[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
City of Portsmouth PORTS"MOUTH RAILROAD TRACK SURVEY and EVALUATION PROJECT 00 COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CtNTITER Andrews & Clark, Inc. HE Consulting Engineers 1613 Amherst, NH A4 P6 1985 Final Report PORTSMOUTH RAIL TRACK SURVEY AND EVALUATION PROJECT Prepared for: Office of State Planning In cooperation with- Planning Department, City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire COMMERCE ESj ON, Prepared by: Andrews & Clark, Inc. Consulting Engineers Amherst, New Hampshire March, 1985 Acknowledgements Sincere appreciation is extended to Mr. Craig Wheeler and Mr. David Holden of the City of Portsmouth Planning Department for their assistance during the Physical Plant Inspection of this project. The New Hampshire Coastal Program provided a Grant for the preparation of this Report which was funded in part by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended as administered by the Office of Ocean and -Coastal Resource 14anagement, National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Summary of Comments, Changes and Additional Information to the Draft Report of November 19, 1984 The presentation of the Draft, Portsmouth Railroad Track Survey and Evaluation Project on December 20, 1984, before the Portsmouth Planning Board, represented a mile post in the investigation of the B&M owned rail line in the City of Portsmouth. Verbal comments and discussions following the presentation were varied. Although several questions were directly related to the report's contents, numerous questions from the publ ic sector concerned subject matters not within the scope or intent of the report. Unrelated subjects included the condition of the Naval Yard Branch, the volatility of materials and specific contents of rail tank cars. For informational purposes, minutes of the Planning Board Meeting of December 20, 1984, as transcribed by the City, is contained in Appendix D. Also contained in Appendix D is correspondence from the Public Utilities Commission which includes additional derailment data for 1977 to 1979 and 1983 not found during the original research at the P.U.C. This supplemental information addresses concerns of the public as to missing derailment data. Questions concerning the investigation of rail grade crossings were aired. Although roadway grade crossings, as such, were not within the limited scope of the Study, the rail track geometric and physical condition was evaluated from the standpoint of movement of rail freight traffic through grade crossings in accordance with F.R.A. Class 1 and Class 2 Standards. The primary goal of the study was a Physical Plant assessment of the B&M Rail line, therefore, the commodity types and volumes presented in the Draft report were intended for general information only. Decision of the Planning Board The City Planning Board Voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the rail "survey" be carried on in an intensive manner and that it (the Survey) be financed or funded. In addition, the City Engineer and other City officials reviewed the report. Comments made during the Planning Board meeting would be incorporated in the project report. Table of Contents Summary of Comments, Changes & Additional Information Received I Executive Summary 1 & 2 II Funding 3 III Scope of Study 4 IV Physical Plant Assessment 5 V Inspection 6 - 8 VI Findings 9 - 11 Vil Rail Traffic Evaluation 12 - 16 Vill Recommendations 17 List of Figures and Photos Figure No._ Branch Location Plan 1 Portsmouth Branch Plan 2 Hampton Branch Plan 3 Newington Plan 4 General Track Photographs Portsmouth Branch Defects 5 Hampton Branch Defects 6 Newington Branch Defects 7 Defect Photographs - Rail Traffic Plan 8 MisceHaneous Recommendations by Branch Line and Class Chart No 1 Summary of Class Limitations Chart No. 2 Appendicies B&M Bridge and Structure Inspection Reports Appendix A Class I & 2 Comparison Appendix B Track Curve Inspection Data Appendix C *Supplemental Information Appendix D *Information received following the December 20, 1984 presentation of the Draf t Report. I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I Executive Summary The intent of the Portsmouth Rail Track Survey and Evaluation Project as presented in this document is to assess track physical condition and geometric configuration on the Portsmouth, Hampton and Newington Branch Lines, (see Figure No. 1). Track condition and geometry were then compared to current Federal Railroad Administration (F.R.A.) Class 1 (10 mph) and Class 2 (25 mph) rail freight criteria. Prior to actual field inspection, the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission was contacted to ascertain location of previous freight derailments with the intent of inspecting those locations for existing defects. Results of the intensive four (4) day field inspection by Andrews & Clark resulted in the documentation of eight (8) rail defects.relating to track condition and geometry as dictated by F.R.A. Class 1 and Class 2. In addition, general defects such as vegetation and drainage were found. At the time of inspection, B&M Rail crews were encountered on the Newington Branch north of Cutts Avenue. An Inspection was made on that section prior to commencement of maintenance work. Numerous existing ties were marked for replacement. It was observed that 130 l.b. rail had been positioned near the track in anticipation of impending replacement of the existing 75 and 85 lb. rail. Assuming that the defects found during the inspection are corrected (see Recommendations), the Portsmouth and Hampton Branches will meet or exceed F.R.A. Class 2 (25 mph) minimum requirements. The Newington Branch, after completion of on going maintenance, will meet or exceed F.R.A. Class 1 (10 mph) requirements. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 new ties would be required to upgrade this line to Class 2 minimum standards. The tie re- placement program would include lining and surfacing of the track. It is further recommended that the entire branch line system be evaluated by a track mounted recording rai-l geometry vehicle. This procedure, although not required by F.R.A., would identify minor geometric deviations and provide data for future lining and surfacing 1 work. The intent of this procedure would be to create a smoother ride. It must be made very clear that track condition documented reflect observations at a point in time and that additional deficiencies may occur during normal rail freight operations, therefore continued inspection of these lines is necessary. Rail freight traffic commodity types and yearly system carload totals are contained in Exhibits 1-4 under the Rail Traffic Evaluation Section of this report. Generally, traffic on the branch line system is moderate. Actual yearly carload volumes by commodity type on each branch line is not presented due to the confidential nature of the information. However, as expected, due to the proximity of storage facilities for volatile materials on the Newington Branch Line, a significant portion of the branch commodity total is volatile material. It should also be noted that all inbound and outbound carloads on that line pass through Portsmouth. 2 A W E Durham Newington Branch Newingtorr A, Hampton Newmarket "0' -A Branch, Portsmouth Branch Newfields PO Greenland rtsmouth Rockingham Strathan Rye Junction Exeter North Hampton\ L Hampton Hampton Kingston I Falls South Hampton @@'Seabrook Sz @W Branch Location Plan FIGURE #1 II. FUNDING II Funding Funding for this Project was obtained through a Coastal Energy Impact Program Grant, administered by the Office of State Planning. Additional matching funds were supplied by the City of Portsmouth. 3 III. SCOPE OF STUDY III Sco2e of Study This study is a result of concerns aired by private citizens and public officials of City of Portsmouth and Representatives to the General Court from the Portsmouth area as to the condition of the Boston & Maine Corporation rail lines within the City of Portsmouth. (see Figure No.s 2, 3 & 4). Generally the three areas of investigation are as follows: a. The Portsmouth Branch northeast from the Greenland/ Portsmouth Town Line to the Hampton Branch. b. The Hampton Branch from Emery Junction north to the Newington Branch. C. The Newington Branch* northwest to the Portsmouth/ Newington town line. The study was subdivided into a Physical Plant Assessment, a Rail Traffic Evaluation and Recommendations. The Physical Plant Assessment included: Data Collectionj Field Inspection and Evaluation. Existing Track Charts and Right of Way & Track Maps (valuation plans) and most recent bridge in- spection reports were obtained with the cooperation of the Boston & Maine Corporation prior to field inspection. In addition, the Public Utilities Commission was contacted to identify and locate previous derailments. All tracks were inspected for comparison to most recent F.R.A. (Federal Railroad Adminstration) Track Safety Standards for Class 1 & 2 rail freight traffic, 10 mph and 25 mph respectively. All defects observed were immediately brought to the attention of the B&M track supervisor accompanying the inspection team. Results of the field inspection were evaluated for conformance with app- licable standards. Branch line rail traffic data was obtained from the B&M Corporation. Information received included yearly carload volumes and commodity types. Finally, as a result of data collected and evaluation of inspection findings, recommendations were made as to the ability of the lines in question to carry rail freight traffic at F.R.A. Class 1 & 2 speeds. *Designated Newington Branch for clarity. 4 TO t's A;IJV X, Rucwsk, .W2. AI. 16 9i -wow 101 PORTSMOUTH BRAt TO FXEIEV 95 /101 0.1 a 0.5 A& PORTSIVINTH W-Es N If, AmproN A ,,s,ax NIL. ERV, V no ROCHES 16 95 vtcl ";X rne HAMPTON BRANCH SUN ,V 9.5 rd nj T 0 EXETEI 93 /101 mmwmff-._- _-.w"mL 7 -.-NNW URTSMOUTH MILES N IAMPICIN T. fPURTLANU TO DOWER ROCHES EA <'Af 95 NEWINGTON BRANCH L 9 E 11: P 95 /101 fRAMUTH Mil EN I I I I I i I i IV. PHYSICAL PLANT ASSESSMENT I I I I I I I I I I I IV Physical Plant Assessment Current Operations Freight operations on the branch lines are performed by the Portsmouth Switcher, headquartered in the Portsmouth yard. Services are provided to consignees and shippers as required but are available five (5) days per week. Freight cars are dropped and picked up at Rockingham Junction by through freight trains on a daily basis, (see Figure No. 1). Currently, operations are regulated by F.R.A. Class 1 speeds (10 mph) as required by the P.U.C. Operational Procedures According to B&M officials, procedures followed for the movement of hazardous cargo are in conformance with Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 170-179, (Rev. November 1, 1983). Additional safety procedures are outlined in P.U.C. Docket DT 81-387, (not part of this report). Derailment History According to records at the Public Utilities Commission, there have been five (5) reported derailments since 1969. Derailments in the Portsmouth area are defined as, "one (1) wheel off the track and on the ground." Derailment Summary Year Location 1969-1975 None reported 1975-1980 Files not found 1981 Cutts Avenue 1982 Emery Junction near Barberry Lane (3) 1983 Location not known 1984 No reports as of 9/10/84 5 V. INSPECTION V Inspection General An inspection team from Andrews & Clark, Inc., rerformed a walking field inspection of the branch lines on October 15th through October 18th. An experienced rail inspector was in responsible charge at all times. During the inspection processo, a Track Supervisor from the B01 Corporation accompanied the inspection team. Assisting Andrews & Clark, during the inspection, were Mr. Craig Wheeler and Mr. David Holden of the Portsmouth Planning Department. Prior to the inspection, the Public Utilities Commission was contacted to identify and locate previous derailments with the intent of inspecting these locations for potential defects. In addition, the Portsmouth Fire Department was contacted as to their concerns. Scope Existing tracks were inspected with the intent of comparing field conditions to F.R.A. Regulations Part 213-Track Safety Standards for Class 1 and Class 2 Freight Trains. Essentially geometric features and track structure components inspected include but were not limited to: - Acceptable ties per length of rail (39 ft.) (213.109) - Gage (213.53) - Rail end mismatch (213.115) - Tangent and curved line deviation (213.55) - Cross level deviation (213.57) thru (213.59) - Rail joints (213.121) - Rail fastenings (213.127) - Defective rails (213.113) Additional general observations made concerning track integrity were; rail weight, rail condition, drainage, vegetation, highway grade crossings, ballast condition and bridges. Procedure In order to accurately investigate track geometry and physical condition of track structure, the entire branch line 6 system under investigation was physically inspected on four (4) seperate occasions. 1. Initially all curves, ten (10) in all, were stationed and marked as a basis for string lining of track. Curve lengths varied from 400 to 2,500 feet. 2. With the cooperation of the B&M Corporation, a "High-rail Vehicle" was driven over the entire system at traveling speeds of 10-15 miles per hour. Rail ride was observed and a general photo log of the entire system was taken. 3. Cross level and gage was measured on all curves including inbound and outbound tangent sections for comparison against assumed design,.super- elevation for deviation from F.R.A. Standards. Tangent portions of track were visually observed for gage and cross level deviation. 4. Finally the entire line was walked and inspected for physical surface defects such as crushed head, vertical split head, horizontal split head, broken bases, ordinary breaks, damaged rail and the like. Joint bars were inspected for cracks, breaks and proximity of both in reference to joint bolts. Joint bolts were counted for numbers of acceptable bolts per rail joint. Tie plates and spikes were observed for existance, general condition and position. Ties were assessed for condition according to F.R.A. Track Safety Standards. Although superceded on September 7, 1982, F.R.A. Track Safety Standard Section 213.127 Track Spikes was used as a guide to determine adequacy of rail fastening, (current standards do not indicate minimum numbers of spikes by Class and location but is left to the discretion of the track inspector). Rail tie geometric location and Physical condition were also inspected. Each length of rail (39 feet) was evaluated for acceptable ties. F.R.A. Class 1 requires a minimum of five (5) acceptable ties per rail and Class 2 requires eight (8) acceptable ties per rail length. General criteria for defecting ties under Section 213.109 Crossties include: a) Broken through b) Split C) Deteriorated d) Tie plate cut In addition, rail joints were inspected for at least one (1) 7 acceptable crosstie whose centerline is within 24 inches on either side of the centerline of joint, (see Appendix B for Class 1 & 2 comparison). Rail Bridges Inspection of existing rail bridges and grade separations are not included within the scope of the project. However, in an effort to present a comprehensive assessment of the rail lines investigated, most recent Bridge and Structure Inspection Reports of bridges on the line were obtained from the Boston & Maine Corporation, (see Appendix A). 8 Wr -Wini 24- Rte. 101 Grade Crossing At Greenland Town Line 1-95 Crossing (PMP 3.4) (PMP 3. 2) -- -------- ------------ - '7 15- WM Aft A A -16 -7A i@@ Track Southwest of Rte. 101 "S Track between Harvard Street Underpass; Middle Road Fsroderick Avenue (PMP 2.8) (PMP 2.0) \'Ad Vi &7. N: 4, @J RRW M 7- Bartlett Street Overhea crossing Barberry Lane Grade crossing (PMP 1.1) y 14 v Y@ 35 "7 ftk@:@ 5m@ Green Street Crossing Portsmouth Yard (DMP 5 70 (BMP 56.4) Ifti North Mill Pond Trestle 1-95 Underpass (Br. No. 0.19) (DMP 0.8) 'A (DMP 0.2) A jacent-to Circuit Road LPG Tank Car Siding (DMP .95) (DMP 2.6) VI. FINDINGS VI Findings General Results of the intensive four (4) day field inspection revealed track conditions at or above Class 2 standards for that portion of the Portsmouth and Hampton Branches within the study limits. In general, rail was 85 lb. throughout. Eight (8) track defects were found during the investigation. Generally defects were in the track structure, ie. ties and rail joints. The Newington Branch, however, had numerous defects with many ties in rejectable condition. Isolated rail joint defects found were immediately fixed by B&M maintenance crews. The portion of the line north of Kearsarge Way appeared to be in the worst condition. At the time of inspection, Wednesday, October 17th, B&M track crews were observed in the area of Cutts Crossing and were renlacing defective ties. It was also noted, at that time, that relay rail (130 lb.) and new ties were layed out north of Cutts Cross-ing and appeared to be in preparation for significant maintenance work. A larger maintenance crew was observed on the morning of October 18th, the last day of inspection. It is assumed that anticipated work on the line was to begin at that time. Geometry Evaluation of track geometry on the branch lines revealed no defects, (see Arnendix B for gage and cross level inspection data for the ten (10) curves and approach tangent sections) Track gage deviation from standard gage (41-8@211) varied from +14" to -3-2" but was within the limits for Class 1 and Class 2 track, (see Appendix C for comparison). Cross level and alignment on tangent sections were visually checked with no defects observed. Existing Cross level super- elevations on curves were compared against F.R.A. standards with no defects found. There is potential for uneven tie loading and possible rail compression resulting from excessive super- elevation especially on sections of track where steep down grades occur at curves. 9 Track Structure A total of eight (8) track structure defects were found and included defective ties, joint defects and fastening defects, (see Figure No.'s 5-7 for location). The track structure, North of Cutts Ave. where maintenance crews were encountered, was inspected in conjunction with the B&M track supervisor. Additional defects found were repaired at that time. one (1) defect was located on the Portsmouth Branch east of the Hampton Line Junction, three (3) defects were found in the Portsmouth yard and four (4) defects were located on the Newington Branch north of Kearsarge Way. General defects not necessarily dictated by Class 1 and Class 2 criteria were also found and are discussed under sections 213.33 and 213.37. On the Portsmouth Branch, south of the yard area, excessive vegetation such as brush and limbs encroach into the track area. The Newington Branch near Kearsarge Way and 1-95 has a significant drainage problem. Although there has been an extreme dry spell in the region, standing water has been observed in drainage ditches. During winter months, areas such as this are usually susceptible to frost action especially if ballast is fouled. Excessive frost action can lead to geometric and rail structure defects. 10 Summary of Rail Defects (10/15/84 - 10/18/84) Defect Valuation No. Map No. Station (FRA Section) Description V.28 STA. 85 + 70+ to STA. 138 + 60 1 STA. 90 + 70+ Joint not supported. Shims are Split and have not been removed. V3 N.H. STA. 2966 + 20 to STA. 3019 + 0 2 55 STA. 2985 + 40+ Joint Defect - Defective Ties. (213.109(d)) Adjacent Ties at Joint Not Supporting Joint. 3 STA. 2991 + 60+ Same as above. 4 STA. 2994 + 40+ Joint bar broken & 1 bolt missing OK for Class 1 Track. (Requires New Joint Bar & 1 Additional Bolt for Class 2 Track) V3 N.H. STA. 0 + 00 to STA. 52 + 80 56-A 5 STA. 45 + 00+ Broken Joint Bar. (213.121(c)) (Replaced Same Day) 6 STA. 49 + 20+ Joint Defect - Defective Ties. (213.109(d)) Adjacent Ties at Joint Not Supporting Joint. (Replaced next day) V3 N.H. STA. 52 + 80 to STA. 105 + 60 56-B 7 STA. 68 + 30+ Joint Defect - Defective Ties. (213.109(d)) Adjacent Ties at Joint Not Supporting Joint. 8 STA. 70 + 95+ Rail Fastenings (213.127) No Rail Fastenings & at Joint. (213. 109 (d) TO DDVEP HUGMILS ER 4 16 9s J1, 10 95 /Vol an^ UAW PORTSIVIUUTH MILES 21 ml TO PORTLAND TO DOWER NN ROC 5 Ea 16 95 o i @Z TO EXErE 95 /101 0.5 Io ww"I'Tori PORTSAVI(f)UTH 01 0 TO PORTLAND ME. 0 OOVEIQ RjCH...WlEA 4 16 IA 16 I-T 01 T 0 EXETE 95 /101 TO HAMPTON PORTSMOUTH MILES AP NNW ..quA.Aw 1-71 Z16 my. z,Ak, Just North of Kearsage Way Broken Joint Bar Defect #5 Shim Defect-Work in Progress 1-95 Underpass (DMP 0.8) (DMP 0.8) J ol -C M-O"- -7@71,1- ;7 Al Adjacent to Rock Hill Avenue Adj. to Substation Circuit Rd A Joint Defect #6-Defective Ties B _@l -Defect Marked to be Fixed by (DMP 0.9) (DMP 1.2) =7 04 IM tv AF AMP- 41r, lip 70 North o fKearsage Wa North of Kearsage Way T y M71 Joint Bar Functioninq Joint Bar (DMP 1.2) (DMP 1.2) T. I. -Q J A I WT.5 IL blow V-@)4c@ A Adjacent to Brewster Street North of Cutts Road Joint Defect #3-Defective Ties Tie Replacement in Progress (BMP 56 -W-Aa- (DMP .5) -Ica \ \\111141 VII. RAIL TRAFFIC EVALUATION VII Rail Traffic Evaluation Freight Traffic Current Operations Inbound and outbound rail freight traffic on the Portsmouth, Hampton and Newington Lines are picked up or dropped at Rockingham Junction by through trains on the Boston to Portland Line. Service on the branch lines is five (5) days per week or on demand and is handled by a Switcher operating out of Portsmouth station. Commodities shipped to and from the Newington Branch travel through downtown Portsmouth over the Hampton Branch then over the Portsmouth Branch to Rockingham Junction, (see Figure No. 8, Rail Traffic Plan). Rail freight traffic volumes and corresponding commodity types are considered confidential information by the B&M Corporation. However, for general information, commodity types by percent of branch line volumes are presented in Exhibits 1-4 (pages 13-16) in order to reflect general commodity types and relationship of inbound to outbound traffic. 12 W E Newington Durham Branch Newington r, Hampton A Branch Newmarket Portsmouth Branch Newfields Portsmou h Greenland I Strathan Rockingham Junction Rye Exeter North Hampton\ L Hampton Hampton Kingston Falls A@* South Hampton"..1 Seabrook A:@ Rail Traffic Plan FIGURE #8 Exhibit #1 ORIGIN and DESTINATION DATA - 1981 (Carloads to and from points on branch lines) Branch Commodity Inbound Outbound Portsmouth Paper 76% LPG 0% Beer 17% Misc.-Gen'l 7% Hampton Sand 69% Plastics 0% Lumber 17% Coal 1% Pulphoard 12% 100% *Navy Yard 1% -- Newington LPG 52% 72% Chemicals 32% 0% Plastic 12% 28% Tallow/Chemicals 4% 0% Branch Line System. Totals 2238 359 *Received at Portsmouth Station, unloaded on Hampton Branch 13 ORIGIN and DESTINATION DATA - 1982 (Carloads to and from p3l-ntson branch lines) Branch Commodity Inbound Outbound Portsmouth Paper 78% LPG 1% Beer 10% Misc.-Gen'l 11% Hampton Sand 87% Plastics 1% Lumber 6% Coal 1% -- Pulpboard 4% 100% *Navy Yard 1% Newington LPG 49% Chemicals 45% -- Plastics 6% 100% Tallow/Chemicals 0% -- Branch Line System Totals 4471 43 *Received at Portsmouth Station, unloaded on Hampton Branch 14 ORIGIN and DESTINATION DATA - 1983 (Carloads to and from points on branch lines) Branch Commodity Inbound Outbound Portsmouth Paper 72% LPG 1% Beer 12% Misc.-Gen'l 15%X -- Hampton Sand (Seabrook) 70% 9% Plastics 3% -- Lumber 15% Coal 1% -- Pulpboard. 11% 91% Newington LPG 61%* -- Chemicals 26% Oil 1% Plastics 3% -- Tallow/Chemicals 9% 100% Branch Line System Totals 3353 74 *Spot export move (one time shipment) XCars unloaded at Saxonville lumber on Hampton Branch 15 Exhibit #4 ORIGIN and DESTINATION DATA - 1984, lst 6 months (carloads to and from points on branch line) Branch Commodity Inbound Outbound Portsmouth Paper 74% Beer 15% Misc.-Gen'l 11% Hampton Sand 1% Plastics 12% Lumber 41% Coal 4%. -- Pulpboard 36% 100% *Navy Yard 6% -- Newington Chemicals 64% -- Tallow/Chemicals 36% 100% Branch Line System Total (6 months) 766 42 *Received at Portsmouth Station, unloaded on Hampton Branch 16 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS VIII Recommendations General As a result of the physical plant assessment including physical condition and geometry, certain deficiencies were found. Specific defects such as gage variation and insufficient ties per length of rail were assessed relative to F.R.A. Class 1 and Class 2 requirements. Other deficiencies such as drainage and vegitation are considered general in nature and are not compared to class of track, recommendations are presented accordingly. In addition to recommendations by Class of track set forth in Chart No. 1 (next page), it is also recommended that the portion of the Newington Branch under maintenance work during the initial inspection be reinspected following the setting of the 130 lb. rail. Two curves M & #5) were found to deviate geometrically from acceptable limits, (see Appendix C). Both are located in the Portsmouth Yard Limits and are controlled by Class 1 speeds. It is recommended that the entire system, including these sectionst be analyzed by a track mounted rail geometry vehicle. Although this procedure is not required by F.R.A. regulations, it is considered to be a prudent measure. A summary of Class Limitations is also provided as a comparison of controlling criteria by class. 17 aw, go, Wa GO as, go Wo im) OW, go; am, RECOMMENDATIONS by Branch Line and Class F.R.A. Class 1 F.R.A. Class 2 General Comments (10 mph) (25 mph) Branc Line Portsmouth Repair Defect Same Remove Brush Defect No. 1 Branch #1 (Joint Support) to be repaired by B&M. Hampton Repair Defect Repair Defect Defects 2, 3 & 4 Branch No.'s 2 & 3 No.'s 2, 3, & 4 to be repaired by B&M. Newington Repair Defect Replace 1. Remove Brush 1. Defects 5,6,7 & 8 Branch No.'s 5,6,7 & 8 Approximately to be repaired 1,000 ties 2. Investigate by B&M. drainage near 1-95 2. Rail being replaced with 130 lb. rail by B&M. 3. Ties marked defective by B&M being replaced. BNranch Line Chart No. 1 Summary of Class Limitations (assuming oE-served defects are fixed) Restricting Condition Physical Plant Geometry Operational Within Within Branch Curve Super Yard Grade Yard Controlling Line Ties Spikes Joints Line Elevation Gage Limits Crossing Limits Class Portsmouth Curve No. 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 -- 3 2 Curve No. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -- 2 Curve No. 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Hampton Curve No. 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Curve No. 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Newington Curve No. 6 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Curve No. 7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Curve No. 8 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 -- 1 Curve No. 9 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Curve No. 10 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Re strictl g c@ Bran h Line Chart No. 2 APPENDIX A BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION - DEBTOR SNES414767 ROBERT W. MESERVE. BENJAMIN H. UCY - TRUSTEES ISUPP. ATT-1 BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT SPAN NO. ........ CONDITION OF STRUCTURE (IF NOT GOOD, GIVE DETAILS) DATE..."Y-R!n4". SHEETNO .................. MEMBER G F P DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION INSP. AREA Z, 1 02 1,1 ML ASTENINGS BR .......... LINE: .... 'F I ST TIJ - OPEN DECK APR 7@5/7 STATION: . ........... WaoWAYS NAME ..... AAFSr. S!SERS --- - I 114SST DECK TIMBER CONC. CLASS OF INSPECTION SW PLATE FLOOR v C A D 1 11 J I llic! GERS TYPE OF SPAN HWY FOOT i j'.l P4R ' :'I@IGL STRINGER CONN. SA BA TH OTHER FLiwRBEAMS STEEL CONCRETE CULVERr F. WONN. is RCS BOX D G R KNEE BRACES CA Kws PIL A TRS R GO FLANGE @WERS - TOP TRT RCB TWT SIN BOTT. DIRT Comp D A17 PC WES RPT CRF ODT---, RCP OT VIjt BENTS - TOWERS VIAD S-cs - ----- VcP TRWES - TOP CHORD TPCT PSCST FIRT CIF DPCT CMF' BOTT. 1. SRF SLP RT DIAGONALS END POSTS IMMEDIATI PAIRS REQUIRED, )OINTS 9ANG - 70P - BOTTOM -SWAY BANGS - FIXED 0 - EXPANSION REMARKS: MASONRY - PIERS t, -CA/* ABUTS. PARAPETS WINGS 54- COVER STONES rlhrBER CAPS Ami SILLS P* at F4LES OH POSTED . . . TON'S SIC,\: NS@@ SIGNs:G0 FO PO. LF(moi-- YES' No-, IWA Z PLATE pw- INSP. BY: STAMP ',ItA @-@ ..... I" -10R MWALES REPORT EXAMINH). ....... ;ENCES SUPERVISOR BR. & Bt DG,'S REPORT RFN'li-%%'Fl) E N G'R OF Sl R I @ C I k I - S BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION - DEBTOR 11177 ROBERT W. MESERVE, BENJAMIN H. LACY - TRUSTEES SUPP. AT BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT No. T-7 SPAN NO. ...... of I ........... CONDITION OF STRUCTURE (IF NOT GOOD, GIVE DETAILS) DATE . . SHEET NO .................. MEMBER G F P DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION rNSP. AREA 9-1 02 _�@@ ML IWIFASTIEENINGS LINE: .... SR ST .TIES -OPEN DECK "4 .f e c- c t-,O@r STATION: 2cr@9.,r4 02.epkl *"AYS NAME.. ;.;iZ'*,w7A4frS;-. (ZV... 4 Y WERS CLASS OF INSPECTION BALLAST DECK TIMBER CONC. WEL PkATE FLOOR vlqcl 1 1 fic! TYPE OF SPAN omams TRK Om I C STRkNGER CONN. OND 11 HWY FOOT SA BA TH OTHER OORBEAMS TIMBER CULVERT STEEL 1,11 CONCRETE 1 1! FIB. C004N. is RCS ws BOX KNEE BRACES DPG CA KWS PIPE TRR ERS - TOP FLANGE TPG -A Rc TRT RCB TVri STN BOTT. '267rf W r-AAg-,A X- 2&4@7 V10 Y "'AL PA,%I- DRT COMP DVr WES _X91, 6412 inc-_z ac 7 :&@ACefi RPT CRF ODT RCP REUTS - TOWERS VIAD Rscs SOT vcp wp.Q A1,0 4 AL .44-1 /@ar, x % TPCT PSCST FRT CIP ALSES, - TOP CHORD e- e _v"AAe@gc DPCT WLT CMP ZOYAelf 0@ BOTT. 1. 43677C1W 49@v&Ajr IAl APALD SRF SLP NALS RT END POSTS IMMEDIATE REPAIRS REOUIRED; - JOINTS - BOTTOM - SWAY IiNGS - RXEr EXPANSION 4- Wm_ MY - Pi-ERS EMARKE ABUTS. PARAPETS L, WINGS r r7w c S TIMBER CAPS 4a r--%- X SILLS OH POSTED . . . TONS SIGN:---- N S,,'@ 10 2 0 N;m ar PILES SIGNS: GO FO PO LFGIBI+ YES@' N00 WALL POATE Iffm STAMP INSP. BY: BK IN .SH_ , '!OR TMES R EPORT E X A Ni I NE D: .. ... ..... FF_ RCES SUPERVISOR BR & hi.DG"S REPORT RFVJI-AVIA)@ ............. ENG'R. OF STRI'k- FVRES ML 13R ST P L V T, BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION - DEBTOR tal 77 ROBERT W. MESERVE. BENJAMIN H. LACY - TRUSTEES ISUPP. AT BRIDGE AND STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT No. SPAN NO. of ..@!p ...... CONDITION OF STRUCTURE (IF NOT G OOD, GIVE DETAILS) DATE. SHEET NO .................. MEMBER G F- P DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION INSP. AREA Erl 02 ML FASTENINGS "I BR. LIN E: P?@,ep. 1@.g4a TIES - OPEN DECK v L", v - I/ @7 f,',? n v.;r Ai 141,41 .............. X X',K /V STATION: I I i KWAYS 5:5, @:lece NAM E...7e:@. ............... ERS N no C--r .5 '@cgq /6 -Weive a ST DECK TIMBER CONC. I CLASS OF INSPECTION I V I L4 C 1 11 A 1 11 D 1 1! 1 SWL PLATE F OOR SENGERS TYPE OF SPAN TRK OH-1 I! HWY 1 11 FOI T I @ COND SIG_! STRINGER CONN. SA BA 1 11 TH OTHER@` FAORBEAMS STEEL 1@i CONCRETE TIMBEE-,!-- -CULVERT F CONN, t 18 RCS Ws -Box KNEE BRACES DPG RCA KWS ERS - TOP FLANGE TPG CA TRS RC_ TRT RCB TWT STN DRT COMP Dw- i PC WEB RPT CRF or,7 RCP Vf&, BENTS - TOWERS VIAD RSCS T VCP TPCT PSCST FRT CIP T&SES - TOP CHORD DPCT WLT C NIP 807t@ SRF SLP DIAGONALS RT END POSTS 4MM6;4X;E REPAIRS REQUIRED: -JOINTS BOTTOM SWAY -ijjjjj@ @RINGS, FIXED W" - EXPANSION REMARKS: MASONRY - PIERS ABUTS. PARAPETS WINGS S* - COVER STONES TIMBER CAPS SILLS OH POSTED . . . TONS Sf(-',.N NSO I,-; 2,C TS or PILES SIGNs: GO FO PO I YF'sl-l No"- 7ALL PLATE T STANIP INSP. HK IN'!411 (-10K TALES REPORT EXAMINED: .. .. - . FENCES O-J -TAr,-E y 72@jA7,lb"lr -1 1,- 1 1.3 pone A 6 "K V'10" 7-0,@- IP??.,As Alpdcr/4 SUPFRVISOP BR.&- IiLI)C,'S 'A 27 L' REPORT REN II:%%'ED: .. ..... ... ENG'R OF RUCI 1. Rl S A c,0-eevvw B's s F ALLA V'AD TPCT CT ED P SRF: BOSTON AND MAINE CORPORATION - DEBTOR BRID ROBERT W MESERVE. SENIAMIN H. LACY - TRUSTEES No. ISUPP. ATT GE AND STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT SPAN NO. '7.0. . CONDITION OF STRUCTURE (IF NOT GOOD, GIVE DETAILS) DATE. 4na-@76.5... SHEETNO .................. MEMBER G FIP I DETAILS OF DEPRECIATION INSP.AREA DA 02 RAILS SL FASTENINGS LINE: .................. OPEN DECK STATION: '00uw@ .......... WALKWAYS NAME ....... 4(vs. '/AZq. 7@5 ................... M&CERS L@/ ,-I&LAST DECK TIMBER CONC. =CLASS OF INSPECTION STEEL PLATE FLOOR IVILtCl HAI JjD1 11,11 NMI I 1WINGERS iz 2 TYPE OF SPAN SINGER CONN. TRK ON HWY FOOT 111 COND 111 SIC, I SA BA 11 TH OTHER I FLOORBEAMS STEEL 941 CONCRETE TIMBER /J CULVERT a. CONN. 16 4- RCS WS Box t &E BRACES DPG 11 RCA KWS PIPE GADERS -TOP FLANGE TPG CA TRS C TRT RC9 TWT STN BOTT. 7W- DRT Comp DWT PC !I T WES RPT CRF DDT RCP VIAO.. BENTS - TOWERS VIAD RSCS 130T vcp 'WSSES - TOP CHORD TPCT PSCST FRT, CIP DPCT WLT Cmp BOTT. SRF SLP -DIAGONALS RT END POSTS -)DINTS IMMEDIATE REPAIRS REQUIRED; i9&,*gag @2A*"_ BRACING - TOP -BOTTOM IZIA4A, e.,v SWAY 04-0-; C'-)@Orxw ma2rs, E 4 A-410 IP jLARINGS - FIXED -EXPANSION RM REMARKS: MASONRY - PIERS SAA dee PARAPET%,AA*.*-cl WINGS COVER STONES WER CAPS g4le Avgoge "m SILLS I 6p, 7' JeW-guggr :7 A W.A OH POSTED . . . TONS SIGN. NSO 10 20 J1015ir, PILES SIGNS: GO FOPO LEGIBLE USO NOO PLATE PAM STAMP JNSP. BY; BR. I .. -('T6R* OLL TALES REPORT EXAMINED . ... ........ Sams SUPERVISOR BR. & BLDG 'S. LIM 'd I A'Oppt. REPORT REVIEWED: ............. A ENG'R OF STR UCTI? RE S I I i I i I I I APPENDIX B CLASS 1 & 2 COMPARISON I I I I I I I I I I I Class 1 & 2 Comparison Class 1 Class 2 (10 mph) (25 mph) Minimum 5 8 Ties/39 ft. Gage 4'-S" (min.) 41-811(min.) I-8LII) (4 2 V-10"(max.) 41-9 3/411 (rqax.) Rail End (gage side) 3/16" (gage side) Mismatch 14" (tread) 14"' (tread) Tangent 511/62 ft. 3"/62 ft. Deviation Deviation from X-level 2"-3" (max.) 1 3/4"-2" (max.) (62 ft) Rail Joints 1 bolt (min.) 2 bolts (min.) Spikes/Rail/Tie* 2 (min.) 2 (min.) Joint Support 48" between ties, Same 24" from center of joint to centerline nearest tie. *Based on F.R.A. Section 213 Standards prior to September, 1982. Splice 591-011 Splice (Minimum 5 Acceptable Ties 24" Max. 24!' Max. rn r" I I r-,I " A r" r" I I F, ir II I I I I I f w L-iw Li Lj L- L 4j L-j L-j L-j L-j 24" Max. SPI ice F.R,A, Class I Splice 391-0" Splice (Minimum 8 Acceptable Ties) 24" Max. I 1- 24" Max. rI% ri N L.J L-, L-A 14j, L-i La Li 24" Max.- @Splico F. R. A. ClaSSLII APPENDIX C RAIL GEOMETRY Rail Geometry Assumptions In lieu of design speeds from the B&M Corporation on each branch line, our assessment of each curve's design speed was made based on field measurements. Findings are contained in computation sheets 1-17, attached. Curve Design Criteria Curve No. Degree *Class of Track 1 00- 40' 3 2 30- 30'-0 0- 40' 2 3 30- 30' 2 4 80 1 5 80 0 6 4 -30' 1 7 20- 00'-2 0- 30' 8 30- 00, 9 10- 00, 0 10 3 -30' *Based on existing track and geometry Track Curve Locations Curve No. Location 1 Near Barberry Lane 2 North of Cutters Lane 3 Between Cutters Lane and Portsmouth Road 4 Portsmouth Yard 5 Portsmouth Yard 6 Market Street 7 South of Cutts Avenue 8 North of Cutts Avenue 9 South of Newington Line 10 South of Newington Line ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET C 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S R E F E R E N C E . ... . .............. ........... .......... .............. . .... ..... ......... -... joB 9A.0.-.PO7l0-1--- .. . ..................... ...... ... .... IN CHARGE OF ........................... 1-1 ....................- ........... ....... City of Portsmouth, NH . .. ....... -........... ......... MADE IBY F,,*.,,,J 0-. DATE I.O.Z.1.5 10/18/84 Rallro.ad Track... ..Survey ......... .... ..... -, , *- , - -*,,,* .............*. ..... ... ..... . CHECKED BY ... . ........... -- ........................ .-- DATE ..................... Evaluatlon.-Proj.ect. CUR-\,7E 110. 1, 0 0- 401 (FROMI TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 3 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I I ASSUMED STA-@ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN., ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@to+11-2 @DESIGN 48) 2 -1 +1/4 -1/8 -1/8 1 0 +1/2 -1/4 0 -1/4 0 0 +1/2 -1/6 0 0 +1/2 -1/8 1 10 0.62 0 +1 +1/4 3/3 -38 +5/8 +1/4 2 6 0.375 0 +1 3/8 0 3/4 -42 +5/3 0 0 -11n 3 -10 -0.62 +1 7/8 -1/8 1 1/8 -58 +3/4 U 4 13 0.81 0 +1 7/3 -1/8 1 1/2 -35 +3/8 -1/ 3 5 22 1.37 0 +2 3/8 -1/4 1 7/8 -26 +1/2 -1/4 6 22 1.37 0 +2 3/4 -1/3 2 1/4 -26 +1/2 -1/8 7 19 1.19 0 +2 1/2 -1/2 2 5/8 -29 -1/3 -1/2 0 U 17 1.06 +3 3/8 -1/8 3 -31 +3/8 -1/6 9 14 0.88 0 +3 1/4 +1/4 3 -34 +1/4 +1/4 10 9 0.56 0 +3 3/8 +1/4 3 -39 +3/8 +1/4 11 8 0.5 0 +3 3/4 -1/3 3 -40 +3/4 -1/8 12 8 0.5 0 +3 3/8 0 3 -40 +3/8 0 13 15 0.94 0 +3 7/8 0 3 -33 +7/8 0 14 12 0.75 0 +3 1/4 +1/8 3 -36 +1/4 +1/8 15 20 1.25 0 +3 1/2 +1/4 3 -28 +1/2 +1/4 16 2 0.125 0 +3 5/8 +3/8 3 -46 +5/8 +3/8 17 1 0.06 0 +3 5/8 +1/4 3 -47 +5/8 +1/4 18 2 0.125 0 +3 5/8 -1/4 3 -46 +5/8 -1/4 19 10 0.62 0 +3 5/8 0 3 -36 +5/8 0 20 14 0.88 0 +3 1/4 0 3 -34 +1/4 0 21 24 1.5 0 +3 -1/4 3 -24 0 -1/4 22 6 0.375 0 +3 1/4 +1/16 3 -42 +1/4 +1/16 23 13 0.81 0 +2 7/8 +1/16 3 -35 -1/8 +1/16 24 4 +3 3/3 +1/3 3 -44 +3/8 +1/8 25 12 +3 1/8 -3/8 3 -36 +1/8 -3/8 2 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ............ .... .. . ............. C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S REFERENCE___ . ..... . ............. . ............. __ .. ......... ... joe-, 9.4.0.-PQ-1-01 ................... ...................... . .......... ....... . ........... INCHARGEOF . S*R.W. City of Portsmouth, NH . ... ...................................... ................ ........... ................ . .................... .................. . ...........I...........- MADE BY F. _J 0 .. . .......... .......... DATE 10/18/84 ey. ........... ..Ra.jlroad Track Surv CHECKED BY ... . ...................................... ............. DATE... .................... .... Evaluation P roj ect 0 CURVE 140. 1@0 -401 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 3 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS, I ASSUMED STA.@ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN., ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 + 3 11 MAX t o + DESIGN 48) 26 12 0.750 +3 0 3 -36 0 0 27 14 0.88 0 +2 7/3+1/4 3 -34 -1/8 +1/4 28 11 0.68 0 +2 7/8+3/8 3 -37 -1/8 +3/8 29 20 1.25 0 +3 +3/8 3 -28 0 +3/00 30 13 0.81 0 +2 3/4 0 3 -35 -1/4 0 31 15 0.93 0 +2 7/GU 0 3 -33 -1/8 0 32 10 0.62 0 +3 -1/4 3 -38 0 -1/4 0 33 6 0.38 +2 7/8-1/4 3 -42 -1/4 0 34 7 0.44 +2 3/0U 0 2 5/8 -41 -1/4 0 35 2 0.12 0 +2 -1/8 2 1/4 -46 -1/4 -1/8 36 3 0.18 0 +1 3 /4 0 1 7/8 -45 -1/8 0 37 -1 -0.06 0 +1 7/8-1/4 1 1/2 -49 +3/8 -1/4 38 0 +111 -1/4 1 1/-Q -48 +3/8 -1/4 0 n 39 +2 0.125 +1 1/8+1/-U 3/4 -46 +3/8 +1/0 40 0 --- +1/2 -1/8 3 ro) -48 +1/8 -1/8 41 -1 -0.06 0 -1/4 0 -49 0 -1/4 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 3 ot' i ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ............... C 0 N 5 U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S RE F ER ENCE . . ... . ........ . ........................ . ..... joB 9.4.0.-PO-10.1 ............ .............. IN CHARGE OF ......... . ....... City of Portsmouth, NH ....... .......... . ................ ........... ...........- . ..............I. .......... .-........ . ..... .............. MADE BY -.- F. ...J.....O .. . ... . ............... DATE 1-0/1.5--.7 10/18/84 ..... ..... .. ........... ........ Rallroad.... Track Survey ............. CHECKED BY .. . ........ . . ........... ....... ......... DATE ............. ........................ .. .......... ... Evaluation Project.... CURVE NO. 2vO 30, & 0 401 (FROM TRACK CHART).ASSUMED CLASS 2 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE IC LCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE AIN.) (IN.: ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +311MAX -1-2to+l@ IDESIGN 48 -2 0 0.250 +1/8 -1/8 0 0 +1/8 -1/8 -1 4 0.25 0 +1/4 -1/8 3/8 -44 -1/8 -1/8 0 8 0.5 0 +3/4 +1/8 3/4 -40 0 +1/8 1 9 0.56 0 +1 1/8 +1/8 1 1/8- -39 0 +1/8 2 28 1.75 0 +1 +1/8 1 1/2 -20 -1/2 +1/8 3 47 2.93 0 +1 3/8 +1 1/3 1 7/8 -1 -1/2 +1 1/8 4 48 30 + 2 1/8 +1/2 2 1/4 0 -1/8 +1/2 5 57 3.56 0 +2 3/4 +7/8 2 5/8 +9 +1/s +7/8 6. 52 3.25 0 + 3 @4- +7/8 3 +4 +1/4 +7/8 7 65 4.06 0 +3@4- +5/8 3 +17 +1/4 +5/8 6 52 3.25 0 +4 +5/8 3 +4 +1 +5/8) 9 50 3.12 0 +4 1/8 +3/8 3 +2 +1 1/8 +3/3 10 54 3.37 0 +312 +1/4 3 +6 +1/2 +1/4 11 56 3.5 0 +3 3/8 +1/2 3 +8 +3/8 +1/2 12 52 3.560 +3 7/8 +1/4 3 +4 +7/3 +1/4 13 56 2.87 0 +3 3/4 +5/8 3 +8 +3/4 +5/8 14 57 3.25 0 +3k, +1/2 3 +9 +1/2 +1/2 15 46 3.87 0 +3@4- +7/8 3 -2 +1/4 +7/8 16 52 4.06 0 +41-4 + .3/8 3 +4 +1 1/4 +3/8 17 62 3.87 0 +2 7/8 +1/4 3 +14 -1/8 +1/4 18 65 4.06 0 +3 1/8 +3/4 3 +17 +1/8 +3/4 19 46 2.88 0 +3-12' +5/8 3 -2 +1/2 +5/8 20 68 4.25 0 +4 +7/8 3 +20 +1 +7/8 21 49 3.06 0 +4 5/8 +1/2 3 +1 +1 5/8 +1/2 22 47 2.93 0 +5 +1/4 3 -1 +2 +1/4 23 45 2 81 0 +51-4 0 3 -3 +2 1/4 0 24 64 4 +4 7/8 0 3 +16 +1 7/8 0 25 40 2.5 0 +4 5/6 +1/8 3 -8 +1 5/8 +1/8 4 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ..... C 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S RE F E RE NC E . .... ......... ..... - joa -94.0.nPOrl-0.1- @ ........................................................... . ............ ........... IN CHARGE OF .......................... . ... ........................ ..... City of Portsmouth, NH . .................- ... ...... ..... --- ..... ......I............ .-............ . .......... . MADEBY ...... F.-J....O . . ... . ......................... DATE.J..Q/ Rail.road Track Survey .......... ...... .. 10/18/84 C HECK ED BY .. . .......... . ....... -- ...................... DATE ...................................... . ...... -Evaluation P.roj ect ... . ... . ... CURVE NO._ 213 0- 301 & 0"-@4(P (FROM TRACK CHART)ASSUMED CLASS 2 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I I ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV.. GAGE 1/1611 DEGREE (IN.) (IN.), ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +31'MAX 12- t o + 11-2 IDESIGN 48 26 35 2.18 0 +3 7/3 --@1/4 3 -13 +7/8 -1/4 27 77 4.810 +3 3/0 +1/8 3 .+29 +3/8 +1/8 rurnou8 28 75 4 +3 1/2 +3/8 3 +27 +1/2 +3/8 Turflgu,,t 29 51 Sw?- @f 0 3 +3 30 .76 4.75 6 +4 5/3 +3/4 3 +28 +1 5/8 +3/4 31 22 1.375 0 +4 3/4 +1/4 3 -26 +1 3/4 +1/4 32 21 1.31 0 +5 3/8 +3/8 3 -27 +2 3/8 +3/8 33 7 0.44 0 +5 1/4 +1/4 3 -41 +2 1/4 +1/4 34 20 1.25 0 +5 1/2 +7/8 3 -28 +2 1/2 +7/8 35 -8 -0.5 0 +6 +1/4 2 5/8 -56 +3 3/8 +1/4 36 10 0.625 0 +6 1/4 +1/2 2 1/4 -38 +4 +1/2 37 19 1.19 0 +6 1/ -2 +3/8 1 7/8 -29 +4 5/8 +3/8 38 6 0.375 0 +5 1/2 +1/4 1 7/8 -42 +3 5/8 +1/4 39 17 1.06 0 +5 1/4 +1/8 1 7/8 -31 +3 3/8 +1/8 40 4 0.250 +4 +1/4 1 7/8 -44 +2 1/8 +1/4 41 15 0.94 0 +2 7/8 -1/4 1 7/8 -33 +1 -1/4 42 14 U21uszo +2 3/4 -1/2 1 7/8 -34 +7/8 -1/2 43 6 0.37 9 +2 1/4 +1/8 1 1/2 -42. +3/4 +1/8 44 -3 CahleRoPas@.-+' 1/3 0 1 1/8 -51 0 0 45 12 0.75 0 +5/3 -11A 3/4 -36 -1/8 -1/4 46 -6 0.37 0 +1/4 -1/8 3/8 -54 -1/8 -1/8 47 3 0.18 0 0 0 0 -45 0 0 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 5 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ........... ..... C 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S R E F E R E N C E ...... . ... . ............... .............. joB -94.0=20-101 ..... ................... .............. . ........ .. .... ............ .. . ..... ..... IN CHARGE OF ......... .... City of Portsmouth, NH ............................... .. .......... . .......... ........... ...... MADE BY -... F- J .....0 .... ..... ........... ............. DATE 1.011:5--.7 10/18/84 . .. . ..... . ... ........... Railroad Track Survey ........... ........... CHECKED BY . . .......... . .............. .............. ...... DATE .......................... Evaluation Project . ... .. ... CURVE NO. 3,3 0- 301 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 2 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY ASSUMED DEVIATION LIMITS STA. ORDINATE ICALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN.,' ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +311MAX -hto+l@, IDESIGN 48) -2 0 Tprpout +3/8 +1/8 0 +3/8 +1/8 1 12' 0.75 0 +1/4 +3/8 1/4 -36 0 +3/8 2 57 3.56 0 +1/8 +5/8 1/2 +9 -3/8 +5/8 3 86 5.376 +1/2 +5/8 3/4 +38 -1/4 +5/8 4 121 7.56 0 +1 5/8 +1/3 1 +73 +5/8 +1/8 5 62 3.88 0 +1 1/2 -1/8 1 1/4 +14 -1/4 -1/8 6 100 6.25 0 +1 1/8 +1/2 1 1/2 +52 -3/8 +1/2 7 96 6 0 +1 +3/4 1 3/4 +43 -3/4 +3/4 8 67 4.180 +3/8 +1/2 2 -+19 -1 5/8 +1/2 9 36 2,25 0 +7/6 +1/8 2 1/4 -12 -1 3/8 +1/8 10 30 1.87 0 +1 1/8 +1/4 2 1/2 -18 -1 3/8 +1/4 11 24 1.5 0 +1 1/8 +3/8 2 3/4 -24 -1 5/8 +3/8 12 20 1.250 +2 +3/8 3 -28 -1 +3/8 13 18 1.12 0 +1 1/2 0 3 -30 -1 1/2 0 14 39 2.44 0 +1 7/6 +1/2 3 -9 -1 1/8 +1/2 15 11 0.69 0 +2 0 3 -37 -1 0 16 47 2.93 0 +1 1/2 +3/4 3 -1 -11/2 +314- 17 62 3.87 0 +1 1/2 -1/8 3 +14 -1 1/2 -1/8 18 66 4.12 0 Xing --- 3 (Barberry ln) --- 19 60 3.75 0 Xing --- 3 +12 --- --- 20 81 5.06 0 +1 +7/8 3 +33 -2 +7/8 21 42 2.62 0 +1 3/4 +3/8 3 -6 -1 1/4 +3/8 22 56 3.5 0 +2 1/8 +1/8 3 +a -7/8 +1/8 23 50 3.13' +2 5/8 +3/8 3 +2 -3/8 +3/3 24 52 3.25 0 +3 1/8 +3/8 3 +4 +1/8 +3/8 25 55 3.44 0 +3 3/8 +1 3 +7 +3/8 +1 6 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK,INC. SHEET No . ............... . .......... . C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S R E F E R E NC E . ... . ....... .. ....... . ... .......... ... -- joe ........ ..... . . .. .. .. ............. ... .................... INCHARGEOF . S.R.W. City of Portsmouth ..-.,.N.H ........... .... ...... ... . ...... . ............................... ............... ...................... ....... ... - ............... ............ .....I...... ........ F.J.O. MADEBY . .... .. . .................-... .............. .......... DATE-10/15 10/18/84 ............ Railroad -Track.-Survey ........... CHECKED BY. .. . .......... . .............. ........ DATE .................... ............ Evaluation ..Project..... CURVE NO, 3.3 0- 301 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 2 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS. ASSUMED STA.ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN., ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@to+ 1 DESIGN 48) 26 50 3.12 0 +3 3/8 +5/8 3 +2 +3/8 +5/8 27 49 3.06 0 +3 11-4 +3/3 3 +1 +1/2 +3/8 0 28 54 3.38 +3 1/4 +3/8 2 3/4 +6 +1/2 +3/8 29 43 2.69 0 +3 5/8 +1/2 2 1/2 -5 +1 1/8 +1/2 30 50 3.12 0 +4 +3/8 2 1/4 +2 +1 3/4 +3/8 31 47 2.940 +3 1/4 +1/8 2 -1 +1 1/4 +1/8 32 38 2.38 0 +3 1/4 +0 1 3/4 -10 +1 1/2 +0 33 23 1.44 0 +2 3/4 +1/ 8 1 1/2 -25 +1 1/4 +1/8 34 -9 -0.560 +2 1/4 +1/8 1 1/4 -57 +1 +1/8 35 0 0 0 +1 1/4 +1/4 1 0 +1/4 +1/4 36 +3/8 0 3/4 -3/8 0 37 Q) +1/2 +3/8 1/2 0 +3/8 a) >1 38 0 +1/8 1/4 -1/4 +1/8 39 U x 0 -1/4 0 0 -1/4 0 4 0 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 7 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC-. SHEET No . ............. . .. ... ........ C 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S COM PUTAT I ON S RE F E RE NCE ............. .. . ... ... . ......... joB ..................... ... .............. -- ................... . ......... . ....... IN CHARGE OF ........ . ......I................... ....I............ . ..... ............ City of Portsmouth, I@H ............... ..........- .......... ........I........... . MADE BY F....J.....O .. . .... . ......................... DATE 10/15 10/18/84 ...Railroad Track -S.urvey ........... .... CHECKED BY ... . ....... . . .................... .-DATE ................. .... . ...... Evaluat.ion P.roj e ct 0 CURVE NO. 4p8 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE E=7. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN.,' ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@2to+l@-2 IDESIGN 48) -2 1 0 Road Xing 0 1 0 2 Road Xing 0 3 182 11.37 0 -7/8 +7/8 0 +134 -7/8 +7/8 4 114 7.12 0 -3/8 +1/2 0 +66 -3/8 +1/2 5 86 5.37 0 0 +1 0 +38 0 -@ 1 6 68 4.25 0 -1/8 +3/8 0 +20 -1/8 +3/8 7 92 5.75 0 +1/4 +3/4 0 +44 +1/4 +3/4 8 46 2.88 0 +1/8 -1/8 0 @2 +1/8 -1/8 9 65 4.06 0 0 0 0 +17 0 0 10 92 5.75 0 -1/8 +3/8 0 +44 -1/8 +3/8 11 99 6.18 0 -1/4 +3/4 0 +51 -1/4 +3/4 12 94 5.88 0 +1/4 0 0 +46 +1/4 0 13 138 8.62 0 +3/8 +1/2 0 +90 +3/8 +1/2 14 169 10.56 0 +5/8 +5/8 0 +121 +5/8 +5/8 15 148 9.25 0 +1/4 +1 1/8 0 +100 +1/4 +1 1/8 16 184 11.5 0 +1/2 +1/4 0 +136 +1/2 +1/4 17 143 8.93 0 +1/4 +1 0 +95 +1/4 +1 18 73 4.56 0 +1 5/8 +1/8 0 '+25 +1 5/8 +1/8 19 1 0.06 0 +7/8 0 0 .-47 +7/8 0 20 -6 -0.375 0 +3/4 0 0 -54 +3/4 0 21 Roadway 0 22 Roadway 0 23 Roadway 0 24 25 8 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . .......... .... . .... . ..... C 0 N S U L T I IN G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S RE F E R ENCE . ....... joB -.9-4.Q.-20-1-01 .. . .............. ...... .... .. . ............... .... ....... .... . ..... I N C H A R G E 0 F .......................... ..I........ . ................ . ..... . ...... C-it,y-of P-9.r.t.s.mo.u..t.h . ....... @N.H- ... . .......... ...... . .... .... .... .. ..... . F.J.O. MADEBY . . .... . .................... . ......................... DATE...1.0/ 4 10/18/8 .1road Track.....S.urv CHECKED BY .. . .......... . ........ ................. ............. DATE., ................. -- .......... Evaluatlon P-roj.ect CURVE NO. 518 0 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I I ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/1611 DEGREE (IN.) (IN.) ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@2-tc+1@2 IDESIGN 48) -2 0 -1 -0.62 0 +5/8 0 0 -49 +5/8 0 0 1 -1 -0.62 +3/4 +1/8 0 -49 +3/4 +1/8 2 4 0.25 0 0 -3/8 0 +44 0 -3/8 3 5 0.31 0 +5/8 -1/2 0 +43 +5/8 -1/2 4 94 5.87 0 +1/8 .+3/8 0 +46 +1/8 +3/8 5 120 7.5 0 +1/8 +3/8 0 +72 +1/8 +3/8 6 152 9.5 0 0 +1 0 +104 0 +1 7 110 6.88 0 Roadway 0 +62 --- 8 164 10.25 0 Roadway 0 +116 --- 9 164 10.25 0- Roadwa- 0 +116 10 91 5.69 0 Roadwav 0 +43 --- 11 82 5.12 0 Roadway 0 +34 --- 12 95 5.94 0 Roadway 0 +47 --- 13 135 8.44 0 Roadway 0 +87 --- 14 184 11.5 0 -5/8 +7/8 0 +136 -5/8 +7/8 15 128 8 +3/8 +1/2 0 +80 +3/8 +1/2 16 109 6.31 0 +1 3/8 +3/8 0 +61 +1 3/8 +3/8 17 153 9.56 0 +1/2 +3/4 0 +105 +1/2 +3/4 18 89 5.56 0 +1/8 +3/8 0 +41 +1/8 +3/8 19 151 9.43 0 -1/2 +5/8 0 +103 -1/2 +5/8 20 137 8.56 0 0 +1/2 0 +89 0 +1/2 21 67 4.18 0 0 +1/8 0 +19 0 +1/8 22 8 0,50 Switch --- 0 -40 --- --- 23 -4 -0.25 0 0 0 -52 0 0 24 25 9 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . .......... .... . . . ............ CONS ULTING ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S . ............. . .. . ............. joB 9.4.0.-PQ-101 ..................... ... ..................................... ............. ...... IN CHARGE OF R. W. City of Portsmouth, NH -.- ....... .................................. . ...... . .................... ............. .......... -- ........... .. ........ .... ............ .......... ..... F.J.O. MADEBY .... ... . ........ -- ....... ...... .......................... DATE...1.0/ 10/18/84 ........Rallroad Track Survey ............ ... CHECKED BY ... . .......... ........................... ... ...... DATE@ ..................................... Fvaluat-ion Proj.ect ............ ....... ... CURVE NO. 6,4 0- 30- (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUM.ED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATIO LIMITS I I ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16 DEGREE (IN.) (IN.) ELEV. (IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX --'@2tO+1@2 IDESIGN 48) 2 --- 0 0 0 +1/8 0 0 0 +1/8 1 15 .93 0 +3/8 0 0 -33 +3/8 0 2 70 4.37 0 Switch --- 0 +22 --- --- 3 102 6.37 0 Turnout- 0 +54 --- --- 4 122 7.62 C! Frog --- 0 +74 --- --- 5 77 4.810 -1/2 +1/8 0 +29 -1/2 +1/3 6 71 4.43 0 -7/8 +1/2 0 +23 -7/8 +1/2 7 48 3 0 -1/ 4 0 0 0 -1/4 0 8 61 3.8 -3/8 +1/3 0 +13 -3/8 +1/8 9 30 1.87 0 -1/4 0 0 -18 -1/4 0 10 -1 -1/2 +5/8 0 -49 1/2 +5/8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No.10 Q_f 17 C 0 N S U L T I N G E N G I N E E R S C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S JOB 94D.-PQ-101 ........... -- ................... -- ................... . ........ . .......... REFERENCE__. . ... . ......... .... ........ City of Portsmouth, NH IN CHARGE OF _S.._..R....W .............. .. ................. ..... ........I............. ..........I. ...... ..................... .....I............. .........-............ . ......... F.J.0. MADEBY .... ............... ...... ... ...... .............. .......... DATE 10/18/84 .................... Ra i lro ..ad Track...,.Survey .............. CHECKED BY ... . ........ ........... ...... . ......... ...... DATE.. ............... .............. Evaluation Project CURVE NO, 7 -00' & 20-30' (FROM TRACX CHART).ASSUMFD CLASS 1 20 EXISTING TRACl< GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. -GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN.,) ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@2to+11-2 DESIGN 48) 2 --- 1 --- 0 -1 -1/4 -1/8 0 -49 -1/4 -1/8 1 -3 +1 -1/0 0 -51 +1 -1/8 2 32 20 +1 1/2 -1/8 0 -16 +1 1/2 -1/8 3 19 1.19 0 +1 1/4 -3/4 0 -29 +1 1/4 -3/4 4 29 1.81 0 +1 5/8 +3/8 0 -19 +1 5/8 +3/8 5 3 0.19 0 +3/4 0 0 -45 +3/4 0 6 42 2.62 0 +1/2 +1/4 0 -6 +1/2 +1/4 7 9 0.56 0 +1 -3/8 0 -39 +1 -3/8 0 8 32 2 +1 -1/8 0 -16 +1 -1/8 0 9 21 1.31 +1 1/4 0 0 -27 +1 1/4 0 10 28 1.750 +3/4 0 0 -20 +3/4 0 11 28 1.75 0 +7/8 -1/4 0 -20 +7/3 -1/4 12 8 0.5 0 +1 -1/4 0 -40 +1 -1/4 13 55 3.44 0 -3/8 +1/8 0 +7 -3/8 +1/8 0 -1/2 14 51 3.19 -3/4 -1/2 0 +3 -3/4 15 8 0.5 0 +1/8 +1/8 0 -40 +1/8 +1/8 16 30 1.880 +1/2 +3/4 0 -18 +1/2 +3/4 17 31 1.94 0 Guard Aail 0 -17 --- --- 18 24 1.5 0 +7/@ +3/8 0 -24 +7/8 +3/8 19 47 2.94 0 +7/6 +3/C> 0 -1 +7/8 +3/8 20 60 3.75 0 +1 1/8 +3/8 0 +12 +1 1/8 +3/8 21 31 1.94 0 +1/2 +3/8 0 -17 +1/2 +3/8 22 46 2.88 0 +3/8 +1/2 0 -2 +3/8 +1/2 23 25 1.56 0 +1 +1/3 0 -23 +1 +1/8 24 37 2.3 0 0 +5/8 0 -11 0 +5/8 25 57 3.56 0 +1/2 +5/8 0 +9 +1/2 +5/8 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No.l! .... qf 17 C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S R E F E R E NC E joe- ... ..... .. INCHARGEOF city of Portsmouth, NH ...........I........ ................ . ...... .................. ...................... .......... . .......- . .. ........ ........... . . ................ ...... F.J.O. MADEBY .... ........... ........... .. . ................... DATE 10/18/84 R ................ ..-allro. d Track Survey .......... ................ CHECKED BY ... . . ........ .......................... ..... DATE ......................... ............ ...- Evaluation Pr.oj.ect... URVE NO. 7.,2 0- 0 & 2 0- 30' (FROP! TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I - ASSUMED STA.ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN.), ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@to+11-2 IDESIGN 48) 26 64 4 0 -3/8 +1/4 0 +16 -3/8 +1/4 27 46 2.88 0 +7/8 +1 0 -2 +7/8 +1 28 33 2.06 0 +1 7/8 +7/8 0 -15 +1 7/8 +7/8 29 59 3.69 0 +1 3/4 +7/8 0 +11 +1 3/4 +7/8 30 34 2.125 0 +1 3/8 +5/8 0 -14 +1 3/8 +5/8 31 56 3.5 0 +3/8 +3/4 0 +8 +3/8 +3/4 32 12 0.75 0 +3/8 +3/8 0 -36 +3/8 +3/8 33 27 1.68 0 +3/8 +1/8 0 -21 +3/8 +1/8 34 5 0.3 0 0 -1/4 0 -43 0 -1/4 35 20 1.25 0 0 +3/8 0 -28 0 +3/8 36 47 2.94 0 -5/8 +1 0 -1 -5/8 +1 37 30 1.88 0 -3/4 +1 0 -18 -3/4 +1 38 -5 -0.3 0 -1/2 +1/8 0 -1/2 +1/8 39 30 1.88 0 -5/8 +3/8 0 -18 -5/8 +3/8 40 40 2.5 0 -3/8 +3/8 0 -8 -3/8 +3/8 41 70 4.38 0 -1/8 +7/8 0 +22 -1/8 +7/8 42 27 1.69 0 +3/8 +3/4 0 -21 +3/8 +3/4 43 32 2 0 +1/4 +1/4 0 -16 +1/4 +1/4 44 31 1.93 0 -1/2 +5/8 0 -17 -1/2 +5/8 45 56 3.5 0 -7/8 +3/4 0 +8 -7/8 +3/4 46 30 1.88 0 -3/4 +1/4 0 -18 -3/4 +1/4 47 42 2.62 0 -7/8 +3/4 0 -6 -7/8 +3/4 48 41 2.566 0 +3/4 0 -7 0 +3/4 49 11 0.69 0 +3/4 -1/4 0 -47 +3/4 -1/4 50 22 1.37 0 +3/4 0 0 -26 +3/4 0 @l 21 1.31 0 +5/8 -1/8 0 -27 +5/8 -1/8 52 .30 1.880 +1 +1/8 0 -13 +1 +1/8 53 17 1.06 0 +1 3/8 +1/4 0 -31 +1 3/8 +1/4 54 18 1.12 0 +1 1/4 +1/4 0 -30 +1 1/4 +1/4 55 24 1.50 +1 3/8 +1/2 0 -24 +1 3/8 +1/2 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEETN,...12 of 17 CONSULTING ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S REFERENCE-.-_-_. . ...... _.. . ........ . ..... ................... . .......... ......... ..................... ....... ...................... ............ . ........... joB 94.0 INCHARGEOF City of Portsmouth, NH ........ . ........... ................ . .......... ..................... ............. . ............ .. .................. ......... .... F.J.O. DATE 1.0/15-7 10/18/84 ................ .-Rallro urvey. .............. MADEBY . . .. . ......... . ......... . .............................. S. CHECKED BY .. . ........ . . .................... . .................. DATE...-............ ... ....... . ..Evaluation Proj.ect .. ... .. ...... ... .... ..... CURVE NO, 712 0- 001 & 2 0- 30' (FROM T CK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN., ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -1-2tc+l@ IDESIGN 48) 56 64 40 +7/8 +3/8 0 +16 +7/8 +3/8 57 71 4.44 +7/8 +3/4 0 +23 +7/8 +3/4 58 30 1.88 0 +1 1/8 -1/8 0 -18 +1 1/8 -1/8 59 44 2.75 0 +5/8 +5/8 0 -4 +5/8 +5/8 60 42 2.63 0 +1 +5/6 0 -6 +i +5 /8 61 27 1.69 0 +1 0 0 -21. +1 0 62 10 0.62 0 +1 -1/4 0 -38 +1 -1/4 0 10 0.62 0 +1 1/8 +1/4 0 -38 +1 1/8 +1/4 64 21 1.31 0 +1 0 0 -27 +1 0 65 22 1.37 0 +1 3/8 0 0 -26 .+l 3/8 0 66 24 1.5 0 +1 3/8 +1/8 0 -24 +1 3/8 +1/8 67 35 2.18 +1 3/8 +1/4 0 -13 +1 3/8 +1/4 68 36 2.25 +1 1/4 +1/2 0 -12 +1 1/4 +1/2 69 26 1.62 0 +7/8 -1/8 0 -22 +7/8 -1/8 0 11 70 28 1.75 Xing Xing 0 -20 --- ZIing 71 63 3.93 0 -5/8 +5/3 0 +15 -5/8 +5/8 72 46 2.87 0 +3/8 +1/8 0 -2 +3/8 +1/8 73 15 0.93 0 +1 +1/4 0 -33 +1 +1/4 74 -20 -1.25 0 +7/8 0 0 -6 +7/8 0 75 _8' -0.5 0 +5/8 +1/4 0 -56 +5/8 +1/4 76 +3 0.18 0 +1/2 0 0 -45 .+1/2 0 77 +0 0 +1/2 -1/8 0 0 +1/2 -1/8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ..... of'._l 7 C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S joB 94.Q=P,O-1-.0l .. ... .. . . ... .. .. ................ . ........... . ....... ... REFERENCE-_____..... . ........... ------*. .. ......... ... City of Portsmouth, NH IN CHARGE OF .......... -- ...... . ........... ................ . ... ............ ........... ....... -.1-1 .......... ...' ....... ....... I., . .......... F.J..O . . ................ .... ....... 10/18/84 ey ........... MADE BY _... . . .......... . ...... . . DATE 10/15._ _ Ra.j.1road ..Track Surv CHECKED BY .. . ........ . . ..............-................ DATE ........... Evaluat-ion ..-P-roject . . .... CURVE NO. 813 0 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS.1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATIO LIMITS 11 ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/1611 DEGREE (IN.) (IN. ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -hto+13-2 iDESIGN 48) 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.06 0 -5/8 +1/4 3/8 -49 -1 +1/4 1 24 1.5 0 -2 +1/4 3/4 -24 -2 3/4 +1/4 2 -16 -10 -1 5/E-1/8 1 1/3 -64 -2 3/4 -1/8 3 21 1.31 -1 +1/4 1 1/2 -27, -2 1/2 +1/4 4 19 1.18 0 -3/8 +1/4 1 7/8 -29 -2 1/4 +1/4 5 41 2.5@0 -3/4 +5/8 1 7/8 -7 -2 5/8 +5/8 6 30 1.87 0 -1/4 +1/2 1 7/8 -18 -2 1/8 +1/2 7 80 50 -7/8 +7/8 1 7/8 +32 -2 3/4 +7/8 8 15 0.93 +1/2 +1/3 1 7/8 -33 -1 3/8 +1/8 9 75 4.68 0 +1/2 +1/2 1 -7/8 +27 -1 3/8 +1/2 10 23 1.43 0 +1 1/E-1/3 7/8 -25 -3/4 -1/8 11 47 2.93 0 +1 3/E+1/4 1 7/8 -1 -1/2 +1/4 12 83 5.18 0 +3/4 +3/4 1 7/8 +35 -1 1/3 +3/4 13 27 1.68 0 +1 3/4-1/8 1 7/8 -21 -1/8 -1./8 14 60 3.75 0 +1 1/@+3/4 1 7/8 +12 -3/8 +3/4 15 17 1.06 0 +1/2 0 1 7/8 -31 -1 3/8 0 16 58 3.62 0 -1/8 +5/8 1 7/8 +10 -2 +5/8 17 43 2.68 0 +3/4 +1/4 1 7/8 -5 -1 1/8 +1/4 19 55 3.44 0 +1 +1/8 1 7/8 +7 -7/8 +1/8 19 34 2.12 0 +1 .1/4-3/8 1 7/8 -14 -5/8 -3/8 20 55 3.43 0 +3/8 +1/4 1 7/8 +7 -1 1/2 +1/4 21 60 3.75 0 +1/2 +5/8 1. 7/.8 +12 -1 3/8 +5/3 22 39 2.43 0 S11 PT --- 1 7/8 -9 --- --- 23 38 2.37 0 +1 1/@-1/16 .1 7/8 -10 -3/8 -1/16 24 65 4.06 0 +1 3/4-1/4 1 7/8 +17 -1/8 -1/4 25 2.56 0 +1 5/E-1/4 1 7/8 -7 -1/4 -1/4 14 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ................ . ... ........ C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S RE F E R ENCE . . .............. . ......... ......... . .... ............ JOB 9.4.0.-.P.Q:rl.Ql .................... ........ ...... ................................. IN CHARGE OF ------ S....-R..M .. .................. ........ . .......... City of Portsmouth, NH .... .. ..... . .......... ......... ...... ..... .... ............-.... . . ........ ...........- F.J.O. MADEBY . ....... . ........... ....... .... .............. .......... DATE 1-0/1.5 10/18/84 ..... .. . .. Railroad Track Survey ....... .......... CHECKED BY ... . ................... ........ ........ ...... DATE ..... ........................ Evaluatlon-Project, CITEIZF. No - 8 1 3 0 (FROM TRAC CHART) ASSUMED CLASS EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I ASSUMED STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/16" DEGREE (IN.) (IN.,' ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -@,-to+1@2 IDESIGN 48) 26 32 2 0 +1 1/8+3/4 1 7/8 -16 -3/4 +3/4 27 37 2.31 0 +1 +3/4 1 7/8 -11 -7/8 +3/4 28 51 3.18 0 0 +1/4 1 7/8 +3 -1 7/8 +1/4 29 70 4.38 0 -1/4 +1/4 1 7/8 +22 -2 1/8 +1/4 30 44 2.75 0 0 3/4 1 7/8 -4 -1 7/8 +3/4 31 39 2.43 0 -1/4 +1/2 1 7/8 -9 -2 1/8 +1/2 32 77 4.81 0 -5/8 +3/4 1 7/8 +29 -2 1/2 +3/4 33 14 0.88 0 0 +1/2 1 7/8 -34 -1 7/8 +1/2 34 37 2.31 0 0 0 1 1/2 -11 - 1 1/2 0 35 47 2.94 0 -1 1/4+1/4 1 1/8 -1 -2 3/8 +1/4 36 10 0.62 0 -3/4 +1/4 3/4 -38 -1 1/2 +1/4 37 3 0.18 0 -1 1/2 0 3/8 -45 -1 7/8 0 38 0 0 -3/8 -1/8 0 0 -3/8 -1/8 39 40 41 42 43 44 4.5 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 15 of 17 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No.... ............ . . ........... . C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S REFERENCE___ . ... . ........ ..... . ... . .... . ... . ........ . .......... ..... .... joa 9AD.-PO-1.01 .............. ..........I.. ................... .............. IN CHARGE OF _ S. R. W. City of Portsmou h. .... . .......... ...... . . . ....... . ............................ ..................... . ......I.......... .... ......... ........... .... ............ ............I.... ........ F.J.O. DE BY __ . . . . ........ ..... ... ........ .. .. ....... DATE 1.9/1.5 10/18/84 Rai MA lroad Track Survey ........... .............. CHECKED BY .. . .......... ......................................... DATE- ............... .. Evaluation Proj.ect 0 CURVE NO. 9,1 (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I ASSUMED STA-@ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE E,LEV. GAGE 1/16-- DEGREE (IN.) (IN.) ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX -hto+l@ DESIGN 48) -2 0 2 0.125 0 0 -1/8 0 -46 0 -1/8 1 -11 -0.68 0 +7/8 0 3/8 -59 +1/2 0 2 4 0.25 0 + 1 @4_ -1/4 3/4 -44 +1/2 -1/4 3 21 1.31 0 +7/8 -1/8 1 1/8 -27 -1/4 -1/8 4 5 0.31 0 +13@ -1/4 1 1/2 -43 0 -1/4 5 6 0.37 0 +2 -1/8 1 7/8 -42 +1/8 -1/8 6 32 20 +2 0 1 7/8 -16 +1/8 0 7 22 1.38 0 +2 3/8 +1/4 1 7/8 -26 +1/2 +1/4 6 -4 -0.250 +2 3/B@-1/4 1 7/8 -52 +7/8 -1/4 9 45 2.81 0 +2 7/8 +1/4 1 7/8 -3 +1 +1/4 10 io 0.62 0 +2x, 0 1 7/8 -38 +5/8 0 11 6 0.38 0 +1 3/4 -1/2 1 7/8 -42 -1/8 -1/2 12 35 2.18 0 +23-, 0 1 7/8 -13 +3/8 0 13 -4 -0.25 0 +2 3/3 -1/4 1 7/8 -52 +1/2 -1/4 14 10 0.62 0 +1 5/3 -1/4 1 7/8 -38 -1/4 _11A 15 24 1.5 0 +1 7/8 0 1 7/8 -24 0 0 16 32 20 +1-1-, -1/4 1 7/8 -16 -3/8 -1/4 17 -4 -0.25 0 +3 -1/4 1 7/8 -52 +1 1/8 -1/4 -9 -0.56 0 +314- -1/8 1 7/8 -57 +1 3/8 -1/3 .10 18 1.12 0 +2 7/8,-1/2 1 7/8 -30 +1 -1/2 1, -)o 15 0.93 0 +2 1/8i: -1/4 1 7/8 -33 +1/4 -1/4 0 -1/4 11 0.68 + 1;,- -1/4 1 7/8 -37 -3/8 22 37 2.31 +1'-4 -1/8 1 7/8 -11 -5/8 -1/8 3 20 1.25 0 +3/4 -1/8 1 7/8 -28 -1 1/8 -1/8 0 4 9 0.56 +3/4 0 1 7/8 -39 -1 1/8 0 0 25 -2 -0.12 +5/8 -1/4 1 7/8 -50 -1 1/4 -1/4 16 of 17 ANDREWS A CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ....... . .... ........ C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S REFERENCE-___.. . . ............. . ...... ......................... .... . ..... ................... joB. 94.0.-.P.O-lGl_ ... ... .... .................... ........... . ........... IN CHARGE OF _. S - R. W. City of Portsmouth, NH . ......... .......... . ....................... ........... ................ . ............ . .......... ...... F.J.O. MADEBY .. .................. .................... .................. DATE 10/18/84 Railroad ..Track...,Survey .......... CHECKED BY... . .......... .. ..................... ....DATE .. .. ... ........... Evaluation Proj.e.ct CURVE NO. 9,1 0 (FROT! TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY DEVIATION LIMITS I i I ASSUMED STA-JORDINATE )ICALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELE'vl. GAGE 1/16'1 DEGREE (IN.) (IN.,' ELEV.(IN.) MAX=80 +3"MAX to+ 1 DESIGN 48 26 9 0.@6' +1/2 -1/4 1 7/8 -39 -1 3/8 -1/4 27 14 0.88 0 +1 0 1 7/8 -34 -7/8 0 28 10 0.62 0 +3/4 -1/8 1 1/2 -38 -3/4 -1/8 29 23 1.43 0 +7/8 -1/4 1 1/8 -25 -1/4 -1/4 30 6 0.375 +1/2 -1/4 3/4 -42 -1/4 -1/4 31 16 1 0 +1/2 0 3/8 -32 +1/8 0 32 Turnout 0 --- 33 Turnout 34 Turnout 35 36 37 38 39 40. 41 42 43 44 45 46 471 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 ANDREWS & CLARK, INC. SHEET No . ..... 17 of 17 C 0 N S U L T I N G ENGINEERS C 0 M P U T A T 10 N S REFERENCE___ . ..... .......... .... . ........ . ........ ........... . ... . .... .... - ----- joB 94D.-2071.01 ............ ........ .... __ .................. __ ..... ........... IN CHARGE OF ........ ....... ................... ....................... Cit of Portsmouth, NH ............. .... .......... MADEBY F_....J...,O .. . ................... DATE . .....- 10/18/84 .... . ..... .. .... .. ..... Rail-road Track Survey ......... ...... CHECKED BY ... . ........ ___ .... .......... ........... DATE . ....................... Evaluatlon Project- CURVE NO. 1093 0- 30' (FROM TRACK CHART) ASSUMED CLASS 1 EXISTING TRACK GEOMETRY ASSUMEID DEVIATION LIMITS STA. ORDINATE CALCULATED ELEV. GAGE DESIGN ORDINATE ELEV. GAGE 1/1611 DEGREE (IN.) (IN.) ELEV. (IN.) MAX=80 +311MAX -@to+ll-@ iDESIGN 48) 2 TURNOUT 1 TUR11OUT 0 14 0.88 0 Frog -34 1 4 0.25 0 0 -1/4 - -44 -1/4 2 54 3.37 0 3witch PL +6 31 30 1.870 +1 1/8 -1/8 1 1/8 -18 0 -1/8 4 39 2.43 0 +5/8 +1/4 1 1/2 -9 -7/8 +1/4 5 84 5.25 0 0 +1/8 1 7/8 +36 -1 7/8 +1/8 6 73 4.56 0 +1/2 +5/8 1 7/8 +25 -1 3/8 +5/8 7 42 2.62 0 +1/4 0 1 7/8 -6 -!,l 5/8 0 8 32 20 +1/2 +1/4 1 7/8 -16 -1 3/8 +1/4 9 95 5.94 0 -3/8 +5/8 1 7/8 +47 -2 1/4 +5/8 10 27 1.68 0 +1/4 -1/4 1 7/3 -21 -1 5/8 -1/4 11 79 4.93 0 +1/2 +7/8 1 7/8 +31 -1 3/8 +7/8 12 63 3.93 0 +1 1/8 +5/8 1 7/8 +15 -3/4 +5/8 13 53 3.31 0 +lh +1/4 1 7/8 +5 -3/8 +1/4 0 14 26 1.62 +1 3/4 +0 1 7/8 -22 -1/8 +0 15 58 3.625 +134- +5/8 .1 7/8 +10 -5/8 +5/8 16 70 4.38 0 +1 +3/4 1 7/8 +22 -7/8 +3/4 17 27 1.69 0 @+1 -1/8 1 7/8 -31 -7/8 -1/8 18 46 2.88 0 +1 -1/4 1 7/8 -2 -7/8 -1/4 191 29 1.81 0 +1/2 -1/2 1 7/8 1 -19 -1 3/8, -1/2 20@ PAST CITY LINE 21 22 23 24 25 I I I I I I I . I Appendix D I Supplemental Information I I I I I I I I I I RECEIVED JAN 21 1985 REGULAR MEETING PLANNING BOARD PORTSMOUTH,NEW HAMPSHIRE ANDREWS&CLARK INC 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DECEMBER 20, 1984 MEMBERS PRESENT: Arthur Parrott, Vice-Chairman; Milton "Red" Grant, Kevin Niland, Michael Dunbar, Richard Hopley, Building Inspector MEMBERS ABSENT: E. Warren Clarke, Chairman; Calvin A. Canney, City Manager; Charles M. Eldredge, City Council Representative; and Mark Brenner ALSO PRESENT: Samuel A. Ci offi, Planning Director; David M. Holden, Planner I Minutes of December.20, 1984, Planning Board Meeting -3 III. NEW BUSINESS A) REPORT: PORTSMOUTH RAILROAD TRACK SURVEY AND EVALUATION Mr. Parrott introduced Mr.White of the firm of Andrews & Clark of Amherst, NH, narrated a slide presentation covering the highlights of his firm's-report. He pointed out that recommendations are'based upon FRA Class I and Class II' standards.-- Class I is 10 m.p.h. for freight; Class II,is 25 m.p.h. for rail freight. Mr. White pointed out vegetation problems in certain areas of the track inspection; but also indicated that this is not addressed in the criteria for Class I or Class II; he pointed out a drainage problem in the area of the underpass. He stated that in all 8 defects were found and were basically joint and tie defects. -o the drainage problems near Kearsarge Way and Mr. Grant inquired further int that several years ago, there was a derailment in the area. Mr. White replied that they were aware of previous derailments based on available information but that they could not find any substantial correlation between where defects were found and where previous derailments were. Mr. Parrott referred to the indication in the Report that it was hard to come by information on derailments and that the Report indicated that the PUC (New Hampshire) did not have very useful records. Mr. White said that the "full intent in this project was more.a Physical plant inspection". In answer to queries from Mr. Parrott and Mr. Cioffi as to whether the line is safe for the way it is supposed to be use, and Mr. White replied, "At the time we inspected it, yes COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Tom Morgan who lives on McDonough Street in close proximity to the City rail yards addressed the fact that the report did not mention some derailments which had involved LPG . . ."What distressed me most about this report was the second phase -- the rail traffic evaluation -- but I was disappointed with the rail traffic evaluation . . . They are very broad categories . . . We see a lot of rail cars go by. We see a lot of tank cars with the words, 'methyl methacrylate' written on the outside You'll notice that you don't see methyl methacrylate anywhere in this report . can't figure if they are calling it a chemical or plastic . . . this is a liquid, highly flammable liquid, it's explosive, it's toxic . . .same class as LPG . . . (Mr. Morgan submitted a pamphlet on methy'r methacrylate) . . . vapors are heavier than air . . . it has a flashpoint of 50 degrees farenheit . . '.(Mr. Morgan referred to its flashback characteristics.) (vir. Morgan passed around a picture of a Class I flammable liquid when it's ignited.) Mr. Morgan than discussed the Class I and Class II ratings and brought out the fact that the study had not covered the Navy Yard branch. It was also Mr-Morgan's feelings that if the Seabrook nuclear plant went on line, anything befng railed out would come through Portsmouth. He stated that he would like to know the concerns of the Portsmouth Fire Department, "and if the Portsmouth Fire Department i.s capable and ready to deal with a catastrophe and finally the reason why I came up here tonight at all is I think the report is missing a lot of things that I've mentioned just now. The situation is much more hazardous than one would be led to believe . . . and it's going to end up in-41-he hands of the people who regulate the Boston & Ma'ine Railroad, the Public Utilities Commission in Concord and the Federal Railroad Administration, Minutes of December 20, 1984, Planning Board Meeting -4 and I don't want these people to get the idea that everything in Portsmouth is just hunky-dory in terms of the condition of the rails and what goes over then]. So I'd ask the Planning Board to send the e 'ngineer back to the drawing board and address some of these issues before it goes on to these regulators. Mr.White replied to Mr. Morgan's comments that their work in the area was p rimarily a physical plant assessment and that there is additional work to be done on the report; that the proposal did not intend to deal with the hazardous problem in itself; that as far as the Fire Department, their concern-was with the proximity of fire hydrants to the rail itself, and for the most part, there is a, fire hydrant near every rail crossing; that the B & M had been asked for specific numbers on the rail commodities, and they would not allow that information . . ."I do want to indicate that we had a difficult enough time getting on to the rail line itself because our understanding . . . this may have been a precedent setting study in that a private inspector, such as ourself working for a community or a private industry, was allowed to-actess to inspect a privately-owned rail line . . . in our -ting this project, we understood that other firms dropped initial attempts in getL. 1J t of the running because they could not gain access to the line itself . . . this -report is not complete in itself. There is an additional phase to it." ou Mr. Cioffi commented that there was a "finite" amount of money available and that it (the study) was not intended to be the last word; that it would be reviewed by the City Engineer-and then turned over to the City Council . . ."It was just to begin opening the door to the problems, if any, . . . There was a very limited amount.of money . . . which is a very small amount of money for the scope of the project involved . . . B & M charged us to allow them - so we could get on the lines and to walk them and inspect them . . . $300 a day.". He further commented that it would be up to the City Council to do a more in depth review. DECISION OF THE BOARD Mr. Grant moved that the Board recommend to the City Council that this survey be carried on in an intensive way and that it be financed or funded for and that it be reviewed by the.City Engineer and other City officials who need to look at it. Mr. Dunbar seconded the motion. Mr. Parrott commented that "any study and report.resulting from it has to be within certain bounds". Mr. White interjected that the intent was that the final report take into consideration comments discussed at this presentation. Mr. Cioffi asked that, "you include as an addendum, as a statement, some of the comments made this evening so that the City Council when it's reading the report is aware it There was discussion as to the "secrecy" of the commodities being transported. It was asked that the secretary read back the motion which she stated as set forth above, and it was stated that the provision be included that the report include an addendum. The motion passed unanimously; the motion being that the Board recommend to the City Council that this survey be carried on in an intensive way and that it be financed or funded for and that it be reviewed by the City Engineer and other City officials who--iieed to look at it and that the report include an addendum, containing some of the comments made at this evening's meeting. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS Paul R. McQuade Lea H. Aeschliman Lea H. Aeschliman Tel. (603) 271-2431 Vincent J. Iacopino Vincent J. IACOPINO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 8 Old Suncook Road Concord 03301 January 10, 1985 Mr. Steve White Andrews & Clark, Inc. Consulting Engineer Norwich Bldg. - Bay 13 Columbia Drive Amherst, N. H. 03031 Dear Mr. White: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter to Mr. Thomas Morgan which lists railroad derailments in Portsmouth subsequent to 1970. During the earlier search of the Commission records, the five (5) year period between 1975 and 1980 could not be located. A more recent search proved useful as the files were found. I am enclosing this copy to complete your records. If I may be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, N. H. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISION Walter W. King Rail Safety Division WWK:mp Enc. RECEIVED JAN 14 1985 ANDREWS & CLARK INC. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONERS Paul R. McQuade Lea H. AESCHLIMAN Te (603) 271-2431 Vincent J. Iacopino PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 8 Old Suncook Road Concord 03301 January 2, 1985 Mr. Thomas Morgan 7 McDonough Street Portsmouth, N. H. 03801 Dear Mr. Morgan: The following is a list of derailments that have occurred in Portsmouth since 1970. This list is only those derailments that were reported to this commission. July 6, 1977 at Emery - 3 cars - empty. July 21, 1978 at Emery - 7 cars - sand. October 21, 1978 - Portsmouth Yard - 3 cars - sand. March 20, 1979 - MP 1.7 - 9 cars - sand. November 25, 1981 - Cutts Crossing - 3 cars 1 load LPG 1 empty LPG 1 empty box May 27, 1983 - Portsmouth Yard - no number of cars given. If I may provide any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, N. H. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Walter W. King Rail Safety Division RECEIVED WWK:mp JAN 14 1985 ANDREWS & CLARK INC DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRIWEI)INIJ.S.A- 3 6668 14108 1382