[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Regional Planniog Agency of RAIL AND THE HARBOR South Central Connecticut July, 1984 FREIGHT SERVICE TO NEW HAVEN HARBOR COAS-r,&L ZONF, MEMMATION cENTER HT 393 C8 R35 1984 Theffteen town South Central Connecticut Region is composed of Bethany, Branford, East Haven, Guilford, Hamden, Madison, Meriden, Milford, New Haven, North Branford, North Haven, Orange, Wallingford, West Haven and Woodbridge. Area-wide land-use and transportation planning for the region is performed by the Regional Planning Agency of South Central Connecticut, 96 Grove Street, New Haven. Financial assistance for this document has been provided by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the U. S. Department of Commerce under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, as administered by the state of Connecticut, Office of Policy and Management. The Regional Planning Agency is wholly responsible for the contents of this report. RAIL AND THE HARBOR/ *to Freight Service to New Haven Harbor too U1 ro a- Regional Planning Agency of South Central Connecticut New Haven, Connecticut july, 1984 REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY OF SOUTH CENTRAL CONNECTICUT 96 GROVE STREET NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510 TELEPHONE 777-4 July 27, 1984 Mr. Anthony Milano Secretary Connecticut 0ffice of Policy and Management 807Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Dear Mr. Milano- An OPM-administered "Coastal Energy Impact Program" project has provided an opportunity to define haw rail Improvements can help make better use of New Haven port facilities. We hope that proposals can help develop a joint public and private sector consensus relative to the nature and urgency of necessary improvements. Rail and New Haven Harbor suggests how to improve the Tomlinson Bridge and approaches, re-establish efficient rail service to the east Shore and improve freight handling capabilities. Assistance provided by Seelye, Stevenson, Value and Knecht (Stratford, Connecticut) has been of immeasurable help. SSVK personnel are intimately familiar with the TomlInson Bridge, have extensive rail operations experience and are ac- tively engaged in a number of rail facility design projects. We appreciate the opportunity offered by the CEIP program and, in parti- cular, the assistance provided by Bill Cox of your office. Very truly yours, Donald G. Byers Chairman DGB/dgs cc: New Haven--Mayor B. DiLleto ConDOT--Commissioner J. W. Burns AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CONTENTS PART Page 1 Surmiary I 2 The Current Environment 2 An East Shore Rail Focus 2 Right- of -Way 3 Service to the Harbor 7 3 Design Parameters 10 Cars and Commodities 10 Design Requirements 14 Performance 16 4 The Tomlinson Bridge 20 Key Design Elements 20 Collisions, Repairs and Regulation 22 Structural Problems 25 5 Alternatives 29 New River Crossings 29 Alignment 31 An Inland Approach 32 Cost 33 CONTENTS (Cont.) Page Appendix A Representative Freight Cars A-1 Appendix B Train Tonnage B-1 Appendix C Seelye, Stevenson, value and Knecht Materials C-1 Appendix D Cost Estimates D-1 Appen dixE Right-of-Way Costs E-1 FIGURES Follows Page 1 Harbor Development Policies 2 2 Major Shippers 3 3 Vertical Clearance 6 4 Average Freight Car Capacity 12 5 Tomlinson Bridge Loadings 15 6 Tomlinson Bridge Lift Span Bascule Girder 15 7 Grade and Curvature 18 8 Tomlinson Bridge--Basic Sections 20 9 Tomlinson Bridg*e--Roadway Section 22 10 Tomlinson Bridge--observed Structural Problems 25 11 Tomlinson Bridge--Points of Overstress 23 12 Rail Service Options 29 13 Installing Rail in Roadway 29 14 Facilities and the Environment 31 15 Limitations Along the Manufacturer's Spur 32 16 Travel Time 32 17 New Structure at Ferry Street 33 TABLES Page I Minimum Curvature 5 2 Representative Fr@eight Cars 12 3 Common Equipment--1944 and 1984 13 4 Cars and Products 14 5 Car Selection 15 6 Necessary Engine Weight--West Shore Approach 18 7 Effects of Grade and Curvature 19 8 Key Tomlinson Bridge Elements 21 9 Recent Tomlinson Bridge Barge Collisions 23 10 Major Tomlinson Bridge Repairs 24 11 Crossing the Tomlinson Bridge 30 12 Associated Capital Costs 34 13 Operating Costs 34 SUIMRY A $7 million investment can maintain an important 115-year old rail freight link across New Haven Harbor. Improvements to the Tomlinson Bridge and its approaches can preserve east shore service. The Northeast Rail Services Act fixes Conrail's east shore commitment through early 1986. Neither Conrail nor a successor can be expected to offer attractive service without major physical improvements which permit modern equipment carrying reasonable loads to reach the east shore. make east shore rail freight service competitiv , Longer trains and heavier loads can supplant current one car at a time 200,000 pound.car (car plus load) limits. Weight limits alone restrict individual cars to loads between one- half and two-thirds of possible capacity. take advantage of the harbor's natural advantages. Improved rail links favor service to more remote markets. Location, natural features and investment combine to make New Haven Harbor a good facility for specialized commodities. Well-established liquid cargo (petroleum and chemicals) handling capabilities can be used more intensively. Good opportunities exist to handle bulk commo- dities including scrap, lumber and possibly coal in volume. complement other necessary expenditures. Two million dollars have been spent since 1973 to rehabilitate the Tomlinson Bridge lift mechanism, repair the lift span and install a fender system. Another $10 million investment will be necessary before 1990 to maintain U.S. 1 highway traffic on the bridge. An- other $7 million spent in concert with a comprehensive $10 million bridge re- habilitation project can provide necessary rail capacity. A near-term rail improvement program which focuses on existing facilities can create new capa- city faster, at less cost and with less disruption than otherwise possible. Commodities, freight car requirements, track alignment, clearance, grades and engine capabilities shape improvement needs. A contemporary environment must accomodate multi-car trains composed of 263,000 pounds (loaded) cars up to 65 feet in length and present curves with a radius of at least 460 feet (12 degrees, 30 minutes). 2. THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT A 145-year legacy shapes rail service options. Facilities reflect decisions of the Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company which originally brought service to New Haven and Belle Dock in 1839 and ex- tended service over the Tomlinson Bridge in 1870.(1) Later investment by the New York, New Haven', and Hartford Railroad (successor to the Hartford and New Haven in 1872), waterfront interests and the City of New Haven created the contemporary environment. Facilities have remained largely intact since 1926 when the City of New Haven completed construction of the fourth Tomlinson Bridge at the present location and grade-separated Water Street and the Belle Dock spur.(2) An East Shore-Rail Focus Long-term city development policies and emerging project, comnitments make east shore rail service important (Figure 1). West shore areas with relatively good rail service are largely committed to non-maritime activities which have relatively little use for rail. East shore sites with favorable long-term maritime potential depend on rail movement to and from the west shore. Sixty percent of (1) Manufacturer's Railroad facilities which included the Belle Dock spur were deeded to the New Haven Railroad in 1901. original (1839) Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company operations established Belle Dock as a terminal linking New York City-to-New Haven boat service and New Haven-to-Hartford and Albany rail service. The Railroad acq 'uired a maj.ority interest in the Tomlinson Toll Bridge Company at the same time. Passenger facilities were relocated from .Belle Dock to a joint New York and New Haven Railroad station in 1849. Belle Dock ship-to- rail freight handling capabilities were expanded in 1968 when a 1,500 foot long, 80 foot wide extension was constructed-- just four years before the New Haven-Hartford and New York-New Haven railroads merged. Rail and harbor develop .ment are traced in: New Haven Historical Society "Books 134 thru 157" (miscellaneous microfiche materials); in Frederick Ford, Report on a Railroad Station Approach and Harbor Front Improvements, prepared for the Mayor and Alder- men (New Haven: City of New Ha 'venj 1912); and in Sidney Withington, New Haven and its Six Railroads, undated Railway and Locomotive Historical Society monograph. (2) Two wooden bridges served from 1798 to 1887 before a cast iron truss bridge (swing span) originally used in rail service over the Housatonic River replaced the second (1842) Tomlinson Bridge span. Tolls were removed in 1886 when the city became owner of the bridge. Design of the current bridge, constructed at a cost of $1,000,000 to the City of New Haven, was essen- tially completed in 1917. -2- P-M W W W W @V" RAIL FACILITIES gqT o__- Main line to New York Pg. - Canal line Main line to north & east Manufacturers rr 7@ Belle dock spur 60 Main line to Boston 19,CommericX I .1 L:1 T IU "0 p ineric n S@a ce TER-, T , 71, _L4 HAVEN! effliall N -Arnerical A BOR H A J@@gh aldy % /k I HAVE@ Z, S pace pen Space Y G LO@G ,,,ISL"A.ND SOUND. B-h an in EW H A,V E N H AP R 0 R, 0 k, 'Sim S-th E- - -term city policies and emerging project commitments Figure 1: Harbor Development Policies. Long make east shore rail service important. East shore sites with favorable long-term maritime potential depend on rail movement to and from the west shore. New Haven's waterfront petroleum storage capacity is. concentrated in east shore areas; it depends on rail service which is fundamentally more expensive to provide and has been -subject to substan- tial interruption (Figure 2) .(3) Unreliable service and high cost movement preclude major rail shipments like those of Wyatt Fuel on the west shore. Dry cargo handling capabilities and storage capacity are similarly focused on the east shore at the 45 year old New Haven Terminal .(4) New Haven Terminal's near-term expansion -on to an adjacent 43 acre former U.S. Steel site enhances the long-term rail freight market.(5) Right- of -Way The 1982 rail service reorganization process encouraged by the New England Rail Services Adt of 1981 left Conrail in continued control,of all main line and most spur facilities in the New Haven area.(6) Conrail ownership and exclusive operating rights to the two Belle Dock tracks linking New Haven Harbor to the Amtrak main line (one mile) and the Cedar Hill Yards 3.3 miles away remain intact (Figure 2). Conrail Belle Dock service' obligations were extended through early 1986 and a (1) New Haven City Plan Department, Petroleum Storage for New Haven Harbor: Waterfront Versus Inland (New Haven: City Plan, 1980), pp. 59-61. (4) TAD Jones' (coal) 1940 purchase of the former New Haven Silk Mills building (constructed in 1921) began the consolidation of the New Haven Terminal. (5) New Haven @cquired the 43 acre property at a cost of $2,250,000 in mid-1983. A $2.0 million demolition and site improvement program began in late 1983. State "Municipal Development Project" aid ($1.1 million), City resources ($750,000) -and a $2.4 million New Haven Terminal purchase price will help fund the $4.3 million program. New Haven Terminal will acquire the site in mid-to-late 1984. (6) Belle Dock spur facilities were addressed as "New Haven Station"--all rail properties within the corporate limits of the-City of New Haven. See: Special Court Regarding the Rail Reorganization Act of 1973, Order Approving and Directing the Consummation of Expedited Supplemental Transactions, April 13, 1982. Canal Line ownership was transferred to the Boston & Maine Railroad per a joint Conrail/B&M proposal. Conrail agreed to forego branch line surcharges in Connecticut during the four year term of tlie agreement. 1-10 MI V N.. H c--y cl.b E Zulu i @V MIA - IF P "Pill I'All hHI 'y N V1 '.T 6:- P( NEW, H @ViN -y@h@ Hill H 4, V @110 7 -@dy r BI- R-:@ E Figure 2: Major Shippers. Major harbor facilities served by rail from the Cedar Hill Yards (1) or within reach of rail service include (2) United Illuminating, (3) Exxon, (4) FBw Haven Terminal, (5) Arco, (6) TAD"Jones, (7) Gulf Oil, (8) Texaco ' (9) Mobil Oil, (10) the former U.S. Steel site to be acquired by New Haven Terminal, (11) Wyatt Fuel, and (12) Elmco (fuel). right of succession by the Providence & Worcester Railroad established. (7) Railroads and shippers encounter right-of-way constraints which limit east shore loads and raise unit costs. Constraints include- poor east shore curvature. Curvature and, to a lesser extent, light weight rail, restrict both car size and train length. Maximum car lengths on the east shore are restricted to 50 feet in contrast to 65 foot care that can be brought from the Cedar Hill Yards to Belle Dock and on to Wyatt Fuel tracks. Fifty foot car lengths suffice for many common commodities but prove inefficient for light den- sity goods (see Part 3). Sharp curves at Belle Dock--Forbes Avenue (22 degrees or 260 feet), Forbes Avenue- -Water front Street (40 degrees or 143 feet) and Forbes Avenue--U.S. Steel (38 degrees or 151 feet) limit train lengths (Table 1). For all practical purposes, the advent of 50-foot freight cars made New Haven Terminal and the U.S. Steel site inaccessible to multi-car trains. a 200,000 pound per car weight limit on the Tomlinson Bridge. Current 200,000 pound (car plus load) weight limits on the Tomlinson Bridge were imposed by the Connecticut Department of Transportation--- the owner of the bridge. original (1917) bridge plans and specifications sought to accomodate then current 200,000 pound cars although design assumptions may have overstated structural capabili- ties. Contemporary freight cars with 200,000 pound loads carry only 60 to 75 percent of the effective payload otherwise accomodated within the bounds pre- scribed by the Association of American Railroads' 263,000 pound interline weight maximum. relatively severe grades. Grade, curvature and engine capabilities have his- torically limited the load or "string" of cars that can be carried across the bridge. Engines approaching Forbes Avenue must overcome grade, load, curvature and inertia--they start without the benefit of perceptible momentum. A two percent east shore and 2.3 percent west shore approach grade control. Pre- WW 11 50-ton electric engines which gained power from overhead trolley lines (7) Special Court, Section 21. B&M is guaranteed "...continued access to property it may ac- quire within New Haven station... in the event P&W succeeds Conrail." Nevertheless, com- petitive harbor rail service might be better assured by a "switching railroad" linking Cedar Hill facilities and the harbor. -4- MINIMUM CURVATURE Length of Car Minimum Acceptable at Over pulling Faces Required BELLE DOCK FORBES AVE. FORBES AVE. of Couplers Radius FORBES AVE. WATERFRONT ST. U.S. STEEL Less than 50' 185' yes no no 50' to 56' 215 yes no no 56' to 631 250 yes no no 631 to 70' 275 no no no 70' to 75' 300 no no no over 75' 350 no no no Table 1: Minimum Curvature. Minimum curves for coupled cars of the same length are illustrated. only the 260-foot radius west shore curve from Belle Dock provides reasonable turning conditions for 50 to 60 foot cars. (Source: Association of American Railroads, The Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practices (Omaha, Nebraska: Simmons- Boardman, 1980), Section 2.) -5- towed only three to four circa 170,000 pound cars (car plus load) across at one time. Short modified diesel engines introduced in 1948 trailed six-to-eight 40-to-45 foot fully loaded 200,000 pound cars (100,000 to 170,000 pound loads).(8) Similar service continued into the 1960's until 50-foot long cars became the in- dustry norm and could not negotiate severe east shore curvet as multi-car units. . vertical clearance. East Street spur clearances are not unduly restrictive rela- tive to commodities and freight cats. A 16-foot Belle Dock clearance restriction at Chapel Street (west track) controls the *vertical dimension when both east and west tracks are operative (Figure 3). ' Low speeds which control 'Nlobble" can bring cars to within two to. three inches of overhead obstructions. Common box, gondola and tank cars share a 15-foot 6-inch height. Only "high cube" equipment (circa 10,000 cubic foot box cars) effective for light weight products is pro- hibited. Seventeen-foot, 6-inch "high cube" cars are occasionally received at Cedar Hill-Yards. . miscellaneous track and road bed Rr blems.- Sporadic maintenance and years of 2 minimal right-of-way investment account for: (1) frequent flooding at Chapel Street which requires pumping. Winter icing conditions prove difficult (time consuming) to combat; (2) uneven roadbed-. -particularly adjacent to Wyatt Fuel receiving tracks-which results in derailments. Wyatt renews ties and ballast at 10-year intervals while no comparable Conrail maintenance on adjacent tracks is offered;(9) and (3) trolley type switches and,tr .acks on both the Manufactur-. erts Railroad spur and on the Belle Dock extension. Maintenance requires scav- aging and/or handcrafted repair. Rails embedded in Forbes Avenue without proper ballast or ties generally maintain alignment. If disturbed, both- ties and heavier rail will be necessary. A combination of larger, more cost effective rail- equipment and aging rail facilities have gradual- ly eroded the east shore rail market. (8) Series 800 and 900 diesels supplanted electric engines after World War II. Retired steam engines (125,000 pound K class "Moguls") @used elsewhere in the New Haven system for pre- WW Il switching could not be used at Belle Dock due to long wheelbases. (9) Wyattts efforts are offset by the necessity of switching Wyatt cars back and forth between Wyatt- and Conrail tracks- -derailment of Wyatt bound cars occurs in any case. -6- WEST TRACK EAST TRACK At Blatchley (Amtrak Main Line) 17'-10" 180-Off 6#' 17#-6- 40-0" -Off 4r-OP? 4#-0" At Ferry (Amtrak Main Line 7L T 41-Off 41--off Figure 3: Vertical Clearance. A 16-foot clearance at Chapel Street generally governs car choice. Clearance dimensions are from the top of rail to the un ide of roadway structure (not to scale). Clearances are not unduly restrictive. WEST TRACK EAST TRACK At Chapel Belle Dock Spur 16'- 1 16'-0" 151-81, f 151-81, -9 4'-0" 4'-0" 4r-O" 4#-0" At Grand Belle Dock Spur, One Track 1 V-7" 1 V-0" 4 4'- 14 4'-0" Figure 3 (con't): Vertical Clearance. Main line clearances are more generous than those along the Belle.Dock Spur. (Not to scale) Service to the Harbor Conrail continues to offer weekday "as needed" service to both Belle Dock and the east shore despite a high cost service environment. Approximately 4,000 loaded cars (in plus out) moved through Belle Dock as recently as 1978 with 600 cars bound for the east side of the harbor.(10) Wyatt Fuel (approximately 2,300 annual cars) is clearly the dominant shipper--often generating 100 tank cars a week during the peak winter season when Millstone's nuclear fuel generating plant is off-line and oil is shipped to Northeast Utilities' West Springfield and Holyoke gene- rating* stations. Other major shippers include the New Haven Register which ships newsprint to a Davis Street warehouse; the Southern Connecticut Gas Company which receives liquid propane during the heating season; Dupont's River Street facility and Excello at New Haven Terminal.( Somewhat less freight now moves over the Tomlinson Bridge in the absence of U.S. Steel (formerly 260 cars a year) and Pittsburgh Plate Glass (100 cars annually) east shore facilities.(12) Current operations: move all cars from Cedar Hill as one "cut" --switching at Belle Dock as necessary. Cars moving over the Tomlinson Bridge are switched as a "block." Only Wyatt ships a sufficient number of cars to arrive as block from Cedar Hill. Wyatt cars are blocked in units of six since Wyatt's sidings accomodate a maximum of six cars each. Car storage at Belle Dock did not represent a problem during the high volume era. Movement into and out of Belle Dock was managed to balance demand. use relatively light (200,000 pound) SWI class switching engines (8400 and 8500 series) because of ConnDOT-imposed weight limits. Heavier 260,000 pound switch- ing engines which develop "adhesion" equal to about 25 percent of their weight at low speed can provide about 60 percent more "tractive effort"--effective pulling (10) New Haven City Plan Department. The Tomlinson Bridge Rail Link: Economic Impacts and Need for Improvements (New Haven: City Plan, 1979). (11) The New Haven Register is considering direct newsprint shipment via the yards adjacent to Union Station (New Haven). Some new track is necessary. (12) weight restrictions and unreliable operating conditions during the late 1970's reportedly led PPG to relocate. Caustic materials had been sent westward from the waterfront area. -7- force necessary to overcome resistance. repressurize air brake systems at Belle Dock before moving on to Forbes Avenue. Air'coupling and pressurizing a string of 10 to 12 cars takes between 15 and 20 minutes--circa one minute to couple each pair of cars and five minutes to pressurize the string. proceed over the Bridge and Forbes Avenue at about 10 miles per hour. Service is provided over the bridge between 8:00 AM and 4:00 PM without any particular attention to competing vehicular traffic needs. Vehicular traffic is stopped by a flag to permit trains to enter Forbes Avenue. Two-way traffic is resumed while a train crosses the Quinnipiac River and traffic is stopped again when the train returns to its own right-of-way. "block" (arrange) cars relative to Federal Railroad Administration high haz- ard shipping restrictions. Cars transporting corrosive or combustible pro- ducts to the east shore often require a spacer behind the engine. Spacers limited curvature and poor track increase the pos*sibility of-d6railment.(11) Weight and operating restrictions establish a high cost switching environment. One-at-a-time movement slows operations and raises costs. Seventy minutes are required for each one-way car round trip to the east shore. Daily service between Belle Dock and New Haven Terminal is limited to six cars (each way, twelve movements).(14) High switching costs limit the contribution of (13) Federal Railroad Administration high hazard shipping requirements established in Title 49, CFR, Parts 171, 1720 173, 174 and 179. Cars carrying products categorized as explosives (explosives A), poison gases, combusitbles and radioactive materials cannot be placed next to an engine. '"High hazard" cars are normally placed " ... not nearer than the sixth car from the engine..." Tomlinson Bridge one-at-a-time constraints dictate the use of "spacers" for selected commodities including flammable liquids (not petroleum), gases, corrosive materials (including caustics) and certain non-flammable gases. (14) Seven working hours during 8: 00 AM and 4: 00 PM without overtime. Conrail necessarily leaves cars on a "run around" track at New Haven Terminal because curves on sidings are too limited for Conrail engines. A New Haven Terminal owned and operated "donkey engine" moves each car to a siding. New Haven Terminal sidings can accomodate about 55 cars at a time. Unloading facilities and temporary on the ground storage of -solid cargoes.permit a relatively fast turn-around within the Terminal. -8- east shore revenue towar.d other terminal and system-wide costs.(15) Nevertheless, Conrail continues to offer service "as needed" generady twice a week) without imposition of a surcharge which might reflect low volume--high cost operating conditions.. (15) Conrail views the east shore service in terms of marginal or avoidable costs vs. average revenue--not in terms of marginal revenue earned from the service which might not other- wise be gained. See Conrail, "Belle Dock Economic Study" (November, 1978). -9- 3. DESIGN PARANETERS Shippers and railroads share burdens imposed by an outmoded physical plant. Unreliable east shore service and' limited payload capabilities prevent terminal operators from quoting competitive rates for products most economically shipped to and from the port by rail. Short range marketing plans cannot dismiss the possibility of a surcharge. A high cost operating environment makes rail ser- vice equally unattractive to railro@ds. Cars and.CoMModities(16) Competition and efficiency require local shippers to use the largest possible cars subject to weight limits,.product density and car size constraints. Progressively larger freight cars intro- duced over the .1900 to 1960 period have established a 263,000 pound North American inter-line weight limit (weight on rail)--a capacity of up to 100-tons (Figure 4). A voluntary decision to restrict normal interchange movements to cars of 100-ton capacity or less is likely to persist. Further weight increases are generally considered to have a strong negative impact on rail and wheel wear. Extremely large cars have tended to become the industry s tandard- -particularly for bulk commoditie's (Table 2 and Appendix A). Current 50 foot (length) cars capable of reaching the Cedar Hill Yards can typically carry twice the effective weight and 1.5. to two times the bulk of World War II era equipment (Table 3). Eighty-five percent of all tank cars are now at least 14 feet high, 20 per- cent are at least 70 feet long, and a third carry at least 22,000 gallons. Similarly, 90 percent of covered hoppers are at least 14 feet high, 10 percent are more than 70 feet long, and 20 percent can carry more than 5,000 cubic feet of material. A variety of freight car configurations allow shippers to maximize weight and volume--to move a loaded car as close to 263,000 pounds as possible. Local Needs: Typical,east coast equipment capable of reaching the Cedar Hill Yards can complement the port's (16) National overview per A. 9. Little, Inc., Issues and Dimemsions of Freight Car Size: 'A Compendium, prepared for the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (Washington: FRA, 1980). _10- specialized handling capabilities.(17) High volume commodities now moving through the port (oil, lumber, scrap and cement) can make efficient use ot 40- to 60-foot long cars with 140,000 to 200,000 pound load carrying capacities (Tables 4 amd 5). Products of potential significance in- cluding soft coal and caustic soda can similarly make good use of conventionally-sized equipment. Out-sized cars (beyond 65-feet long) designed to carry specialized manufactured goods need not be accomodated by the local rail system. Design Requirements Freight car configurations and loads establish alignment and structural requirements for local facilities--particularly for the Tomlinson Bridge. Weight and Loading: Evenly distributed loads (uniform loading) and standard 100-ton truck dimensions (5 feet, 10 inches between wheel centers) establish axle loadings for shear and moment (bending action) on a superstructure-they define the extent of support necessary to make a facility like the Tomlinson Bridge useful. Dense products (cement, scrap and coal) and short (40 to 50 foot) cars present maximum loads on key-bridge elements (Figure 5). Multi-car trains composed of 263,000 pound cars and a 252,000 pound locomotive will load (produce greatest reactions on) successive sections rel- ative to axle arrangement and Tomlinson Bridge design elements (Appendix C).(18) Cars rather than engines tend to control due to weight and axle arrangements. Reactions produce a maximum moment on span I approximately 26 feet from the west abutment (2,570 foot kips). "load" the cantilever in span 2 with two axles at the end of the cantilever and two axles on an adjacent "hung" girder (3,590 foot kips). (17) Historic petroleum handling commitments, limited land area, a decline in heavy manufacturing and proximity to New York and Boston define the port's role. See: New Haven City Plan Department, The Port: Background Paper No. 6, prepared for the Coastal Planning Steering Committee (New Haven: City Plan, 1981). A quick check by Seelye, Stevenson, Value and Knecht; e.g. without benefit of cantilever counteraction reducing maximum positive moment in spans I and 6. See Appendix C. _11- Table 2: Representative Freight Cars. Reasonable curves and existing clear- FREIGHT CARS ances will allow all but "hi-cube' boxcars (10,000 cubic feet) and "trail- Cubic Light Dimensions er on flat car" equipment to reach both Capacity east and west shore areas. Car dimen- Car - Trucks Capacity Weight sions appear in Appendix A. feet) (1) (Ibs) (2) Ubs) HEIGHT (3) LENGTH(4) BOX 50' 70 ton 5,277 62,100 154,000 15-4 52-10 60' 100 ton 6,488 82,200 180,000 15-4 63-11 80' 100 ton 10,000 114s5OO 148,000 16-12 87-10 GONDOLA 50' 100 ton 2,244 64,300 197,000 8-1 54-5 50' 100 ton 4sOOO 62,200 200,000 12-2 50-5 60' 100 ton 3,242 71,800 190,000 9-1 68-4 50' 70 ton 22150 54,600 140,000 6-11 54-8 OPEN TOP HOPPER 50' 70 ton 2,700 50,700 170,000 11-0 41-8 40' 100 ton 3,420 59,900 200,000 12-2 .46-1 50' 100 ton 3,749 64,000 197,000 12-1 50-5 COVERED HOPPER 40' 100 ton 3,000 52,000 208,000 14-7 39-3 50' 100 ton 4,750 61,300 200,000 15-1 57-4 60' 100 ton 5,820 68,500 192,000 15-4 65-7 FLAT CARS 50' 70 ton n.a. 57,100 162,900 4-11 51-3 60' 100 ton n.a. 63,000 200,000 15-5 64-2 80' 70 ton (TOFC) n.a. 88,200 121,800 7-10 85-8 TANK CARS (Gallons) 40' 100 ton 16,000 62,900 200,100 14-9 41-7 50' 100 ton 23,000 742300 188,700 14-8 52-9 70' 100 ton 33,800 102,200 160,800 15-6 65-5 (1) including "heap" where applicable. (2) unloaded car. (3) maximum dimension from top of rails. (4) over strikers. -12- COMMON EQUIPMENT Weight (pounds) Cubic Max. Dimension Car Type or Series UNLOADED MAX -. MAX. Capacity LENGTH HEIGHT CAR LOAD TOTAL Box 1944 36000 series 45,000 120,000 165,000 3,715 ft. 44-3 11-5 1984 (50' max.) 62,100 154,000 216,100 5,277 ft. 52-10 15-4 FLAT 1944 42000 series 31,900 50,000 91,900 --- 38-0 6-4 1984 (50' max.) 57,100 162,900 220,000 --- 51-3 4-11 GONDOLA 1944 60000 series 41,000 100,000 141,000 1,572 ft@ 45-10 7-5 1984 (50' max.) 64,300 197,000 261,300 2,244 ft. 54-5 8-1 OPEN HOPPER 1944 115000 series 41,000 100,000 141,000 1,880 ft. 34-5 10-8 1984 59,900 200,000 259,900 3,420 ft. 46-1 11-0 TANK 1944 K series 39,200 80,000 119,200 8,200 gal. 38-6 13-0+ 1984 74,300 188,700 263,000 23,000 gal. 52-9 14-C Table 3- Common Equipment -- 1944 and 1984. Current 50-foot freight cars reaching the Cedar Hill Yards can carry twice the effective weight and 1.5 to two times the bulk of World War II era equipment. (Source: Appendices A and B). 70- Figure 4: Average Freight Car Capacity--The Nation. The practice of replacing 70-ton cars with 100-ton cars has increased average car C capacity. Source: A, D. Little, Inc., Issues and Dimensions of Freight Car Size: A Compen- 60- dium (Washington: FRA, 1980. CL M 50- LL (D 40-- 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 Tabl e 4: Cars and Products. Current liquid CARS AND PRODUCTS cargo volumes make tank cars particularly im- portant. Maritime opportunities could make Car Typical Products New Haven Harbor Use hoppers and gondolas important. Box manufactured goods and selected up to 65' length. Excludes materials including wood products. "hi-cubes." GONDOLA wood, steel, and machinery. Coal scrap in 50-55' length cars. in unit trains. OPEN TOP HOPPER Stone, ballast, ore and coal. HK car probably necessary Self-clearing feature attractive. to clear outside at rails. COVERED HOPPER styrene and polyethylene from 40 to 65' lengths. pellets, cement. FLAT pulpwood, plywood, plasterboard, no TOPC to remain at + 65 finished lumber, steel products length. (covered) and TOFC. TANK petroleum, caustics, acids full size range from 40' to 65 and gases. -14- CAR SELECTION Car Capacity (Load) Capacity Product Density Car - Trucks Volume - To - Weight CUBIC FT. WEIGHT Optimum 1.00 Anhydrous Ammonia--5.2 lb./gal. 60' tank 100 ton 33,800 160,800 108 Caustic Soda--12.5 lb./gal. 40' tank 100 ton 33,800 gal. 160,800 93 Cement--95 lb./ft.3 40' covered hopper 100 ton 3,000 ft.3 208,000 137 50' covered hopper 100 ton 4,750 ft.3 205,000 220 Coal 3 3 anthracite (hard)--94 lb./ft. 40' open hopper 70 ton 2,700 ft. 3 170,000 149 3 40' open hopper 100 ton 3,420 ft. 200,000 161 bituminous (soft)--81 lb./ft. 40' open hopper 70 ton 2,700 ft.3 170,000 129 40' open hopper 100 ton 3,420 ft.3 200,000 139 Hardwood--45 lb./ft. 3 50' box 70 ton 5,277 154,000 154 (dry maple and oak) 60' box 100 ton 6,488 180,000 162 80' box 100 ton 10,000 148,000 304 Liquid Propane--4.4 lb./gal. 60' tank 100 ton 33,800 gal. 160,800 93 oil -- 8 lb./gal. 50' tank 100 ton 23,000 gal. 188,700 98 (No. 2) Polyethylene Pellets 3 40' covered hopper 100 ton 3,000 208,000 50 (plastic) -- 35 lb./ft. 50' covered hopper 100 ton 4,750 ft. 200,000 83 60' covered hopper 100 ton 5,280 ft. 192,000 106 Scrap 3 shredded + 75 lbs./ft. 50' gondola -- 70 ton 2,150 140,000 115 50' gondola --100 ton 2,376 200,000 80 60' gondola -- 100 ton 3,242 190,000 68 compacted + 100 lbs./ft. 3 50' gondola 70 ton 2,150 140,000 154 50' gondola 100 ton 2,376 206,000 115 60' gondola 100 ton 3,242 190,000 171- 1 Softwood (dry) -- 40 lbs./ft. 3 50' gondola 70 ton 2,150 140,000 61 50' gondola 100 ton 4,000 200,000 80 60' gondola 100 ton 3,242 190,000 68 Table 5: Car Selection. Shippers try to maximize weight while railroads try to offer the smallest appropriate car. Product densities and car capacities are matched. Dense loads moving in short cars create high "loadings" for the Tomlinson Bridge. (Representative cars per Appendix A). -15- RAIL LOADINGS locomotive 63,000 lbs per axle hopper 65, SW lbs per axle I OCOMOTIVE HOPPER HOPPER HOPPER 5 9-4 14-10 9-4 9-11540 33-3 -10 -10 33-3 5_1015-7 5-10 33-3 101 0 20 feet THE TOMLINSON BRIDGE SYMETRICAL WEST HALF ILLUSTRATED span I span 2 span 3 bascule leaf span 4 hung span 24'-@ 12' 55, 215' 61' 6&4' 21.8' 74' U2 U4 0 20 feet C WEST ABUTMENT PIER 1 C APPROACH GIRDER--C OF BEARING PIER 3 END OF BASCULE AT MID- CHANNEL C GIRDER BEARING PIER 2 C MAIN TRUNNION 1 PIER 3 STRUCTURE C, SYMETRICAL ABOUT T, Figure 5: Tomlinson Bridge Loadings. High density commodities shipped in short cars could load each of the short center spans with about 525,000 pounds and load about 1.2 million pounds onto the longer causeway approaches. SPANS 1 AND 7 HOPPER HOPPER 5-10 13-0 10 .4 .20-4 5-101 5.7 15-10 17-6 -15-8 5-101 - 55 SPANS 1 AND 7 0 10 feet CANTILEVER SPANS 2 AND 6 PIER 1 TO HUNG GIRDER PIER 6 TO HUNG GIRDER HOPPER HOPPER 5-101. 33-3 IP15-10 5-7 5-101- -33-3 1-1 I I I 1- 15-101 18-6 24-0 cantilever hung girder pier 1 0 10 feet /o/ 71dq W717 Figure 5 (Cont.): Tomlinson Bridge Loadings. HUNG SPAN (BETWEEN) PIERS 1 AND 2 PIERS 5 AND 6 HOPPER HOPPER 5-101- 33-3 --15-1015-7 15-101- 33-3 5-10 23-10 cantilevor hung span cantilever 0 10 feet SPANS 3 AND 5 HOPPER HOPPER .5-101 7-10 25-5 0-15-10 5-7 5-10 22-8 10-7, I , 1 15-101 65-4 SPANS 3 AND 5 0 10feet =owns --- MMMML--j Figure 5 (Cont.): Tomlinson Bridge Loadings. BASCULE HOPPER HOPPER 5-101 5-7 5-101. 33-3 .15.101 5-7 15-10 -64-0 - 0 10 feet live load support - Figure 5 (Cont.): Tomlinson Bridge Loadings. Top of R,ff Afai, Tu,,io, o, Piv,t Pomt Tru-i- liv. lo.dl.@@.,I _e-o* 12' e -74' 0" @71,v. I..d I--1 Figure 6: Lift Span Bascule Girder. The key 66-foot girder section extending from the live load support to center-span would have to accept loads imposed by seven axles. Bascule girder section properties are particularly important if a two track system is to be preserved. xle produce greatest stress on the span-2 11hungil 9 rder with a'symmetrical four a arrangement (835 foot kips). create a maximum positive moment on span 3 about 31 feet from pier 2 when loaded with a rear and front axles of successive cars (3,500 foot kips). place a maximum load on the bascule leafs with the equivalent of a full car and the forward axles of a second car. Sections between the live load support and the end of the bascule "control" for design (Figure 6). Bascules bear loads in- dependent of one another. Curvature: operating and maintenance needs establish Conrail's normal minimum 12 degree 30 minute (459 foot) curves as practical limits despite the ability of both coupled 60-foot cars and 60-foot/40-foot car combinations to negotiate more restrictive curves.(19) Reasonable curves will for all practical purposes eliminate car-length and train-length restrictions in the New Haven - environnient-- they create flexible operating conditions. Fif- teen 60-foot cats could readily be accomodated. keep track maintenance within reasonable bounds. More severe curves and heavy cars would wear rail away prematurely. permit reasonable multi-car switching speeds on the spur track. Performance Grades and curves which have historically limited harborside switching operations will continue to control despite improvements. Rail capabilities are fixed by relationships between load, trac- tive effort (or engine pulling power) and right-of-way. About 25 percent of an engine's weight is available as tractive effort. Tractive effort consumed overcoming grades and curves is unavail- able for productive purposes--for payloads. (19) Coupled 60-foot cars could conceivably negotiate a 260 (222 foot) radius and coupled 60-foot--40-foot 'cars might accept a 254 foot radius. Coupled cars of unequal length require milder curves. See Table 1. -16- Joint effects 'of grades and curves control as eastbound trains transition from Belle Dock to Forbes Avenue and westbound trains leave Water Street (Table 6 and Appendix B). Eastbound trains confronted with both a 1.4 percent grade as they move out onto Forbes Avenue and a 2.3 percent grade in adjacent tangent sections could not be longer than eight to mielve cars de- pending upon load (Figure 7 and Table.7).(20) Westbound engines confronted with more favorable conditions could trail between twelve and sixteen cars. (20) Assuming "improved" 12030' curves, an adhesion factor of 20 to 25 percent li mits low speed tractive-effort available from a 1500 hp, 252,000 pound SW 1500 locomotive likely to be used by Conrail. A 25 percent adhesion factor produces 61,500 pounds (maximum) of tractive- effort at low speeds; e.g. in the seven to 10 mph range. Tractive-effort loss associated with acceleration in the zero to ten mile per hour range over a two to three hundred foot section is negligible; ranging between 1,600 and 3,200 pounds. -17- Table 6: Necessary Engine Weight-- WEST SHORE APPROACH West Shore Approach. A combination of curvature, grade and load shape the "tractive" effort necessary for switch- Curves at 120 - 30' ing operations. About one-quarter of Car Weight (Loaded) at 263,000 Pounds an engine's weight is available as 55 Foot Coupled Cars "tractive effort." Necessary Tractive Effort Due to (pounds) Necessary Engine CARS GRADE CURVE TOTAL Weight (pounds) OPTION 1: 8 CARS 66,539 266,156 on curve (1) 37,083 148,332 4 cars 10,520 1.9% grade 19,998 120 - 30' curve 6,575 on tangent 29,456 117,824 4 cars 10,520 1.8% grade 18,936 ----------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OPTION 2: 7 CARS 61,293 245t172 on curve 37,083 148,332 4 cars 10,520 1.9% grade 19,998 120 - 30' curve 6,575 on tangent 24,210 96,840 3 cars 8,430 2.0% grade 15,780 ---------------------------- ------ ------------ -------------------- ----------------------------------- OPTION 3., 6 CARS 54,801 219,204 on curve 37,083 148,332 4 cars 10,520 1.9% grade 19,998 120 - 30' curve 6,575 on tangent 17,718 70,872 2 cars 5,620 2.3% grade 12sO98 (1) curve 2101 with elevation from 11.5' to 15.51 or 1.9 percent tangent 2101 to 201 maximum elevation, elevation from 15.5' to 20.0' or 2.1 percent. @-74@@74 maxim elevation P pivot oint 't ELEVATION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 19 18 17 16 1 Figure 7: Grade and Curvature. Joint effects of grade and curvature will continue to control the length of "consists" despite improvements. Eastbound trains confronted with a 1.4 percent grade as they move on to Forbes Avenue and a 2.3 percent grade in adjacent tangent sections could not be longer than eight to 12 ears depending upon load. Table 7: Effects of Grade and Curvature. Physical conditions and engine capabilities CARS BEHIND LOCOMOTIVE suggest a range of "consist" lengths. Twenty- Tomlinson Bridge five percent adhesion is achieved only under ideal conditions. A 22.5 percent rate sets reasonable performance expectations, Locomotive Adhesion Factor Car Type Direction (product) 20% 22.5% 25% 23,000 gallon tanker eb 7 12 16 (oil) wb 13 16 18 50' open bopper eb 6 8 9 (ore, coal) wb 9 12 14 F 1 4. THE TONLINSON BRIDGE World War I 'era City of New Haven design efforts for the current Tomlinson Bridge sought to bal- anc6 vehicular, rail freight and navigation requirements. Design efforts produced a combination of fill, 215-foot symmetrical Tomlinson Bridge approaches and twin 88-foot long double-leaf bascule spans to bridge the 1,000 foot wide Quinnipiac River (Figure 8). Key Design Elements Major design elements include (Table 8) � individual approach spans consisting of variable-depth steel girders. � a deck system of structural concrete slab supporting a concrete ballast in which railroad ties and tracks are embedded. � a deck surface of asphalt overlay replacing the original roadway surface of creosoted paving blocks. � four interior girders on approaches oriented so that each girder supports the wheel loads from one train of a two-track rail system. � a double-leaf bascule at mid-channel consisting of four (4) variable-depth girders supporting trussed and/or solid floor beams with an open steel grating system. The two (2) interior bascule girders support 80 percent of the rail loading from a two-track rail system. limited clearance over the Quinnipiac River. The low level bridge provides a 12-foot mid-channel clearance above mean high water when closed. a tight knit pile pattern. 'Major rail "loading" problems are posed by the superstructure. A dense pile pattern suggests that the substructure should easily accomodate increased demands generated by heavier, multi-car trains. The 42-foot wide four lane roadway created'by the bridge carried 30,000 vehicles over the harbor _20- LIFT LIFT CAUSEWAY APPROACH SPAN SPAN CAUSEWAY APPROACH END FILL -215. 2 5' -END FILL p .1 PIN oiM Poin F1 53 - 1 61' 1 87-1 @-87' 61' 53 @4121 PIER PIER PIER PIER 4- Figure 1: Tomlinson @ridge--Basic Sections. A combination of fill, 215-foot symmetrical ipproaches and twin 81-foot long double leaf bascule spans bridge the 1,000-foot wide Quinnipiac River. Table 8: Key Tomlinson Brid e Elements. A tight knit pile pattern suggests that the substructure should easily accommodate THE TOMLINSON BRIDGE increased demands generated by heavier multi- car trains. Superstructure elements, described Element Description here, would recuire reinforcement. general three fixed spans at each approach to a double leaf bascule de scription span at mid-channel. variable depth steel girders designed to accommodate a 24-foot bung span at the center of each approach. structural concrete deck slab supporting a concrete approaches ballast in which railroad ties an tracks are embedded. asphalt overlay replacing original crensoted paving blocks. each of the four interior girders supports the wheel loads from one train on a two-track system. double leaf bascule at mid-channel consists of four variable depth girders supporting trussed and/or solid fIor beams with an open steel grating floor system. bascules grating support d by steel stringers and a transverse channel supportesystem. P PO @t two interior bascule girders support 80 percent of the rai1loading from a two-track rail system. each weekday in the mid-1950's before completion of the parallel high level Connecticut Turnpike crossing (Figure 9).(21) Cu rrent 1982 weekday traffic volumes range between only 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles while the adjacent six lane Quinnipiac River Bridge (1-95) carries about 90,000 vehicles a day. Peak hour Quinnipiac Bridge congestion and limited east-west travel options once again focus attention on U.S. 1.(Forbes Avenue) as an alternative harbor crossing.(22). Collisions, Reeair,s and Regulati Recent (1973-1979) barge collisions with the Tomlinson Bridge have resulted in (Table 9) a new fender system (Table 10). Gear mechanisms are now fully protected against all but head-on (bow first) hits. improvements which permit bascule leafs to reach an almost perpendicular position when raised. original counterweight. construction failed to meet U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit guidelines. Neither counterweight design nor density allowed the bascules to be raised to a position of more than 70 degrees relative to the water. Limited vertical clearance effec- tively reduced channel width. Large vessels could not make use of the full 120-foot channel. Similarly, fender systems could not fully protect lift spans. Three- ear old Coast Guard regulations intended to protect the Bridge recognize navigation prob- lems.(M) Regulations limit movement of large vessels relative to tide and wind, specify towing (21) Wilbur Smith and Associat es, A Comprehensive Traffic Improvement Plan for the City of 'New Have (New Haven: WSA, 1954). (22) "An 1-95 Operations Study" now in progress via the Regional Planning Agency explores both near-term traffic management strategies and longer term, more costly investment options. (23) Regulations applicable to barges with a f:reeboard (height of side between the water line and deck or gunwale, the uppermost edge of the vessel side) greater than ten feet prAibit: (1) transit except during the period from one hour to five hours after a high water.slack (after the ebb tide when incoming current peaks and outgoing vessels encounter a head current); .(2) movement Yhen the wind speed at the bridge (continued) -22- APPROACH SECTION Sidewalk Sidewalk 8-6- 8-6- 21-0 21-0 -13-0 -6-0- -6-0--6 0--6-0- -6-0 -13-0 1-6 1-6 BASCULE (LIFT) SECTION Sidewalk Sidewalk 9-6- 21-0 21-0- -9-6 -7-0-- 7-0- -4-4--9-8--7-0--3-9--7-0 -9-8--4-4- Figure 9: Tomlinson Bridge Roadway Section. A 42-fOot roadway carries four lanes across the Tomlinson firidge (not to scale). MAJOR COLLISIONS Date (Him) Barge Circumstances Collision 5-17-72 Atlantic Cement B Craft towed stern first by Diana Moran king post (cargo boom) and tailed by Devan. contacted east abutment. 11-9-75 Atlantic Cement B Craft towed stern first by Diana Moran. port bow contacted girder (3:40 PM) Tug favored east side due to supports of northwest winds but barge "set" to west. bascule leaf. 23' high freeboard over-road fender system. Wind SSE at 5-10 knots. 8-1-76 Atlantic Cement B Craft towed stern first by Diana Moran. chock (fitting for towline) (3:45 PM) 15-20 knot wind at 15 minutes hit girder on north side before high tide (strong current). of east leaf. 8-30-76 Hygrade 42 (oil) towed by tug Port Jefferson, south side of west bascule (2:20 PM) barge rubbed east side of 1-95 leaf. fender system, tug over-compen- sated by swinging west moving diagonally across the channel. 15-20 knot NW wind and flood current. 6-15-79 Atlantic Cement B Craft towed stern first by Robin 6 rammed southwest corner of (4:00 PM) due to Moran strike, tailed by bridge just above gears New London. Barge ricocheted after over-riding fender to west after striking east system. fender system. Unorthodox 'Imake-up" by operator unfamiliar with local waters. Table 9: Recent Tomlinson Bridge Barge'Collisions. Five major collisions in the 1970's left the bridge out of ser- vice for extended periods. -23- Table 10: Major Tomlinson Bridge Repairs. Three major Connecticut Department of Transpor- MAJOR REPAIRS tation projects since 1973 have addressed barge 1973 -1984 damage and urgent structural repairs. Date Major Elenients Cost (Project No.) Repairs 12-73 thru 8-77 remove and replace lift machinery. (92-160) major replacement to northeast bascule girder (92-204) and bascule span rehabilitation $ 2,302,000 raise leafs to 780 relative to roadway and 890 relative to water. 9-77 thru 11-77 install energy absorbing fender system. $ 593,000 (92-245) 7-83 -- 5-84 replace SW counterweight trunion and repair deterioration in other countweweights. $ 350,000+ STATE DEFINED NEAR- TERM NEEDS settlement in me approach span $ 1,000,000+ deteriorated steel in counterweight pit and deteriorated support columns. Figure 11: Tomlinson Bridge--Points of over- stress. Multi-car trains composed of 263,000 pound cars would overstress the symmetrical OVERSTRESS Tomlinson Bridge at twelve key points. Track girders in approach spans and the interior Track Girders- 15% Track Girders - 15 % bascule girders would be overstressed. Track Girders - 15% interior Bascule Track Hung Track Girders-30% Girders - 15% 2 55'-- 6 1'- - 80' Bascule Abutment Pier 1 Pier 2 Pier -24- methods and restrict departures from the Mill -River to daylight hours No collisions have occurred since the advent of tighter Coast Guard control. Structural Problems Original design, use and deterioration present both apparent, and latent problems which shape in- vestment decisions. Observed-Problems: Visual inspection suggests several major failures attributable to design and use rather than to materials.(24) Key problems include major distress in the east abutment. The abutment. face has cracked and the northeast wing-wall has rotated several inches (out of plumb) (Figure 10A). A shear crack in the abutment face extending to the water line suggests that both rotation and the crack are due to underwater settlement of piers.. A similar shear in the abutment face is evident where the southeast wing-wall has rotated and "pulled" the approach retaining wall with it--at the point where the southeast retaining wall joins the east end of the east abutment (Figures 10B and C). some failure in the vest abutment. A shear crack at the north end of the vest abutment (10D) and, as above' rotation in the wing-wall (10E) suggest loss of support'. Footings and/or'piles have failed. failure of Pier 2 on the west approach. Cracks are evident on both the east (23) (Cont.) exceeds 20 knots or 23 miles per hour; and (3) towing stern..first on a howser (rela- tively difficult to control). in addition: (1) vessels with a beam (width at maximum point) of more that 50 feet must be pushed under the bridge; (2) a lookout is required under cer- tain conditions; and (3) bj@irges departing the Mill River must leave in daylight, be pushed bow first and have a *second tug standing by to assist at the bow. See 33 CFR Part 128 in Federal Register volume 46, No. 20, November 16, 1981. (24) Stone and underwater (unexposed) piers should have virtually indefinite lives. _25- ilia 'n A Figure 10: Substructure Problems. Major signs of distress include rotation of the northeast wingwall at the east abutment (A); displacement of the southeast wingwall (east abutment) (B and C); shear in west abutment (D); ro tation of northwest wingwall (E); and shear cracks through bo th faces of pier 2 on the east approach (F and G). IWTi and west face of the pier--they suggest foundation and/or pile failure due to loads (Figures 1OF and G). Underwater inspection t4ill probably reveal a crack in the concrete below the stouework. Significantly, cracks appear between girders which support rails. Distress is limited. Positive indications i nclude the absence of settlement in approach piers other than Pier 2, no visual distress in the bascule piers and generally good condition of major steel girders encased in gunite.(25) Major substructure units including the approaches appear salvageable. Latent Problems: Rehabilitation efforts through the 1970's accomplished only those repairs necessary to restore and/ or maintain service. Damage by barges, mechanical problems with the lift mechanism and pockets of deterioration were addressed. Incremental responses failed to address major long-term rehabilitation needs basic to highway and rail performance. A comprehensive rehabilitation program which minimizes periodic service disruptions must address known substructure failures (above) and the condition of key elements including the live load anchorage and supports (Figure 6). Live load anchorages encased in concrete within bascule piers are not subject to visual inspection. The condition of steel embedded in concrete below the pit floor is of major impor- tance. Anchorages accept and resist the load applied to the bascules in a closed position--they-set on bearing elements (assembly) of the live load sup- port. Flaws in the live load anchorage can have a major impact on the econo- mics of rehabilitation. Aiain trunnions (Figure 6). A collar, pin and support system permit bascules .to rotate. Wear must be addressed. the counterweight system. Concerns include counterweight trunnion bearings, existing bronze bushings, counterweight truss hangers, and the steel truss support system embedded in the counterweight. deteriorated steel in the-counterweight pit and deteriorated support coluums. (25) Recently exposed steel appears in good condition--suggesting that gunite has been effective. -26- Design Limits: Original (1917) design decisions will impact rehabilitation costs if the facility is to accomodate contemporary rail equipment. Decisions reflected in original plans and specifications assumed high performance steel. Design plans are premised upon steel with a flexural tensile strength of 24,000 pounds per square inch (the ability to re-assume shape without damage). Design plans premised upon American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) codes of the 1920's generally assumed a 16,000 pound per square inch allowable stress standard. Only exacting quality control could have gained a 24,000 pound per square inch capability at the time. A more conservative assumption would have produced a more conservative design offering greater long-term flexibility. Less costly measures to accomodate heavier cars might have been possible. Contemporary designs intended to accomodate loads of 24,000 pounds per square inch would select steel with an ultimate stress of at least 60,000 pounds per square inch. understate live load impact attributable to rail cars. Thirty-three foot (33') World War I era rail freight cars established "design" vehicles. Associated impact estimates (dynamic force), reflected in specifications were significantly below those then in common use.(26) Heavier Cars: Limited design margins reinforce the Connecticut De artment of Transportation's decision to adhere to a 2001,000 pound maximum weight for rail cars.(27@ Comtemporary 263,000 pound cars in multi- (26) City of New Haven, Department of Public Works, Specifications, Forms of Contracts and Bonds for Tomlinson Bridge Over the Quinnipiac. River at Forbes Avenue: Steel Contract prepared by Earnest W. Wiggin and Strauss Bascule Bridge Company, 1922. impact percentages or allowances are inconsistent with those of the 1915 @Ianual of the American Railway Engineering Associa- tion despite acknowledgment of the AREA manual. (27) A quick check of existing sections by Seelye, Stevenson, Value and Knecht. increased loads associated with heavier equipment broadly suggest whether stresses in steel remain within original 24,000 psi design values. -27- car units would (Figure 11)(28) . overs tress track girders by about 15 percent in key areas of the fixed approach span (Appendix C). . overstress track girders in the catilever section between Pier 1 and the beginning of the hung span leading to Pier 2 by about 15 percent. A maximum stress develops in the cantilever or negative moment area. 0 be marginally acceptable at Pier 2. Stress in the negative moment area (cantilever) of the track girders appears to be less than the allowable original design stress of 24,000 pounds per square inch. overstress track girders in fixed approach span three by about 15 per- cent in the maximum positive moment area. 0 verstress the 23 foot, *10 inch long hung track girders in the center span between approach piers by about 30 percent. overstress interior bascule girders supporting the double tracks by about 15 percent. (28) A limited design'check by Seelye', Steivenson", Value and Knecht to determine whether the existing structure can support heavier Car loadings. A limited stress check of main members: (1) adopted design parameters which included the original (assumed) tensile design stress of 24,000 psi although, as noted in the text, a tenuous assumption;.(2) drew impact factors from the current AREA code for diesel engines; and (3) used gross sections (not net sections) to check support capabilities of the main track girders. The design check proceeded-exclusive of fatigue considerations. Calculations appear in 'Appendix C. -28- 5. ALTERNATIVES Major new construction in the densely developed harbor area is exp .ensive and disruptive. Opportu- nities to use existing facilities, minimize investment and effect joint highway--rail use recommend rehabilitation of the Tomlinson Bridge. An improved bridge and approaches can accomodate major freight car traffic, offer railroads an attractive operating environment and allow area shippers to compete effectively. Good service can be offered to customers along Forbes Avenue, to New Haven Terminal's current Waterfront Street facility and to the Terminal's new site north of Forbes Avenue. New River Crossings Single track rail crossings within 1,000 feet of the Tomlinson Bridge confront similar operating, right-of-way and construction constraints (Figure 12).(29) Limited advantages inherent in an exclusive rail right-of-way are largely offset by huge capital costs and the necessity of at least one at-grade crossing of Forbes Avenue regardless of alignment. Major investment necessary to meet higbway needs can be meshed with rail requirements. Exclusive Alignment--Benefits are Limited Here: Spee Benefits of high speed movement on an exclusive rail right-of-way are largely offset in the harbor area where a 10 mile per hour switching speed generally prevails and distances are short. A multi-car train crossing the Tomlinson Bridge at 10 miles per hour takes only two to three minutes to cover the 1,600 feet between Belle Dock and Water Street (Table 11) .(30) (29) Options advanced over the past ten years are collated and addressed in: Connecticut De- partment of Transportation, The Tomlinson Bridge Rail Link (Wethersfield: ConnDOT, 1980). (30) For example, from the time an eastbound engine enters Forbes Avenue to the time the last car moves from Forbes Avenue on to Water Street. One car operations moving slowly against vehicular traffic take almost four minutes to cover the same distance. Single car 11consists" shuttling back and forth would inhibit vehicular movement. Multi-car trains which period- ically make exclusive use of the bridge in off-peak hours are compatible with the traffic flow needs. Traffic control plans which restrict vehicular access would have to be devised. -29- @L Wo C "@@h q'4 LOW, 111@% A A J@ A?- r... Z 'w" 4- 6, A, ALTERNATE A IA Al ALTERNATE B ALTERNATE C - - - - - E ALTERNATE D ................. ALTERNATE E .................. Figure 12: Rail Service Options. Options advanced over the past 10 years include: (a) new structure immediately South of the Tomlinson Bridge; (b) an inland approach leaving the Amtrak mainline in East Haven; (c) new structure well south of the existing bridge; (d) service over the Manufacturers Railroad along the east bank of the Mill River; and (e) a "rail only" alignment immediately north of the existing Tomlinson Bridge. Upgrading the existing bridge and improving approaches can create new rail capacity faster, at less cost and with less disruption than any of the five 11options." V"a,-n 555 0 #4 00@s 3;6'Lg- & _10_C*C' - 0 3,0, '5@0" 1 00//CYS 7- WQ /0,2& Z7@el'12 e3(2,75 \ "'Xc"?ga 5(2,2 Alol',:z 2. YP C? /a, We /01"-) 9 Rb, /5 Ap /"D-"7 'ZN I : .4 /,--1 9-@6Z@713 4' 12' 12" .4, C0,711,,UOU@5 01, 3' 1A2"-' 23aZ5 99/2 4@ _50-jqu1t1n'3_ ___ffa;7n /0-502. Z" zow CU "U// &a .9- .7 77 Azp T Co@"-Z"Y1 h A 1,94041. 7// n -@-o c a _-#@5 a ol @@,on a &,a I G1-o(17',,Qe. Mori, cc,nc@ /t? .1"0'- 3tru-n C/o z 1@121n -55-5. 0/ 01)d in lv(2w ""e.,n Elie-0201 a' _5'CC'/R. C@-oss Ties .5,'ze_1"W11 #@@' r7-0'-73 et-se ec@@s Lon'@ / 91-e-.Ly. 15"C-C. TYPICAL SECTION 7Pa/n _-36-75-5027 SINGLE TRACK IN PAVEMENT Alotp J. Figure 13: Typical Track in Pavement. Careful installation can provide a good environment for track embedded in Forbes Avenue and Waterfront Street. (Design per Seeyle, Stevenson, Value and Knecht as installed along the Brooklyn waterfront.) Table 11: Crossing the Tomlinson Bridge, A TIME TO CROSS BRIDGE (MINUTES) multi-car train will take only three to four minutes to travel the 1,600 foot distance between Belle Dock and Water Street. Speed (Mph) (Illustrated with 41.6 foot coupled tank cars Cars ExcILWng and a 44.7 foot long SW1500 engine.) Engine 5 7.5 10 1 3.8 2.6 1.9 6 4.3 2 9 2.2 8 4.5 3:0 2.3 10 4.7 3.1 2.3 12 4.9 3.2 2.4 14 5.0 3.4 2.5 16 5.3 3_1 2-6 Track Maintenance Properly embedded rail (150 pounds or better) will offset maintenance costs inherent in a mixed use environment. Train related rail wear is a function of traffic volumes, speed, axle leadings, curvature, grade, ballast and surface corrosion (low density lines). Rail demand and steel-on-steel friction control rail life to a far greater extent than auto and truck movement. Modern installations techniques can provide a good environment for track embedded in Forbes Avenue (Figure 13). Alignment New river crossings will be disruptive. Even a new span immediately north of the existing facility (Alternative E) will come perilously close to the historic Yale Boat House and clearly interfere with parking arrangements (Figure 14). More significant departures from the'existing alignment will: largely preempt redevelopment of Conrail's four acre west shore switching yard north of the Wyatt Fuel Company's main facility; re- ,quire a long, relatively costly clear span to maintain an unobstruc- ted channel; limit flexibility at Gulf oil's east shore property; and require a reverse movement to serve the Quinnipiac River Indus- trial Park (Alternative C). offer only a single track service north of'the Quinnipiac River if an approach provided by the old Manufacturerts Railroad were em- ployed. Narrow right-of-way limit's operating flexibility. Light rail and poor track condition would require immediate replacement of 3,600 feet of rail between Chapel Street and Alton Street; an at- grade crossing of Chapel Street would be necessary in contrast to the"grade separation on the Belle Dock spur; right-of-way would nec- essarily infringe upon recreational facilities at Quinnipiac Park; and the alignment would make shore front access difficult to main- tain at both Texaco and Mobil properties. Limited switching capa- bilities-at the main line now rule out a multi-car movement via the east shore of the Mill Rover. Switching arrangements require trains moving-soutfi on the main line from the Cedar Hill Yards to reverse on to the East Street spur, move north to the short Rockware spur (formerly the Federal Paperboard Company) and then reverse again EAST STREET SPUR Track, ties and ballast along the East street spur are ade- quate for slow speed switching operations. Here immediately 74 north (2) and south (3) of Grand Street and joining the main line at the left (4). J, A- L low NORTH OF THE TOMLINSON BRIDGE A new span immediately north of the Tomlinson @7 Bridge would come perilously close to the historic Yale Boat House.(l) 14 -6 4 _VW_ -4- Fiaure 14: Facilities and the Environment. MANUFACTURERS SPUR 7 A narrow right-of-way (5 just north of Grand Street) limits flexibility. Poor track and roadbed require immediate attention (6, 7, 8 and 9) in all areas except north of Alton Street (10) where New Haven accomplished reconstruction for the Federal Paper- board (Rockware) project. A "reverse movement" from the East Street spur (at right 11) to the manufacturers spur (at left 11) occurs on a short 225 foot piece of Rockware spur (12). rive' e New alignment would sever Quinnipiac Park from the r (13 looking du south from the spur across Chapel Street). TR 10 UL 12, 13 Figure 14 (Cont.): Facilities and the Environment. JIM 14 15 16 -N. AN INLAND APPROACH An abandoned three mile rail right-of-way leaves the Amtrak mainline just behind New Haven Terminal's East Haven Tank Farm (14), parallels Warwick Street (15) and crosses Lenox Street (16) before turning north (17) and away from the harbor. Long distance petroleum lines now occupy the right-of-way (18). The right-of-way F- T rises 50 feet above the Quinnipiac River at Lenox Street (19 looking down from the former rail facility). New rail structure extending over Ferry Street to the former U.S. Steel site (20 from the Ferry Street Bridge) would run counter to A city policies which have helped create Brewery Square (21 and 22) and new parkland along the river (23 and 24). 18 J, A 17 19 Figure 14 (Cont.): Facilities and the Environment. Z 20 21 ,dab, River .-WROuW 7-1 -7 22 23 24 Figure 14 (Cont.): Facilities and the Environment. I 7i on to the River Street spur--adding 10 minutes to a one way run (Figure 15).(31) The short (225 foot long) Rockware spur can ac- comodate only an engine and four 45-foot coupled cars, Long 11consists" cannot be moved to the harbor without extensive rea- lignment and/or structure in view of embankments immediately south of the main line (Alternative D) An inland Approach The prospect of inland access to the harbor offers relief from navigational constraints and high cost "over the water" construction. A former three mile spur linking the Amtrak main line and old Fair Haven industrial areas provides an interesting, but ultimately disappointing, alternative to a Quinnipiac River crossing. An abandoned inland right-of-way now accomodating long distance petroleum lines (Jet Lines) leaves the main line immediately behind the New Haven Terminal's East Haven tank farm and extends west to and under Quinnipiac Avenue before turning north or away from key harbor areas. Inland service would: eliminate economies stemming from joint use of west shore facilities. One-way movement from the Cedar Hill Yards to Water Street (the east shore) would require about 20 minutes and serve only east shore desti- nations (Figure 16). Opportunities to share west shore maintenance and capital costs would similarly be lost. Only an extremely high Cedar Hill to east shore interchange would make major inland invest- ment worthwhile. Meeting needs of moderate-to-low east shore traffic would become relatively expensive. . need new switching facilities in East Haven wetland areas (Polywog Pond) to avoid a reverse movement on the main line. . require major unattractive structure in the Grand Street--Quinnipiac area. Structure would leave the spur immediately south of the recent- ly remodeled Jepson School, carry 21 feet above Ferry Street and ex- tend 520 feet south of the Ferry Street Bridge along the river to (31) Reverse movements totaling 2,800 feet at five miles per hour or six minutes rounded to 10 minutes to reflect switching. -32- ED, RIVER SrREET TO EA45TMEET Y sV% HUIA 0j, I S T ------ r7--, ---------- t V;3 T EA$TSI-tl 1. ----------- GRADEOVEA,1&1% RIVEA STRE& swrCH Figure. 15: Limitations an the Manufacturers Spu A reverse movement; from the East Street to the Manufacturers spur and short track on the Rockware spur limit the length of trains to about four cars. Difficult grade. between the Manufacturers spur and the Main line makes a direct connection costly. Figure 11: Travel Tim-, An inland route is not effective for low to moderate volume traffic. Trains from the Cedar Hill Yards MAIN LINE would take about 20 minutes to reach east shore Forbes Avenue--Waterfront Street industrial Leave Cedar NORTH Sites. New switching facilities in low wetland Hill Yards areas (Pollywog Pond) would be necessary to avoid a reverse movement on the Main line. 2min 42 m] 1 min Omph 20mph .76n; 12min 2@ MAIN LINE 20mphj 2 65M EAST 8min mph MAIN LINE WEST .95- 10-ph] 6min Inland [j2IM Spu 1 min .Ph .49m 3min 10mph 1.34m] SmIn Belle 10 mph] Dock Forbesl Waterfront r provide a two percent minimally acceptable grade for multi-car "con- sists" throughout (Figure 17), A 43-foot difference in elevations, between the abandoned right-of-way (circa 50 feet at Lenox Street) and river front areas (circa seven feet at Ferry Street) makes struc- ture necessary to present reasonable grades for freight traffic. Structure clearing-Ferry Street at 21 feet (offering a minimal 2.5 percent grade for rail) would extend almost 1,600 feet along the river front.(32) Major structure through low lying river front areas precludes serious attention to an inland route. Long-term efforts in Quinnipiac River shoreline areas between Ferry Street and Grand Avenue are reflected in construction at Brewery Square (Figure 14), a new riverfront park immediately north of Brewery Square and extensive private rebabilitati 'on of adjacent properties. A rail structure would prove disruptive, visually intrusive and inconsistent with long-term development policies Cost Ordef of magnitude cost estimates reinforce the desirability of meeting contemporary rail needs via an improved Tomlinson Bridge. Capital Costs- High "over the water" construction costs work against mew river crossings (Table 12). Options involving long spans (900--1,000 feet) of the Quinnipiac River tend toward the high end of the cost spectrum exclusive of associated right-of-way requirements. Major shorefront right-of-way acquisition (Alternative C) pushes the cost of a new southerly crossing toward the $30 million level. Immediate and extensive rail replacement needs along the Manufacturer's Spur bring costs associated with Alternative D into the $25 million dollar range. In contrast, reinforcing key Tomlinson Bridge structural elements and acquiring limited east shore right-of-way for improved curvature can be accomplished for circa seven million dollars in concert with a sorely needed $10 to $12 million dollar Tomlinson Bridge rehabilitation project. A comprehensive rehabilita- tion project addressing both rail and highway operating needs should be initiated at an early date. (32) A 21 foot clearance necessary for an acceptable rail grade versus a@circa 14 foo t highway (truck) clearance requirement. Extending from elevation 49 on the right-of-w.ay to elevation 21 at the west or south abutment of the Ferry Street :Bridge--27 feet over 1,040 feet or a 2.6 percent grade. Another 520 feet of downstream structure is necessary to return to grade at elevation 8. -33- oll"111 c I'll C;@! 200f-, 460 Figure 17: New Structure at Ferry Street. Maintaining a two to 2.5 percent grade for an "inland route" would require almost 1,600 feet of structure in riverfront areas. One or Two Tracks on the Tomlinson Bridge: Bridge design now permits separation of 'each bascule section into independent leafs during main- tenance and repair periods. Single' track rail service can be maintained while one or opposing leafs are repaired. Current designs now load weight.equally on the four identical interior ap- proach girders--each girder absorbs 50 percent o 'f the weight of each track (Figure-9). Dual ser- vice on approaches will require strengthening of,all four girders versus the center pair associated with single track operations. Bdscule sections present a more difficult trade--@off. Two interior bascule girders receive 80 percent of. the load generated by respective tracks. Introducing a new single track with heavy rail cars will decrease stress on each"of the interior bascule girders-- presenting substantial economies during re 'habilitation. Conversely, major new section.properties on all bascule elements will be necessary to accomodate a dual track system. Comprehensive bridge rehabilitation, good maintenance and new stringent navigation rules can minimize, but not eliminate, the risk of substantial-service loss. only two tracks offerinsurance against a major service interruption. Early, in-depth design can establish marginal costs inheren t in a two,track option. Long-Term Costs: New capabilities can make rail more attractive to both shippers and railroads (Table 13). Current "one at a time" movement over the Tomlinson Bridge.incurs high direct costs (labor and mechanical). Long-term "bottom line" costs inherent in alternate tail service schemes are shaped by a mix of capital, maintenance and operating requirements (Appendix D). Multi-car operating economies are significant as east shore loads move from present 600 car levels to circa 2,000 annual car move- ments. Relative gains fall off beyond the 2,000 car level--largely because more than one daily run from-the Cedar.Hill Yards-to the harbor becomes necessary. Switching engines operating between the yards and the harbor can draw about twenty trailing cars. Current west shore demand'at 3,400 cars per year and east shore 2,000 car traffic levels exceed average daily twenty cars single consist capabilities--another run becomes necessary. -j4- CRUDE COST ESTIMATES Cost in Thousands Element Tomlinson Bridge A B C E HEAVY RAIL NEEDS S /0 TOMLINSON INLAND ROUTE 1000'S /0 TOMLINSON MANUFACTURERSRR N10 TOMLINSON Capital Cos t bridge over river with causeway $ -- $5,000 $ 675 $12,938 S -- $ -- $1,300 S20,750 $ 900 @15,753 $ 750 $13,875 bridge on land -- 2,600 3,900 -- - -- -- -- on fill with retaining walls 300 285 -- -- 450 428 650 618 300 28@ relocate fu el pipeline -- 5,300 530 - -- =jor re aIigo.ent and new switching -- -- 8,800 1,980 -- -- -- -- -- -- only new or impro ved rail 3,300 743 3,150 709 - -- 3,150 --- 709 6,775 3,024 2,900 153 subtotal construction $5,743 q13 :932 $6,410 @21,88 $19 395 $14 design and construction supervision 1,434 3 483 1,602 5 : 84 87 2 4:843 3:'70', right-0 f-way ---54 154 367 Total Capitol Cost $7,231 S17,569 $9,540 528,526 S24,581 $19,317 Table 12: Associated Costs. High "over the waterel construction Costs Work against new river crossings. Reinforcing key Tomlinson Bridge elements and improving approach alignment works best if pursued within the context of a comprehensive bridge rehabilitation project. (Source: Appendix D). Table 13: Operating Costs. New investment can make rail movement more appealing. A m-1x of MOVING A CAR FROM maintenance and direct operating expenses shapes CEDAR HILL TO THE EAST SHORE unit costs. 'Source: Appendix D), Maintenance and Operating Cost Cost ftr Car Operating Option 600 CARS 2000 CARS 4000 CARS PER YEAR PER YEAR PER YEAR Current $72 $48 $45 heavy rail on Tomlinson 42 15 12 immediately S/0 Tomlinson 42 15 12 inland route 55 16 13 1,000 ft S/O Tomlinson 37 13 11 Manufacturers spur 64 19 14 n/o Tomlinson 39 13 11 -35- APPENDIX A REPRESENTATIVE FREIGHT CARS Dimensions and profiles of representative equipment are drawn from three sources: (1) Association of American Railroads, Mechanical Division, The Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practices (Omaha, Nebraska: Simmons-Boardman, 1980). (2) Union Tank Car Company, Union Tank Car Book: Nomenclature, Specifications and Information (Chicago: UTC, 1983). (3) Conrail "Equipment Registry" unpublished, undated. Sources are appropriately identified. A-1 BOX CARS General Size Sixty and 86 foot length with 70 and 100 ton capacities introduced in the early 1960's now predominate. Fifty foot 70 and 100 ton cars remain common. General service and equipped for particular commodities. Car interiors are often equipped with load stowing and load restraining devices including movable bulkheads, load dividers and air bags. Wide doors (six through ten feet in width) permit entry by fork lift trucks and other material handling devices. Typical Load Manufactured goods and hard woods. Relatively light density goods tend toward 60-foot cars. A-2 RB Ox 353 75 11147 Railbox 70-ton General Purpose Box Car. Lengtri instEle is 50'6'@ Capacity 154,000 lbs- cubic rApacity 5.277 ELI:tt Built with Pullman Standard 10' sliding door. riveted roof. naj able steel floor. Car has a rigid underframe. Plate C clearance, See general arrangement diagram for dimensions. Built by Pullman Standard. 1979. PULLMAN STANDARD 60SWIS410 OVER STEEL WDS 120 0,10" ---- Ila 38,3058 60.0 60.0 152. -1152. r-V FT 7 640 33.01830 DM- 406."115416 OVER END SItLS- 71.75 490.0,12"G GETWEEN TRUCK CENTERS L -71.7s 633.5,,IW91 OVER STRIKE "I'All"91 OVER COUPLE* VULU"G fActs Pullman Standard 70-Ton 50,6- Box Car. A-3 Source 4 .7 -7 IWO.. Sovthern Railway 100-ton General Purporse Box Car. Length inside is 60'9*. Capacity 180.000 lbs.. cubic capacity 6448 cu tt Built with Pullman Standard 10' sliding door. riveted'roof and naitable steel floor. The car is equipped with end-of-ca, cushioning Plate C clearance. See general arrangement diagram for dimensions of similar car. Built by Pullman Standard. 1979 PULLMAN STANDARD P. -0 U--/ Pullman Standard 100-Ton 60'9* Box Car. r -I -mi I Ell A-4 Source I W .Conrail Hi-Cube Car. -Built for auto parts service, it is equipped with movable bulkheads and 15 in. end-of-car cushioning. Rated capacity is 148,000 lbs. or 10.000 cu. ft. Outside dimensions are 92 ft. 6 in. long, 9 ft. 9 in. wide and 17 ft. high. Inside dimensions are 86 ft. 6 in. long, 9 it, 2 in. wide and 12 ft. 9 in. high. The door opening is 20 ft. wide by 12 ft. 9 in. high. Built by Greenville Steel Car Co., 1978. MW WGTH 12, C:A I 2 d-Or DOOR MOOG O@ER UPPER 00001 MACK 87-IOJ OVOSTWAS 'i-81 CoD GREENVILLE STEEL CAR COMPANY 6c- A-5 Source 1 GONDOLA CAR General Size Fifty and 60 foot length cars with 70 and 100 ton capacities. Type Fixed ends and solid floor. Side heights vary relative to product needs. increased use of dividers and tie-downs. Typical Load Forest products, steel products and machinery in open gondola. With special covers carry products requiring weather protection including steel sheet in coils or bundles. A-6 ,7 - - '4 now EW, Jold Eastern General Service Gondola Inside length 52'6'. Capacity 197,00014s.. cubic capacity 2.2" cu. ft. See general arrangement diagrarn for dimensions. Built by Pullman Standard, 1975. PULLMAN STANDARD 4112* 52',711WOVEAENDSILLS _;71'1R'S;D. POS, 52'-VINVDELEN@G 0 0 0 FEEL] J_ i___4 i [I. O@ i J, i 11-mi ZA. A A, CLEARAP(CF LWE _43'. VsfrwEEm rpucK CENrERS- NK 5' - 9 112' C -54 VOYER STF j i 67, 0 1/2' OVER COUPLER PULUNG FACES 77M Pullonan Standard 2244.cu. ft.-Generall Service Gondola. A-7 Source I v@ 4 - @.j 7. $ cft to %oc Cajun E*clrk Power Company Hie Side Gondola PULLMAN STANDARD CaDac,ly 200.000 lbs.. cubic capacity 4000 cu ft Designed for rotary dump cwl unit train service. See general ar raNement for dimensions eudl by Pu3man Standard 1979 10 OVEP WE "TS 2 IM'CVEP END SILIS I F.w. --9, -9 "'1 INSIDE A Dr. L+ 70 'o 15 314' 314 5;- 9 112p-- 40 - 6 SETWEEN MUCK CE NTERS 50. - 5. 0'- A A R CLEA@NCE LFNE LATE 6 53' 0 112' OVEACWFLERPVL-,?NG FACES Pulman Standard 4000 cu. ft. High Side Gondola. A-8 Source I WF- somm". W- Missouri Padfic: Railroad 100-Ton Gondola. Inside length 65 ft. 6 in., inside width 9 ft. 0 in., inside height 5 ft, 6 in., length over pulling face coupler 70ft. 11 in., extreme width 9 ft. 11 in., extreme height 9 ft. I in., rated capacity 190,ODO lbs. or $242 cu. ft. Built by Greenville Steel Car Cm, 1979. + b6-9"IRUCA CENTERS Yo'-Ilf"TWEC. Pu,LINO FACE OF COUPLENS-NOW-Al le- Ir-O'INSIDE WIDTH GREENVILLE STEEL CAR COMPANY C, A-9 Source HOPPER CARS--OPEN TOP General Size Seventy and 100 tons. Most new cars with 100 ton capacity. Type Self clearing with open top and fixed sides and ends. "HT" with three or more divided hoppers with doors hinged crosswise of car and dumping between the rails. "HK" cars with two or more divided hoppers and doors hinged lengthwige of car can dump outside and/or inside of rails. Typical Load Coal, ores, stone and ballast. High density materials benefitting from self-clearing. A@10 K,L it,91014C., ry /IV carr Weld 14 7 ss, /,a a Ze 5 -(.4 31 A, Box / 6 4 6 (S -3'1 1:74::@) S+, 600 AB s. (431) HCAP 41S ." .. 40@5) It roro4 20,61 GONOOIA CAk-,DA20,P-flVO.S-C4,9S3 6-VSS, A ue-31 STFri. F44oFL INS IDE I ENO 7W ImsiDr. - - --- ----52-,6' a.?IA.s WOOO Jrzoole-l 3;;L Jy 6-3 -54-a 77- 2- r*10*-6 7-2 7 1 Al-ly@l yy D 7)v - rRUCAC - CfAITZRS 43- a - -S4!8' Ov-ce srelxr- -57' 2' COURYP 1,fwG7h' -:I@a. 1 3 JT@ A-11 Source 3 4P A 3' LL-NGTH INSIO& 9!@ 4 "Ihsto _73"Jhslo 4@ -7 Ft (tOF C (41 17 '34 5*-' 8 7- _"T 4. TRUCK Ce"TE"s 13 7 Gi le _.@ I Ove_" -5 0 --- --31- 0 _@@ 5 4 V- 81 OVCR STMIKIHC PLAT&S UO. Capy Inad Light Lot Series Cars Desix. C. F. Li-at Weight %.ilder NeW 1410. "C 900000-90149 HT 2700 169300 50700 ACF 1956-57 866-H 9@ 191.4 It N'fc-901500-901999 Gen.Amer.(8097) 1957 867-H 170000 50000 Greenv. (678) 1956-57 868-H W<C 905006-905999 1897 41c. 906000-0069M PIM-Std. (8333) 1957 669-H B&A 910000-910649 103 Myc 169300 50700 DSI (916,922) i957 865-H A-12 Source 3 Conrail Triple HoNper Car. Capacity 200.0DO lbs . cubic capacity 3420 cu. ft. Smaller cubic toot Capacity to suit heavier Eastern coal require- ments. For rotary or bottom dump coal PULLMAN STANDARD service. See general arrangement dia- gram for dimerislon5. Built by Pullman Standard .1978. W@Smlwbo OVER r"a IRLUII WCO WE POM_ 193. 640,015/131111 "mot rTM 00M www 4P -I t 434 01IM4 OtTWEEN TRVC@ CINTERS + 563.0,1`10.6 own smXVIII W4.51NO" WEII CWftER PUWN6 WES Pullman Standard 3420 OPeWTOP HDOW. A.- 13 Source 1 A -4 4, bm Z V. WIN -0, -7 C*n Top Hopper GENERAL SPECIFICATION BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION FOR L & N Width inside 91 - 10-1 is" Over Top Chords to'. 7-1/4" 100 TON QUADRUPLE HOPPER CARS Over Corner Caps lExu*nw Width) to,. all Height Rail to Too of Side Too Chord 12' V* GENERAL DIMENSIONS: Rail to Top of Corner Cap (Extrant, Height) 12': 0-7ffl' Rail to Centerline Coupler 2' .to. 112" Langit. Inside 48 7-1/7' Center Plate 2'. 1-1/20' O@er Strikers SO`- 5" Side Staring Centers I' - 2" Ow, Pulling Fam of Fr*e Couplers ST- 0-112" 0@bic Capacity LAvel 3350 Cu. Ft, Truck Centerr 4(r - 6" l(I'Aywrage Heao 3749 Cu. FL e. @Ir C-x -4 4t. ,S.:@C@ Ce@-ELS A. -3 5 S. T-tv o --r. Ji T 7, A-14 Source 1 HOPPER CARS COVERED General Size Ranging from 40 foot 100 ton to 55 foot 100 ton relative to density of load. e Permanently enclosed, with or without insulation, side or top weather-tight covers or doors for loading bulk commodities. Pressure flow top loading, bottom unloading 111,011 illustrated here. Typical Load Bulk commodities requiring weather protection and possibly a n' @iy chemical and petro-chemical controlled enviro ment. Primari related uses in.New Haven environment. Loads include-cement (high density) and styrene and polyethylene plastic pellets (low density). Cement might be carried in up to a 100-ton 3,500 cubic foot flexi-flow car (off-loaded relative to density) while plastic pellets are carried in 4,700 cubic feet and possibly 5,70O.cubic foot cars.(I) flexi-flow permits pressurized (forced air mixing, with materials) loading and discharge an efficient means of materials handling. A-15 3. Brow Car.. iE 3DDD Cu if Twin hwDers and gra vny, S49 discharge arran"CrAmt. Elliviplied'.- with 3Q' mond hatches Nat for ce-,s;'j OA@.X' inent urvice or other heavy bulk mm- a; p k r 7,- mod,ty lading. See general arrange- rnem diagram to, dimensions Built by' 00 Pullman Standard, 1978 r PULLMAN STANDARD 4 111 Its 6 -9318' 118. -37' - 3 1/4' OVER ENO S-LLf 0 T 39' - 9 114 OVER RUNNING BOARDS VER SIDE POS, S 37 2 3/8' INSIOE LENGTH 1, 1 n do, 40 V-11 -4-5 - 15 3; Lill 15 3;4 118- Z4' .2 1/8' L /2' 0. 26' - 2 114' BETWEEN TAUC9 CENTER- 2' - 0' 112, 39' - 3 1/4' OVER STRIKERS . - 5' -91 5 3(B- -41 10 3/4' OVER COUPLER PULLING FACES - 2 A CLEARANCE LINE LL _J. Pullman Standard 3000 cu. ft. Covered Hop"r Car, A-16 Source 1 goo V'. @rj .00 P.- ow 1 000 Flip" 7' IV 0 0 s 7. Soo Line Covered Hopper Car. Capacity 200.00b lbs_ cubic capacity 4750 cu. tt. With 24-inch wide trough PULLMAN STANDARD hatch, triple hopper 6 and gravity discharge. Built for grain and other medium-density ladingS. See general arrangement diagram for dimensions. Built by Pullman Standard. 1978. M01176711 OVER RUNNING BOARDS sniowis"s INSIDE LENGTH PLO1141529 IP41DE HATCH OPENING 33.1 L 51L-45' i 700 A. R 11911 2400 190.014S72 CLEAiIA ICE L NE .0/279 11201.513061 1 -S42,0113945 BETWEEN TRUCK CENT 1765 , C-1 VASiDE Morm -125.2513181 GWO/1747S OVER STRIKERS OVER SIDE POSTS -712.511-175 OVER COUPLER PULLING FACES- Pullman Standard 4750 cu. ft. Covered Hopper Car. A-17 Source 1 .0 V, Pw*am L"6i% C4mwny C;overed H"W car. Capacity 192,000 lbs., cubic capacity S&IO cu. ft- Four hoppers and pneu. matic mlef gates. Equipped with 20, round hatches. Built for tight density Products such as Plastic pellets. Set general arrangement diagram tor di. mensions Built by Pullman Standard, 1978. PULLMAN STANDARD Rim AM Ah 71 Alr Pubman Standard 5420 cu. R. Covered Hopper C". A-18 Source 1 FLAT CARS General Size Generally 50 foot lengths and 100 ton capacities in th is area. Type FM or ordinary flat car for general service and FC equipped to carry trucks, trailers or removable trailer bodies. Firm securement possible with bulkhead cars; Typical Commodities Pulpwood, plywood and plasterboard; packaged, finished lumber; steel products when covered; trailers (TOFC) and containers (COFC); and specialized products with cradles (auto parts) and tie-downs (machinery). A-19 z-, THRALL CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY General Dimensions - CENTER BEAM BULKHEAD FLAT CAR Length over strikers 64'2" Length between bulkheads 60'81/," Z.7@, Extreme width Truck Centers 52' Extreme height 15,51, Clearance Plate "C" Estimated light weight 63,000 Lbs. Source 1 50 FOOT FLAT 70 Ton Trucks EmO SILLS WOOO FLqoRk -ro Top a,, F!,4ot STAKE3 :z 0 F41 'T*VCK CaWYIEWS beries Cars Des. Ld.Lmt. Lt.Wt. Shoo.Prog. Builder & Crdor '.'ew Lot 500300-500799 370 FM 162900 57100 70 line 33 7_ A-20 Source 3 CtNMV 46C 60AWY 04F r-Aff-.tJ"AVOVC RAIL S., 'Ael PATS -Af ff '7- Wt r 217rx CLON22 4 ?A, CAP -v ra Oarr O"m 4. FLAT CAR: AILER ERV. TOUCH CAVA no .r 'W'VV Ov. ti C. C44 r r, air 7rivi C** moov CAVA AN ir Af it r Ol ill 'We re I ZAL If"/ rOlf-f 41-f 49-F.Vlrlf CO. rlvclwt W*41tdr4 COW 4 IF& 2 A-21 Source 3 TANIK CARS General Size Ranging from 16,000 to 34,500 gallon capacity to accommodate a wide range of densities within the 263,000 pound (loaded) weight. Pressurized and non-pressurized relative to commodity needs. Typical Load Crude oil and petroleum products; liquified gases (carbon dioxide, oxygen and hydrogen), polymers; anhydrous ammonia; chlorine, alcohol, vegetable and fish oils and acids. A-22 16,000-GALLON CAUSTIC SODA CAR zn Lr VASIC CAR DESIGN 39-100-16 Tank Plate SpCelfic 140" 0 -C Dor CLASS I I IAWN-I Plate ThiCk,,fil of Vol: .4@ - Plate Thickitss of Heads 15,32: CAPACITY III, WEIGHT 001idt D-firnale, of T&-b SW 106 Tank Length Ow, H"d Seams I Bottom 33* 61 Nom. capaorty i. G.IL-% 6,000 Tank Tested To 60 P.S.I. Shelf "C'A'puify in Girltons 116.327 innn';n-l +2-1. @Iaze) HEATER PrCS AIJ@ablv Winight Per GalloA. lbs. 12.5 Dts" lr.le- H.$ft, .at., SAFETY VENT Light-lipt, lbs 62.900 J--eq and C.11fat, 2' @Iqit. 0,,e 2 - ooliel C.P.,ty. III, 2w 100 of R.'s a 6' Half O..l C@. -2 " III-- Yft,ght - PeR, it.. QQV AIR VALVE INSULATION ENSIONS Thi0t, %a aml T,pie 4' F,be of... UNLOADING LINE III 0Ier 5 liters 41 -7-1,- h 0., '1, J.w @/. - SN.1 2' SALL VALVE L n h . W.dmck Cents. 30 a'/,- M..j th @0 a- TOP FITTINGS @o s Mamaity Me, H-igta 14 91/ 18" MANWAY' 2 7" Radius I C-ature Car Can Nelowts, 0211. Urfoad;rig Val" 2' Be". Scre,,nid, steel va MANWAY COVER @;l TRUCKS. ORAKIES & PLATFORU@ S"- pip 21 St WITH VACUUM RELIEF VALVE Ba,bw 100 T- Com,activi, Hava"If 00 1-1, E@11- and C.Pac; . capped Awle, Gaginj Ow" villoal 141, Stainless $140 wheel S zo 36' Sa'aty, Vent 45 P@S.t A!f Wake Darsill. Cc-antion" vacuu. Relief Val" St-les. Steel Hand 6.k* Des ,. 'yervest Me" Wh IS ope.tl.g Pistf.m., 2 B-wd 2 Way Entry BOTTOM FITTINGS TANK Gottom Unloadimit Yal- A- 9.11. Steel " a eart Steam )Kketed Fu-st4lowli Val" co"melfie. 41. cot with 21 W. vat" AAR PLATE 8 UNION TANK CAR CO. f OTJ A-23 Source 2 U"'O' GENERAL PURPOSE INSULATED HEATER.PIPED 23,ODO-GALLON CAR CAStC CAR DESIGN 30-100-23 Tank PI.I. A,515 OR 70 plate Th.1,111, of Shall 1/16- DOT CLASS I I IAIDOW-3 pills Thickness Of t1wa 15/32, Outs d: Oiarrev of Tank Sh.-. I CAPACITY & WEIGHT Tank'L rM Owl Head Seams at "on, Pc-inal C-Pacty in Gallon, 23.000 Tank T"t.d To 100 P S I Zell C.P.&Y in Gallons (-i-l - 2% outage) 23.469 HEATER PIPES All@sb e Waght Per Galion, tbs a 2 D. j 0, Elte".1 10.1.1 SAFET-V VALVE Lijbt..'ght I s. 74 00 IM:11 rd 0"11" e 2",mlet. ()Is 2' cul'.1 C.Pacqv@. lbi.k' 188.3 N..bir t 16.6" 0-1 alk@tm.m W.%h% - R.4. tbs. M 010WO AIR VALVE (OPTIONAL) INSULATI N A DIVIENSIONSStrikers in,ct-00-ind TYPO 4 UNLOADING LINE L gth CNer 52 9,/,: 3- SAtL VALVE (OPTIONAL) Le'r9in N-r Truck Content at. 10% jack.1 Steel M.4-m ;,6th 10a, M.-urn Haight 14 81/1 ' TOP FITTI"as 20' MANWAY Radius .1C.-wrec., Can Negotiate 202 tt. Man at Top ZAIaad.rg Va" (Optional) 3. Flaill. r.1160d MANWAY COVER TRUCK-., BRAKES & PLATFORM Steel Bdy & 9.1 Truck Design and Capalcity go'ber 100 Yen S On" AD. to lional) '1' Steel WITH VACUUM RELIEF VALVE iw,-l swing, 4.1ler A:r Conron*n p(Ontlo"I -,In Mpple. Capped What SUS, 3 G..Jl@ff Ds@;- V...'l B.-St" All Broke O'i'n C.-t-I Safety VAI.. 75 P 51. Hand B,ska, Osip V "Ical "AM wh.0 vac-m %.Ifvpl@ St-Feel Steel Operst.ng Platform 2 Z.,d 2 Way Entry BOTTOM firiNGS TANK a.".. uni-dox V.I" 4' Old, al!.N.St to." Design F-mi-Flo.- Volvo Connection Adapter th Plus AAR PLATE 8 UNION TANK CAR CO. a- Q'@d A-24 Source 2 ANHYDROUS AMMONIA (b) Lr 33.SW-GALLON 1% S ]PIE C; 11 NP 11 4CA%,rr IM0 W IS & LP GAS CAR INIn AAR PLATE C R&S41C CAR Drsw.N 61 lmluj TANK U."K, WT CLASS S".. 2"G. a t2j.%.m P;M. lh@,- & CAPACIry 16 VOUGMT P.1, T-1-1 Il .vft Kv .1 IMI" SwII P@ GwI-. U P.- l.". T.- 0- w S- 561' VAPORVAIVE -- 102 ZX T." T. 3, PSI jw K10 LIOLADVALVES 12, RW. WSULATICIN 7-- " T,@ . SAFETY VALVE ---- 655 St-, GAUGING OEVICE (41 F= 11-0@ T_. J-1. NI,.ft I"- NMI) St-I Nw. S"llh W@tI, 2 Is' P-- tr- m, SS t-, it") SAMPILINGLINE -r SZ TRUICK& ORAKA 4 PLAITORA01 3' E- F@ WM- 2' 6101 Ty" ANWVM@ St-I BW- 9 fwft T-1 0"-w=y fkft. Ux, T@ V"o, I- F- V.- - r 9-1 Ime S-0 Ale' V:I ".S1.0 9.* & Ewa N U VVIOM Sz w Th-. VIM A, 9,04 D.4g, .10 5.-W@w I- stw S" HAW 8- O.W. vjh" Y@. . S 11 S' IS 0PI,,,Mu% Phtform 2 6-d 4 I.,Y D- MGM 11452 8 S4 Tvb. ?yM UNION TANK CAN CO. A-25. Source 2 @EUNIONTAP APPENDIX B TRAIN TOMCE Effects of grade and curvature on tonnage capacities arM stLmated per Railroad Engineering and a basic resistance equation of- R (1.3 + 29/w + bV + CAV 2/wn), .85, where R unit resistance in pounds per ton w weight per axle in tons or weight on rail in tons/the number of axles b experimental coefficient based on flange friction, shock, sway and concussion '(0.03 for locomotive and 0.045 for freight cars). A cross sectional area in square feet of car or locomotive (120 for locomotive and 85 for freight cars). C drag coefficient of the car or locomotive (0.0024 for locomotive and 0.0005 for freight cars). V velocity or speed. 7.5 mph assumed on Forbes Avenue. Adhesion rates of between 20 and 25 percent at 7.5 to 10 mph are used correlate with contemporary locomotive capabilities and track conditions. Manufacturers' suggested 25 percent adhesion rates assume ideal track conditions. A combination of curvature and grade establish "Worst case" or controlling conditions. (')William W. Hay, Railroad Engineering: Second Edition (New York: John Wiley, 1982), Chapter 7 and Appendix A. B-1 Ruling Conditions Motive Power: One 246,000 sw 1500 locomotivel 4 axles, 123 tons, 61,500 pounds tractive effort at 25 percent adhesion, 49,200 pounds -tractive effort at 20 percent adhesion. Equipment: 100 ton nominal capacity, 263,000 pound weight on four axles or 32.9 tons per axle. Alternately 50 foot (coupled) open hoppers and 55 foot (coupled) tank cars. Grade and Curves (with new 120 - 30' curves): (1) WB Approach (east shore) a. + 275', 120 30' curve with 0.3% grade. b. + 825'-tangent with 1.57. grade., (2) EB approach (west shore) a. + 275' 120 3'0' curve with 1.41% grade. b. + 230' tangent with 2.3% grade. c. + 180' tangent with 07. grade. Locomotive Resistance 2 RL = (1.3 + 29/w + (bV + cAv wn)) .85 x 246 = 1.3 + 29/30.75 + (0.3 x 7.5) + (.0024 x 120 x 56.25) x 85 x 123 123 = 271 lb. RL on WB tangent RL = 271 + (123 + 20 x 1.5) 3,961 lb. RL ori'EB tangent RL 271.+ (123 x 20 x 2.3) lb. B-2 Drawbar Pull A. With 25% adliesion DBP WB = 61,500 - 3,961. = 57,539 lb. DBP EB = 61,500 - 5,921 = 55,571 lb. B With 20% adhesion DBP WB = 49,200 - 3,961 = 45,239 lb. DBP EB = 49,200 - 5,929 = 43,271 lb. Car Resistance (Unit or Each car) R = (1.3 + 29/32.9 + (.045 x 7.5) + @.0005 x 90-x 56.25 .85 c = 2.2 lbs Unit on WB Curve Approach: Rc = 2.2 + (20 x .3) + (20 x 12.5 x .05) = 20.7 lbs. Unit on WB Tangent Approach: Rc - 2.2 + (20 x 1.5) = 32.2 lbs. Unit on EB Curve Approach: Rc = 2.2 (20 x 1.4) + (20 x 12.5 x 0.5) 42.7 lbs. Unit on EB Tangent Approach: R 2.2 + (20 x 2.3) + 48.2 lbs. B-3 Train Tonnage - Tankers (55' coupled length) EB Approach: 5 cars (275@ on curve 4 cars (235') on tangent with 2.3% grade and others (up to 785'X.,,Ievel tangent RC (5 x 42.7 x 131.5) + (4 x 48.2 x 131.5) + (7 x 2.2 x 131.5) 55,453 lbs 16 cars with 55,571 DBP (25%) or 40,752 lbs 7 cars with 43,271 DBP (20%) WE Approach: 5 cars (275') on curve, up to 11 care (605') an tangent with 1.5% grade RC = (5 x 32.2 x 131.5) + (13 x 20.7 x 111.5) 56,558 lbs. or 18 care with 57,539-DBP (25%) or 42.9'18 lbs - 13 cars with 45,239 DBP (20%) Train Tonnage -- Open Hop2ers (50' coueled length) EB Approach: 6 cars (2759 on curve, 5 cars (250') on tangent, with 2.3% grade and others (up to 385') on level tangent. Rc (6 x 42.7 x 131.5) + (3 x 48.2 x 131.5) 52,705 = 9 cars with 55,571 DBP (25%) or 40,028 = 6 cars with 43,271 DBP (207.) WB Approach: 6 cars (275 1) on cirve, up -to 12 cars (605') on tangent with 1. 5% grade RC = (6 x,.42.7 x131.5) + (8 x 20.7 x 131.5) = 55,466 lbs. - 14 care with 57,539 DBP or 41,856 lb6 9 cars with 42.948 DBP. B-4 Appendix C Seelle, Stevenson, Value and Knecht Materials Appendix C contains: . SSVK's February, 1934 memo summarizing Tomlinson Bridge structural problems; and . SSVK's working notes which broadly suggest the inability of the existing Tomlinson Bridge to support 263,000 pound rail cars. "Unchecked" SSVK materials are offered correlate with the planning orLentation of this effort. Worksheets pertain to: sheet 1: the general orientation of rail vehicles. sheets 2 and 3: span 2. sheets 6 thru 8: the cantilever between pier 1 and the adjacent hung span. sheets 9 and 10: span I between the abutment and pier 1. sheets 10 and 11: span 3. sheets BC1 thru BG9: the bascules. Tomlinson Bridge Over Quinnipiac River Description of Site The Tomlinson Bridge Structure on Forbes Avenue spanning the Quinnipiac River in New Haven is on a tangent roadway alignment within the structure limits. It is a state road (Route 1) which accommodates rail traffic as well as ve- hicular traffic. The bridge structures consists of three fixed spans at each approach to a dou- ble leaf bascule span placed at mid-channel. The approach spans consist of variable depth steel girders designed to accommodate a twenty four (24) foot hung span at the center span of each approach. The present deck system con- sists of a structural concrete deck slab supporting a concrete ballast in which the railroad ties and tracks are embedded. The deck surface has asphalt overlay replacing the original roadway surface of creosoted paving blocks. The four (4) interior girders are so oriented that each girder supports the wheel loads from one train on a two track rail system. The double leaf bascule at mid-channel consist of four (4) variable depth girders supporting trussed and/or solid floor beams with an open steel grat- ing floor system. The grating is supported by steel stringers and a transverse channel support system. The two (2) interior bascule girders support eighty (80) percent of the rail loading from a two track rail system. A limited design check by Seelye, Stevenson, Value, and Knecht was made of the existing structure to see if the present structure could possibly support heavier car loadings. In researching the original design it appears certain liberties had been taken in setting the design parameters, such as: 1. The flexural tensile stress of 24,000 lbs. per square inch was used for design although the A.R.E.A.. Codes in the 1920's used d 16,000 lbs. per square inch allowable. Today higher unit stress can be used by A.R.E.A. Code based on the ultimate strength and minimum yield point strength of the high strength steel used. In those days the use of these higher design stresses without pro- per quality control in manufacture is questionable. 2. The impact factor diagram for 200,000 lb. cars in the 1922 -Tomlinson Design Specifications provides impact percentages much less than the A.R.E.A. Code of the time; leading to a less conservative design for this railway structure. As stated above, an in-depth design analysis of the existing structure could not be done within the time frame and monies allotted for this check. A basic check of the major structu- ral supports of both the approach structures and bascule span was made utilizing the dead load moments from the existing 1916 Contract drawings and moments from a proposed 252,500# Engine with 263,00011 rail cars. The design paramenters used for checking the existing structure for the above train loading were: I .The original tensile design stress of 24,000 lbs. per square inch was used as the maximum allowable stress (although we question its origiual use). 2. Impact factors from the current A.R.E.A. Code for diesel engines were used for the design check with new loadi'ngs. 3. Gross sections were used, not net sections, to check support capabilities of the main track girders. (This is only a quick check to see if the increased loadings are close to the maximum allowable design stress limits). 4. Fatigue considerations were not addressed in this limited stress check of main members. Design Check Conclusions Using Heavier Rail Loadings A. In fixed approach span #1, the track girders are over-stressed.approxi- mately 15% in the maximum positive moment area. B. At Pier #1, the stress in the negative moment area (cantilever) of the track girders are over-stressed approximately 15%. C. The hung (23'-10") track girders in the center span are over-stressed approximately 30%. D. At Pier #2, the stress in the negative moment area (cantilever) of the track girders appear to be less than the allowable original design stress of 24,000 lbs. per square inch. E. In the fixed approach span #3, the track girders are over-stressed approximately 15% in the maximum positive moment area. F. The interior bascule girders supporti'n'g the doubl.e tracks will be over stressed approximately 15% in the maximum cantilever moment area. Conclusions (Limited Investigation): If the present structure has 'not deteriorated in the main support areas of the approach spans, where the structure elements are hidden by a gunite encasement, the existing framing system is still incapable of supporting an increased rail loading. rf 'major deteriorat on is present, it may not be able to-support the .'original" design loadings. Of the oVer-stress which would be induced by heavier rail loadings, the "hung span" in span #2 approach spans would be over-stressed the most. In the bascule span, the over-stress in the main girders in the maxi- mum cantilever moment area was checked and was over-stressed by. approximately 15% for the proposed increase rail loads. In any in-depth analysis the live load anchorage. main trunnions and live load supports etc. mutt also be checked before more specific conclusions can be arrived at as to potential load capacities. -2- Field-inspection A one day site inspection was also made by "Seelye" personnel to check the con- dition of the bridge structure as well as the roadway approaches. The retaining walls at the west bridge approach appear to be in good condition, but the east bridge approach retaining walls have rotated where the south retaining wall abuts the end of the east abutment. Both the east and west abutments have experienced distress; the west abutment at the north end and the east abutment at both ends of the abutment face. The major distress in the east abutment is at the northeast corner where the abutment face is cracked and the north wingwall has rotated several inches, and is out of plumb. The rotation of the southeast wingwall of the east abutment has also rotated and has "pulled" the approach retaining wall with it. Also Pier #2 of the west approach spans, the pier stem between the four rail support girders has cracked. All other substructure units including the bascule piers "appear" to be in good condition. Failure of the existing bridge abutments and Pier #2 must be addressed if future rehabilitation and strengthening is proposed for any upgrading of the harbor rail network. Recommendation Since the movable portion of this bridge structure (bascule span) would be re- latively expensive to strengthen if an increased rail loading was used with the double track system. it is possible that a single track placed between the two interior bascule girder could support an increased rail loading and be within the stress limits used for the ori.ginal design.. If this alternate is considered, the approach girders would still have to be strengthen even if the one track is placed at the roadway centerline;but strengthening the approach girders would be much simplier than any major modification to the bascule girders. It is apparent that if rehabilitation of the existing structure is considered, the reuse of most substructure units and the bascu7e and approach span steel would be more economical than building a new structure at the present or new site if only one track is considered. The otherplusses would be no additional land acquisition costs and possible use of the structure during rehabilitation by stage construction. Additional Requirements If Rehabilitation Is Considered Bascule Structure A. Check Live Load Support Anchorage for major deterioration including a check to assess condition of the steel embedded below the pit floor. B. All counterweight trunnion bearings should be checked and the existing bronze bushings replaced. C. Counterweight truss hangers as well as the truss support system em- bedded in the counterweight concrete should be checked for deterioration. 0. Counterweight modification should be considered to allow for a, greater bascule opening than presently exists to reduce the possibility of "bridge hits". -3- sgcLya STSVEN V Luz K04C my CQNXULT104C ENGfNCCPIB / el- NOTRO By NO- _.Kcx a -OATM 31 i qproT SWIELYM ST@v IgNSOM VALUE & KmtcmT CONSULTING ENGINCIFIS 47 Joe ;@,w V., /m . _NOTIV 0 -OATW PACE NO Xg CHECK a -UATw sr Ile @Vzl Ile -,7z Jr a Ir A4,00 /10 0 M17 Oro - /air @W,31X xlnll o?ff f Vol el X , X 1#17, f -,P@rx A? orz .4 .04,; f, r,@Oollg -DAI PAGE NO. c"%CK my -DAI It4l ,14 leo,;O,- 7-4',@rolrVvokel 70" 1"Fl"f tel elf/ 7o4'1e' 01-loCl Air- pr /Ot/ z do 0 m zr "r-ro,fle 7 xlrr@w 40, tleo-40y OP Jf- A A' OV S"",L !a SI.IEVCN ON VAt.UR KHRCHY CONSLOLT;Mr ENGINIKE"0 --Tas sy -.AT PAGM NO CHUCIC by DATff 411elel @11 Ar a4l, le ,f -.fr Ire I:P@r w1qv-1 Al/ J7Z Xver A.2.1- ld5@e,- /0 C//IP/ 7- pool Arl, Ar Al A _f.77 ye. 9 j,2,1eV SKILYZ STK NcccNT CON /11"Ilf NOT91 v -L PAQ9 No 7' CHICK ol -DATt et-/ 7r TT of, /0 at/ - I-;,ee f If 0 X. vo 4" /.4,^A',i e'll -7,,rfy X/J (jy. J@2 /* 1'% At *AT ILPAC --- jr- -./z lever I, (p Ile; X or If 2,y Ir x 14 vo .1 0,01 & SCILYE STKVZNSON VALUE KHF.I.HT CONSULTING ENGINRtPtl ?0211 All, NOTRE my CHICK a IV 14 1-4 0 0 0 0 el :T I+ All 1v2p ? -"fi Ale1c,111-91- 'le'lpl 6" - 2 f j, @u ol., @bru,,Al 4 JA t py -L ?,r7,7 j-L - .4 _. SKKLYIK STRVINSON A u Kt4ifcoiv COP#9ULTJNr. ENomirapts T40TCO DATU CHUCK a OAT 7 7114,e I@r /0/0 71 roll ?70 ."r ---. @ - Q. fl 6"f "OTRI my Di FACt No v @f CHSCIC xy OATQ 1,rel 7@1' 14 20- ell IZ - - 17,;@,jm oetz;,- S-01 A,'C/161'4 4f S&dLYIE STIEVE 9 v & KNECHT CONSULTIma EmoomacRm ..PAG9 NAIV-1 4,e&clf,, cv?o//X/ - CHZCX BY -*AT 0& -A ali /41 ///"r, A/'r /e,@, X 4,7 /,-00 lz rx V..j, <sr60 zfrl SCILYZ S *ON 41ALUP & KN9CHT CONSUUTI"Q Emormumpts 7, zo oc. d -A'fg--5 4riI PACIs fdo-m@e X c"mcK 0 -DATV Ile le e-a.,11leee Ile r7,.re I, Y7 f2, r@r @ @,* j .10-Al - 0 2 7 @r 4 A Ilf Ir Z Irl Ila f Irv x,(0.17 A&letl SXWLYK S so AL C&KH Co"myima ENGINKROS Y 7- No Noyce a Zp@ll - - C"SCK my ------- - - rv. rr@e Ore'- ttA,4""@l AV, /v Ir A) 7?7 1, A" :)Ie,4 j ev /Z @-!/z Y., 0. 027 SEXLYK STK NOD V us K KmQiNtu a W . f A Sol% 1 4 . P, 2;1/ "qrwg DY "O.epf aff,9 Iq elf llc;r - legr el 2ex 1. .74 "r ?a,. Ire 7 70 @4r c let /f ///0 o- I-W// 1129. lorlo A1211 f 1,711 Arf v; ale 7,7 WC/ 7o7*' /J CONSULTING ENGINtafte Tat or *Arr- PAG9 NO 11cc v -OAT. le Ir IM 7-,r rA, Xf. ? b" 7- 0 Al /dox J7. 0 .14e W,@_7 j 1161 zlt 7 2,( q SgIELYS !Pmv "MCHT Lnma Emoommxas .*yes c _:Z7/77X74;'K AGS PAO xv -OATC CH&C /.P/, '01,72 0 J7 7f, 7 7a. o see. M, p , q @@w kOle 11,7 o'? fe (7 x /oil SKILYZ ST9V Kmacoff . @9 9,0&A 1*7 CONSULTING EM01"Itapts my A If lyj6?, Al I PACt NO" Iv -.AT. r-11, /17 JeW. r je r z gziyl 0 J/, a, 7, 72"111-3;' ..-. my_ DATE- PAGS HOA15!5E I l f ey, 1110'.1 /V - "ll"L @HKCK a -*AT# f 611o F0 /* -1 r9 all IWZ, 'a J lyr,-111,i@w SERLY9 �T4@1PS50M VALYM co"SumnNo Epcomicalt "C' OT2 1Z AVIO-1. ravIlle -/"@, ion 9 8-4 X. cmzcx 8 -PAT f If V. @V J, n r 7 0 21 @J' CY Af, OS 7 t X e APPENDIX D COST ESTIMATES Crude estimates associate capital and operating costs with rehabilitation of the existing Tomlinson Bridge and with five service options described in the text. Unit costs are drawn from recent analogous construction experience and are advanced by the Regional Planning Agency--not be Seelye, Stevenson, Value and Knect. Capital Costs Order of magnitud costs consistent with planning needs and capabilities reflect: new single track railroad structure over land--$1,500 per linear foor or $300 per square foot of deck. Alternative B (an inlandagproach from the east shore) requires extensive structure to maintain an acceptable grade over Quinnipiac Avenue and Ferry Street. The alignment transitions from a former rail right-of-way to a river front location via the Quinnipiac River Industrial Park. Costs reflect a double girder structure, a five foot wide deck and the necessity of a 90-foot long clear span over Ferry Street. Ferry Street Bridge abutments and severe grade proclude more limited structure extending only over Quinnipiac Avenue. new track on fill with retaining walls--$950 per linear foot for a tingle track facility. Costs reflect a transition from structure to level grade through wetland areas adjacent to the river, fill averaging 4 feet deep and $200 per linear foot for new track in place (exclusive of switching). bridge over water--$20,000 per linear foot for an initial 600-foot crossing and $12,500 per foot thereafter. Costs reflect causeway and double leaf bascule construction necessary to I provide one track service, span deep water and bridge widths represented by the Quinnipiac River. new and/or improved track--$225 per linear foot. Costs reflect 115 pound rail in place, ballast, tire renewal and limited switching capabilities. Annual Operating Costs Recent Conrail experience permits broad assessment of maintenance and operating costs.(l) Annual operating costs include: track and switch maintenance--$12,300 per mile of yard and spur tracks. (1) Six-year old Conrail unit costs are drawn from: Conrail, Belle Dock Economic Stud prepared for C. R. McKenna by E.G. Barske (November 2, 1978). Unit costs are inflated at 7.5 percent per annum. over the 1978--1984 period. -locomotive operating and maintenance (mechanical)--$11.06 per operating hour; and direct hourly s@,I@I@co@sts for a basic four man switching crew (straight time at 40 hours per vyeek)--$48.33. Projected Costs Tables D-1 through D-7 associate capital operating costs with eight rail options ranging from maintenance of current Tomlinson Bridge rail capabilities through an inlaad approach. Cost estimates: pro-rate joint capital, maintenance and operating costs associated with the East Street spur relative to current east and west shore traffic (freight car movements); i.e. about 15 per- cent of joint costs are associated with the east shore. Later illustrations alter the initial cost allocation scheme. identify costs wholly associated with east shore service. anticipate the full range of capital costs inherent in a forty year gtandard "project life." draw right-of-way costs from City of New Haven Tax Assessor's materials (See Appendix E). A 2.5 to I market-to-assessed value ratio is assumed correlate with the limited sale of water- front property (a limited "comparables" base for the assessor) and general experience. An Investment Decision Tables D-8 through D-28 address the relative attractiveness of east shore investment alternatives. Long term costs of transporting freight from the Cedar Hill Yards to the east shore are assessed at various traffic levels. Capital, maintenance and operating cost streams identified in Tables D-1 through D-7 are: discounted at current 10 percent public sector long term borrowing rates over a 42 year pro- ject. A two-year design period (1984--1985), a one-year right-of-way acquisition period (1985) and a.one-year construction period (1986) are assumed for illustrative purposes. New opera- tional capabilities are assumed to come "on line" in 1987. associated with current 600 car east shore annual movement levels (15 percent of annual Belle Dock spur traffic) and with both 2,000 and 4,000 car per year east shore flows. Two thousand car per annum inputs assume: (I)that a 16 car per day east shore movement requires two movements from Belle'Dock via the inland route in view of 10 car grade-related constraints; (2)west shore traffic remains fixed as 3,400 cars per annum; and (3)two movements per day from Cedar Hill to Belle Dock are necessary in view of a 20 car (approximate) per train maxi- mum and a 30 car per day demand. -2- evaluated in terms of the current discounted cost per 1,000 pounds of dry product (compacted scrap) and petroleum (No. 2 oil) transported to or from the east shore (New Haven Terminal). Scrap is assumed to be carried in a 50 foot, 100-ton gondola with a 100 ton effective pay- load -- though limited to 137',800 pounds by current Tomlinson Bridge weight restriction. Number 2 oil is assumed to be carried in a standard 23,000 gallon tank car with an effective 188,700 pound payload. Current Tomlinson Bridge weight restrictions limit number 2 oil load- ings to 125,700 pounds or 15,700 gallons. Neither rail operating costs nor highway demand makes current operating constraints acceptable for mid to high level rail traffic. Limited capital costs clearly make operation via an-enhanced Tomlinson Bridge a relatively attractive alternative. Inland route service fairs well from a purely economic per- spective but, as noted in the text, presents unacceptable environmental impacts. High construction and right-of-way costs associated with new Quinnipiac River crossings diminish their attractiveness (Table D-29). -3- Table D- 1 TOMINSON BRIDGE CURRENT CAPABILITIES Key Elements 1. Single Car 200,000 movements on the Tomlinson Bridge. A 140,000 pound (16,000 gallon) payload for a standard 23,000 gallon tank car carrying petroleum. 2. All bridge investment associated with highway facilities no change in rail capacity. 3. New East Street and east shore track required in 1994. 4. Renew all rail by 1994. D-1 Table D-1 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) � Renew Main line to Belle Dock track (1994) 4,700 feet, $225 per I.f. $1058 $899 $159 � Renew Belle Dock to East Shore track (1994) 4,500 feet, $225 per l.f. 1012 -- 1,012 Annual (000's) � Track maintenance -Main line to Belle Dock 4,700 feet, $2.33 per l.f. 11.0 9.3 1.7 � Track maintenance Belle Dock to East Shore 4,500 feet, $2.33 per l.f. 10.5 -- 10.5 Per hour (engine and crew) � Cedar Hill to Belle Doc 36 min, %49.33 per hour 36 31 5 � Bell dock to East shore (3 cars per day) (2) or 122 minutes, 2.03 hours, $59.39 per hour 120 -- 120 MIncludes 15 minute air brake adj ustment and/or switching at Bell Dock. Cedar Hill to East Street Span at 15 mph @14,000') and main line - to - Belle Dock at 10 mph (4,700'). (2) One car at a time with 15 minute at either end to uncouple and/or couple. Here assume three cars per day or 600 cars annually -- about level of late 1970's. D-1 Table D-2 TOMINSON BRIDGE ENHANCED CAPABILITIES Key Elements 1. 263,000 pound cars in 10-12 car units. 2. $5.0 million marginal Bridge cost to reflect heavy, multi-car train requirements if pursued in the context of a comprehensive*Bridge rehabilitation project. D-2 Table D-2 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) o Renew main line to Belle Dock track per Table D-1 (1994) $1,058 $899 $159 0 Renew East Shore track and West Shore approaches (1986) 743 743 0 Marginal cost of Bridge improvements '(1986) 5,000 5,000 o R-O-W acquisition costs (1985) 54 54 o Design (1984) 573 573 o Construction engineering (1986) 861 861 Annual (000's) � Track maintenance.Main line to Belle Dock (per Table D-1) 11.0 9.3 1.7 � Track maintenance Belle Dock to East Shore (per Table D-1) 10.@ -- 10.5 Per hour (engine and crew) o Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 31 5 o Belle Dock to East Shore(l)- 48 -- 48 24 minutes one way. Allow for return to Belle Dock. D-2 Table D-3 ALTERNATE A IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF TOMLINSON BRIDGE Key Elements 1. 10-12 Car, 263,000 pound movements possible D-3 Table D-3 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Eleme nt Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) Bridge and approaches o Design (1984). $1,393 $1,393 o R-O-W (1985) 154 154 o Construction (1986)(1) 15,313 15,313 Rail o Belle Dock to East Shore (1986) (excluding bridge) 709' -- 709 o Renew Main line to Belle Dock (1994) 1,058 599 159 Annual Track Maintenance (000's) � Main line to Belle Dock 11.0 9.3 1.7 � Belle Dock to East Shore 10.5 -- 10.5 Per Hour '(engine and crew) � Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 31 5 � Belle Dock to East Shore(2) 48 -- 48 MIncludes construction sup ervision. (2) 10 Car consist,, 9 minute run plus 15 min. coupling/uncoupling. D-3 Table D-4 ALTERNATE B INLAND ROUTE Key Elements 1. Reuse of abandoned three mile right-of-way and relocation of "Jet Lines." 2. Extensive structure adjacent to Ferry Street. 3. Extensive movement to East Shore. No joint costs with East Street spur. D-4 Table D-4 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) Inland Route o Design (1984) $641 $641 o R-O-W (1985) 1,528 1,528 o Construction (1986) 49861 4,861 o Rail (1986) 1,980. 1,980 o Relocate pipeline (1986) 530 530 East Street Spur o Renew Main Line to Belle Dock rail (1994) 1,058 1,058 Annual (000's) � Inland route to East Shore 14.2 14.2 � Main line to Belle Dock 11.0 11.0 Per Hour (engine and crew) � Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 26 � Cedar Hill to East Shore 74 74 M9 minutes between Cedar Hill Yards and East Haven "cut-off" from the mai .n line, 8 minutes. from the "cut-of f " to Forbes Avenue--Waterf ront Street, 5 minutes from Forbes Avenue--Waterfront Street to New Haven Terminal and 15 minutes uncoupling/coupling. Allow for empty return trip. D-4 Table D-5 ALTERNATE C 1000 FEET SOUTH OF TOMLINSON BRIDGE Key El ments 1. Multi-car 263,000 pound car consists. 2. Expensive shorefront acquisition of Conrail and Gulf Oil property. Span Quinnipiac River at Wide Point. D-5 Table D-5 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Sho7re Capital (000's) Bride and approaches � Design (1984) $2,189 $2,189 � R-O-W (1985) 1,167 1,167 � Construction (1986) 25,170 25,170 Rail � e/o Bridge (2,800 l.f) (1986) 630 630 � Belle Dock to West Shore (1986) 225 225 � Renew from Main line to Belle Dock (1994) 1$1058 $899 159 An nual Track Maintenance (000's) � Main line to Belle Dock 11.0 9.3 1.7 � Belle Dock to West Shore 2.3 2.3 � e/o Bridge 6.5 6.5 Per Hour (engine and crew) � Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 31 5 � Belle Dock to East Shore(l) 42 42 (1) 3,500 feet, 7.5 mph or 6 minutes plus 15 minute coupling /uncoupling at New Haven Terminal. Belle Dock uncoupling included with Cedar Hill- to-Belle Dock costi Allow for empty return to Belle Dock. D-5 Table D-6 ALTERNATE D MANUFACTURERS SPUR Key Elements 1. Multi-car trains. 2. 263,000 pounds per car. 3. Alternative Quinnipiac Park 4. New track and structure at north end of spur to move multi-car trains to/from Main line. D-6 Table D-6 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) Manufacturers Spur � New rail between Castle Street and Quinnipiac River (4,075 ft) (1986) $917 $917 � Bridge and approaches (1986) 15,753 15,753 � East Shore rail (2700 ft.) (1986) 608 608 � R-O-W (1985) 467 367 � New alignment at North end (1986) 1,500 1,500 � Design (1984) 1,878 1,878 � Construction engineering (1986) 2,817 2,817 East Street Spur o New rail Main line to Belle Dock (1994) 1,058 1,058 Annual Track Maintenance (000's) � Main Line to Belle Dock 11.0 11.0 � Manufacturers spur and East Shore 19.7 19.7 Per Hour (engine and crew) o Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 36 o Cedar Hill to East Shore(l) 74 74 13,500 ft. Cedar Hill to relocated manufacturers spur at 15 mph, 4,775 ft. Main line to Quinnipiac River at 10 mph, 1200 feet Bridge and approaches at 7.5 mph, 2,000 feet at 5 mph to New,Haven Terminal. 15 minutes coupled/uncoupled or 37 minutes. Allow for empty return to Cedar Hill. D-6 Table" D-7 ALTERNATE E IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF TOMLINSON BRIDCE Key Elements 1. Multi-car Trains. 2. 263,000 pounds per car. 3. Necessarily acquire Yale Boat House in view of limited clearance between existing bridge and building. D-7 Table D-7 (cont'd) Allocated to Cost Element Total East Street East Shore Capital (000's) Bridge and approaches o design (1984) $1,481 $1,481 o R-O-W (1985) 801 801 o Construction (1986) 17,035 17,035 Rail o Renew Main line to Belle Dock (1994) 1,058 899 159 o East Shore (1986) 653 653 .1 1, Annual Track Maintenance (000's) � Main line to Belle Dock 11.0 9.3 1.7 � Belle Dock to East Shore 8.6 -- 8.6 Per Hour (engine and crew) o Cedar Hill to Belle Dock 36 31 5 o Belle Dock to East Shore(l.) 48 -- 48 Per Table D-3 D-7 Table D-8 Net Present Cost To,mlinson Bridge-Current Rail 600 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons - ---------- - -------------- 1984 12200 31250 43450 1985 12200 31250 43450 1986 12200 31250 43450 1987 12200 31250 43450. 1988 12200 31250 43450 1989 12200 31250 43450 1990 12200 31250 43450 1991 12200 31250 43450 1992 12200 31250 43450 1993 12200 31250 43450 1994 1171000 12200. 31250 1214450 1995 12200 31250 43450 1996 12200 31250 43450 1997 12200 31250 43450 1998 12200 31250 43450 1999 J-2200 31250 43450 2000 12200 31250 43450 2001 12200 31250 43450 2002 12200 31250 43450 2003 12200 31250 43450 2004 12200 31250 43450 2005 12200 31250 43450 2006 12200 31250 43450 2007 12200 31250 43450 2008 1.2200 31250 43450 2009 12200 31250 43450 2010 12200 31250 43450 2011 12200 31250 43450 2012 J2200 31250 43450 2013 12200 31250 43450 2014 12200 31250 43450 2015 12200 31250 43450 2016 12200 31250 43450 2017 12200 31250 43450 2018 12200 31250 43450 2019 12200 31250 43450 2020 12200 31250 43450 2021 12200 31250 43450 2022- 12200 31250 43450 2023 12200 31250 43450 2024 12200 31250 43450 2025 12200 31250 43450 2026 12200 31250 43450 Total 1171000 524600 1343750 3039350 Net present cost 837715.5 .2412386 2.117368 Table D-9 Vet Present Cost Tomlinson Bridge-fleavy Rail 600 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 573000 12200 31250 616450 1985 54000 .12200 31250 97450 1986 6604000 6604000 1987, 12200 13250 25450 1988 12200 13250 25450 1989 12200 13250 25450 1990 12200 13250 25450 1991 12200 13250 25450 1992 12200 13250 25450 1993 12200 13250 25450 1994 159000 12200 13250 184450 1995 12@00 13250 25450 1996 12200 13250 25450 1997 12200 13250 25450 1998 12200 13250 25450 1999 12200 13250 25450 2000 12200 13250 25450 2001 12200 13250 25450 2002 12200 13250 25450 2003 12200 13250 25450 2004 12200 13250 25450 2005 12200 13250 25450 2006 12200 13250 25450 2007 12200 13250 25450 2008 12200 13250 25450 2009 12200 13250 25450 2010 12200 13250 25450 2011 12200- 13250 25450 2012 12200 13250 25450 2013 12200 13250 25450 2014 12200 13250 25450 2015 12200* 13250 25450 2016 12200 13250 .25450 2017 12200 13250 25450 2018 12200 13250 25450 2019 12200 13250 25450 2020 12200 13250 25450 2021 12200 13250 25450 2022 12200 13250 25450 2023 12200 13250 25450 2024 12200 13250 25450. 2025 12200 13250 25450 2026 12200 13250 25450 Total 7390000 512400 592500 8494900 Net present cost 58453*4*3.11.206379 10.49358 Table D-10 Net Present Cost Alternate A--Immediately South of Tomlinson Bridge 600 Cars Per Year cost pe'r 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1393000 12200 31250 1436450 1985 154000 12200 31250 197450 1986 16022000 16022000 1987 12200 13250 25450 1988 12200 13250 25450 1989 12200 13250 25450 1990 12200 13250 25450 1991 12200 2.3250 25450 1992 12200 13250 25450 1993 12200 13250 25450 1994 159000 12200 13250 184450 1995 12200 13250 25450 1996 12200 M50 25450 1997 12200 13250 25450 1998 12200 13250 25450 1999 12200 13250 25450 2000 12200 13250 25450 2001 12200 13250 25450 2002 12200 13250 25450 2003 12200 13250 25450 2004 12200 13250 25450 2005 12200 13250 25450 2006 12200 13250 25450 2007 12200 13250 25450 2008 12200 13250 25450 2009 12200 13250 25450 2010 12200 13250 25450 2011 12200 13250 25450 2012 12200 13250 25450 2013 12200 13250 25450 2014 12200 13250 25450 2015 12200 13250 25450 2016 12200 13250 25450 2017 12200 13250 25450 2018 12200 13250 25450 2019 12200 13250 25450 2020 12200 13250 25450 2021 12200 13250 25450 2022 12200 13250 25450 2023 12200 13250 25450 2024 1@200 13250 25450 2025 12200 13250 25450 2026 12200 13250 25450 Total 17728000 512400 592500 18832900 Net present cost 13749325 2.837627 24.68283 Ta0e D-li Net Present Cost Alternate B--Inland Route 600 Ca'ts Per Year cost per 0.00 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons ------------------------------- 1984 641000 12200 31250 684450 1985 1528000 12260 31250 1571450 1986 7371000 122DO 31250 7414450 1987 14200 18500 32700 1988 14200 18500 32700 1989 14200 18@*00 32700 1990 14200 18-500 32700 1991 14200 18500' 32700 1992 14200 18500 32700 1993 14200 18500 32700 1994 159000 14@00 18500 191700 1995 14200 18500 32700 1996 14200 18500 14200 18500 32700 1998 14200 18500 32700, 1999 14200 18500 32700 2000 14200 18500 32700 2001 14200 18500 32700. 2002 14200 18500 32700 2003 14200 18500 32700 2004 14200 18500 32700 2005 14200 18500 .3.2700 2006 14200 18500 32700 2007 14200 185*0 0 32700 2008 14200 18500 32700 2009 14200 18500 32700 2010 14200 18500 32700 2011 14200 18500 32700 2012 14200 18500 32700 2013 14200 18500 32700 2014 14200 18500 32700 2015 14200 18500 32700 2016 14200 18500 32700 201.7 14200 18500 32700 2018 14200 1:8500 32700 2019 14200 .18500 32700 2020 14200 18500 32700 2021 14200 18500 32700 2022- 14200 18500 32700 2023 14200 18500 32700. 2024 14200 18500 32700 2025 14200. 18500 32700 2026 14200 18500 32700 Total 9699000 604600 833750 11137350 Net present cost 77.87512. 1.580245 13.74768 Table D-12 Net Present Cost Alternate C-1000 Feet South of Tomlinson Bridge 600 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 2189000 12200 31250 2232450 1985 1167000 12200 31250 1210450 1986 26025000 12200 31250 26068450 10500 11750 22250* 1987 1988 10500 11750 22250 1989 10500 11750 22250 1990 10500 11750 22250 1991 10500 11750 22250 1992 10500 11750 22250 1993 10500 11750 22250 1994 159000 10500 11750 101250 1995 10500 11750 22250 1996 10500 11750 22250 1997 10500 11750 22250 1998 10500 11750 22250 1999 10500 11750 22250 2000 10500 11750 22250 2001 10500 11750 22250 2002 10500 11750 22250 2003 10500 11750 22250 2004 10500 11750 22250 2005 10500 11-750 22250 2006 10500 11750 22250 2007 10500 11750 22250 2008 10500 11750 22250 2009 10500 11750 22250 2010 10500 11750 22250 2011 10500 11750 22250 2012 10500 11750 22250 20*13 10500 11750 22250 2014 30500 11750 22250 201.5 10500 11750 22250 2016 10500 11750 22250 2017 10500 11750 22250 2018 10500 11750 22250 2019 10500 11750 22250 2020 10500 11750 22250 2021 10500 11750 22250 2022 10500 11750 22250 2023 10500 11750 222.50 2024 10500 11750 22250 2025 10500 11750 22250 2026 10500 11750- 22250 Total 29540000 456600 563750 30560350 Net present cost 22834687 4.712691 40.99290 Net Present Cost Alternate D-Manufacturers Spur 600 Cars Per Year cost Pei 000 Year, Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1878000 12200 31250 1921450 1985 367000 122-00 31250 410450 1986 21595000 12200 31250 21638450 1987 19700 18500 38200 1988 19700 18500 38200 1989 19700 .18500 38200 1.990 19700 18500 38200 1991 19700 18500 38200 1992 19700 18500 18200 1993 19700 18500 38200 1994 159000 19700 18500 197200 1905 '19700 18500 38200 1996 19700 18500 382,00 1997 19700 18500 38200 1998 19700 18500 38200 1999 19700 18500 38200 2000 19700 18500 38200 2001 19700 18500 38200 21002 19700 18500 38200 2003 19700 18500 38200 2004 19700 18500 38200 2005 19700 18500 38200 2606 19700 18500 38200 2007 19700 18500 38200 2008 19700 18500 38200 2009 19700 18500 3820D 2010 19700 18'500 38200 2011 19700 1,8500 38200 2012 19700 18500 38200 2013 19700 18500 38200 2014 19700 18500 38200 2015 19700 18500 38200 2016 19700 18500 38200 2017 19700 18500 38200 2018 19700 18500 38200 2019 19700 18500 38200 2020 19700 18500 38200 2021 19700 18500 38200 2022 19700 18500 38200 2023 19700 18500 38200 2024 19700 18500 38200 2025 19700 18500 .38200 2026 19700 18500 38200 Total 23999000 824600 25657350 Net present cost 18679665 3.790486 32.97614 Table D-14 Net Present Cost Alternate E-Immediately North of Tomlinson Bridge 600 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1418000 12200 31250 1461450 1985 801000 12200 31250 844450 1986 17688000 12200 31250 17731450 1987 10300 13250 23550 1988 10300 13250 23550 1989 10300 13250 23550 1990 10300 13250 23550 1991 10300 13250 23550 1992 10300 13250 23550 1993 10300 13250 23550 1994 159000 10300 13250' 182550 1995 10-300 13250 23550 1996 10300 13250 23550 1997 10300 13250 23550 1998 10300 13250 23550 1999 10300 13250 23550 2000 10300 13250 23550 2001 10300 13250 23550 2002 10300 13250 23550 2003 10300 13250 23550 2004 10300 13250 23550 2005 13250 23550 2006 10300 13250 23550 2007 10300 13250 23550 2008 10300 13250 23550 2009 10300 13250 23550 2010 10300 13250 23550 2011 10300 13250 23550 2012 10300 13250 23550 2013 10300 13250 23550 201.4 10300 13250 23550 2015 10300 .13250 23550 2016 103'00 13250 23550 2017 10300 13250 23550 2018 10300 13250 23550 2019 10300 13250 23550 2020 10300 13250 23550 2021 10300 @13250 23550 2022, 10300 13250 23550 2023 10300 13250 23550 2024 10300 13250 23550 2025 10300 1.3250 23550 2026, 10300 13250 23550 Total 20066000 448600 623750 21138350 Net present cost 3.5577138 3.214857 27.96413 Table 15 Net Present Cost Tomlinson Bridge--Current Rail 200.0 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984, 14570 83300 97870 1985 14570 83300 97870 1986 14570' 83300 97870 1987 14570 83300 97870 3.988 14570 83300 97870 1989 14570 83300 97870 1990 14570 83300 97870 1991 14570 83300 97870 1992 145.70 83300 97870 1993 14570 83300 97870 1994 14Q3500 14570 83300 1501370 1995 14570 83300 97870 1996 14570 83300 97870 1997 14570 83300 97870 1998 1457.0 83300 97870 1999 14570 83300 97870 2000 14570 83300 97870 2001 14570 83300 97870 2002 14570 83300 97870 2003 14570 83300 97870 2004 14570 83300 97870 2005 14570 83300 97870 2006 145-70 83300 97870 2007 14570 83300 97870 2008 14570 83300 97870 2009 14570 83300 97870 2010 14570 83300 97870 2011 14570 83300 97870 2012 14570 83300 97870. 2013 14570 83300 97870 2014 14570 83300 97870 2015 14570 83300 97870 2016 14570 83300 97870 2017 14570 83300 97,870 2018 14570 83300 97870 2019 14570 83300 97870 2020 14570 83300 97870 2021 14570 83300 97870 2022 14570 83300 97870 2023 14570 83300 97870 2024 14570 833,00 97870 2025 14570 8 3 3 0 0* 97870 2026 14570 83300 @97870 Total 1403500 626510 3581900 5611910 Net present cost 1454372. 1261949 11.102799 Table It; Net Present Cost Tomlinson Bridge--Heavy Rail 2000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons ------ - ------- 1984 573000 14570 83300 670870 1985 54000 14570 83300 151870 1986 6604000 6604000 1987 14570 15330 29900 1588 14570 15330 29900 1989 14570 15330 29900 1990 14570 15330 29900 1991 14570 15330 29900 1992 14570 1'5330 29900 1993 14570 15330 29900 1994 391460 14570 15330 421360 1995 14570 15330 29900 1996 14570 15330 29900 1997 14570 15330 29900 1998 14570 15330 29900 1999 14570 15330 29900 2000 14570 15330 29900 2001 14570 15330 29900 2002 14570 15330 29900 2003 14570 15330 29900 2004 14570 15330 29900 2005 14570 15330 29900 2006 14570 15330 29900 2007 1457b 15330 29900 2008 14570 15330 29900 2009 1,4570 15330 29900 2010 14570 15330 29900 2011 14570 15330 29900 2012 14570 15330 29900 2013 14570 15330 29900 2014 14570 15330 29900 2015 14570 15330 29900 2016 14570 15330 29900 2017 14570 15330 29900 2018 14570 15330 29900 2019 14570 15330 29900 2020 14570 15330 29900 2021 14570 15330 29900 2022 14570 15330 29900 2023 14570 15330 29900 2024 14570 15330 29900 2025 14570 15330 29900 2026 14570- 15330 29900 Total 7622460 611940 779800 9014200 Net present cost 6053961. .3748304 3.260427 Table 17 Net Present Cost Alternate A--Immediately South of Towlinson Bridge 2000 Cars Per Year cost@ per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1393000 14570 83300 i490870 1085 154000 145@O 83300 251870 1986'16022000 16022000 1987 14570 15330 29900 1988 14570 15330 29900 1989 14570 15330 299W 1990 14570 15330 29900 1991 14570 15330 29900 1992 14570 15330 29900 1993 14570 15330 29900 1994- 391500 14570 15330 421400 14570 153,30 29900 1995 1996 14570 153@0, 29900 1997 14570 15330 29900 1998 14570 15330 29900 1999 14570 1533,0 29900 2000 14570 15330 29900 2001 14570 15330 29900 2002 14570 15330 29900 2003 14570 15330 -29900 2004 14570 15330 29900. 2005 14570 15330 29900 2006 14570 15330 29900 2007 14570 15330 29900 2008 14570 15330 29900 2009 1457Q 15330 29900 2010 14570 15330 29900 2011 14570 1533@O 29960 2012 3,4570 15330 29900 2013 14570 15330 29900 2014 14570 15330 29900 2015 14570 15330 29900 M6 14570 15330 29900 2017 14570 15330 29960 2018 14570 15330 2019 14570 15330 29900 2020 14570 15330 29900 2021 14570 15330 29900 2022 14570 15330 29900 2023 14570 15330 29900. 2024 14570 15330 29900 2025 14570 15330 29900 202,6 14576 15330 29900 Total 17960500 611940 779800 19352240 Net present cost 33957957 .86420i56 1.517211 Table 18 Ne t Present Cost Alternate B-Inland Route 2000 Cars Per Year cost per 00 0 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 641000 14570 83300 736870 1985 1528000 14570 83300 1625870 1986 7371000 14200 83300 7468500 1987 3.4200 18506 32700 1988 14200 18500 32706 1989 14200 18500 32700 1990 14200 18500 32700 1991 14200 18500 32700 1992 14200 18500 32700 1993 14200 18500 32700 1994 391460 14200 18500 424160 1995 14200 18500 32700 1996 1420G 18500 32700 1997 14200 18500 32700 1998 14200 18500 32700 1999 14200 18500 32700 2000 14200 18500 32700 2001 14200 18500 32700 2002 14200 18500 32700 2003 14200 18506 32700 2004 14200 18500 32700 @005 14200 18500 .32700 2006 14200 18500 32700 2007 14200 18500 32700 2008 14200 1.8500 32700 2009 14200 18500 32700 2010 14200 18500 32700 2011 14200 18500 32700 2012 14200 18500 32700 2013 14200 18500 32700 2014 14200 18500 32700 2015 14200 18500 32700 2016 14200 18500 32700 2017 14200 18500 32700 2018 14200 18500 32700 2019 14200 18500 32700 2020 14200 18500 32700 2-021 14200 18500 32700 2022 14200 18500 32700 2023 14200 18500 32700 2024 1.4200 18500 32700 2025 14200 18500 32700 2026 14200 18500 32700 Total 9931460 611340 989900 11532700 .Net present cost 8004045. .4872553 4.238981 Table 19 Net Present Cost Alternate C--1000 Feet South of Tomlinson Bridge 2000 Cars Per Year cost per 0 00 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 2189000 14570 83300 2286B70 1985 1167000 1.4570 83300 1264870 1986 26025000 14570 83300 26122870 1987 12870 13830 26700 1988 - 12870 '13830 26700 1989 12870 13830 26700 1990 32870 13830 26700 1991 12870 13830 26700 1992 1 2870 13830 26700 1993 .12870 13830 26700 1994 391500 12870 13830 418200 1995 - 12870 1 3830 26700 3.996 12870 13830 26700 1997 12870 13830 26700 1998 12870 13830 26700 1999 12870 13830 26700 .2000 12870 13830 26700 2001 12870 13830 26700 2002 1287Q 13850 26700 2003 12870 13830 26700 2004 12870 13830 26700 2005 12870 13830 26700 2006 .12870. 13830 26700 2007 12870 13830 26700 2008 12870 13830 .26700 2009 12870 13830 26700 2010 12870 13830 26700 2011 12870 13830 26700 2012 12870 13830 26700 .2013. 12870 13830 .26700 2014 12870 13830 26700 2015 12B70 13830 26700 2016 12870 13830 26700 2017 12870 13830 26700 2018 12870 13830 26700 2019 1287.0 13830 26700 2020 32870 13830 26700 2021 12870 13830 26700 2022 12870 13830 26700 2023 12870 13830 26700 2024 12870 13830 .26700 2025 12870 13830 26700 2026 12870 13830 26700 Total 29772500 558510 803100 31134110 Net present cost 23084206 1.405277 12.22553 Table. 20 Net Present Cost Alternate D--Manufacturers Spur 2000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1878000 14570 83300 1975870 1985 367000 14570 83300 464870 1986 21595000 14570 83300 21692870 1987 19700 18500 38200 1988 19700 18500 38200 1989 19700 18500 38200 1990 19700 18500 38200 1.991 19700 18500 38200 1992 19700 18500 38200 1993 19700 18500 38200 1994 391500 19700 18500 429700 1995 .19700 18500 38200 1996 19700 18500' 38200 1.997 19700 18500 38200 1998 19700 18500 38200 1999 19700 18500 38200 2000 19700 18500 38200 2001 19700 18500 38200 2002 19700 18500 38200 2003 19700 18500 38200 2004 19700 18500 38200 2005 19700 18500 38200 2006 19700 18500 38200 2007 19700 18500 38200 2008 19700 18500 38200 2009 19700 18500 38200 2010 19700, 18500 38200 2011 19700 18500 38200 2012 19700 18 *500 38200 2013 19700 18500 38200 2014 19700 18500 38200 2015 19700 18500 38200 2016 19700 18500 38200 2017 19700 18500 38200 2018 19700 18500 38200 2019 197GO 18500 38200 2620 19700 18500- 38200 2021 19700 18500 38200 2022 19700 18500 38200 2023 19700 18500 38200 2024 19700 18500 38200 2025 19700 18500 38200 2026 197.00 18500 38200 Total 24231500 831-710 989900 26053110 Net present cost 18896489 1.150345 10.00767 Table 21 Net Present Cost Alternate F-Immediately Nortb of Tomlinson Bridge 2000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital flainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1418000 14570 83300 1515870 1985 801000 1457.0 83300 898870 1986 17688000 0 0 17688000 1987 11350 15330 26680 1988 11350 15330 26680 1989 11350 15330 26680 @1990 11350 15330 26680 1991 11350 15330 26680 1992 11350 15330 26680 1.993 11350 15330 26680 1994 391500 11350 1.5330 418180 1995 11350 15330 26680 1996 11350 15330 26680 1997 11350 15330 26680 1998 11350 15330 26680 1999 11350 15330 26680 2000 11350 15330 26680 2001 1)350 15330 26680 2002 11350 15330 26680 2003 11350 15330 26680 2004 11350 15330 @26680 2005 11350 15330 26680 2006 11350 15330 26680 2007 3.1350 -15330 26680 2008 11350 15330 26680 2009 11350 15330 26680 2010 11350 15330 26680 2011 11350 15330 26680 2012 11350 15330 26680 2 013 11350 15330 26680 2014 -11350 15330 26680 2015 11350 15330 26680 2016 11350 1.5330 26680 2017 11350 15330 26680 2018 11350 15330 26680 2019 11350 153@O 26680 2020 11350 15330 26680 2021 11-350 15330 26680 2022 11350 1.5330 26680 2023 11350 15330 .26680 2024 1135.0 15330 26680 2025 11350 15330 26680 2026 1.1350 15330 26680 Total 20298500 483140 779800 21561440 -Net present cost 15743428 .9748253 8.478796 Tabl.P 22 Net Present: Cost Tomlinson Bridge--Current Rail 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 16440 164860 181300 1985 16440 164860 181300 1986 16440 164860 181300 1987 16440 164860 181300 1988 16440 164860 181300 1989 16440 164060 181300 1990 16440 164860 181300 1991 16440 164860 181300 1992 16440 164860 181300 1993 16440 164860 181300 1994 1583300 16440 164860 1764600 1995 16440 164&60 181300 1996 16440 164860 181300 1997 16440 164860 181300 1998 16440 164860 181300 1.999 16440 164860 181300 2000 16440 164860 181300 MI 16440 164860 181300 2002 16440 164860 181300 2003 16440 164860 181300 2004 16440 164860 181300 2005 16440 164860 181300 2006 16440 164860 181.300 2007 16440 164860 181300 2008 16440 164860 181300 2009 16440 164860 181300 2010 1.6440 164860 181300 2011 16440 164860. 181300 2012 16440 164860 181300 2013 16440 164860 181300 2014 16440 164860 181300 2015 16440 164860 181300 2016 16440 164860 181300 2017 16440 164860 181300 2018 16440 164860 181300 2019 16440 164860 181300 2020 16440 164860 181300 2021 16440 164860 181300 2022 16440 164860 181300 2023 16440 164860 181300 2024 16440 164860 181300 2025 16440 164860 181300 2026 16440 164860 181-300 Total 1583300 706920 7088980 9379200 Net present cost i33784l. .1012052 .8863535 Table @&j Net Present Cost Tomlinson Bridge--Heavy Rail 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 573000 16440 164860 754300 1985 54000 16440 164860 235300 1986 6604000 0 0 6604000 1987 16440 33720 50160 1988 16440 33720 501.60 1989 16440 33720 50160 1990 16440 33720 50160 1991 16440 33720 50160 1992 16440 33720 50160 1993 16440 33720 50160 3.994 571300 16440 33720 621460 1995 16440 33720 50160 1996 16440 33720 50160 1997 16440 33720 50160 1998 16440 33720 50160 1999 16440 33720 50160 2000 16440 33720 50160 2001 16440@ 33720 50160 2002 16440 33720 50160' 2003 16440 33720 50160 2004 16440 33720 50160 2005 16440 33720 50160 2006 16440 33720 50160 2007 16440 33720 50160 2008 16440 33720 50160 2009 16440 33720 50160 2010 16440 33720 50160 2011 16440 33720 50160 2012 16440 33720 50160 2013 16440 33720 50160 2014 36440 33720 50160 2015 16440 33720 50160 2016 16440 33720 50160 2017 16440 33720 50160 2018 1,6440 33720 50160 2019 16440 33720 50160 2020 16440 33720 5.0160 2021 16440 33720 50160 2022 16440 33720 50160 2023 16440 33720 50160 2024 16440 33720 50160 2025 16440. 33720 50160 2026 16440 33720 50160 Total 7802300 690480 1678520 101.71300 Net present cost 6410643. .1984571 1.72626-1 Table 24 Net Present Cost h of Tomlinson Bridge Alternate A-Immediately Sout 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1393000 16440 164860 1574300 1985 154000 16440 164860 335300 1986 16022000 0 0 16022000 1987 14570 33720 48290 1988 14570 33720 48290 1989 14570 33720 48290 1990 14570 33720 48290 1991 14570 33720 48290 1992 14570 33720 48290 1993 14570 33720 48290 1994 571300 14570 33720 619590 1995 14570 33720 48290 1996 14570 33720 48290 1997 14570 33720 48290 1998 14570 33720 48290 1999 14570 33720 48290 2000 14570 33720 48290 2001 14570 33720 48290 2002 14570 33720 48290 2003 14570 33720 48290 2004 14570 33720 48290 2005 14570 33720 48290 2006 14570 33720 48290 2007 14570 33720 48290 2008 14570 33720 48290 2005 14570 33720 48290 2010 14570 33720 48290 2011 14570 33720 48290 2012 14570 33720 48290 2013 14570 33720 48290 2014 14570 33720 48290 2015 14570 33720 48290 2016 14570 33720 48290 2017 14570 33720 48290 2018 14570 33720 48290 2'019 14570 33720 48290 2020 14570 33720 4@290 2021 14570 33720 48290 2022 .14570 33720 48290 2023 14570 33720 48290 2024 14570 33720 48290 2025 1.4570 33720 48290 2026 14570 33720 48290 Total 18140300 615680 1678520 20434500 Net present cost 14300886 .4427190 3.850949 Table 25 Net Present Cost Alternate B--Inland Route 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 641000 16440 164860 822300 1985 1528000 16440 164860 1709300 1986 7371000 16440 164860 7552300 1987 14200 37000 51200 1988 14200 37000 51200 1989 14200 37000 51200 3990 14200 37000 51200 1991 14200 37000 51200 1992 14200 37000 51200 1993 14200 37000 51200 19'94 391460 14200 37000 442660 1995 14200 37000 51200 1.996 14200 3700b 51200 1997 14200 37000 .51200 1998 14200 37000 51200- 1999 14206 37000 51200 .2000 14200 37000 51200 2001 14200 37000 51200 2002 14200 37000 51200 2003 14200 37000 51200 2004 14200 37000 51200 2005 14200 37000 51200 2006 14200 37000 51200 2007 14200 37000 51200 2008 14200 37000 51200 2009 .14200 37006 51200 2010 14200 3'7000 51200. 2011, 14200 37000 51200 2012 142'00 37000 .51200 2013- 142.00 37000 51200 2014 14200 37000 51200 2015 14200 37000 .51200 2016 14200 37000 51200 2017 14200 37000 51200 2018 14200 37000 51200 2019 14200 37000 51200 2020 14200 37000 '51200 2021 14200 37000 51200 2022 14200 37000 51200 202i 14200 37000 51200 2024 14200 37000 @1200 2025 14200 37000 -51200 2026 1420.0 37000 51200 Total 9931460 617320 1974580 12523360 Net present cost 8347723. .2540885 2.210498 Table 26 Net Present Cost Alternate C--1000 Feet South of Tomlinson Bridge 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year - Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons - --------- --------------- 1984 2189000 16640 164860 2370500 1985 1167000 16640 164860 1348500 1986 26025000 16640 164860 26206500 1987 14740 30720 45460 1988 14740 30720 45460 1989 14740 30720 45460 1990 14740 30720 45460 1991 14740 30720 45460 1992 14740 30720 45460 1993 14740 30720 45460 1994 571300 14740 30720 616760 1995 @14740 30720 45460 1996 14740 30720 45460 1997 14740 30720 45460 1998 14740 30720 45460 1999 14740 30720 45460 2000 14740 30720 45460 2001 14740 30720 45460 2002 14740 30720 45460 2003 14740 30720 45460 2004 14740 30720 45460 2005 14740 30720 45460 2006 14740 30720 45460 2007 14740 30720 45460 2008 14740 30720 45460 2009 14740 30720 45460 2010 14740 30720 45460 2011 14740 30720 45460 2012 14740 30720 45460 2013 14740 30720 45460 2014 14740 30720 45460 2015 14740 30720 45460 2016 14740 30720 45460 2017 14740 30720 45460 201.8 14740 30720 45460 2019 14740 30720 45460 2020 14740 30720 45460 2021 14740 30720 45460 2022 14740 30720 45460 2023 14740 30720 45460 2024 14740 30720 45460 2025 14740 30720 45460 2026 14740 30720 45460 Total 29952300 639520 1723380 32315200 Net present cost 23493033 .7151608 6.221.013 Table 27 Net Present Cost Alternate D-Manufacturers Spur 4000 Cars Per Year cost per 000 Year Capital mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1878000 16440 164860 2059300 1985 367000 16440 164860 548300 1986 21595000 16440 164860'21776300 1987 19700 j7000 56700 1988 19700 37000 56700 1989 19700 37000 56700 1990 19700 37000 56700 1991 19700 37000 56700 1992 19700 37000 56700 1993 19700 37000 56700 1994 391500 19700 37000 448200 1995 19700 37000 56700 1996 19700 37000 56700 1997 19700 37000 56700" 1998 19700 37000 56700 1999 19700 37000 56700 2000 19700 37000 56700 2001 19700 37000 56700 2QO2 19700 37000 56700 2003 19700 37000 56700 2004 19700 37000 56700 2005 19700 37000 56700 2006 19700 37000 56700 2007 1970*0 37000 56700 2008 19700 37000 56700 2009 19700 37000 56700 201.0 19700 37000 56700 2011 19700 37000 56700 2012 19700 37000 56700 2013 19700 37000 56700 2014 19700 37000 56700 2015 19700 37000 56700 2016 19700 37000 56700 2017 19700 37000 56700 2'018 1.9700 37000 56700 2019 19700, 37000 56700 2020 29700 37000 56700 2021 19700 37000 56700 2022 19700 37000 56700 2023 19700 37000 56700 2024 3.9700 37000 56700 2025 19700 37000 56700 2026 19700 37000 56700 Total 24231500 837320 1.9 74580 27043400 Net present cost 19239089 .5856892 5.094770 Table 28 Net Present Cost Alternate E-Immediately North of Tomlinson Bridge 4000 Cars Per Year ' cost per 000 Year Capital Mainten Operat Total pounds gallons 1984 1418000 16440 164860 1599300 1985 801000 16440 164860 982300 1986 17688000 0 0 17688000 1987 11350 33720 45070 1988 11350 33720 45070 1989 11350 33720 45070 1990 11350 33720 45070 1991 11350 33720 45070 1992 11350 33720 45070 1993 11350 33720 45070 1994 571300 11350 33720 616370 1995 11350 33720 45070 1996 11350 33720 45070 1997 11350 33720 45070 1998 11350 33720 45070 1999 11350 33720 45070 2000 11350 33720 2001 11350 33720 45070 2002 11350 33720 45070 2003 11350 33720. 45070 2004 11350 33720 45070 2005 11350 33720 45070 2006 11350 33720 45070 2007 11350 33720 45070 2008 11350 33720 45070 2009 .11350 33720 45070 2010 11350 33720 45070 2011 11350 33720 45070 2012 11350 33720 45070 2013 11350 33720 45070 2014 11350 33720 45070 2015 11350 33720 45070 2036 11350 33720 45070 2017 11350 33720 45070 2018 11350 33720 45070 2019 11350 33720 45070 2020 11350 33720 45070- 2021 11350 33720 45070 2022 11350 33720 45070 2023 1-1350 33720 45070 2024 11350 33720 45070 2025 11350 33720 45070 2026 11350 33720 45070 Total 20478300 486880 1678520 J2643700 Net present cost 16086356 .4980296 4.227022 Table 29 COST SUMMARY Cost (millions), Cost per 1,000 Total Current Pounds Gallons Alternate 42 yrs. disctd. Scrap #2 oil 600 Cars Per Year - Current Bridge operations $ 3.0 $ 0.8 $ 0.24 $ 2.12 Tomlinson improved for heavy rail 8.5 5.8 1.20 10.50 Alt. A: s/o Tomlinson Bridge 18.8 13.7 2.84 24.68 Alt. B: Inland Route 11.1 7.8 1.58 13.75 Alt. C: 10001 s/o-Tomlinson Bridge .30.6 22.8 4.71 40.99 Alt. D:,Manufacturers spur 25.7 18.7 3.79 32.98 Alt. E: n/o Tomlinson Bridge 21.1 15.6 3.21 27.96 2000 Cars Per Year Current Bridge operations $ 5.6 $ 1.5 $ 0.13 1.10 Tomlinson improved for heavy rail 9.0 6.1 0.37 3.26 Alt. A: s/o Tomli 'nson Bridge 19.4 14.0 0.86 7.52- Alt. B: Inland Route 11.5 8.0 0.49 4.24 Alt. C: 1000' s/o Tomlinson Bridge 31.1 23.1 1.41 12.'23 Alt. D: Manufacturers spur 26.1 - 18.9 1.15 10.00 Alt. E: n/o Tomlinson Bridge 21.6 15.7 0-.97 8.48 4000 Cars Per Year Current Bridge operations $ 9.4 $ 2.3 $ 0.10 $ 0.89 Tomlinson improved for heavy rail 10.2 6.4 0.20 1.73 Alt. A: s/o Tomlinson Bridge 20.4 14.3 0.4 '4 3.85 Alt'. B: Inland Route .12.5 8.3 0.25 2-.21 Alt. C: 1000' s/o Tomlinson Bridge 32.3 23.5 0.71 6.22 Alt. D: Manufacturers spur 27.0 19..2 0.59 5.0.9 Alt. E: n/o Tomlinson Bridge 22.6 16.1 0.50 4.33 Appendix E Right-of-Way Costs 'Tables E-1 thru E-5 suggest-right-of-way acquisition costs associated with five improvement options. Data drawn from the City of New Haven Tax Assessors office: reflect information for the full parcel.impacted by rail improvement activities. suggest the extent and cost of necessary acquisition. Land taking costs reflect a pro- rate apportionment of current assessed value adjusted by a 2.5-to-1 estimate of "market- to-assessed" value relationships. TABLE E-1 ALTERNATE A IMPROVE TOMLINSON BRIDGE Tax Parcel (000's) TakinR Map Block Parcel Address Owner use Sq.ft. Land 1mrr. _ Total Type Cost Notes 81 954 1 85 Forbes Ave Getty Oil Company Fuel loading 97.4 102.3 266.0 368.4 partial 33.6 129800 sq.ft. strii)s Tanks 20-30' from road 177 530 4.01 Forbes Ave Wyatt Term. Corp. Vacant portion of parcel 210.8 201.6 604.6 806.2 partial 5.8 2,400 sq.ft. strips 61 974 2 120 Forbes Ave Texaco Inc. Fuel loading 272.6 146.7 207.9 354.6 partial 1.9 1,400 sq.ft. strips 81 974 3 134 Forbes Ave Mobil Oil Corp Fuel loading 520.4 483.5 914.2 1397.8 partial 10.2 4,400 sq.ft. strips 81 974 5 Forbes Ave Conrail Vacant 12.3 6.5 6.5 partial 1.0 800 sq.ft. strips 77 973 10 172 Forbes Ave Dahill Enterprises Vacant area behind main building 67.1 56.9 107.4. 164.3 partial 34.1 16,100 sq.ft. major take 82 974 20 238 Fairmont Ave City of New Haven Former U.S. Steel site 1,662.9 814.4 8011.0 1615.4 partial 28.9 23,600 sq.ft. $115.5 E-.2 TABLE E-1 ALTERNATE B INLAND ROUTE Tax Parcel (000's) Taking Map Block Parcel Address owner Use Sq-ft. Land. Impr. Total Type Cost Notes $ $ 19 5 81 974 1 Forbes Ave United illuminating Vacant 32.0 25.9 - 25.9 partial 10.7 6.000 sq.ft. 81 974 2 120 Forbes Ave Texaco Inc. Tanks & pipelines to river 272.6 146.7 207.9 354.6 partial 6.5 4,800 strips and re- locate pipelines 176 974 3' 134 Forbes Ave Mobil Oil Corp Tanks & pipelines to .7 partial 27.5 strip and relocate river 520.4 483.5 914.2 1397 pipelines 83 974 20 238 Fairmount Ave City of New Haven Former U.S. Steel site 1662.9 814.4 801.0 1615.4 partial 28.9 23,600 sq.ft. 83 974 1 70 Ferry Street Tilcon Minerals Industrial 58.0 55.0 30.9 85.9 full 214.8 10.2 7.6 - 7.6 full 19.2 91 995 12.01 Ferry Street William Goodrich Vacant 78.0 64.7 111.5 176.2 full 440.5 91 995 12 39 Ferry Street William Goodrich Goodrich Oil 91 995 11 & 17, 19, 27 Ferry 11.1 Street William Goodrich IndustriaijeommeTtial 23.7 22.4 38.7 61.1 full 153.0 91 996 3 Quinnipjac Ave Elm City Oil Gas Station 6.6 8.7 - 8.7 full 14.2 Parking Area 91 996 2 Quinnipiac Ave Elm City Oil Gas Station 6.9 7.2 18.8 26.0 full 65.0 91 996 28 Lenox Street Jet Lines Inc. Pipeline 54.5 11.4 - 11.4 partial 1.8 Strip & relocate pip- line 85 997 4 Russell Street Jet Lines Inc. Pipeline 48.8 10.2 - 10.2 full 25.6 Relocate pipeline 86 984 4.01 Russell Street Jet Lines Inc. Pipeline 43.6 9.1 - 9.1 full 22.9 Relocate pipeline 86 983 2 Burnell Street New Haven Terminal Pipeline 88.4 14.0 - 14.0 full 35.0 Relocate pipeline 260 3410 1 Frontage Road 2308.7 272.5 1001.9 1274.4 partial 118.0 Take R-O@-W 2200' long (East 11aven) New Haven Terminal Pipeline and 70' wide 181 954 2.1 85 Forbes Ave Getty Oil Corp. Fuel loaling 97.4 102.3 266.0 368.4 partial 10.5 4,000 sq.ft. strip $1146.0 E-3 TABLE E-3 ALTERNATE C 1000 FEET SOUTH OF TOMLINSON Tax Parcel (000'@) Taking Map Block Parcel Address Owner Use Sq.ft. Land Impr. Total Type Cost Notes 78 1400 3.1 Waterfront Street Gulf Oil Cor. Parcel Lot 1,84.3 397.4 72.8 470.2 partial 444.8 82,500 sq.ft. 80 1300 1 Waterfront Street Conrail Switching yard 164.1 172.3. -- 172.3 full 430.7 E-4) TABLE E-4 ALTERNATE D MANUFACTURERS SPUR Tax Parcel (000's) Taking Map Bloc Parcel Address Owner Use Sq.ft. Land Imp.r. Total Type Cost Notes 81 114 1 85 Forbes Ave Getty Oil Company Fuel loading 97.4 102.3 266.0 368.4 partial 10.4 4,000 sq.ft. 81 974 1 Forbes Ave United Illuminating Vacant 32.0 25.9 - 25.9 partial 10.7 6,000 sq.ft. 81 974 1 120 Forbes Ave Texaco, Inc. Pipeline to river 272.6 146.7 207.9 354.6 partial 6.5 4,000 sq.ft. and retain river access 175 607 1 Chapel Street City of New Haven Quinnipiac Park 413.6 320.2 66.3 366.5 partial 124.6 64,000 sq.ft. 174 709 4 Chapel Street Conrail Rail 13.3 6.5 - 6.5 full - 176 974 3 134 Forbes Ave Mobil Oil Corp Pipeline to river 520.4 483.5 914.2 1139.7 partial 79.4 34,200 sq.ft. and main- tain r1ver access 83 974 20 238 Fairmount Ave City of New Haven Former U.S. Steel site 1662.9 814.4 801.0 1615.4 partial 43.4 35,000 sq.ft. $275.1 E-5 TABLE E-5 ALTERNATE E IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF TOMLINSON Tax Parcel (000's) Taking Map Block Parcel Address Owner Use Sq.ft. Land Impr. Total Type Coq Notes 81 974 1 Forbes Ave United Illuminating Co. Fuel Loading 32.0 25.9 - 25.9 partial 14.2 Maintain access 81 974 1.01 74 Forbes Ave 'Redden Brothers Commercial-office 58.7 46.1 107.4 153.5 full 700.0 Beyond multiplier in view of rehab. 177 1300 1 Forbes Ave Conrail Bill Board 601.2 631.3 - 631.3 partial 10.5 81 974 2 120 Forbes Ave Texaco Inc. Fuel loading 272.6 146.7 207.9 354.6 partial 3.2 Maintain access 81 974 3 134 Forbes Ave Mobil Oil Corp. Fuel loading 520.4 483.5- 914.2 1397.7 partial 10.2 Maintain access 81 974 5 Forbes Ave Conrail Vacant 12.3 6.5 - 6.5 partial 1.0 77 973 10 172 Forbes Ave Dahill Enterprises Vacant area behind main bldg. 67.1 56.9 107.4 164.3 partial 35.6 16,800 sq.ft. major take 82 974 - 238 Forbes Ave City of New Haven Former U.S. Steel Site 1662.9 814.4 801.0 1615.4 partial 26.0 Maintain access $800.7 E-6 3 6668 14109 1803