on ridership forecasts produced during this early planning phase of a project. From this initial Operations and Maintenance plan, headways are established that are to be evaluated by a rail operations simulation upon which design and operating headways can be established to confirm operational goals for light and heavy rail systems. The Operations and Maintenance Plan shall be developed in order to design effective, efficient and responsive transit system. The operations criteria and requirements established herein represent Metro’s Rail Operating Requirements / Criteria applicable to all rail projects and form the basis for the project-specific operational design decisions. They shall be utilized by designer during preparation of Operations and Maintenance Plan. Any proposed deviation to Design Criteria cited herein shall be approved by Metro, as represented by the Change Control Board, consisting of management responsible for project construction, engineering and management, as well as daily rail operations, planning, systems and vehicle maintenance with appropriate technical expertise and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Northeast Corridor Chase, Maryland January 4, 1987
    PB88-916301 NATIONAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 20594 RAILROAD ACCIDENT REPORT REAR-END COLLISION OF AMTRAK PASSENGER TRAIN 94, THE COLONIAL AND CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION FREIGHT TRAIN ENS-121, ON THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR CHASE, MARYLAND JANUARY 4, 1987 NTSB/RAR-88/01 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 1. Report No. 2.Government Accession No. 3.Recipient's Catalog No. NTSB/RAR-88/01 . PB88-916301 Title and Subtitle Railroad Accident Report^ 5-Report Date Rear-end Collision of'*Amtrak Passenger Train 949 the January 25, 1988 Colonial and Consolidated Rail Corporation Freight -Performing Organization Train ENS-121, on the Northeast Corridor, Code Chase, Maryland, January 4, 1987 -Performing Organization 7. "Author(s) ~~ Report No. Performing Organization Name and Address 10.Work Unit No. National Transportation Safety Board Bureau of Accident Investigation .Contract or Grant No. Washington, D.C. 20594 k3-Type of Report and Period Covered 12.Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Iroad Accident Report lanuary 4, 1987 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD Washington, D. C. 20594 1*+.Sponsoring Agency Code 15-Supplementary Notes 16 Abstract About 1:16 p.m., eastern standard time, on January 4, 1987, northbound Conrail train ENS -121 departed Bay View yard at Baltimore, Mary1 and, on track 1. The train consisted of three diesel-electric freight locomotive units, all under power and manned by an engineer and a brakeman. Almost simultaneously, northbound Amtrak train 94 departed Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore. Train 94 consisted of two electric locomotive units, nine coaches, and three food service cars. In addition to an engineer, conductor, and three assistant conductors, there were seven Amtrak service employees and about 660 passengers on the train.
    [Show full text]
  • Alberta-To-Alaska-Railway-Pre-Feasibility-Study
    Alberta to Alaska Railway Pre-Feasibility Study 2015 Table of Content Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... i Infrastructure and Operating Requirements................................................................ ii Environmental Considerations and Permitting Requirements .................................... ii Capital and Operating Cost Estimates ......................................................................... iii Business Case .............................................................................................................. iii Mineral Transportation Potential ................................................................................ iii First Nations/Tribes and Other Contacts ..................................................................... iv Conclusions .................................................................................................................. iv 1 | Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 This Assignment............................................................................................................ 1 This Report ................................................................................................................... 2 2 | Infrastructure and Operating Requirements ........................................................ 3 Route Alignment ..........................................................................................................
    [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]
  • Rtd Light Rail Design Criteria
    RTD LIGHT RAIL DESIGN CRITERIA Regional Transportation District November 2005 Prepared by the Engineering Division of the Regional Transportation District Regional Transportation District 1600 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202-1399 303.628.9000 RTD-Denver.com November 28, 2005 The RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual has been developed as a set of general guidelines as well as providing specific criteria to be employed in the preparation and implementation of the planning, design and construction of new light rail corridors and the extension of existing corridors. This 2005 issue of the RTD Light Rail Design Criteria Manual was developed to remain in compliance with accepted practices with regard to safety and compatibility with RTD's existing system and the intended future systems that will be constructed by RTD. The manual reflects the most current accepted practices and applicable codes in use by the industry. The intent of this manual is to establish general criteria to be used in the planning and design process. However, deviations from these accepted criteria may be required in specific instances. Any such deviations from these accepted criteria must be approved by the RTD's Executive Safety & Security Committee. Coordination with local agencies and jurisdictions is still required for the determination and approval for fire protection, life safety, and security measures that will be implemented as part of the planning and design of the light rail system. Conflicting information or directives between the criteria set forth in this manual shall be brought to the attention of RTD and will be addressed and resolved between RTD and the local agencies andlor jurisdictions.
    [Show full text]
  • Metro-North Railroad Committee Meeting
    Metro-North Railroad Committee Meeting March 2019 Members S. Metzger N. Brown R. Glucksman C. Moerdler M. Pally A. Saul V. Vanterpool N. Zuckerman Metro-North Railroad Committee Meeting 2 Broadway 20th Floor Board Room New York, NY Monday, 3/25/2019 8:30 - 9:30 AM ET 1. Public Comments 2. Approval of Minutes Minutes - Page 4 3. 2019 Work Plan 2019 MNR Work Plan - Page 14 4. President's Reports Safety MNR Safety Report - Page 22 MTA Police Report MTA Police Report - Page 25 5. Information Items MNR Information Items - Page 31 Annual Strategic Investments & Planning Studies Annual Strategic Investments & Planning Studies - Page 32 Annual Elevator & Escalator Report Annual Elevator & Escalator Report - Page 66 Customer Satisfaction Survey Results Customer Satisfaction Survey Results - Page 74 PTC Status Report PTC Status Report - Page 122 Lease Agreement for Hastings Station Lease Agreement for Hastings Station - Page 133 License agreement for Purdy's Station License Agreement for Purdy's Station - Page 135 6. Procurements MNR Procurements - Page 137 MNR Non-Competitive Procurements MNR Non-Competitive Procurements - Page 140 MNR Competitive Procurements MNR Competitive Procurements - Page 142 7. Operations Report MNR Operations Report - Page 149 8. Financial Report MNR Finance Report - Page 160 9. Ridership Report MNR Ridership Report - Page 181 10. Capital Program Report MNR Capital Program Report - Page 192 Next Meeting: Joint meeting with Long Island on Monday, April 15th @ 8:30 a.m. Minutes of the Regular Meeting Metro-North Committee Monday, February 25, 2019 Meeting held at 2 Broadway – 20th Floor New York, New York 10004 8:30 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Railway Engineering
    UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Volume Class Book i^LL fTir^fa '"-^alljf' Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. A charge is made on all overdue ^°°^^S- U. of I. Library ^tMK xb iS'- ^^^, i€ i^l; .^!^ 1762S-S ELECTRK^ RAILA\ AY ENGINEERING ELECTEIC KAILWAY ENGINEERING BY C. FRANCIS HARDING, E. E. professor, electrical engineering; director, electrical laboratories, purdue universitt; associate American institute electrical engineers; asso- ciate AMERICAN electric RAILWAY ASSOCIATION ; MEMBER SOCIETY FOR promotion OF ENGINEERING EDUCATION McGRAW-HILL BOOK COMPANY 239 WEST 39TH STREET. NEW YORK 6 BOUVERIE STREET, LONDON, E. C. 1911 Copyright, 1911 BY McGraw-Hill Book Company Prhited and Eleclrolyped by The Maple Press York. Fa. PREFACE. To students in technical universities who wish to specialize in the subject of electrical railway engineering and to those who understand the fundamental principles of electrical engineering and are interested in their application to electric railway practice it is hoped that this book may be of value. While it is planned primarily for a senior elective course in a technical university, it does not involve higher mathematics and should therefore be easily understood by the undergraduate reader. The volume does not purport to present any great amount of new material nor principles, but it does gather in convenient form present day theory and practice in all important branches of electric railway engineering. No apology is deemed necessary for the frequent quotations from technical papers and publications in engineering periodicals, for it is only from the authorities and specialists in particular phases of the profession that the most valuable information can be obtained, and it is believed that a thorough and unprejudiced summary of the best that has been written upon the various aspects of the subject will be most welcome when thus combined into a single volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options
    ` Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B Constraints and Development of Options May 2003 BTR3726 28/05/2003 Babtie Group 95 Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7HX Tel 0141 204 2511 Fax 0141 226 3109 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Contents Page 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Existing Services and Constraints 3 3.0 Service Options 7 3.1 The Options 7 3.2 The Service frequency 7 4.0 Assessment of Options 11 4.1 The East West Axis 11 4.1.1 Option A: Dundee – Carnoustie 11 4.1.2 Option B: Dundee – Arbroath 14 4.1.3 Option C: Dundee – Montrose 17 4.1.4 Option D: Montrose – Brechin 21 4.1.5 Option E: Perth to Carnoustie and Arbroath 22 4.1.6 Option F: Perth – Montrose 25 4.1.7 Dundee West Service Extensions 27 4.2 The North South Axis 29 4.2.1 Option G: Arbroath – Ladybank 29 4.2.2 Option H: Perth – Dundee – Ladybank 31 4.2.3 Option I: Dundee West – Leuchars 32 4.2.4 Option J: Leuchars - St Andrews 34 5.0 Station Appraisals 36 5.1 General Discussion 36 5.2 The East West Axis Stations 37 5.2.1 Montrose 37 5.2.2 Arbroath 41 5.2.3 Carnoustie 45 5.2.4 Golf Street 48 5.2.5 Barry Links 50 5.2.6 Monifieth 52 5.2.7 Balmossie 55 5.2.8 Broughty Ferry 57 5.2.9 Dundee 59 5.2.10 Dundee West 63 5.2.11 Invergowrie 65 5.2.12 Perth 67 5.3 The North South Axis Stations 70 5.3.1 Leuchars 70 5.3.2 Cupar 73 5.3.3 Springfield 76 5.3.4 Ladybank 79 6.0 Summary of Options and Costs 82 Appendices Appendix A Option Base Timetable Appendix B Station Audit Proforma Appendix C Dundee West – Proposed Station Location \\Douglas\Work\Projects\4900s\4976\Outputs\Reports\Final\WP B (Constraints and Option Development) v5.doc Page 1 Tay Estuary Rail Study Working Paper B – Constraints and Development of Options Copyright Babtie Group Limited.
    [Show full text]
  • Station and Support Facility Design Guidelines User Guide a Supplement to the Regional Transitway Guidelines
    Station and Support Facility Design Guidelines User Guide A Supplement to the Regional Transitway Guidelines Metropolitan Council February 2012 This document supplements the Station and Support Facility Design discussion in the Regional Transitway Guidelines by providing additional information for topics discussed in the Guidelines. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Existing Laws, Regulations, Standards, and Guidance ................................................................. 1 1.2. Property Acquisition and Remnant Parcel Reuse or Resale ........................................................ 3 1.3. Context Sensitive Solutions and Transit‐Oriented Development ................................................ 3 1.4. Integration with Existing Systems ................................................................................................ 4 2. STATION DESIGN ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1. Station Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Enclosures at Transitway Stations .............................................................................................. 10 2.3. Sizing Station Facilities ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Accident Report
    Rail Accident Report Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Report 35/2007 September 2007 This investigation was carried out in accordance with: l the Railway Safety Directive 2004/49/EC; l the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003; and l the Railways (Accident Investigation and Reporting) Regulations 2005. © Crown copyright 2007 You may re-use this document/publication (not including departmental or agency logos) free of charge in any format or medium. You must re-use it accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and you must give the title of the source publication. Where we have identified any third party copyright material you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This document/publication is also available at www.raib.gov.uk. Any enquiries about this publication should be sent to: RAIB Email: [email protected] The Wharf Telephone: 01332 253300 Stores Road Fax: 01332 253301 Derby UK Website: www.raib.gov.uk DE21 4BA This report is published by the Rail Accident Investigation Branch, Department for Transport. Rail Accident Investigation Branch 3 Report 35/2007 www.raib.gov.uk September 2007 Collision at Swanage station 16 November 2006 Contents Introduction 6 Summary of the report 7 Key facts about the accident 7 Immediate cause, causal and contributory factors, underlying causes 7 Recommendations 8 The Accident 9 Summary of the accident 9 Location 9 The parties involved 10 External circumstances 10 The infrastructure 10 The train 12 Events
    [Show full text]