DOCSLIB.ORG

May 26, 2020 (Via Online at Regulations.Gov) Docket Operations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 26, 2020 (Via Online at Regulations.Gov) Docket Operations May 26, 2020 (Via online at regulations.gov) Docket Operations Facility U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, W12-140 Washington, DC 20590 RE: Docket Number FRA-2020-0029, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS), petition for Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal System Comments of the Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen (BRS) is filing comments concerning the above referenced document that was printed in the April 8, 2020, Federal Register (pages 19794–19795). The BRS is the duly recognized collective bargaining representative for roughly 10,000 signal employees who are responsible for the inspection, installation, construction, repair, and maintenance of all signal systems on all Class I railroads and various other Carriers in the United States. Our membership has a vested interest in the aforementioned waiver request which affects the safety of our members, local residents, Railroad employees, equipment, and commodities. In its application, NS seeks approval to discontinue and modify a signal system, NS requests permission to remove double track main line operations and convert into single signaled bi- directional track, NS rule 261, for approximately 32.6 miles on the Fort Wayne Line of the Pittsburgh Division. NS seeks to retire one main track at milepost (MP) PC 84.8 to 96.7, MP PC 157.3 to 160.1, MP PC 161.9 to 169.4, and MP 178.0 to 188.3. It will also change the method of operation at MP limits of PC 160.1 to 161.9 and MP PC 175.1 to 178.0 to non-controlled track. The reason for the proposed changes is a line rationalization and system improvement. As you are well aware, the most vital element to the safe and efficient operation of trains is a properly maintained signal system, and the established safety benefits that come with such are necessary for this type of railroad operation. The signal system that is currently in place is designed to protect the safety and integrity of railroad operations by providing broken rail and track defect protection, switch and derail alignment protection, route integrity protection, as well as protection against different types of train and on-track equipment collisions. Furthermore, the signal system is designed to mitigate dangers caused by human error or acts of vandalism. One needs to not look far to see the tragic circumstances that can be caused by the lack of a signal system, as was the case recently in Cayce, South Carolina. It is not disputed that the signal system was suspended, which led to a misaligned switch being undetected by an oncoming train. The consequence of this error was a tragic head-on collision and derailment that resulted in the loss of life, multiple injuries, and millions of dollars’ worth of damage. In its application, the Carrier wants to keep the track between MP PC 160.1 to 161.9 and MP PC 175.1 to 178.0, but make it a non-controlled track; looking at the prints NS provided, there are several spots that are safety hazards. At MP PC 160.1, the Carrier wants to install a switch from the main track to the non-controlled track before the Mohican River, leaving two switches between MP PC 160.1 and MP PC 161.9 on the non-controlled track. Finally, there is a switch at PC MP 161.9 connecting to the main track. NS is setting up another scenario that played out in Graniteville, South Carolina, where a switch can be left in the wrong position and trains can collide with each other. Alternatively, a train could come onto the main line after a train has taken the signal at MP PC 159.7 and another collision could occur. The location from PC MP 175.1 to 178.0, which the Carrier wants to make this a non-controlled track, essentially constitutes a 2.9-mile siding without signals. There is a switch approximately 0.5 miles from the 1783-2/1784-2 signals, which, as stated above, could have dire consequences. There are also two switches and an interlocker with the Ashland Railway on the non-controlled track, this is extremely unsafe for the employees and the adjoining railroad. The primary reason put forth by the Carrier, for the proposed changes, is a line rationalization, reconfiguration, and system improvements. In NS’s application it states that the existing safety of operations would be maintained and further that removing signals, track circuits, and switch protection does not make any system less safe. BRS contends that doing this would diminish the proven, functional, safe, signal system that is already in operation. The aforementioned reasons given to modify the existing signal system from approximately 32.6 miles of main line track is extremely vague, and BRS can find no justifiable reason for this request to be granted. NS moves over 20 million gross tons of freight on this line, will that be reduced? Is NS planning upgrading this line, that is over 50 years old, with old PRR position light signals and the wayside equipment from the same time period? How many false clear incidents have occurred on this outdated system? On the highway-grade crossings that have active warning systems, is NS going to move the flashers or gate mechanisms to be in compliance with federal regulations? Has the state of Ohio, PUCO been notified of the specified changes? The application leaves several unanswered questions that concern the safety of the public and the employees of Norfolk Southern. There is no mention on how the railroad plans to mitigate the dangers of operating without a signal system on these segments of tracks that are going to be non-controlled, especially any mention on measures that NS will take to detect broken rails. The present system utilizes a fail-safe design and incorporates track circuits where the rails of the track form the foundation of the systems. These systems use wayside and control point signals to convey signal aspects and indications to train crews. They also detect broken rails, track defects, track obstructions, proper switch, and route alignment, as well as providing critical train location information. The absence of these important and fail-safe signal systems will create unsafe conditions and result in unnecessary risk for the local communities, employees, assets, and infrastructure. BRS’s opposition is based upon concerns for employee and public safety, and we believe the current operable signal system is invaluable by providing information to dispatchers and other employees. The surrounding communities, towns, and environment would all be put at a significantly higher risk if these two segments were allowed to be de-signaled. These towns, communities, and people depend on the idea that railroads, especially those that traverse their neighborhoods, function as safely as possible. For the FRA to approve this petition would be an injustice to those in the surrounding areas. By removing the signal system we are taking a step backwards in safety. At a time when the NTSB, Congress, railroad employees, and the general public are calling for efforts to improve rail safety, such as positive train control (PTC), this Carrier proposes to take us back to an unsafe time of no signals. Clearly, in this case it is in the best interest of the general public, local residents, railroad employees, and the environment to have the safety assurances which are provided by a fully functioning signal system. The signal system in question must be left in place. Railroad signal systems are valuable assets to transportation safety, they comprise a critical element of the safe and efficient operation of a railroad. The removal of these systems between CP Mans to Intermediate Signal 1783-1/1784-1, and between MP 160.1 to Intermediate Signal 1619-1/1620-1 to can only serve to have a negative impact on our nation’s overall transportation system. In view of the foregoing, the BRS respectfully urges the FRA to deny the above referenced waiver request in its entirety. If you have any questions, please contact my office at 540.622.6525. Respectfully Submitted, Jerry C. Boles President .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: These proposed projects are railway improvement projects on the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Rail Lines (together referred to as the Pittsburgh Line), owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). The proposed projects consist of addressing freight capacity and delay constraints through the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Pittsburgh Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The six overhead clearance projects [North Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.60); Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.82); Columbus Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-2.17); Ohio Connecting (OC) Bridge Flyover, Pittsburgh (PC-3.38); Washington Avenue Bridge, Swissvale (PT-344.91); and Amtrak Station Canopy (PT-353.20)] have vertical obstructions along the Pittsburgh Line and prevent efficient movement of freight, especially time-sensitive intermodal freight, by rail between Chicago and New York/New Jersey, and specifically through Pennsylvania. Unused capacity exists on the Pittsburgh Line and these clearance projects will allow the line to accommodate anticipated freight growth while allowing for double-stack intermodal freight to use the Pittsburgh Line in lieu of the Mon Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020
    Merchant Street Bridge Project City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS July 27, 2020 1. What is the purpose and need for this project? The purpose of the Merchant Street Bridge Project is to maintain safe freight and passenger rail operations along the Fort Wayne Line to continue the efficient transportation of goods and people between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets, as well as within local markets. The bridge structure has reached the end of its useful life and engineering inspections have identified a need to address these problems in order to maintain safe interstate rail transportation along the Fort Wayne Line. The bridge carrying the Fort Wayne Line over Merchant Street has safety deficiencies that have the potential to create risks to current rail traffic and forecasted rail traffic increases throughout the United States and within Pennsylvania and the Pittsburgh region in particular. The project need for the Merchant Street Bridge project is to address safety, reliability, and facility deficiencies. Additionally, the City of Pittsburgh has requested the roadway profile at Merchant Street be lowered to allow emergency vehicles to pass under the bridge. 2. How will the Merchant Street Bridge Project affect air quality, noise, and vibration in the area? The Merchant Street Bridge Project would not result in any significant effect on air quality, noise, or vibration. The on-alignment replacement of the Merchant Street Bridge would not significantly affect air emissions. Minor temporary emissions will result for a short duration relating to construction equipment for the bridge replacement work. According to the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, adopted by Federal Railroad Administration, the reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change in functional use, such as improvements to existing bridges, would not require noise impact analysis because the project would not change the noise source.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue #84 — August 1989
    • AUGUST 1989 OHIO ASSOCIATION OF RAILROAD PASSENGERS ISSUE #34 CONFRONTING THE END OF A LINE by OARP President Tom Pulsifer Fort Wayne 20,000, Lima 16,000, Canton 13,000, Crestline 8,000. These four stations handled some 57,000 Amtrak passengers last year. Now, through no fault of the train users, their trains may be taken away--probably for good! Amtrak and Conrail are presently locked in off-and-on ne­ gotiations upon which rests the future of the Fort Wayne Line, the direct former mainline of the Pennsylvania Rail­ road between Pittsburgh and Chicago and today's route of Amtrak's BROADWAY and CAPITOL LIMITED passenger trains. At the core of the matter is a segment of 19.2 miles of line between Gary and Valparaiso. Conrail claims Amtrak should bear the full cost of all maintenance expense on this portion of line because Conrail says they no longer run freights over this segment. Conrail has been sending Amtrak a monthly bill of $30,000 for track maintenance and has done this since March of 1988. Thus far, Amtrak has refused to pay these bills and claims Conrail HAS used the track for freight trains, and therefore why should Amtrak pay for all the maintenance costs. Although Conrail con­ tinues to bill Amtrak, the bill collectors have not yet been sent. Amtrak firmly maintains it will reroute its passenger trains onto other lines before it will pay Con­ rail one dime of disputed line maintenance costs. Amtrak and Conrail may get what they want -- but the Fort Wayne Line passengers may get left at the end of the line.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study
    The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail Ohio Hub Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM & BUSINESS PLAN July 2007 Prepared for The Ohio Rail Development Commission Indiana Department of Transportation Michigan Department of Transportation New York Department of Transportation Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Prepared by: Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. In association with HNTB, Inc. The Ohio & Lake Erie Regional Rail - Ohio Hub Study Technical Memorandum & Business Plan Table of Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................x Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 1. Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 System Planning and Feasibility Goals and Objectives................................................... 1-3 1.2 Business Planning Objectives.......................................................................................... 1-4 1.3 Study Approach and Methodology .................................................................................. 1-4 1.4 Railroad Infrastructure Analysis...................................................................................... 1-5 1.5 Passenger
    [Show full text]
  • Merchant Street Bridge Project Purpose and Need Statement
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Merchant Street, Pittsburgh, PA Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: The Merchant Street Bridge, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania along the Fort Wayne Line, which is owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), provides a grade separation from automobile traffic traveling below the rail line along Merchant Street. Merchant Street connects Ridge Avenue with Martindale Street under the Fort Wayne Line. The Fort Wayne Line serves rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Fort Wayne Line forms a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The line Fort Wayne Line also carries passenger traffic. The Merchant Street Bridge was constructed circa 1905 and consists of two skewed steel spans supported by stone masonry abutments and one intermediate steel bent. The ballast-deck superstructure is comprised of a concrete-filled riveted steel trough system that varies in length and width and carries four active railroad tracks, with capacity to carry up to 70 trains per day. There is extensive steel corrosion within the cross girders and columns comprising the intermediate bent as well as throughout the riveted trough system. These conditions will be considered safety concerns within a few years and may pose a safety hazard to the railroad and the traveling public and a potential liability to other transportation entities (e.g., City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County) if not addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose and Need
    NORTHERN INDIANA PASSENGER RAIL CORRIDOR PURPOSE AND NEED Chicago-Fort Wayne-Lima Corridor Prepared for the City of Fort Wayne, IN November 2017 Northern Indiana Passenger Rail Corridor Purpose and Need CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Background .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Current Project Phase/NEPA ....................................................................................... 2 1.3 Passenger Rail Service Background ............................................................................ 2 1.4 Prior Planning Studies ................................................................................................. 2 1.4.1 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative ............................................................................. 2 1.4.2 Ohio Hub System ................................................................................................... 3 1.4.3 NIPRA Feasibility Study ......................................................................................... 3 2 Purpose and Need .............................................................................................................. 4 2.1 Project Purpose ........................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Project Need ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana Railroad Abandonments Railroad Line Description Docket No
    Indiana Railroad Abandonments Railroad Line Description Docket No. Miles Year B&O Decatur Sub. Decatur, IL to Speedway, IN AB-19(26) Withdrawn B&O Louisville Sub. North Vernon (0.35) to Nabb (28.52) AB-19(41F) 28.17 1980 B&O Louisville Sub. Nabb (28.52) to Charleston (40.34) AB-19(91X) 11.82 1985 BOTC CSX Spur Indiana Harbor (249.8) to EOL (251.78) Unknown 1.98 1975 C&O Wabash Sub. Malden (230.95) to Griffith (260.62) AB-18(30F) 29.67 1981 C&O Miami Sub. Fernald, OH (19.2) to Cottage Grove, IN (45.1) AB-18(69) Withdrawn C&O Miami Sub. Fernald, OH (19.2) to Cottage Grove, IN (45.1) AB-18(80) Withdrawn C&O Wabash Sub. Peru (162.25) to 12 Mile (174.0) AB-18(93X) 11.75 1987 C&O Wabash Sub. Santa Fe (153.82) to Peru (162.25) AB-18(95X) 8.42 1987 C&O Wabash Sub. 12 Mile (174.0) to North Judson (212.55) AB-18(96) 38.55 1987 CERA Rolling Mill IT Indianapolis Union Station to Hurst Comp. AB-289(1X) 0.5 1987 CERA Kokomo Sub. Peru (74.2) to Rochester (95.6) AB-289(3X) 21.4 1996 CERA Grant County Marion (TS-154.65) to West Marion Belt (TS-157.01) AB-511 (3X) 2.36 2007 CERA Howard County Kokomo Tipton Industrial Lead MP 51.5 to 54.3 & & West KokomAB-511 (4X) 5.18 2009 CERA Tipton Industrial Lead 55.77 at North Kokomo to 58.5 in Cassville AB-511 (5X, 6X) 2.84 2010 CIND Shelbyville Secondary Shelbyville to Thatcher AB-459(2X) Acquired by RA CIND Decatur Greensburg IN MP 64.67 to MP 67.27 in Decatur Co.
    [Show full text]
  • W North Ave Bridge HBRA
    Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Analysis Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects W. North Avenue Bridge Prepared for: Norfolk Southern Railway Company Date: Novem ber 2019 W. North Avenue Bridge Historic Bridge Rehabilitation Analysis Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1 A. HISTORIC OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 B. BRIDGE DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... 2 C. BRIDGE SIGNIFICANCE ...................................................................................... 3 D. CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES OF THE BRIDGE ....................................... 4 E. OTHER HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ........ 5 II. ROADWAY AND SITE INFORMATION ........................................................................ 5 III. BRIDGE CONDITION .................................................................................................. 6 IV. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................... 6 A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................ 6 B. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 9 V. REHABILITATION EVALUATION ................................................................................ 9 VI. CONCLUSION ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Project Purpose and Need Statements August 2018
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statements August 2018 Purpose and Need Summary: The principal purpose of the Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance projects is to enhance the existing rail infrastructure on the main line through Pittsburgh and in southwest Pennsylvania in order to provide more efficient movement of freight from New York/New Jersey to Chicago and specifically through Pennsylvania. Federal and state freight rail transportation studies predict a substantial increase in freight and intermodal demand through 2045. To accommodate the increase in rail demand, as well as support national goals relating to greenhouse gas emissions and fuel efficiency, the national freight rail system has been substantially modernized over the past decades to raise clearances, upgrade tunnels and modify rail lines throughout most of America’s 140,000-mile freight rail network to accommodate double-stacked intermodal trains. https://www.aar.org/article/6-milestones-intermodal-growth/. Rail service through Pittsburgh, especially as related to the service of sensitive intermodal freight, is currently constrained by the capacity and external disruptions on the Monongahela line (the Mon Line) and the clearance limitations on the Pittsburgh Line. The primary purposes of these clearance projects are to provide elevation clearances along Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR)’s Pittsburgh Line and Fort Wayne Line to facilitate a safe and reliable system of transportation and modernize the Pittsburgh Line and Fort Wayne Line to accommodate integration of modes of transportation (intermodal), and improve clearance, safety, transportation optimization, and efficiency to meet modern interstate freight rail traffic requirements, including double-stack intermodal trains.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019
    Norfolk Southern Railway Company Pittsburgh Vertical Clearance Projects Project Purpose and Need Statement June 2019 INTRODUCTION: These proposed projects are railway improvement projects on the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines, owned and operated by Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR). The proposed projects consist of addressing freight capacity and delay constraints through the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. The Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines serve rail freight traffic in interstate commerce and operates as a primary link through Pittsburgh between Chicago and the New York/New Jersey commercial markets. NSR is a common carrier and the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines form a critical component of NSR’s route between Chicago and the east coast, carrying a variety of commodities, both hazardous material such as chlorine, anhydrous ammonia, hydrogen fluoride, crude oil, and ethanol, as well as nonhazardous materials like coal, auto parts and finished vehicles, lumber, agricultural products, and intermodal containers and trailers. The six overhead clearance projects [W. North Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.60); Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-1.82); Columbus Avenue Bridge, Pittsburgh (PC-2.17); Ohio Connecting (OC) Bridge Flyover, Pittsburgh (PC-3.38); Washington Avenue Bridge, Swissvale (PT-344.91); and Amtrak Station Canopy (PT-353.20)] have vertical obstructions along the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines and prevent efficient movement of freight, especially time-sensitive intermodal freight, by rail between Chicago and New York/New Jersey, and specifically through Pennsylvania. Unused capacity exists on the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines and these clearance projects will allow the line to accommodate anticipated freight growth while allowing for double-stack intermodal freight to use the Pittsburgh and Fort Wayne Lines in lieu of the Mon Line.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 5 Freight Rail System
    Appendix 5 Freight Rail System Appendix 5 Freight Rail System Introduction Figure 5-1: The Four Main Railroads in the State of Pennsylvania, 1870 Pennsylvania's freight railroad network has a rich history that has supported and shaped the state's industrial heritage and diverse economy. Pennsylvania freight railroads have carried the state's abundant raw materials, such as coal, oil, and agricultural products; and immense industrial output, such as steel and iron ore in the southwest and cement in the northeast. Besides local Pennsylvania freight, railroads in the state also served as a gateway for a significant volume of "overhead," or through freight that moves between the East Coast and the rest of the nation. The foundation for Pennsylvania's dense rail network is the four major railroads which crossed the state at the turn of the century: the Pennsylvania, New York Central, Baltimore and Ohio, and Erie as shown in Figure 5-1. Over time, these rail carriers have evolved into a freight rail system comprised of four major Class I carriers and a large number of Source: WITF, Inc. supporting short lines which continue to serve and support Pennsylvania's economy. Appendix 5 describes the current Pennsylvania freight network in terms of its rail carriers, major freight corridors, and local freight volumes. In addition, a forecast of future freight rail tonnage has been developed. Appendix 5 – Freight Rail System Pennsylvania Intercity Passenger and Freight Rail Plan Connections to the Future 2035 Pennsylvania Rail Network System Overview Table 5‐1: Pennsylvania Freight Rail Network, 2009 The Pennsylvania freight rail network totals 5,0951 miles of track Carrier Class Number of Lines operated by more than 60 railroads as depicted in Figure 5‐2.
    [Show full text]
  • Cleveland Lakefront Rail Bypass Study
    Cleveland Lakefront Freight Rail Bypass Concept proposal and analysis By Kenneth J. Prendergast for the BLUE Project of EcoCity Cleveland and the Cleveland Waterfront Coalition July 2003 Funding for the BLUE Project has been provided by The George Gund Foundation and the Raymond John Wean Foundation BLUE Project/Lakefront Rail Bypass Study/page 2 Table of Contents (note that all maps and figures mentioned in the text are collected at the end of this document) Executive Summary........................................................Available online Section One - Background and Overview Introduction..................................................................................................4 Case examples..............................................................................................4 Overview......................................................................................................5 History..........................................................................................................6 Conrail acquisition.......................................................................................9 Section Two - Alternatives analysis of Lakefront Bypass Overview....................................................................................................11 Alternative Route 1 - CSX ‘Short Line’ ....................................................11 Alternative Route 2 - NS/CSX Fort Wayne Line ......................................14 Alternative Route 3 - NS Fort Wayne Line/ NS Columbus-Bellevue Line
    [Show full text]