DOCSLIB.ORG

Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT NO. FRA/ORD -80/13 IMPROVED PASSENGER EQUIPMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM METHODOLOGY USED iN THE TRAIN REViEWS Unified Industries Incorporated 5400 Cherokee Avenue Alexandria, Virginia 22312 MARCH 1979 Document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Prepared for U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Office of Research and Development Washington, D.C. 20590 REPRODUCED BY NATIONAL TECHNICAl INFORMATION SERVICE u. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SPRINGfiELD, VA. 22161 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Depart­ ment of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manu­ facturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government ACCC5sion No. I 3. ReciDient's Cataloo No. I J >' REPORT NO, FRA/ORD - 80 /13 'L,\ ,~ ~' .~ 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote March 1979 IMPROVED PASSENGER EQUIPMENT EVALUATION PROGRAM- Methodology used in the Train Reviews 6. Performing Orgoni zotion Code f-- ._-- B• Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author! s) J.A. Bachman, Unified Industries Inc; H.C. Meacham, Battelle Columbus Laboratories; R.A. Uher, Carnegie-Mellon University; R.B. Watson, l. T. Klauder & Associates 9. Performing Organization Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Unified Industries Inc. II. Controct or Gront No. 5400 Cherokee Avenue Alexandria, Va. 22312 DOT-FR-717·4249, Task 2 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome and Address I Final- February 1977 to February 1979 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration Office of Research and Development 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Washington, D.C. 20590 FRA/RRD-21 I 15. Supp lementary Notes Small Business Administration r Contractor: Washington District Office .. _ "... ______________ Washington,1_0_3_0_F_i_ft_e_e_nt_h_S_t_r_ee_t_, D.C. 20590_N_.W_.,_R_o_o_m_2_5_0 __________________________ ----i Ii 16. Abstract A number of new passenger train systems have been developed throughout the world and are now, or soon will be, available. They I represent technology that is available for possible use in the United States. Starting in early 1977. the Improved Passenger Equipment ! Evaluation Program (lPEEP) initiated a detailed systematic review of advanced trains and equipment now in operation or under development. IPEEP methodology allows the performance and curving safety of a given trainset to be reviewed relative to a baseline train on an appropriate domestic rail passenger service corridor. The trains reviewed in IPEEP are divided into two categories: electric trains having potential for NEG application, and fuel-burning trains having potential for application on routes outside the NEC To assess the various trainsets in terms of the United States environment, the features and characteristics of the trains were matched against United States regulations and practices, and computer analyses were conducfed to determine the expected performance of the trains in the corridors of interest. 17. Key Words 18. Oi stribution Statement Passenger Train Review Methodology Document is available to the U.S. public through the Train Review Criteria National Technical Information SerVice, Train Performance Calculation Methodology Springfield; Virginia 22161 Curving Safety Analysis Methodology Ride Quality Analysis Methodology Crashworthiness Analysis Methodology 19. Security Clossil. (01 this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this poge) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified form' DOT F 1700,7 (B-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized i METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS ., Approximate Conversions to Mllrie Measurn '" ..'"' Approximate Conversions from Metric MlIIsurea S,.hl W~ .. V........ I1hltipl, by fa Fi •• S,.hl SYMbol Whon Vcoo ..n .... Multi,l, by Ta Fiu Sy.hl N GO LENGTH :;l LENGTH mm millimeters 0.04 inches in ~ em centimeters 0.4 inches tn in Inches <2.5 centi!'11eters em meters 3.3 feet It ft feet 30 centimeters em ::!? meters 1.1 yards yd yd yards 0.9 meters kin kilcmeters 0.6 miles mi mi miles 1.6 kilometers kin !: AREA AREA !!: 2 2 em> square centimeters 0.16 square incru:rs in in square inches 6.5 square centimeters em2 2 "'~ m square meters 1.2 square yards yd2' ft' square feet 0.09 square meters m2 2 km square ki lometets 0.4 square mi las ffti2 V~ square yards 0.8 square meters m2 2 2 ha hectares 110.000 m ) 2.5 acres mi square mi les 2.6 square kilometers km2 ! acres 0.4 hectares ha f-'< ::l f-'< MASS (weight) MASS ~.i.ht) ~ oz ounces 28 grams g 9 grams 0.035 ounces 0. kg Ib pounds 0.45 kilograms kg ::: kilograms 2.2· pounds Ib short tons 0.9 tonnes tonne. 11000 kg) 1.1 short tons 12000 Ib) .. ;: VOLUME VOLUME '" top teaspoon. 5 millilitet's ml ml milliliters 0.03 fluid ounces II"" Tbap tablezpoons 16 millilit8" ml I liters 2.1 pints pi fI oz fluid ounces 30 milliliters ml liters 1.06 quarts ql c cups 0.24 liters I I liters 0.26 gallons gal 3 pt pints 0.47 liters m cubic meters 35 cubic feet ft3 3 3 qt qlUlrts 0.95 liters I m cubic meters 1.3 cubic yards yd gal 92111005 3.8 liters I 3 ft cubic feet 0.03 cubic meters m3 3 Yd cubic yards 0.76 cubic metms m3 TEMPERATURE (exlct, TEMPERATURE (exact) °c Celsius 9/5 (then Fahrenheit OF temperature add 32) temperature OF Fahrenheit 5/9 Iafter Celsius °c '" temperature subtracting t~rature OF 32) OF 32 S8.& 212 4 -4f ,~" ,1 ,0 I ' ,8,0 , ~ ,I~O, I ,I~O, , ,2~~ "1 ,n : 2.54 le)(ac1Iyl. FOl other exact converSions and mGte detailed tables, see NBS MISC. Publ. 286. ~. I I iii iii i Units of Weights and Measures, Pnce $2.25, SO Catalog No. C13.10:286. g. -40 -20 0 20 40 60 90 100 Iii g u 0C 37 °c TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 INTRODUCTION. 1=1 1.1 BACKGROUND 1-1 1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH • 1-1 1.3 TRAIN REVIEW. 1-1 2 METHODOLOGY , • • 2-1 2.1 CRITERIA. 2-1 Schedule Time and Patronage 2-1 Cos t. 2-3 Passenger Appeal .•• 2-4 Passenger Comfort • 2-=4 Energy Consumption. • 2-5 Environmental Pollution , 2=5 Operational Safety •••• 2-6 uper'ational Flexibility. 2-7 On-Time Service Capability ••• 2-7 Ability to Maintain •••• 2-7 Development Status •••. 2-8 Availability and Delivery Time. 2-8 Special Features •• 2-8 2.2 REVIEW PROCESS ..•• 2-8 2.3 TRAIN PERFORMANCE PROGRAM 2-9 2.4 DEMAND ANALYSIS • 2-15 2.5 TRAIN SAFETY IN CURVE S. 2-16 Introduction •.• 2-16 Assumptions . • • • • 2-17 Simulation Inputs and Outputs • 2-18 Safety Criteria for Curving . 2-18 2.6 OPERATIONAL FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS. Turnaround. · . · . Coupling and Uncoupling· · Operations • . 2.7 RIDE QUALITY ANALYSIS · 2=20 Introduction. · · . · , . 2-20 Vehicle Model · · 0 2-21 Comfort Criteria. · . · 2-21 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section 2.8 COST ANALYSIS. 2-25 . Capital Cost. 2-26 Maintenance Cost. .' 2-27 Spare Parts . 2-28 2.9 MODIFICATION FOR NORTH AMERICAN OPERATION 2-28 2.10 CRASHWORTHINESS . .. 2-30 Existing Standards for Crashworthiness. 2-30 Definition of Terms Used in Table 2-4 . 2-31 Analytical Methods for Assessing Rail Vehicle Crashworthiness . • . • • . • . 2-32 Appendix A TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODEL. A-I A.1 INTRODUCTION .•... A-I A.1.1 Program Input •• A-I A.1.2 Program Output. A-7 A.2 PROGRAM PHILOSOPHY .. A-9 B SPEED RESTRICTION CALCULATOR FOR CURVES. B-1 B.1 INTRODUCTION. B-1 B.2 CRITERIA ... B-1 B.3 NOMENCLATURE. • ••. B-2 B.4 DERIVATION OF EQUATION. B-3 B.S COMPUTER RESULTS ....• B-8 C TWO-AXLE STEADY-STATE CURVING MODEL. C-1 C.1 INTRODUCTION ... C-1 C.2 NOMENCLATURE ... C-1 C.3 EQUATIONS OF MOTION C-3 C.4 COMPUTER MODEL FLOW CHART C-6 D RIDE QUALITY MODEL . D-1 D.1 INTRODUCTION .... D-1 D.2 RAIL VEHICLE MODEL. D-1 D.3 TRACK GEOMETRY INPUTS D-4 D.4 COMPUTER MODEL FLOW CHART .... D-S D.5 COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED DATA D-S iv LIST OF FIGURES Title REVIEW PROCESS. , , . , , . 2-10 SIMPLIFIED BLOCK DIAGRAM OF TRAIN PERFORMANCE MODEL , . 2-14 COMPARISON OF RIDE QUALITY LIMIT CRITERIA FOR RAIL VEHICLES • 2-24 LIST OF TABLES Table Title TRAIN REVIEW CRITERIA 2-2 CORRIDOR-RELATED DATA REQUIRED FOR TRAIN REVIEW , . 2-11 T~AIN-RELATED DATA REQUIRED FOR REVIEW, , , , , 2-12 MINhlU,'~ REQUIREMENTS FOR RAIL VEHICLE FRONTAL STRENGTH, • 2-31 2-~5 DATA REQUIREMENTS TO ASSESS ACCEPTABILITY OF CANDIDATE TRAINS BASED ON AAR STRUCTURAL STANDARDS, . , . , , . 2-32 v 1. INTRODUCTION A number of new passenger train systems have been developed throughout the world and are now, or will be, available for possible utilization on United States railroads. Such trains include the Canadian LRC, the French TGV-PSE, the British APT and HST, the German ET403, the American SPV-2000; the Japanese Series 961; plus tilt body trains developed in .switzerland, Sweden, and Italy. While the complete trains are of interest, all employ components on subsystems (e.g., carbody banking systems, trucks, traction systems) having potential application in United States trains. Early in 1977 the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) initiated the Improved Passenger Equipment Evaluation Program (IPEEP) to conduct a systematic review of advanced trains and equipment now in operation or under development throughout the world, and to provide the results of the review to rail trans­ portation system operators, planners, and developers. 1. 1 BACKGROUND IPEEP is an outgrowth of the FRA Improved Passenger Train (IPT) program which began in 1973.
Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division

    United States District Court Southern District of Ohio Western Division

    Case: 1:05-cv-00437-MHW Doc #: 155 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION American Premier Underwriters, Inc., Plaintiff, Case No. 1:05cv437 v. Judge Michael R. Barrett General Electric Company, Defendant. OPINION & ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Defendant General Electric Company’s (“GE”) Motion for Summary Judgment on the Merits. (Doc. 92). Plaintiff American Premier Underwriters, Inc.’s (“APU”) filed a Memorandum in Opposition (Doc. 123), and GE filed a Reply (Doc. 142). GE has also filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 148), to which APU filed a Response (Doc. 149) and GE filed a Reply (Doc. 150). I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff APU is the successor to the Penn Central Transportation Company (“Penn Central”). This action arises from contamination at four rail yards operated by Penn Central prior to April 1, 1976: (1) the Paoli Yard, located in Paoli, Pennsylvania; (2) the South Amboy Yard, located in South Amboy, New Jersey; (3) Sunnyside Yard, located in Long Island, New York; and (4) Wilmington Shops and related facilities, located in Wilmington, Delaware. During the period when Penn Central operated these rail yards, it owned and used passenger rail cars with transformers manufactured by Defendant GE. APU claims the GE transformers contaminated the rail yards by leaking polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). The PCBs were contained in “Pyranol,” which was Case: 1:05-cv-00437-MHW Doc #: 155 Filed: 03/15/13 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: <pageID> the trade name of the fluid used by GE in the transformers as a cooling and insulating fluid.
  • The Signal Bridge

    The Signal Bridge

    THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Volume 18 NEWSLETTER OF THE MOUNTAIN EMPIRE MODEL RAILROADERS CLUB Number 5B MAY 2011 BONUS PAGES Published for the Education and Information of Its Membership NORFOLK & WESTERN/SOUTHERN RAILWAY DEPOT BRISTOL TENNESSEE/VIRGINIA CLUB OFFICERS LOCATION HOURS President: Secretary: Newsletter Editor: ETSU Campus, Business Meetings are held the Fred Alsop Donald Ramey Ted Bleck-Doran: George L. Carter 3rd Tuesday of each month. Railroad Museum Meetings start at 7:00 PM at Vice-President: Treasurer: Webmaster: ETSU Campus, Johnson City, TN. John Carter Duane Swank John Edwards Brown Hall Science Bldg, Room 312, Open House for viewing every Saturday from 10:00 am until 3:00 pm. Work Nights each Thursday from 5:00 pm until ?? APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Page 2 APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE Page 3 APRIL 2011 THE SIGNAL BRIDGE II scheme. The "stripe" style paint schemes would be used on AMTRAK PAINT SCHEMES Amtrak for many more years. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Phase II Amtrak paint schemes or "Phases" (referred to by Amtrak), are a series of livery applied to the outside of their rolling stock in the United States. The livery phases appeared as different designs, with a majority using a red, white, and blue (the colors of the American flag) format, except for promotional trains, state partnership routes, and the Acela "splotches" phase. The first Amtrak Phases started to emerge around 1972, shortly after Amtrak's formation. Phase paint schemes Phase I F40PH in Phase II Livery Phase II was one of the first paint schemes of Amtrak to use entirely the "stripe" style.
  • Amtrak SMP 28603 Mechanical Standards for Operating Privately

    Amtrak SMP 28603 Mechanical Standards for Operating Privately

    Amtrak Equipment Maintenance Department Standard Maintenance Procedure SMP NO.: 28603 ISSUE DATE: January 12, 1982 REVISION DATE: September 13, 2013 TITLE: Mechanical Standard for Operating Privately Owned Cars in Amtrak Trains EQUIPMENT TYPE MAINTENANCE TYPE All Passenger Trains L – Locomotive Locomotives Cars C – Cars All Locomotives All Cars X All Types C All Maintenance – L/C Acela HST Power Car Acela Baggage Daily – L/C AEM-7 Amfleet I Cafe 30 Day – C Cab Car: (Under Cars) Amfleet II Coach Quarterly –L/C Car Movers Auto Carrier Diner Semi-Annual – L/C Commuter Commuter Dinette Annual – L/C F59PHI Freight Lounge 720 Day – L GP38-3 Heritage HEP Sleeper COT&S – C GP15D Horizon Other: Initial Terminal – L/C HHP8 Material Handling Cars Intermediate Terminal – L/C MP15 X Private Cars Modification – L/C Non Powered Control Units Superliner I Overhaul – L/C P32-8 Superliner II Running Repair – L/C P32AC-DM Surfliner Seasonal – C P-40 Talgo Wheels – L/C P-42 Turboliner Facility SW1001 Viewliner Other: SW1200 X Other: Railroad Business Cars SW1500 Turboliner Talgo Other: 1.0 PURPOSE This document describes the Amtrak Mechanical Department requirements for the handling in Amtrak trains of privately owned passenger cars, as well as railroad-owned business cars of freight carriers which have an Amtrak operating agreement. For the purpose of this document, a passenger car is defined as a vehicle meeting Association of American Railroads (AAR) or American Public Transportation Association Standard S-034 for the construction of passenger equipment cars, or similar standard for older cars, for operation in passenger train service, and does not include caboose cars, freight cars, or maintenance of way equipment.
  • Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin

    Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin

    Appendix 6-B: Chronology of Amtrak Service in Wisconsin May 1971: As part of its inaugural system, Amtrak operates five daily round trips in the Chicago- Milwaukee corridor over the Milwaukee Road main line. Four of these round trips are trains running exclusively between Chicago’s Union Station and Milwaukee’s Station, with an intermediate stop in Glenview, IL. The fifth round trip is the Chicago-Milwaukee segment of Amtrak’s long-distance train to the West Coast via St. Paul, northern North Dakota (e.g. Minot), northern Montana (e.g. Glacier National Park) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis June 1971: Amtrak maintains five daily round trips in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor and adds tri- weekly service from Chicago to Seattle via St. Paul, southern North Dakota (e.g. Bismark), southern Montana (e.g. Bozeman and Missoula) and Spokane. Amtrak Route Train Name(s) Train Frequency Intermediate Station Stops Serving Wisconsin (Round Trips) Chicago-Milwaukee Unnamed 4 daily Glenview Chicago-Seattle Empire Builder 1 daily Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis Chicago-Seattle North Coast Tri-weekly Glenview, Milwaukee, Columbus, Portage, Wisconsin Hiawatha Dells, Tomah, La Crosse, Winona, Red Wing, Minneapolis 6B-1 November 1971: Daily round trip service in the Chicago-Milwaukee corridor is increased from five to seven as Amtrak adds service from Milwaukee to St.
  • RCED-95-71 Intercity Passenger Rail

    RCED-95-71 Intercity Passenger Rail

    United States General Accounting Office GAO Report to Congressional Committees February 1995 INTERCITY PASSENGER RAIL Financial and Operating Conditions Threaten Amtrak’s Long-Term Viability GAO/RCED-95-71 United States General Accounting Office GAO Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-259656 February 6, 1995 Congressional Recipients This report assessing Amtrak’s deteriorating financial and operating conditions was conducted as part of our legislative responsibilities under the Rail Passenger Service Act (P.L. 91-518, 84 Stat. 1327 (1970)). The report addresses the likelihood that Amtrak can overcome its financial and operating problems and presents alternative actions that could be considered by the Congress in deciding on Amtrak’s future mission and on commitments to fund the railroad. On the basis of our review, we are making a recommendation to the Congress and several recommendations to the President of Amtrak. We are sending copies of the report to the Secretary of Transportation, the President of Amtrak, and interested congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This work was done under the direction of Kenneth M. Mead, Director, Transportation Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-2834 if you or your staff have any questions. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Sincerely yours, Keith O. Fultz Assistant Comptroller General Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-71 Amtrak’s Financial and Operating Conditions B-259656 List of Recipients The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman The Honorable Ernest F. Hollings Ranking Minority Member Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation United States Senate The Honorable Trent Lott Chairman The Honorable Daniel K.
  • Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II

    Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II

    Legislative Fiscal Bureau One East Main, Suite 301 • Madison, WI 53703 • (608) 266-3847 • Fax: (608) 267-6873 Email: [email protected] • Website: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb October 31, 2019 TO: Members Joint Committee on Finance FROM: Bob Lang, Director SUBJECT: Department of Transportation: Request for Passenger Rail Bonding -- Agenda Item II REQUEST On October 3, 2019, the Department of Transportation (DOT) submitted a request under s. 85.061 (3)(b) of the statutes for approval to use $13,248,100 BR in GPR-supported, general obligation bonding from DOT's passenger rail route development appropriation to fund the required state match for a recently awarded Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant for the purchase of six single-level coach cars and three cab-coach cars to be placed into service in the Milwaukee- Chicago Hiawatha corridor. BACKGROUND DOT is required to administer a rail passenger route development program funded from a transportation fund continuing appropriation (SEG) and a general fund-supported, general obligation bonding appropriation (BR). From these sources, DOT may fund capital costs related to Amtrak service extension routes (the Hiawatha service, for example) or other rail service routes between the cities of Milwaukee and Madison, Milwaukee and Green Bay, Milwaukee and Chicago, Madison and Eau Claire, and Madison and La Crosse. Under the program, DOT is not allowed to use any bond proceeds unless the Joint Finance Committee (JFC) approves the use of the proceeds and, with respect to any allowed passenger route development project, the Department submits evidence to JFC that Amtrak, or the applicable railroad, has agreed to provide rail passenger service on that route.
  • Amtrak Cascades Fleet Management Plan

    Amtrak Cascades Fleet Management Plan

    Amtrak Cascades Fleet Management Plan November 2017 Funding support from Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Information The material can be made available in an alternative format by emailing the Office of Equal Opportunity at [email protected] or by calling toll free, 855-362-4ADA (4232). Persons who are deaf or hard of hearing may make a request by calling the Washington State Relay at 711. Title VI Notice to Public It is the Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT) policy to assure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise discriminated against under any of its federally funded programs and activities. Any person who believes his/her Title VI protection has been violated, may file a complaint with WSDOT’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). For additional information regarding Title VI complaint procedures and/or information regarding our non-discrimination obligations, please contact OEO’s Title VI Coordinator at 360-705-7082. The Oregon Department of Transportation ensures compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR, Part 21; related statutes and regulations to the end that no person shall be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Transportation on the grounds of race, color, sex, disability or national origin.
  • Crisis Planning & Management

    Crisis Planning & Management

    CRISIS PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SEPTA SILVERLINER V ISSUE JEFFREY D. KNUEPPEL, PE GENERAL MANAGER CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT REGIONAL SERVICE PROFILE • 13 Regional Rail lines with over 150 stations • Regional Rail Ridership over 37M annually and has increased 52% since 1998 • 770 trains per day on weekdays (570 per day on weekends) • Total track miles: 474 – 234 SEPTA track miles – 240 Amtrak track miles CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW - CHRONOLOGY • June 29th: Inspector notices a problem with a Silverliner V car and removes it from service for further evaluation • June 30th: Silverliner V defect identified at Overbrook Shop • Upon inspection, Vehicle Maintenance personnel found more cracks in several cars which indicated a fleetwide equalizer beam problem • July 1st: Entire 120 car Silverliner V fleet grounded CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT CONTEXT OF DISCOVERY • Silverliner V’s constitute 30% of Regional Rail fleet • Silverliner V cars are new! • 58% of fleet is 40+ years old! • DNC coming to Philly in 3 weeks • City labor contract expires on 10/31/16!! CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT EQUALIZER BEAM Equalizer Beam Equalizer ‘Foot’ – welded onto beam Equalizer Seat Equalizer Pad (1/2 inch resilient pad) CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT WORKING TOGETHER • SEPTA immediately retained LTK Engineers at the start of the Silverliner V issue • Hyundai Rotem, SEPTA, and LTK worked cooperatively on computer modeling, metallurgical evaluation, vehicle instrumentation and developed temporary and then permanent repair schemes CRISIS PLANNING & MANAGEMENT
  • Q1-2 2021 Newsletter

    Q1-2 2021 Newsletter

    Northwest Rail News 1st & 2nd Quarter 2021 statewide ‘High Speed Ground Transportation’ Reviving a Rail (HSGT) system. The next year, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) designated the Pacific Revolution: How Northwest Rail Corridor, which runs through the HSR in Washington heart of Seattle, as a high-speed rail (HSR) corridor. With the results of the earlier HSGT study in, the Can Get Back On 1993 Washington State Legislature passed RCW Chapter 47.79 and created something revolutionary: Track By Patrick Carnahan — Seattle, WA a goal to build a regional HSR network connecting Seattle with Portland, Spokane, and Vancouver, Amidst the fallout of the coronavirus pandemic, British Columbia by 2030. As recommended by the interest in passenger rail has increased markedly study, Washington and Oregon began implementing across the United States. With an enthusiastically modern intercity passenger rail service on existing pro-rail federal administration now in power, talk of tracks between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR, with our nation’s “second great railroading revolution” the goal of increasing this service’s top speed to 110 has begun among advocates and transit blogs from mph. From this came Amtrak Cascades, one of the coast to coast. But is this only our second, or even nation’s most successful intercity passenger rail third, attempt at such a revolution? What about the services. Following the study’s vision, the one that started in the Pacific Northwest around 30 Washington State and Oregon Departments of years ago, the one that aimed to create the most Transportation (WSDOT and ODOT) both created advanced rail system in North America? bold long-range plans for Cascades that would dramatically increase the line’s frequency and Where It Started usefulness.
  • Atglen Station Concept Plan

    Atglen Station Concept Plan

    Atglen Station Concept Plan PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Chester County Planning Commission Urban Engineers, Inc. June 2012 601 Westtown Road, Suite 270 530 Walnut Street, 14th Floor ® Chester County Planning Commission West Chester, PA 19380 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Acknowledgements This plan was prepared as a collaboration between the Chester County Planning Commission and Urban Engineers, Inc. Support in developing the plan was provided by an active group of stakeholders. The Project Team would like to thank the following members of the Steering Advisory and Technical Review Committees for their contributions to the Atglen Station Concept Plan: Marilyn Jamison Amtrak Ken Hanson Amtrak Stan Slater Amtrak Gail Murphy Atglen Borough Larry Lavenberg Atglen Borough Joseph Hacker DVRPC Bob Garrett PennDOT Byron Comati SEPTA Harry Garforth SEPTA Bob Lund SEPTA Barry Edwards West Sadsbury Township Frank Haas West Sadsbury Township 2 - Acknowledgements June 2012 Atglen Station Concept Plan Table of Contents Introduction 5 1. History & Background 6 2. Study Area Profi le 14 3. Station Site Profi le 26 4. Ridership & Parking Analysis 36 5. Rail Operations Analysis 38 6. Station Concept Plan 44 7. Preliminary Cost Estimates 52 Appendix A: Traffi c Count Data 54 Appendix B: Ridership Methodology 56 Chester County Planning Commission June 2012 Table of Contents - 3 4 - Introduction June 2012 Atglen Station Concept Plan Introduction The planning, design, and construction of a new passenger rail station in Atglen Borough, Chester County is one part of an initiative to extend SEPTA commuter service on the Paoli-Thorndale line approximately 12 miles west of its current terminus in Thorndale, Caln Township.
  • Hiawatha Service, Travel Time Is 92-95 Minutes

    Hiawatha Service, Travel Time Is 92-95 Minutes

    10/3/2018 Chicago – Milwaukee Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Past, Present, and Future Arun Rao, Passenger Rail Manager Wisconsin Department of Transportation Elliot Ramos, Passenger Rail Engineer Illinois Department of Transportation MIIPRC 2018 Annual Meeting Milwaukee 10/8/2018 2 1 10/3/2018 1945 80 round trips daily between Milwaukee and Chicago operated on three railroads: • Milwaukee Road • Chicago‐ Northwestern • North Shore Line Chicago-Milwaukee Passenger Rail: The Past MIPRC Annual Meeting 2018d Milwaukee10/6/2016 3 Milwaukee-Chicago Passenger Rail: The Past Amtrak: The 1970s • 1971: Amtrak begins service with 5 round‐ trips, 2 of which continue to St. Louis • 1973: The St. Louis through service is discontinued • 1975: One of the five round‐trips extends to Detroit • 1975: Turboliner equipment is introduced • 1977: Detroit run‐through is eliminated • 1977 – 1979: Chicago – Twin Cities regional train is added (Twin Cities Hiawatha) 10/6/2016 d 4 MIPRC Annual Meeting 2018 Milwaukee 2 10/3/2018 Milwaukee-Chicago Passenger Rail: The Past Amtrak: The 1980s • 1981: • Service reduced to 2 round-trips daily • Turboliners are eliminated, Amfleets are introduced. • 1984: • Service increased to 3 round-trips daily • 1989: • Amtrak, WI, and IL launch a 2 year demonstration project with states funding 2 additional roundtrips for a total of 5. Amtrak operates 3 without assistance. • The service is renamed Hiawatha Service, travel time is 92-95 minutes. • Horizon coach cars are introduced. 10/6/2016 d 5 MIPRC Annual Meeting 2018 Milwaukee
  • Sharing the Spirit of Innovation

    Sharing the Spirit of Innovation

    00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page C1 JANUARY–FEBRUARY 2013 NUMBER 284 TR NEWS Sharing the Spirit of Innovation Examples from the States Plus: Solving Highway Congestion Lessons for Climate Change Mapping Natural Hazmats 00_TRN_284_TRN_284 3/7/13 2:59 PM Page C2 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2013 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* Chair: Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia National Academy of Sciences Vice Chair: Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing National Academy of Engineering Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board Institute of Medicine National Research Council Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. The Transportation Research Board is one Scott E. Bennett, Director, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, Little Rock of six major divisions of the National William A. V. Clark, Professor of Geography (emeritus) and Professor of Statistics (emeritus), Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Research Council, which serves as an James M. Crites, Executive Vice President of Operations, Dallas–Fort Worth International Airport, Texas independent adviser to the federal gov- John S. Halikowski, Director, Arizona Department of Transportation, Phoenix ernment and others on scientific and Paula J. C. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia technical questions of national impor- Michael W. Hancock, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort tance, and which is jointly administered Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, by the National Academy of Sciences, the Massachusetts National Academy of Engineering, and Steve Heminger, Executive Director, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Oakland, California the Institute of Medicine.