I
EPA-550/9-76-005
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS
DECEMBER 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA SSO/Q-7 6-004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Background Document for Railroad Noise
Emission Standards
7. AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
EPA. ONAC
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
CODE
REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Fi nal
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
16. ABSTRACT
This document contains the technical, economic, health and
welfare analyses and other pertinent data and information utilized
by the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of the
final Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS b.lDENTIFI
Economic cost, effects; Federal
regulations; locomotives; noise
emission; population exposure; rail-
cars; standards
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURI
Release unlimited 20. SECURI
EPS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
TY CLASS (ThisReport) 21. NO. OF PAGES
618
TY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
EPA 550/9-76-005
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
DECEMBER 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Notae Abatement and Control
Washington, D.C. 20460
TINS
It dow not oonMliuto • ttsnoMv,
-------
PREFACE
On December 31,1975, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a regulation
governing noise emissions from interstate rail carriers. That regulation was issued under
Section 17 of the Noise Control Act of 1972.
This document presents and discusses the background data used by the Agency in
setting the standards contained in the regulation. Presented here is a comprehensive
exposition on the most up-to-date available information on the environmental,
technological, and economic aspects of railroad noise.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 PROLOGUE 1-1
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION 1-1
INTERNAL EPA PROCEDURE 1-3
PREEMPTION 1-4
Noise Emission Standards on Railroad Equipment 1-4
Noise Emission Standards on Railroad Facilities 1-5
Design or Equipment Standards 1-5
Use, Operation, or Movement Controls 1-6
Receiving Land Use Standards 1-6
2 SUMMARY OF WHAT THE REGULATION REQUIRES 2-1
APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF COMPLIANCE 2-1
LEVELS OF TRAIN NOISE CONTROL 2-2
Locomotive Noise—Vehicle at Rest 2-2
Locomotive Noise—Vehicle in Motion 2-3
Railcar Noise—Vehicles in Motion on Line 2-3
Railcar Noise-Vehicles in Motion in Yards 2-3
REVISION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION PRIOR TO
PROMULGATION 2-4
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER
NOISE REGULATION 2-6
3 DATA BASE FOR THE REGULATION 3-1
4 THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY 4-1
ECONOMIC STATUS 4-1
EMPLOYMENT 4-3
HEALTH AND GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY 4-5
Health of the Industry 4-5
Growth of the Industry 4'7
5 RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES 5-1
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM 5-1
CONSIDERATION OF RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES FOR
FEDERAL REGULATIONS . 5-2
Office Buildings 5-2
Repair and Maintenance Shops 5-3
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
5 Terminals, Marshalling Yards, Humping Yards, and
Specifically Railroad Retarders 5-3
Horns, Whistles, Bells, and Other Warning Devices 5-5
Special Purpose Equipment 5-6
Track and Right-of-Way Design 5-7
Trains 5-9
CHARACTER OF RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES AND
ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY 5-9
Locomotives 5-9
Diesel-Electric Locomotives 5-9
Locomotive at Rest 5-11
Locomotive in Motion 5-11
Locomotive Noise Abatement 5-2 1
Abatement By Equipment Modifications 5-21
Noise Abatement By Operational Procedures 5-26
Electric/Gas Turbine Locomotives 5-27
Wheel/Rail Noise 5-27
Wheel/Rail Noise Abatement 5-29
Retarder Noise 5-33
Retarder Noise Abatement 5-34
Benefits 5-34
Costs 5-35
Car-Car Impact Noise 5.35
Warning Devices 5-36
Public Address Systems 5.39
Maintenance and Repair Shops 5.39
Refrigerator Cars 5.39
Auxiliary Diesel Engines 5-39
6 GENERAL PROCEDURE TO MEASURE RAILROAD NOISE 6-1
INTRODUCTION 6-1
SUBPARTC-MEASUREMENT CRITERIA 6-2
20 1 .20 Applicability and Purpose 6-2
20 1 .2 1 Quantities Measured 6-2
20 1.22 Measurement Instrumentation 6-2
201.23 Acoustical Environment, Weather Conditions and
Background Noise 5.3
201 .24 Procedures for the Measurement of Locomotive and
Rail Car Noise .
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page
7 ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A RETROFIT PROGRAM 7-1
INITIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7-2
The Impact on the Railroad Industry 7-2
General Impact 7-2
The Impact on Marginal Railroads 7-15
The Impact on Bankrupt Railroads 7-18
The Impact on Users of Rail Transportation 7-18
The Effect on Railway Freight Rates 7-18
The Effect on Quality of Service 7-24
Summary and Conclusions Concerning Initial Economic Analysis 7-25
Impact on the Railroad Industry 7-25
Impact on Users of Rail Services 7-26
SUBSEQUENT ECONOMIC COST AND IMPACT ANALYSES 7-26
The Cost of Retrofitting Mufflers on Locomotives 7-26
Initial Direct Costs 7-27
Initial Indirect Costs 7-33
Continuing Costs 7-37
Summary of Locomotive Retrofit Costs 7-38
Economic Impact of Muffler Retrofit 7-38
Labor Supply 7-40
Impact on Railroad Revenue and Profits 7-44
Financial Impact 7-45
Freight Diversion as a Result of Differential Impacts
of Fuel Costs 7-47
Impacts on Consumers 7-52
8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE FINAL REGULATION 8-1
INITIAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACT RELATED TO ACOUSTICAL
ENVIRONMENT 8-1
Case Studies of Railroad Lines 8-1
Analysis of Train Noise Impact 8-1
REFINEMENTS ON INITIAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACT
RELATED TO ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT 8-11
Miles of Railroad Track 8-11
Population Densities 8-12
Traffic Volume in Urban Areas 8-12
People Exposed 8-15
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Appendix G
Appendix H
Page
Impact Related to Land g. \ 9
Impact Related to Water 8-19
Impact Related to Air 8-19
DAY NIGHT EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL (Ldn) 8-2 1
EXCESS ATTENUATION OF RAILROAD NOISE 8-2 1
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE FINAL REGULATION 9- 1
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL INCREASED LOCOMOTIVE
MANUFACTURING COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
MUFFLER INTRODUCTION 9-1
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL INCREASED FUEL COSTS
ATTRIBUTABLE TO MUFFLER INTRODUCTION ON
NEWLY MANUFACTURED LOCOMOTIVES (OVER AN
ESTIMATED 25-YEAR FLEET REPLACEMENT PERIOD) 9-2
MUFFLER REPLACEMENT COSTS 9-2
SUMMATION OF THE MAJOR COSTS INCURRED THROUGH
THE ADDITION OF MUFFLERS TO NEWLY
MANUFACTURED LOCOMOTIVES 9-3
MAJOR TYPES OF DIESEL-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES IN
CURRENT U.S. SERVICE (1 JANUARY 1973) A-l
REVIEW OF THE AUDIBLE TRAIN-MOUNTED WARNING DEVICES
AT PROTECTED RAILROAD HIGHWAY CROSSINGS B-l
OPERATING RAILROAD RETARDER YARDS IN THE
UNITED STATES C-l
SUMMARY OF YARD NOISE IMPACT STUDY
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST
MUFFLER RETROFIT COST STUDY REPORTS E-l
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED
RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS F-l
MUFFLER DESIGN FOR LOCOMOTIVES G- 1
DETAILED MUFFLER DESIGNS AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES H- 1
VI
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
Appendix I SPACE AVAILABILITY FOR MUFFLERS INSIDE LOCOMOTIVES A-I
Appendix J LOCOMOTIVE NOISE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION
WITH HARCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND
ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS A-J
Appendix K EXHAUST NOISE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE GP-9 LOCOMOTIVE A-K
Appendix L TRIP TO MONTREAL LOCOMOTIVE WORKS AND
MEASUREMENTS OF M-420 LOCOMOTIVE A-L
Appendix M THE USE OF MUFFLERS ON LARGE DIESEL ENGINES IN
NONRAILROAD APPLICATIONS: RESULTS OF A BBN SURVEY A-M
Appendix N AMTRAK EXPERIENCE WITH MUFFLED LOCOMOTIVES A-N
Appendix O REFRIGERATOR CARS A-O
Appendix P APPLICABILITY OF TRACK AND SAFETY STANDARDS TO NOISE A-P
Appendix Q RAIL CAR NOISE LEVEL DATA A-Q
Appendix R ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED RAILROAD NOISE
EMISSION STANDARDS A-R
vu
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
5-1 Effect of Fan Noise on the A-Weighted Spectrum of EMD GP40-2
Locomotive Noise at 55 ft (Engine Access Doors Open) 5-16
5-2 Diesel-Electric Locomotive Passbys 5-17
5-3 Peak Locomotive Noise Level vs. Speed 5-19
5-4 Relationship Between Maximum Noise Level and Number of Coupled
Locomotives 5-20
5-5 Wheel/Rail Noise Measured on Level Ground and on a 1% Grade 5-30
5-6 Measured Wheel/Rail Noise 5-30
5-7 Average, and Minimum Rail-Wheel Sound Level vs. Speed for
Typical Railroad Cars on Welded and Bolted Rail 5-31
5-8 Retarder Squeal Amplitude Distribution 5-33
5-9 Car-Car Impact Noise Time Histories 5-37
6-1 Test Site Clearance Requirement for Locomotive Stationary,
Locomotive Pass-by, and Rail Car Pass-by. Tests 6-4
7-1 Cost of Retrofit Program -as a Function of Compliance Period 7-14
7-2 Distribution of Railroads by Retrofit Cost as a Percent of Net Operating
Revenue for 2- and 5-year Compliance Periods 7-16
7-3 Patterns in Maintenance of Railroad Equipment and Stores 7-41
7-4 Effect of Fuel Prices on Distribution of Freight 7-51
8-1 L(jn vs Distance From the Track for the Dorchester Branch of Penn Central 8-5
8-2 L,jn vs Distance From Track for National Average Train Traffic 8-6
8-3 Distance From Track at Which Various L(jn Occurs Around the
Dorchester Branch of the Penn Central 8-7
8-4 Thousands of People Exposed to Various L
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1 National Income Originating in the Transportation and Rail Sectors 4-2
4-2 Intercity Freight 4-2
4-3 Percent of National Income Originating in the Transportation Sector
and the Rail Sector as a Percent of Transportation 4-3
4-4 Employment in the Rail Industry Relative to the National Economy 4-4
4-5 Index of Output per Man Hour and Wages 4-4
4-6 Percent of Gross Revenue Carried Through to Net Operating Income
Before Federal Income Taxes 4-6
5-1 Effect of Throttle Position on Engine Power and Noise Levels 5-10
5-2 Stationary Noise Emission Data for General Motors and
General Electric Locomotives 5-12
5-3 Source Contributions to Locomotive Noise Levels 5-16
5-4 Locomotive Passby Noise Emission Levels Measured at 100 Feet 5-18
5-5 Locomotive Noise Levels Expected from Exhaust Muffling, Throttle 8 5-23
5-6 Switcher Locomotives in Service 5-25
5-7 Noise Levels from Electric and Gas-turbine Trains 5-28
7-1 Muffler Costs per Locomotive 7-2
7-2 Distribution of Locomotives by Manufacturer, Type, and Region 7-4
7-3 Total Direct Cost of Retrofit Program 7-4
7-4 Annual Direct Cost of 2- and 5-Year Retrofit Programs 7-6
7-5 Average Maintenance Interval by District 7-7
7-6 Days Lost Due to Retrofit 7-7
7-7 Equation for Total Lost Time per District 7-8
7-8 Lost Locomotive Days by Region and Compliance Period 7-9
7-9 Regional Annual Revenue per Locomotive Day 7-10
7-10 Estimated Lost Revenue Due to Retrofit 7-10
7-11 Annual Net Cost of Retrofit 7-12
7-12 Total Net Cost of Retrofit Program 7-13
7-13 Annual Retrofit Cost as a Percentage of 1971 Total Operating Revenue 7-13
7-14 Annual Retrofit Cost as a Percentage of 1971 Net Operating Revenue 7-15
7-15 Number of Railroads in Unfavorable Financial Position Relative to
Eight Indicators 7-19
7-16 Number of Railroads Designated as Being in Financial Difficulty by
One or More Financial Indicators 7-20
7-17 Net Cost of Muffler Retrofit Program for the Seven Bankrupt
Class I Railroads 7-20
1x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Table Page
7-18 Rate Increase That Would Enable Railroads to Recover Retrofit Expenses 7-22
7-19 Annual Locomotive Days Taken Up by Retrofit Program 7-24
7-20 Hardware Modifications and Material Costs for Turbocharged Road
Locomotives 7-28
7-21 Average 1973 Hourly Wage Rate for Skilled and Other Workers 7-29
7-22 1973 Weighted Average Hourly Labor Cost Deviation 7-30
7-23 Labor Man-Hours and Total Labor Cost for Muffler Retrofit Program 7-31
7-24 Initial Direct Costs of Retrofitting Exhaust Mufflers to Locomotives 7-33
7-25 Days Lost Due to Retrofit 7-35
7-26 Number of Locomotives by Type 7-37
7-27 Summary of Initial Locomotive Retrofit Costs for a 2-Year Program 7-39
7-28 Summary of Annual Costs of Locomotive Retrofit for a 2-Year Program 7-39
7-29 Levels of Employment and Average Hours Worked in 1970 and 1972
Compared to 1973 7-43
7-30 Man-Hours Required for Locomotive Retrofit 7-44
7-31 Ratio 1-Current Assets/Total Assets 7-47
7-32 Ratio 2-Operating Expenses/Operating Revenue 7-48
7-33 Ratio 3-Total Liabilities Less Stockholder Equity/Total Assets 7-48
7-34 Ratio 4-Income After Fixed Charges/Total Assets 7-49
7-35 Ratio 5-Retained Earings/Total Assets 7-49
7-36 Ratio 6-Net Income/Total Assets 7-50
7-37 Ratio 7-Net Income/Operating Revenue 7-50
7-38 Effect of a 1-Percent Rail Freight Rate Increase on Commodity Prices 7-53
7-39 Freight Rate Necessary to Offset Increased Costs Due to Retrofit 7-54
8-1 Land Use Near Railroad Lines 8-2
8-2 Train Traffic and Community Characteristics Near Typical Railroad Lines 8-3
8-3 Distribution of Urban Grade Crossings by Volume of Train Traffic 8-13
8-4 Computation of National Average Direct-Powered Train Traffic 8-13
8-5 Average Train Characteristics 8-14
8-6 Present Distribution of People by L<}n Interval 8-18
8-7 Present and Projected Populations Exposed to Various Levels of L(jn 8-18
8-8 Distribution of People by L(jn Interval Assuming Muffler Retrofit 8-19
8-9 Equivalent Noise Impact for Present and Quieted Locomotive Populations 8-20
-------
Section 1
PROLOGUE
STATUTORY BASIS FOR ACTION
In Section 2 of the Noise Control Act, Congress expressed its judgment "that while primary
responsibility for control of noise rests with state and local governments, Federal action is essen-
tial to deal with major noise sources in commerce, control of which require national uniformity
of treatment." Congress also declared within Section 2 of the Act "that it is the policy of the
United States to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare."
As a part of this essential Federal action, Section 17 requires the Administrator to publish
proposed noise emission regulations that "shall include noise emission standards, setting such limits
on noise emission resulting from operation of the equipment and facilities of surface carriers
engaged in interstate commerce by railroad which reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through the application of the best available technology, taking into account the cost of compliance.'
After the effective date of such a regulation, no state or political subdivision thereof may adopt or
enforce any standard applicable to noise emissions resulting from the operation of the same equip-
ment or facility of such carrier unless such standard is identical to a standard applicable to noise
emissions resulting from such operations as prescribed by these regulations. The Administrator,
after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation may, however, determine that the state or
local standard, control, license, regulation, or restriction is necessitated by special local conditions
and is not in conflict with regulations promulgated under Section 17. Procedures for state and
local governments to apply for an exemption under Section 17(c) (2) of the Act will be published
by this Agency shortly after promulgation of this regulation.
These sections of the Noise Control Act reflect the desire of Congress to protect both the
environment and commerce through the establishment of uniform national noise emission regula-
tions for the operation of interstate railroad equipment and facilities. Such equipment and facilities
require national uniformity of treatment to facilitate interstate commerce because certain types of
interstate railroad equipment and facilities operations would be unduly burdened by conflicting
state and local noise controls. Preemption under Section 17 occurs only for state or local noise
regulations on equipment and facilities on which Federal regulations are in effect. When national
uniformity of treatment is not needed, Congress recognized the primary responsibility of state and
local governments to protect the environment from noise. State and local regulations on noise
emissions resulting from the operation of equipment and facilities of surface carriers engaged in
interstate commerce by railroad that are not preempted by applicable Federal regulations under
Section 17 are subject to the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under that Clause, any
state or local regulations that constitute an undue burden on interstate commerce cannot stand.
1-1
-------
The Act directs that Federal regulations on interstate railroad equipment and facilities under
Section 17 are to include noise emission standards setting limits on noise emissions resulting from
their operation that reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable through the application of the
best available technology, taking into account the cost of compliance. Based upon the strict
language of the Noise Control Act, its legislative history, and other relevent data, these require-
ments are further clarified:
• "Best available technology"is that noise abatement technology available for application to
to equipment and facilities of surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad
that produces meaningful reduction in the noise produced by such equipment and facili-
ties. "Available technology" is further defined to include:
• Technology that has been demonstrated and is currently known to be feasible.
• Technology for which there will be a production capacity to produce the estimated
number of parts required in reasonable time to allow for distribution and installation
prior to the effective date of the regulation.
• Technology that is compatible with all safety regulations and takes into account
operational considerations including maintenance and other pollution control
equipment.
• "Cost of compliance" is the cost of identifying what action must be taken to meet the
specified noise emission level, the cost of taking that action, and any additional cost of
operation and maintenance caused by that action.
In preparing the final regulation the Administrator has given full consideration to cost of com-
pliance and available technology and has consulted with the Secretary of Transportation to assure
appropriate consideration for safety and for availability of technology.
Further, recognizing that the Noise Control Act was enacted to protect the public from adverse
health and welfare effects due to noise, EPA has also considered the impact of railroad noise taking
into account the levels of environmental noise requisite to protect the public health and welfare with
an adequate margin of safety, as published by EPA in March 1974 in accordance with Section 5(a)
(2) of the Act.
Accordingly, EPA has developed and is now implementing an interstate rail carrier noise control
strategy based on Section 17 of the Act that should prove to be effective in reducing environmental
noise from railroads in many areas to the levels identified as protective of public health and welfare.
The strategy calls for the reduction of the noise from railroad locomotives and rail cars to the lowest
noise levels consistent with the noise abatement technology available, taking into account the cost
of compliance.
Compliance regulations are to be developed and promulgated under separate rule making by
the Department of Transportation, as called for in Section 17(b) of the Act.
The legal basis supporting promulgation of the regulation was set forth in substantial detail in
the notice of proposed rule making published in the Federal Register on July 3,1974 (39 FR 24580).
In the same publication, notice was given of the availability of the "Background Document and
1-2
-------
Environmental Explanation for the Proposed Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations,"
which provided the factual basis for the standards proposed, applicable measurement methodology,
costs of compliance with the proposed standards, and the public health and welfare benefits
expected. Public comment was solicited, with the comment period extending from July 3, 1974,
to August 17,1974.
To ensure that all issues involved in the proposed regulation and Background Document were
fully addressed prior to promulgation of the final regulation, a special consultation meeting was
announced in the Federal Register of August 6,1974 (39 FR28316) and was consequently held
on August 14,1974, in Des Plaines, Illinois. The principal issues reviewed at this meeting related
to the adequacy of the available technology to meet requirements in the proposed standards and
the impact of Federal preemption on state and local noise regulations. The transcript of the meet-
ing has been included as a portion of the total body of public comment received.
Public comments received during the public comment period are maintained at the EPA Head-
quarters, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 and are available for public inspection during
normal working hours.
In the future, the Agency may propose further regulations concerning railroad noise, as the
need for the feasibility of such regulations are demonstrated. Such regulations may be proposed
as amendments to that part of the Code of Federal Regulations established by the regulatory action
currently taken by the agency under Section 17 or may be proposed pursuant to EPA authority to
set noise emission standards for new products specified in Section 6 of the Act.
INTERNAL EPA PROCEDURE
The rulemaking process of EPA began with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking in the Federal Register. At that time, EPA informed the public of the requirement that
regulations be developed and requested that pertinent information be submitted to the Agency for
consideration. A task force composed of Federal, state, and local government officials, and consul-
tants was then formed to develop recommendations for these regulations. The Office of Noise
Abatement and Control considered these recommendations together with the recommendations
of the EPA Working Group, composed of representatives from various offices of the Agency, in
formulating the proposed regulations. After the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control
Programs approved the proposed regulations, they were submitted to the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management Programs, who has responsibility for the Noise Control Program as
well as several other programs. Following the Assistant Administrator's approval, the proposed
regulations were submitted to the EPA Steering Committee, which is composed of the Deputy
Assistant Administrators of EPA.
Upon the Steering Committee's approval, the proposed regulations were forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget, and other interested Federal agencies, for review. After those
comments were analyzed and satisfactorily addressed, the proposed regulations were submitted
through the Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management Programs to the EPA Admini-
strator for final approval and ultimate publication in the Federal Register. The resulting public
comments were analyzed, and a recommendation for the final regulation was prepared by the
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Noise Control Programs. The final regulations were then
1-3
-------
submitted to the Assistant Administrator for Air and Waste Management Programs and the review
process followed in the .case of the proposed regulations was initiated again. This process culminated
in the promulgation of the regulation.
PREEMPTION
Though the Noise Control Act speaks of preemption in unequivocal terms, the various sources
of railroad noise are subject to such complex interrelationships that it is impossible to identify all
regulations a priori as either preempted or not preempted. It is necessary to examine the regula-
tion in question, the sources it purports to control, the activities to which it relates, and the reason-
ableness of the various alternative means of complying. As to those regulations subject to preemp-
tion, the preemptive effect may be waived under Section 17(c) (2) if the Administrator determines
that the regulation is necessitated by special local conditions and is not in conflict with EPA regu-
lations. It is anticipated that all such determinations as to not only special local conditions but
also the preempt status of state and local regulations impacting railroads would be handled by EPA.
The Agency is currently preparing guidelines that will specify procedures to be followed by state
and local governments when questions of the preemptive effect of Federal rail carrier noise regula-
tions are at issue.
In view of the many comments received in response to the proposed regulation, the following
discussion of preemption is intended to clarify the Agency interpretation of the preemptive effect
of the regulation.
State and local governments can deal with railroad noise problems in several different ways.
The first, the method adopted by EPA in the regulation, is to set emission standards on railroad
. equipment to reduce the noise produced at the source. Second, they can set noise emission stan-
dards on facilities where rail operations occur. A variation of this approach is the use of property
line standards, for which measurements are taken at the railroad property boundaries. Third, they
may impose affirmative requirements on railroad equipment or facilities ("design" or "equipment"
standards), such as the installation of mufflers on locomotives, the elimination of wheel flats on
rail cars, or the construction of noise barriers along rights of way. A fourth possibility is to regu-
late, license, control or restrict the use, operation or movement of any equipment or facility, for
example prohibiting idling of locomotives on sidings within communities or prohibiting railroad
yard operations between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Fifth, a state or community may
set receiving land-use standards for property impacted by railroad noise, for example requiring that
noise levels at the property line of residential property not exceed 55 dBA Ldn- Each of these
methods presents special problems that affect the determination of the preemptive relationship of
the EPA railroad noise regulation.
Noise Emission Standards on Railroad Equipment
The Noise Control Act provides that after the effective date of the standards promulgated
for locomotives and rafl cars, no state or local subdivision may adopt or enforce any noise emission
standard on locomotives or rail cars unless it is identical to the Federal standard. They may adopt
and enforce noise emission standards on other pieces of equipment not covered by EPA regulations,
such as retarders and railroad construction equipment. They may also adopt standards for locomo-
tives and rail cars if such standards are identical to the EPA standards.
1-4
-------
Determining the preemptive effect of a noise emission standard is, however, complicated by
the fact that a standard for total noise emissions from the operation of a piece of equipment may
not differentiate between the elements contributing to the noise. When this is the case, the Admini-
strator believes that when any given element of noise is either (1) generated by a source that is an
integral part of the federally regulated equipment or (2) is a component of the total noise generated
by the federally regulated equipment, the regulation of that element by state and local governments
is subject to preemption. Specifically, these elements include the noise from refrigerator units on
refrigerator cars, auxiliary power units on locomotives, and noise caused by the condition of track.
The noise caused by retarders, however, is a separate source of noise that will not be present during
compliance measurement for the rail car standard and, as such, is not subject to preemption.
Noise Emission Standards on Railroad Facilities
State and local governments may enact noise emission standards for facilities that EPA has
not regulated. However, in the judgment of EPA, the preemptive purpose of Section 17 of the
Noise Control Act requires that such regulations not be permitted to do indirectly what is specifi-
cally preempted. That is, state and local governments may not control the noise emissions of
locomotives and rail cars by setting noise emission limits on yards where the noise limit is, in
effect, a limit on locomotive and rail car noise. Noise emission standards may be adopted and
enforced on facilities where rail cars and locmotives do not operate. Where federally regulated
equipment is a noise contributor in a facility on which a state or local government proposes to set
a noise emission standard, such as a marshalling yard, such a regulation may or may not be
preempted.
If compliance could reasonably be achieved by action that did not require modification of or
controlling the use of the operation of locomotives and rail cars, then it would be permisssible. If
the only way compliance could reasonably be achieved were to take actions preempted by Federal
regulations, then such a standard is preempted. Questions such as the availability and reasonable-
ness of alternative means of compliance will be dealt with by EPA under procedures now being
developed to guide states and localities in dealing with railroad noise in light of Federal preemption.
Design or Equipment Standards
The Noise Control Act does not deal explicitly with regulations that require the installation
of noise abatement devices or the application of specified maintenance or repair procedures. EPA
believes that this is another area in which the preemptive purpose of Section 17 requires that the
effect of state or local regulations on federally regulated equipment or facilities be analyzed. The
intended result of Section 17(c) is that, except in cases in which EPA has made a special determina-
tion, state noise regulations on locomotives or rail cars will not require that interstate rail carriers
modify these federally regulated pieces of equipment. Accordingly, EPA believes that design or
equipment standards on federally regulated equipment (locomotive and rail cars) are preempted.
Design or equipment standards on other pieces of equipment, such as retarders or cribbing mach-
ines, are not preempted. Similarly, design standards on facilities not federally regulated are not
preempted, even though locmotives and rail cars may operate there, because they do not require
1-5
-------
the modification of locomotives or rail cars. An example of this type of regulation would be a local
ordinance requiring that noise barriers be installed along the rights of way running through that
community.
Use, Operation, or Movement Controls
A reduction in community noise impact can be achieved if the manner, time, or frequency of
use of a noise source is controlled. Clearly, such controls may be adopted and enforced with respect
to equipment that EPA has not regulated. However, with respect to federally regulated equipment
(locomotives and rail cars), such controls may not be imposed unless the Administrator has deter-
mined that such state or local regulation is necessitated by special local conditions and that it is not
in conflict with EPA regulations. A use restriction on railroad facilities may be subject to such
determination also if, in order to comply, the railroad must control the use, operation, or movement
of federally regulated equipment within that facility. The determinations called for will be made by
EPA in accordance with procedures now being developed.
Receiving Land Use Standards
Receiving land use standards are to be distinguished from property line standards on the basis
that property line standards focus on the identity of the noise source, such as railroad yards or rights
of way, whereas receiving land use standards focus on the identity of the property receiving the
sound, such as schools, hospitals or residential property. Obviously, a community is not preempted
from enacting such standards simply because it has a railroad within its jurisdiction. However, it is
possible that a standard that says, for example, that no school may be exposed to exterior noise
levels in excess of 55 dBA may require modification of locomotives or rail cars in a community in
which schools are close to the right of way of a railroad. Whether, or to what extent, such regula-
tions are preempted, will be determined by EPA in accordance with procedures being developed.
1-6
-------
Section!
SUMMARY OF WHAT THE REGULATION REQUIRES
APPLICATION OF BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF
COMPLIANCE
Section 17 of the Noise Control Act requires that the regulation ... "reflect the degree of noise
reduction achievable through the application of the best available technology, taking into account the
cost of compliance." For this purpose, best available technology is defined as that noise abatement
technology available for application to railroads that produces meaningful reduction in the noise
produced by railroads. Available is further defined to include:
• Technology that has been demonstrated and that is currently known to be feasible.
• Technology for which there will be a production capacity to produce the estimated number
of parts required in reasonable time to allow for distribution and installation prior to the
effective date of the regulation.
• Technology that is compatible with all safety regulations and that takes into account opera-
tional consideration, including maintenance, and other pollution control equipment.
The cost of compliance, as used in the regulation, means the cost of identifying what action must
be taken to meet the specified noise emission levels, the cost of taking that action, and any additional
cost of operations and maintenance caused by that action. The cost for future replacement parts was
also considered.
As discussed in Section 5 of this report, the only source of railroad noise proposed to be regulated
by the Federal government at the present time is trains. Therefore, the following pages will discuss
the noise abatement technology for trains, in consonance with the statutory requirements and inter-
pretation just presented.
Train noise is composed of locomotive noise and car noise. The latter is primarily the result of
wheel/rail interaction and wheel/retarder interaction. The locomotive noise is composed of noise from
the engine exhaust, casing, cooling fans, and wheel/rail interaction. The technology for treating casing,
fan, and wheel/rail noise is in the early development and research stages and thus not available for
application at this time. However, the technology for exhaust silencing has been found to be available.
Further, the locomotive noise is dominated by the engine exhaust noise and, therefore, the application
of exhaust muffler technology is the most effective initial step to require for locomotive noise abate-
ment. The consequences of establishing a standard that would require modification of engine casing,
cooling fans, and wheel/rail interaction have not been assessed in detail. It is clear, however, that
2-1
-------
without first reducing exhaust noise, treatment of these components would result in little or no per-
ceptible noise reduction.
LEVELS OF TRAIN NOISE CONTROL
In this discussion, noise levels that can be reasonably attained with appropriate maintenance of
existing equipment and by the application of the best available technology are discussed for locomotives
both at rest and in motion and for railcars in motion.
Locomotive Noise—Vehicle at Rest
As discussed in Section 5, locomotive noise is dominated by the exhaust of diesel engines, which
operate at eight possible speed and power output levels. One way to attain environmental noise control
would be to limit the noise at all of these throttle settings; however, this could lead to combersome
enforcement practices. For ease of enforcement, permissible noise could be specified at the throttle
setting with the most noise-throttle 8. However, this approach may lead muffler manufacturers to
design mufflers that are tuned to the engine speed corresponding to that throttle setting. Such mufflers
could be effective at the design setting and ineffective at other settings. Obviously, this would defeat
the purpose of a locomotive regulation.
A compromise solution is to control locomotive noise at two conditions: idle and full power.
Idle and full power apply to frequently used throttle settings. Specifying two throttle settings will
probably preclude the design of-specially tuned mufflers. Rather, it is anticipated that mufflers that
will be uniformly effective at all throttle settings will result.
Although it is unrealistic to assume that mufflers can be designed, fabricated, and installed on all
new locomotives as soon as a regulation is promulgated, it is not unreasonable to hold noise at the
level of existing, well-maintained equipment. Data, for locomotives at throttle setting 8 indicate that
almost no locomotives exceed 93 dBA at 100 ft. Likewise, data indicated that locomotives at idle
can be expected not to emit more than 73 dBA at 100 ft. Accordingly, the following levels have been
identified as indicative of present noise emissions:
• Idle 73
• Overall Maximum 93
Section 5 indicates that mufflers capable of reducing exhaust noise by 10 dBA are feasible.
Depending upon the relative contribution of the exhaust noise to the dominant sources of locomotive
noise, this reduction may produce a 4 to 8 dBA reduction in the total noise (see Table 5-5). It is
believed that the noisier locomotives have a higher exhaust noise component and, therefore, may
achieve greater overall reduction in total noise by reducing exhaust noise. Based on the considerations
of available empirical data, at throttle settings other than idle, an overall noise reduction of 6 dBA for
the noisier locomotives seems reasonable. However, the EPA received further data in response to the
docket, which indicated that a number of locomotives would be incapable of compliance with the
proposed 67-dBA idle standard through the application of muffler technology alone, due to the pres-
ence of excessively high levels of structurally radiated noise at idle. As the result of an analysis of all
pertinent data dealing with the noise levels and the availability of technology for compliance, the
2-2
-------
permissible long term idle noise level has been raised 3 dBA. Accordingly, the application of an exhaust
muffler can be expected to permit all locomotives to achieve the following levels:
• Idle 70 dBA
• Overall Maximum 87 dBA
The exhaust noise is primarily a function of the diesel engine horsepower and the method of
engine aspiration. Rootes-blown engines would have higher exhaust noise than an equal size turbo-
charged engine. Also, a larger engine has higher exhaust noise than a smaller engine if the aspiration is
the same.
However, the larger engines are generally turbocharged, while the small engines are Rootes-blown.
This leads to a partial cancellation of the effect of power and aspiration on the exhaust noise. It may
be feasible in the future to establish separate standards for different types of locomotives, depending
upon power or method of aspiration. This is not possible with the present data, however.
Section 5 also shows that muffler manufacturers could supply the needed hardware within the
4 years allotted for design, development, and testing.
Locomotive Noise—Vehicle in Motion
In addition to the stationary locomotive standard a passby standard that relates directly to the
manner in which locomotives operate in the environment is also desirable. Such a standard also could
be a useful tool for adoption and enforcement by local and state governments.
Based on available train passby data (see Figure 5-3) 96 dBA measured at 100 feet is achievable
and represents the best maintenance practice level for current locomotive noise emissions. As just
discussed, a reduction in overall locomotive noise of 6 dBA for the noisier locomotive through proper
muffler application is considered reasonable. Therefore, using the same projected design, development,
and testing times mentioned above, a 90 dBA noise emission level measured at 100 feet for all newly
manufactured locomotives during a passby test would be required in 4 years.
Rail Car Noise—Vehicles in Motion on line
Figure 5-8 shows that at a given speed, rail car noise ranges ± 5 dBA above or below a mean value.
At 45 mph, the mean is approximately 83 dBA. At 60 mph, the mean is approximately 88 dBA. As
such, the following Best-Maintenance-Practice-Standard measured at a 100-ft distance for rail cars in
motion is considered appropriate:
Rail Car Speed (v) Noise Level
mps dBA
V < 45 88
V > 45 93
Rail Car Noise—Vehicles in Motion in Yards
As discussed in Section 5, a rail car passage through a retarder causes the emission of noise levels
as high as 120 dBA. Further discussed, are five possible methods of retarder noise control that might
2-3
-------
conceivably be employed individually or in concert. With such information, it might be argued that a
status quo level of 120 dBA may be appropriate at this time and could be subsequently reduced to
approximately 80 dBA as the technology of retarder noise control advances over the next few years.
At this time, however, it is the Agency position that retarder noise is an element of fixed facility rail-
road yard noise that, as such, can best be controlled by measures that do not in themselves affect
the movement of trains and therefore do not require national uniformity of treatment. Such noise
control measures might include, for example, the erection of noise barriers.
The Agency study of railroad yard noise indicates that concern for noise from railroad yards is
more local than national. This is due in large part to the location of the number of yards in non-urban
areas and the relatively small number of hump yards (130). Accordingly, the establishment of a
uniform national standard could potentially incur significant costs to the railroads with only limited
environmental impact resulting in terms of the population relieved from undesirable noise levels.
REVISION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION PRIOR TO PROMULGATION
The Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations, which are now being promulgated,
incorporate several changes from the proposed regulation published on July 3, 1974. These changes are
based upon the public comments received and upon the continuing study of rail carrier noise by the
Agency. In all but four instances, such changes were not substantial; they are only intended to further
clarify the intent of the regulations.
The first substantive change is that the restricted coverage of the long term locomotive standard
for both stationary and moving conditions will now apply only to those locomotives newly manufactured,
effective 4 years after the promulgation of the final regulation. Accordingly, the retrofit provision as
originally proposed has been deleted from the final regulation.
A number of factors influenced the EPA decision to delete the retrofit requirement. Several
docket entries contained economic and technological data that conflict significantly with the EPA data
that appears in the Background Document. The principal areas of conflict involve disparities in deter-
mination of the best available technology as it exists today and the resultant costs of its application.
There is a further complicating factor in that the available space configurations existant within many
locomotives have been altered over the years due to the addition and modification of various locomo-
tive components such as dynamic braking systems and spark arresters. As a result of this practice,
there are numerous and diverse locomotive configurations, each possessing its own specific peculiari-
ties that must be accounted for in a retrofit program. The implications of this diversity of locomotive
configurations and the accompanying disagreement concerning available technology and the cost of its
application (i.e., labor rates, capital costs of new facilities, etc.) have given rise to cost of compliance
figures ranging from the original EPA estimates of $80 to $ 100 million to industry estimates approximat-
ing $400 to $800 million.
Although the generation of additional information concerning the availability of technology may
allow the Agency to reconcile these widely varying retrofit cost estimates, the collection of such data
would be a costly and time consuming process that may produce a retrofit cost estimate remaining
substantially high relative to the public health and welfare benefits that would result. For these
reasons, the Agency has decided to remove the retrofit requirement from the regulation being promul-
gated herein. Acknowledging the uncertainties that currently accompany the retrofit provision, the
Agency may continue to consider the retrofit issue and may promulgate a retrofit requirement if
further information indicates that the technology is available and that retrofit compliance costs are
reasonable relative to the health and welfare benefits to be accrued.
2-4
-------
The second substantive change to the regulation involves modifying the proposed locomotive idle
standard by increasing allowable noise emissions from the proposed 67 dBA to 70 dBA at 100 ft. This
change was made to accommodate new data that demonstrated that certain locomotive models appear
to be incapable of compliance with a 67-dBA standard through the application of muffler technology
alone, due to the dominant influence of structurally radiated noise during idle operation.
The third substantive change to the regulation is that the effective dates of the initial standards
have been changed from 270 days to 365 days from the date of promulgation in response to requests
by the DOT.
The final substantive change to the regulation is the incorporation of additional measurement
criteria into the standards as a separate Subpart C of the regulation. The noise emission standards
specified in the Agency regulations must be fully and definitively specified so that there is no question
as to the EPA standard being promulgated. Accordingly, measurement criteria containing those con-
ditions and parameters necessary for the consistent and accurate measurement of the sound levels
specified have been included in the final regulation.
Those changes made to clarify the intent of the regulations and the reasons therefore, are:
• Section 201.1 Definitions
The definition of "sound level" was changed slightly to be consistent with the definition of
that term as used in the document, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite
to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency in March 1974.
"Fast meter response" has been expanded for clarity.
"Interstate commerce" has been modified to ensure that any questions as to its scope would
be resolved by reference to Section 203(a) of the Interstate Commerce Act, consistent with
the reference to that Act in Section 17(b) of the Noise Control Act.
"Person" has been deleted since the word is no longer used in subpart B of the regulation.
"Sound pressure level" has been deleted since the words are no longer used in subpart B of
the regulation.
"Special track work" has been added in order to clarify the meaning of the term as used
in the find regulation.
"Locomotive" has been expanded to include self-propelled rail passenger vehicles.
"Special Purpose Equipment" has been added to clarify the meaning of the term as used in
the final regulation.
"Retarder" has been deleted since the word is no longer used in subpart B of the regulation.
"Self load" has been deleted since the term is no longer used in subpart B of the regulation.
"Idle" has been expanded to clarify the meaning of the term as used in the regulation.
"dBA" has been modified slightly to specify the reference pressure of 20 micropascals.
• Section 201.10 Applicability
This section has been modified slightly to exclude the application of Section 201.11 (a)
and (b) to gas turbine powered locomotives and any locomotive type which cannot be con-
nected by any standard method to a load cell, and to more clearly specify the exclusion of
2-5
-------
intra-urban mass transit systems in terms consistent .with the definition of "carrier" cited
in the Act. In addition, the wording in the section has been modified to more clearly in-
clude the application of the standards to refrigeration and airconditioning units on loco-
motives and rail cars. Finally, the express exclusion of the applicability of the standards to
railroad yards, shops, rights-of-way, or any other railroad equipment or facility not
specified in the regulation has been deleted as unnecessary.
• Section 201.11 and 201.12 Standards for Locomotive Operation
Under Stationary and Moving Conditions, Respectively.
In addition to the applicability and effective date changes previously described, the reference
to measurement site surface has been deleted and replaced by language referencing the
measurement criteria in Subpart C of the regulation. Also the phrase "or the equivalent
thereof in reference to a load cell has been deleted.
• Section 201.12 Standard for Rail Car Operations
Track curvature requirements for measurement sites identical to those specified in Section
201.12 for locomotives were incorporated into this section in addition to identical language
referencing the measurement criteria of Subpart C as used in Section 201.12 and 201.11
for locomotive test sites. Also, the language in the section was modified slightly so as to
to restrict compliance measurements to track free of special track work or bridges or trestles.
The change in the effective date previously described also applies to this section.
NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER NOISE REGULATION
• Rail Cars
Best Maintenance Practice Standards; Effective, 365 Days:
@ Speeds: < 45 mph: 88 dBA
©Speeds: > 45 mph: 93 dBA
• Locomotives
a. Best Maintenance Practice Standards; Effective, 365 Days:
(1) Stationary:
(a) Idle: 73 dBA
(b) Other Throttle: 93 dBA
(2) Moving: 96 dBA
b. Four year Newly Manufactured Standards:
(1) Stationary:
(a) Idle: 70 dBA
(b) Other Throttle: 87 dBA
(2) Moving: 90 dBA
2-6
-------
Sections
DATA BASE FOR THE REGULATION
The program for compiling data on train noise began with a search for existing data. By com-
piling the existing data, it was possible to avoid repeating the few measurements completed by
others, and the limitations of the existing data indicated what measurements needed to be made to
extend the data. Technical journals were searched for reports of pertinent measurements. Published
accounts of measurements in Europe and Asia were considered along with the accounts of measure-
ments in the United States and Canada.
Much of the needed data was obtained by the EPA Regional Offices and under contract by
acoustical consultants. Some unpublished accounts of measurements and proceedings of appropri-
ate seminars were obtained through informal communication with members of the acoustics com-
munity. Leaders in the engineering departments of the two remaining locomotive manufacturers
Electro-Motive Division of General Motors (EMD) and General Electric Corp. (GE) were also inter-
viewed to ascertain the extent of their data files, as well as to determine what problems may be
created by attempts to control locomotive noise. At a meeting hosted by the Association of Ameri-
can Railroads, EMD, and GE engineers reported measurements of locomotive noise and discussed
some possible effects of locomotive noise controls. Three leading muffler manufacturers (Donald-
son, Harco Engineering, and Universal Silencer) were contacted to evaluate the feasibility and the
impact of fitting locomotives with exhaust mufflers.
Railroad company personnel who worked in various capacities at various levels were contacted
to determine the mix of equipment used by railroads, the configurations of properties and equipment,
the scheduling of operations, and the modes of operation. In particular, yard masters, yard superin-
tendents, or engineering personnel were contacted to obtain information about yard configuration,
layout, and equipment. Railroad personnel were asked for information related to schedules and
speeds of trains. The railroad companies that participated are listed in the references for this report.
To resolve questions raised in the docket comment to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the
Agency engaged in further study of railroad noise, focusing on the further definition of available
technology and attendant costs that would be incurred during the implementation of a locomotive
retrofit program. In addition to information received from the docket comments and from additional
contractor effort, the Agency was the recipient of a gratis study conducted by the General Motors
Corporation Electromotive Division that attempted to identify the costs involved in the retrofit of
the major EMD locomotive models currently in operation. The results of this study have been in-
cluded as Appendices E and F to this document.
The sources of all information and data cited in this document are listed in the Reference
Section at the end of this report.
3-1
-------
Section 4
THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY
ECONOMIC STATUS
There are currently 72 Class I railroads in the U.S.* These tend to break down into two groups:
large transportation companies such as the Union Pacific or the Penn Central and railroads owned
by large industrial firms such as U.S. Steel. The latter roads primarily provide transportation services
to the parent company. Since railroads are regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission
(ICC), the degree of competition is also regulated. The size of the firms has in many cases been de-
termined by whether the ICC has allowed or disapproved mergers. Most large roads have grown
through mergers. In addition, the favorable financial positions of some roads have resulted from their
non-transportation activities.
The total tonnage of freight moved in the U.S. has been rising over time, but the transportation
sector of the economy has declined in relative importance. In 1950, 5.6 percent of national income
originated in the transportation sector. By 1968, this figure declined to 3.8 percent and has remained
at about that level. This trend reflects the higher relative growth rates in those industries that re-
quire a smaller transportation input.
The rail industry has declined more rapidly than the transportation sector as a whole. In 1950,
the rail sector constituted 53 percent of the national income originating in the transportation sector.
By 1968 it had declined to 25.8 percent of the-transportation sector and has remained relatively
stable since then. Table 4-1 summarizes these statistics.**
Accompanying the decline in the rail sector's share hi national income originating in the trans-
portation sector, the proportion of total freight hauled by rail has declined. In 1940, the railroads
hauled 63.2 percent of all freight, dropping to 44.7 percent by 1960 and to 39.9 percent by 1970.
Motor carriers and oil pipelines have rapidly increased their share during this period. Air freight has
increased more rapidly than either motor carriers or pipelines, but it accounts for only 0.18 percent
of total freight. In spite of the decreasing proportion of shipments by rail, railroads still produce
more ton-miles of freight transportation than any other single mode, the total volume of freight
hauled by rail having increased from 411.8 billion ton-miles in 1940 to 594.9 in 1960, to 768.0 in
1970, and to an estimated 855 in 1974. Table 4-2 summarizes these trends.
*Class I railroads are those having annual revenues of $5 million or more. They account for 99 per-
cent of the national freight traffic.
**Unless otherwise stated, the data presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-6 were obtained from the
Statistical Abstract of the United States (1971) and (1972).
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
NATIONAL INCOME ORIGINATING IN THE TRANSPORTATION AND RAIL SECTORS
($ In Billions)
Year
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
National
Income
$241.1
414.5
564.3
712.7
769.5
795.9
Transportation
$13.4
18.2
23.2
27.1
29.2
29.5
Transportation
as%of
National Income
5.6%
4.5
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.7
Rail
$7.1
6.7
7.0
7.0
7.4
7.2
Rail as % of
Transportation
53.0%
36.8
30.2
25.8
25.3
24.4
TABLE 4-2
INTERCITY FREIGHT (In Billions of Ton-Miles)
Year
1940
1956
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
Total Freight
Volume in
109 Ton-Miles
651.2
1376.3
1330.0
1651.0
1838.7
1898.0
1921.0
Rail Freight
inlO9
Ton-Miles
411.8
677.0
594.9
721.1
765.8
780.0
768
Rail
%
63.2
49.2
44.7
43.7
41.2
41.1
39.9
Motor
Vehicles
%
9.5
18.1
21.5
21.8
21.6
21.3
21.44
Oil
Pipelines
%
9.1
16.7
17.2
18.6
21.3
21.7
• 22.4
Air
%
.002
.04
.06
.12
.16
.17
.18
Inland
Water
%
18.1
16.0
16.6
15.9
15.9
15.8
15.98
Rail passenger service declined from 6.4 percent of intercity travel in 1950 to less than 0.1 per-
cent in 1970. The real impact of railroads on the national economy is in terms of freight rather
than passengers. The decline of the rail industry share of the transportation sector is less dramatic
when passenger service (air, local, suburban, and highway) is eliminated from calculations. Table
4-3 gives the transportation sector percentage contributions to national income, less the passenger
sectors just mentioned, and the rail industry's percentage of the transportation sector.
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-3
PERCENT OF NATIONAL INCOME ORIGINATING IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SECTOR (LESS AIRLINE AND LOCAL
SUBURBAN AND HIGHWAY PASSENGERS) AND THE
RAIL SECTOR AS A PERCENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Year
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
Transportation* (Adjusted)
as % of
National Income
4.8%
3.7
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.9
Railroads
as%of
Transportation
(Adjusted)
61.7%
44.1
37.6
33.0
32.3
Not
Available
"Transportation minus air carriers and local suburban and highway passengers.
From comparison of Table 4-1 and 4-3, it can be seen that the freight sector has declined more
rapidly than the total transportation sector. It can also be seen that the railroads' decline is some-
what less dramatic in terms of freight alone than in terms of both freight and passenger service.
EMPLOYMENT
The railroads' importance as a source of employment within the economy has decreased along
with their share of the nation's transportation output. In 1950, the railroads accounted for 2.7 per-
cent of all employees in nonagricultural establishments. By 1970, this had fallen to less than 1.0
percent. Not only has the relative importance of railroads declined, the absolute level of employ-
ment from 1950 to 1970 decreased by over 50 percent as shown in Table 44.
Wages in the rail sector have consistently been above the average of all manufacturing employees,
and this differential has increased over the years. In 1950, the average hourly compensation in the
rail sector was $1.60 which was 110 percent of the average hourly compensation in manufacturing.
In 1968 average compensation was $3.54, or 118 percent of that in manufacturing. By 1971, rail
compensation had increased to 126 percent of the average compensation in the manufacturing
sector.
4-3
-------
TABLE44
EMPLOYMENT IN THE RAIL INDUSTRY
RELATIVE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
Year
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
National Employees
in All
Nonagricultural
Establishments
(1000)
45,222
54,234
60,815
67,915
70,274
70,664
Railroad
Employment
(1000)
1220
780
640
591
578
566
Railroad
as%of
National
2.7%
1.4
1.1
.9
.8
.8
Increases in wage rates in the rail sector have been greater than the increases in the wage rates
in the manufacturing sector. Using 1967 as the base (=100), the index of wage rates in manufacturing
in 1970 was 121.6, while the rail industry index was 125.6. Over the same period, the increase in
productivity in the rail industry has been less than productivity increases in manufacturing. In 1970,
the index of output for all railroad employees was 109.9*, while in manufacturing it was 111.6 (using
a 1967 base of 100). Table 4-5 summarizes the wage and productivity data.
TABLE 4-5
INDEX OF OUTPUT PER MAN HOUR AND WAGES
(1967 = 100)
Year
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969
1970
Rail Wage
41.5
74.3
88.9
106.3
113.6
125.6
Manufacturing
Wage
44.7
76.6
91.2
107.1
113.9
121.6
Rail
Productivity
42.0
63.6
90.8
104.4
109.3
109.9
Manufacturing
Productivity
64.4
79.9
98.3
104.7
107.7
116.6
""Computed on the basis of revenue per man-hour.
4-4
-------
The fact that productivity increases have not kept pace with wage rate increases indicates that
unit labor costs are rising.
In the years since 1970, wages in the rail industry have, as in most industries, increased rapidly.
The index of wages in 1971 was 136.8; in 1972,136.8; and in 1973,165.4 (estimated).
HEALTH AND GROWTH OF THE INDUSTRY
Health of the Industry
There are a number of measures one might use to judge the health or financial stability of the
rail industry. Two of these are the rate of return on stockholder equity and the percent of revenue
carried through to net operating revenue. Shareholder equity is the excess of assets over liabilities,
which is equal to the book value of capital stock and surplus.
In 1971, the rate of return on stockholder equity for all manufacturing firms was 10.8 percent.
The rates of returns in some selected industries are as follows:
• . Instruments, photo goods, etc. 15.8%
• Glass Products 11.1%
• Distilling 9.9%
• Nonferrous metals 5.2%
The return for the total transportation sector was 3.1 percent. Railroads showed a 2.1 percent
on stockholder equity, slightly above the airlines' 2.0 percent.
The rate of return on stockholder equity increased from 1.3 percent in 1971 to 3.0 percent in
1972. The use of industry data, however, tends to give a misleading impression of the industry.*
The Eastern District had a negative rate of return for the three years from 1970 to 1972, while
both the Southern and Western Districts had positive and increasing rates of returns. The Southern
District showed an increase from 5.2 percent to 6.1 percent and the West from 3.7 to 5.1 percent.
The rates of returns in these districts are well above the 3.1 percent for total transportation and are
about equal to the textile and paper industries.
These trends indicate that the problem in the rail industry is not with all districts but primarily
with roads in the Eastern District. Using operating ratios** as the measure of financial stability, one
draws the same conclusions.
* Because the railroads use a nonstandard accounting procedure (the so-called betterment technique),
the rate of return is low relative to what it would be if they used a procedure comparable to those
used in the nonregulated sector.
**Operating ratio equals operation expenses divided by operating revenues.
4-5
-------
The historical trends in the profitability of the industry can be measured by the percent of
gross revenue carried through to net operating income before Federal income taxes. This measure
is similar to the rate of return on sales before taxes. For the industry as a whole, the percent of
gross revenue carried through has been declining. This is also true of each district, with the Eastern
being the worst. Table 4-6 summarizes these trends.
TABLE 4-6
PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUE CARRIED THROUGH
TO NET OPERATING INCOME BEFORE FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
Year
1950
1960
1965
1968
1969'
1970
1971
All Class I
RR's
17.3%
8.3
11.0
6.9
6.6
4.2
4.0
Southern
District
20.1%
10.7
12.1
11.0
12.1
11.8
10.3
Eastern
District
12.0%
2.1
10.0
3.7
2.7
Nil
0.5
Western
District
19.8%
10.0
11.6
8.4
8.0
7.7
7.2
The performances of the Southern and Western Districts are much better than the Eastern. In
fact, one could conclude that compared with nonregulated industries such as steel, the Southern
and Western roads are reasonably good performers. Compared with other regulated industries, such
as public utilities (10.5 percent return on stockholder equity) and telephone and telegraph companies
(9.5 percent return on stockholder equity), the railroad rate of return is low. One point that should
be made is that railroads follow a betterment accounting procedure, which tends to overstate the
value of their assets. We have not attempted to adjust rate of return in the rail industry to reflect
this.
The historical decline in the profitability of railroads came as a result of a decrease in the rela-
tive importance of high-weight, low-value cargo, which has traditionally been handled by rail. The
increased competition from motor carriers and pipelines has further reduced the relative importance
of railroads. Federal and state funding of highways has improved the competitive position of trucks
and has led to the diversion of high-valued freight to motor carriers.
In 1935, when motor carriers came under Interstate Commerce Commission regulation, the
value-of-service rate structure applied to railroads was also applied to motor carriers. (The value-
of-service rate-making policy was originally applied to railroads to favor agricultural products.
4-6
-------
Under value-of-service rates, low-valued products have a lower rate per ton-mile than do high-value
products.*) This measure reduced intermodal price competition and, in fact, gave an advantage to
trucks in carrying high-valued freight when they could give faster service. Railroads were unable to
lower prices on this type of freight, which could have offset the faster service offered by trucks.
The decline of some manufacturing industries in the East has led to a more intense financial
crisis among eastern roads. Also, the capital stock of these railroads tends to be older than that of
the other roads. They spend a larger portion of total cost on yard switching than do either Southern^
or Western roads, due to shorter hauls and a larger number of interchanges among roads. Since
shippers pay for movement from one point to another (i.e., rate per mile), the competitive position
of railroads tends to be diminished if these nonline-haul expenses rise. The greater yard-switching
results in having rail cars sit in switching yards waiting for a train to be made up, thus resulting in
longer time in transit and higher comparative costs.
Growth of the Industry
In projecting growth rates in any industry, it is assumed that historical trends and relationships
will continue to hold in the future to some extent. If these relationships do continue, then rail
freight can be projected based on projection of other figures. For example, rail freight service on
the basis of population or gross national product can be projected. If the population continues to
consume similar commodities, if these commodities move by the same modes of transporation, and
if increases in income are ignored, then projections based on accurate population projections will be
valid.
The number of ton-miles of railroad freight per capita in the U.S. has remained stable over recent
years. It was 3.73 in 1965, 3.77 in 1968, and 3,75 in 1970. Given this stability, reasonable short-run
projections based on population growth may be made. Based on the population projections for the
U.S., about a 1.0 percent annual increase over the next 5 years is estimated. This would project an
increase from 768 billion ton-miles in 1970 to about 822 billion ton-miles in 1975. This projection
falls somewhat short of the estimated 855 billion [42] ton-miles of freight actually hauled in 1974.
This difference is largely attributable to a gradually increasing efficiency in the operation and utili-
zation of railroad equipments and facilities, as well as periods of increased coal and grain traffic
during the past few years. However, exclusive of any dramatic improvements in railroad technology
or operations, or substantial fluctuations in the types and amounts of commodities available for
transport, the 1.0 percent figure seems to provide a reasonable projection of short run growth.
One other factor that may accelerate the growth of demand for rail transporation services is
that rail movement uses less energy than other forms of freight movement. A ton-mile of freight
moved by rail requires 750 BTU, while pipelines require 1850, trucks 2400, and air freight 63,000.
The only mode of freight movement more efficient (in terms of energy) than rail is water, which
requires 500 BTU [41].
*These points are examined in an article by R. H. Harbeson in the 1969 Journal of Law and
Economics, pp. 321-338.
4-7
-------
The rail industry contribution to national income has remained relatively constant from 1968
to 1970 at about 1.0 percent. The long-run rate of growth in GNP has been about 3.5 percent.
Again, under the assumption that these historical relationships hold, the long-run growth should be
around 3.5 percent.
Energy may come to be an important factor and may cause some short run traffic variations,
but it seems unlikely that rail freight will increase more rapidly than the growth in national income
in the long-run. The factor mitigating a more rapid increase is that consumption patterns
have continued to move toward more services and fewer manufactured products. This means a
smaller transportation input. In addition, rising interest rates and greater product differentiation
have caused shippers to be increasingly concerned with time in transit. The railroads' real advantage
is in rates, not speed. However, the advent of transporting entire truck trailers by rail has aided in
substantially reducing delivery time where this is practiced.
4-8
-------
Section 5
RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES
OVERVIEW OF THE PROBLEM
Noise is generated by railroad operations in two basic locations: in yards and on lines. In railroad
yards, trains are broken down and assembled and maintenance is performed. Line operations involve
the sustained motion of locomotives pulling a string of cars over tracks.
The hump yard is an efficient system for disengaging cars from incoming trains and assembling
them into appropriate outgoing trains. A locomotive pushes a string of cars up a small hill, known as a
hump, allowing each car to roll individually down the other side through a series of switches onto the
appropriate track, where a train is being assembled. As each car rolls down the hump, it is first slowed
by the master retarder.
The slowing, or retarding, is accomplished by metal beams that squeeze the wheel of the rail car.
After the cars leave the master retarder, they coast into a switching area that contains many tracks. As
each car is switched onto a particular track, it is slowed by a group retarder. After a car moves out of a
«?roup retarder, it is switched onto one of many (approximately 50) tracks in the classification area,
where the car collides with another car.
The collision causes the cars to couple, forming a train. In some yards, the first car that moves
into the classification area along a particular track is stopped by an inert retarder, so called because the
retaining beam is spring-loaded and requires no external operation. Inert retarders differ from the master
and group retarders, which are controlled continuously by an operator or automatically by a computer.
All three of the retarding processes just described produce noise. When the beam of a master or
group retarder rubs against the wheels, a loud squeal is often generated. The most significant noise
generated by inert retarders occurs when a string of cars is pulled through. If the inert retarders are
short and exert small forces, they may generate noise that is negligible compared with the noise genera-
ted by the group retarders. Some yards are equipped with inert retarders that can be manually or
automatically released when a string of cars is pulled through them, thereby preventing retarder squeal.
There are no inert retarders in some yards, so an individual brakeman must ride some cars and brake
them manually.
Noise is also produced when cars couple in the classification area of the yard. The impact points,
and thus the origins of the noise, are scattered over the classification yard. The noise is impulsive,
and sometimes it is followed by a thunderlike rumble audible for several seconds after the impact.
Locomotive engines generate noise as the locomotives move around or pass through yards. When
the locomotives are not in use, their engines are often allowed to idle continuously (even overnight),
which also results in significant noise. When the locomotives are in motion, their horns, whistles, and
bells may produce noise for warning purposes.
5-1
-------
Some noise originates in the yard shops, where locomotives and cars are repaired and maintained.
Power tools and ventilation fans represent such sources. However, the most readily identifiable sources
of shop noise are the locomotives themselves when undergoing testing.
Most yards are equipped with a number of loudspeakers used for conveying verbal instructions and
warning sounds to workers in the yard. The speakers are scattered about the yard, and a given speaker
issues sound on an unpredictable schedule.
Line, or wayside noise-the noise in communities from passing trains-is produced by many high-
noise sources. The locomotive engine and its components, such as exhaust systems and cooling fans,
and the interaction of railroad car wheels with rails results in significant noise.
Wheel/rail noise is caused principally by impact at rail joints, giving rise to the familiar clickety-
clack, and by small-scale wheel and rail roughness. A severe form of wheel roughness that generates
high noise levels is caused by flat spots developed during hard braking. Also, wheels squeal on sharp
curves and generate noise by flange-rubbing on moderate curves. The operation of such auxiliaries as
refrigeration equipment also contributes to the overall noise level. Horns or whistles are sounded at
crossings and are significantly louder than the other wayside noises. In addition, some crossings are
equipped with stationary bells that sound before and during the passage of trains.
The remainder of Section 5 treats each of the noise sources mentioned separately and in as much
detail as the state-of-the-art allows. Included in the discussion of each source is a description of abate-
ment techniques.
CONSIDERATION OF RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES FOR FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The EPA has studied the operations of rail carriers engaged in interstate commerce by rail and
recognizes that such operations are imbedded in every corner of the nation at thousands of locations
and along hundreds of thousands of miles of right-of-way. The nature and magnitude of the noises
produced by the many types of facilities and equipment utilized in these operations differ greatly, and
their impact on the environment varies widely depending on whether they occur, for example, in a
desert or adjacent to a residential area.
The Agency concludes that the control of certain of these noise sources, such as fixed facilities,
or equipment used infrequently or primarily in one location, is best handled by the state and local
authorities, rather than by the Federal government. State and local authorities are believed in this
case to be better able to consider local circumstances in applying such measures as the addition of noise
barriers or sound insulation to particular facilities or the positioning of noisy equipment within these
facilities as far as possible from noise-sensitive areas. Further, and more importantly, the EPA did not
find during its analysis, and has not received from rail carriers, any information identifying situations
in which lack of uniform state and local laws regarding these facilities and equipment has imposed any
significant burden on interstate commerce.
The Administrator has considered the following broad categories of railroad noise sources, to
identify those types of equipment and facilities requiring national uniformity of treatment through
Federal noise regulations to facilitate interstate commerce.
Office Buildings
Many, if not all, surface carriers engaged in interstate commerce by railroad own and operate
office buildings. These buildings are technically facilities of the carriers. Like all office buildings they
5-2
-------
may emit noise from their air conditioning and mechanical equipment. But since each building is
permanently located in only one jurisdiction and is potentially subject only to its regulations, it is not
affected in any significant way by the fact that different jurisdictions may impose different standards
on noise emissions from the air conditioning and mechanical equipment of other buildings. At this
time, there appears to be no need for national uniformity of treatment of these facilities, and they are
therefore not covered by this regulation.
Repair and Maintenance Shops
Railroad repair and maintenance shops are similar in many ways to many nonrailroad industrial
facilities, such as machine shops, foundries, and forges. All such facilities can reduce their noise impact
on the surrounding community by a variety of measures including:
Reducing noise emissions at the source
Providing better sound insulation for their buildings
Erecting noise barriers
Buying more land to act as a noise buffer
Scheduling noise operations at times when their impact will be least severe
Moving noisy equipment to locations more remote from adjoining property.
Such detailed and highly localized environmental considerations are best handled by local
authorities so long as they comply with the applicable restrictions concerning Federal preemption.
Like office buildings, shops are permanently located in only one jurisdiction and thus are not poten-
tially subject to differing or conflicting noise regulations of other jurisdictions. At this time, therefore,
there appears to be no need for national uniformity of treatment of these facilities, and they are not
covered by this regulation.
At times, railroad maintenance shops may contain major noise sources that do require national
uniformity of treatment, such as locomotives. But the fact that some such individual noise sources
within a shop may be subject to Federal noise emission regulations is irrelevant to the validity of state
or local noise emission regulations applied to the shop as a whole. This is so as long as the state or local
regulation of the shop can be reasonably complied with without physically affecting the federally
regulated noise source within the shop (for example, by installing sound insulation in the shop building).
This will be discussed further in the section on preemption.
Terminals, Marshalling Yards, Humping Yards, and Specifically
Railroad Retarders
Like office buildings and shops, railroad terminals and yards are permanent installations normally
subject to the environmental noise regulations of only one jurisdiction. The Agency has determined
that such fixed facility railroad yard and terminal noise is best controlled at this time at the local level,
employing measures that do not in themselves affect the movement of trains and therefore do not
require national uniformity of treatment.
Local jurisdictions are familiar with the particular complexities of their community/railroad
noise situation, and, as such, are in a position to exhibit greater sensitivity in prescribing practical and
5-3
-------
cost effective solutions to the local noise problem. Railroad yard facilities vary in size, shape, and
special characteristics, and the noises produced there are diverse.
The EPA recognizes that the communities neighboring these yards and terminals are equally
diverse, varying in land zoning and population density and distribution. As such, Federal regulation
successfully producing substantial population health and welfare benefit at one locality may produce
little or no such benefit at another locality. For example, the regulation of a railroad yard facility
enveloped by a residential community would not achieve similar population health and welfare benefit
when equally applied to a similar railroad yard facility existing within a large industrial complex. This
subject is discussed in more detail in Appendices C and D of this document.
Additionally, the Agency study of railroad yard noise (inclusive of retarder noise) indicates that
concern for noise from railroad yards, and retarders in particular, is apparently limited to certain
localities and is not a national concern. This is due in large part to the location of a number of yards in
non-urban areas and the relatively few existing retarder systems, approximately 120.
This local nature of the retarder noise problem further reduces the desirability of a Federally
preemptive regulation. For example, in a situation in which a retarder yard is bordered on one side by
a residential area and on all other sides by an unpopulated wooded area, a barrier could be beneficial
to public health and welfare only if erected on that side of the retarder facing the residential area.
Under such circumstances a community would receive insufficient health and welfare benefits to justify
the costs incurred by a Federally preemptive regulation that mandates the installation of barrier walls
on both sides of retarder mechanisms.
At the currently estimated materials cost of $70 to $100 per linear foot for barriers, barrier
costs would run from $75,000 to $150,000 per railroad yard and from $9.6 to $ 19.1 million for the
entire railroad industry. Maintenance and replacement costs, yard down time, and track modification
costs have not been fully identified.
Expenditures should be assured of producing maximum benefits, and this may best be done through
local regulation. Available space for installation of barriers, and safety hazards that might accrue, have
not been identified and are peculiar to the particular characteristics of the individual railroad yards and,
as such, may be best accounted for through local regulation.
A Federal regulation for conversion of inert retarders to retractable inert retarders would be
subject to considerations similar to those discussed for the erection of barriers around active retarders.
However, probable yard down time and installation and materials costs would be considerably greater
for conversion to inert retractable retarders than for the erection of barriers. The EPA estimates that
conversion to retractable inert retarders would cost $7,500 for each retarder, not including labor, yard
down time, or maintenance costs. Applying a gross estimate of 20,000 such inert retarders nationally,
estimated national conversion costs, exclusive of labor, down time, and operational costs, would be
$150 million.
Although the EPA does not currently propose to regulate retarder noise, it does recommend that
local jurisdictions establish regulations requiring railroads to utilize barrier technology where needed
and where both practical and feasible. Further consideration may be given by the EPA to possibly
providing future regulations requiring that new retarder installations be equipped with retractable inert
retarders, computer control systems, retarder beam lubrication systems, or other available technical
developments resulting in significant noise reduction from retarders as the need for such regulations is
demonstrated relative to the costs involved and the availability of technology.
5-4
-------
For reasons just outlined, the EPA does not presently propose to regulate railroad yard or retarder
noise.
Like railroad maintenance shops, marshalling and humping yards contain some noise sources that
are covered by the proposed regulations. As is discussed in greater detail in the section on preemption,
a state or local noise regulation on a railroad terminal or yard is, in effect, a regulation on the federally
regulated noise sources within the terminal or yard when it can be met only by physically altering the
Federally regulated noise sources, or as otherwise specified in the preemption discussion.
Horns, Whistles, Bells, and Other Warning Devices
These noises are different in nature from most other types of railroad noise since they are created
intentionally to convey information to the hearer instead of as unwanted byproducts of some other
activity. Railroad horns, whistles, bells, etc., are regulated at the Federal and state levels as safety
devices rather than as noise sources.
Federal safety regulations are confined to the inspection of such devices on locomotives so as to
'ensure that, if present, they are suitably located and in good working order (Safety Appliance Act, 45
USCA; 49 Code of Federal Regulation, 121, 234, 236, 428,429). State regulations are oriented
toward specifying the conditions of use of these devices and, for the most part, do not specify any
maximum or minimum allowable noise level for them. A recent survey of the 48 contiguous states
(See Appendix B) has revealed the following:
• At least 43 states require that trains must sound warning signals when approaching public
crossings.
• Thirty-five of these states specify some minimum distance from a public crossing at which a
train approaching that crossing may sound a warning signal.
• Three states specify a maximum distance from a public crossing at which a train approaching
that crossing may sound a warning signal.
• Thirty-five states specify that these warning signals must be sounded until the train reaches
the crossing.
• Three states specify that these warning signals must be sounded until the train completely
clears the crossing.
• Sixteen states provide for exceptions to their regulations for trains operating in incorporated
areas.
• At least two states provide for exceptions to their regulations for trains approaching public
crossings that are equipped with satisfactory warning devices.
The EPA does recognize that a noise problem exists as to the use and extent of railroad warning
devices and that regulatory action may be appropriate for controlling them. However, the Agency
5-5
-------
believes that the requisite regulation can best be considered and implemented by state and local authori-
ties, who are better able to evaluate the particular local circumstances with respect to the nature and
extent of the noise problem and the requisite safety considerations involved. Any comprehensive
Federal regulation in this area could be overly diverse and cumbersome. The EPA encourages in this
regard the interaction between local and state governments and the railroads directly concerned in
solving the particular local noise problems associated with the use of such warning devices. However,
if local authorities, after having first sought solutions with the railroads involved, have still not been
able to resolve their problems, they are encouraged to then direct their concerns to the EPA for
possible further Federal action.
EPA has determined that the use of such warning devices in and around railroad yards is not out
of place due to the often heavy intermingling of workers and mobile equipment with locomotives and
rail cars. Such use may, of course, be beyond the extent necessary to ensure safety, not only in railroad
yards but wherever else railroad horns, bells, and whistles are used. The term overused, however, is
relative to the particular circumstances surrounding such use: whether, for example, a railroad yard or
rail-highway intersection is situated in a residential as opposed to an industrialized area. These situations
are instances where the EPA recommendation for railroad and community interaction is at this time the
most appropriate means of achieving effective warning device noise abatement.
EPA encourages alternate solutions to the routine use of acoustic warning devices at rail and road
crossings. For example, the elimination of public grade level railroad crossings would do away with the
source of the problem, the intersection of rail tracks and public thoroughfares. However, such a
national program of elevating or depressing either the railroad line or the public thoroughfare at each
crossing, solely for the purpose of the abatement of acoustic warning signal noise, is not considered
appropriate. It should be seriously considered, though, in future public thoroughfare or railroad line
construction programs for both safety and environmental noise reasons.
Warning gates, too, as suggested, would appear to be an effective safety alternative to acoustic
warning signals. Specifying their use on a national basis, however, would be prohibitively expensive
considering that, costs range from $45,000 to $90,000 per unit. And with the extensive use of grade
level crossings in the United States, Illinois, for example, having approximately 15,000 crossings without
drop gates, the cost would be $675 million or more in that state alone.
Since acoustic warning devices do serve the interests of safety and can best be regulated at the
local and state level for the reasons indicated, EPA does not propose to regulate railroad acoustic warn-
ing devices at this time.
Special Purpose Equipment
Examples of special purpose equipment that may be located on or operated from rail cars include:
Ballast cribbing machines
Ballast regulators
Conditioners and scarifiers
Bolt machines
Brush cutters
Compactors
Concrete mixers
5-6
-------
Cranes and derricks
Earth boring machines
Electric welding machines
Grinders
Grouters
Pile drivers
Rail heaters
Rail layers
Sandblasters
Snow Plows
Spike drivers
Sprayers and numerous other types of maintenance-of-way equipment.
The Agency realized that special purpose equipment such as that used for maintenance-of-way
activities is essentially construction equipment and as such, may emit loud intermittent noise.
Railroads may avoid noise problems by keeping routine maintenance activities to reasonable times.
Local jurisdictions may easily regulate operation times for such equipment as long as exceptions
are allowed for emergency use. For example, a community may wish to regulate the hours allowed
for routine operation of spike driving equipment, but exception must be made for the operation
of such equipment in the aftermath of a derailment, so tht interstate commerce would not be
unduly impeded.
The small numbers of such equipment, their infrequency of use, and the relative ease with
which viable local regulations may be instituted all tend to make a federally preemptive regulation
overly expensive relative to the benefits received.
There has not been any indication that any cases currently exist in which non-uniform local
or state regulation of special purpose equipment has unduly burdened those railroads so regulated.
At this time the Agency does not believe that special purpose equipment requires national
uniformity of treatment. However, the rail cars on which such special purpose equipment is
located are included under the standards for rail car operations. The Agency continues to solicit
notice of specific cases in which non-uniform local or state regulation of special purpose equipment
has created a burden on interstate commerce. If, in the future, it appears that national uniformity
of treatment of such equipment is appropriate, noise emission standards may be proposed.
Track and Right-of-Way Design
The standard promulgated for rail cars applies to the total noise produced by the operation
of trains on track. As such, it is preemptive with respect to both rail cars and track. It reflects the
noise level achievable by application of best maintenance standards to rail cars. Further reductions
in noise levels are achievable' through various track repairs and modifications. However, EPA has
not fully identified the available technology or the applicable costs associated with such practices.
In the future, the EPA may propose standards that would require their application.
However, some steps, such as the erection of noise barriers, can be taken to reduce noise
emissions from railroad rights-of-way that do not in any way affect the operation of trains on the
rights-of-way. State and local governments are better able than the Federal Government to
determine if some noise-sensitive areas need such protection; and the existence of differing require-
ments for such measures in different areas does not at this time appear to impose any significant
5-7
-------
burden on interstate commerce. There is presently no need for national uniformity of treatment of
such noise abatement techniques; and they are, therefore, not covered by the proposed regulations.
The Federal railroad noise regulations do preempt any local regulations that set noise
emission standards or require use restriction on rail cars equipped with auxiliary power units, more
specifically, mechanically refrigerated freight cars, and various auxiliary powered passenger-related
cars.
The initial decision by the Agency was to regulate noise from all sources produced by rail cars
while in motion only and to leave to state and local authorities the regulation of whatever
noise is produced from rail cars while stationary. This decision was made because these noises are
a problem only when such cars are parked near noise-sensitive areas (such noises being indistinguish-
able from other railroad car noises while the cars are in motion) and because it was felt that such
localized problems could best be controlled by measures such as the relocation of those cars to less
noise-sensitive areas.
The Agency was and continues to be cognizant of the extent of the problem that can be
caused in specific instances by the continuous operation of the diesel or gasoline engines operating
on such cars. Noise levels as high as 75 dBA at 15 meters (50 feet) are possible from refrigerator
cars parked with their cooling systems running in marshalling and humping yards. Noise levels from
such refrigerator cars can be even greater because such cars are often parked coupled together in
large numbers. Additional data acquired by and supplied to the Agency has shown that the problem
exists not only with refrigerator cars but also with various passenger-related cars such as dining cars,
lounge cars, cafe-type cars, and others equipped with self-contained power units. Also, the abatement
of such noise appears possible and, in certain instances, is now being accomplished through the use
of existing muffler designs.
The Agency therefore may consider the possible promulgation of a regulation dealing with
the noise produced by mechanically refrigerated freight cars and passenger cars equipped with
auxiliary power equipment so as to reduce the impact of such noise when these cars are parked near
noise-sensitive areas.
It should be noted that, in the regulation, the standard for rail car operations refers to
the total noise generated and that the setting of emission standards on any element of that noise is
preempted, whether the rail car is in motion or stationary. This Federal regulatory action does not,
however, interfere with the ability of state and local governments to enact or enforce railroad yard
noise emission regulations that require railroads to erect noise barriers. Nor does the regulation
interfere with the ability of state and local governments to enact or enforce noise emission regulations
that require the relocation of parked rail cars generating noise so long as that regulation is reviewed
and approved by EPA pursuant to Section 17(c)(2) of the Act.
The Agency has not intended and does not intend that intra-urban mass transit systems be
covered by the regulation being promulgated. It is the Agency judgment that such systems
are specifically excluded from regulation under Section 17 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 by the
definition of "carrier" cited in the Act, which excludes "... street, suburban, and interurban
electric railways unless operated as a part of a general railroad system of transportation." In addition,
such systems operate principally within one jurisdiction or in some cases throughout a small number
of contiguous metropolitan jurisdictions under the purview of a single transit authority and, as such,
do not appear to require uniform Federal regulation to facilitate interstate commerce. However, the
5-8
-------
exclusion of such systems does not also exclude the operations and equipment associated with
commuter rail services provided by a number of interstate rail carriers.
Trains
Unlike the categories of railroad equipment and facilities just discussed, train noise is
potentially subject to the noise regulations of more than one jurisdiction. Trains are constantly
moving from one jurisdiction to another, and it is not feasible to have them stopped at policital
boundaries and adapted to meet a different noise standard. Moreover, they constitute a major
source of noise to people close to railroad rights-of-way. The various sources of train noise (other
than warning devices) are therefore covered by the regulation to facilitate interstate commerce
through uniform national treatment of their control.
CHARACTER OF RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES AND ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY
Locomotives
Railroad locomotives are generally categorized as
• Steam
• Diesel-electric
• Electric
• Gas turbine.
The few remaining steam locomotives in the United States are preserved primarily as historical
curiosities and are, therefore, not covered by the proposed regulations. In this subsection, noise
associated with diesel-electric and electric/gas turbine locomotives are presented.
All measurements discussed in this section are A-weighted levels obtained by means of
microphones places alongside a locomotive, and refer to a measurement distance of 100 feet,
unless otherwise noted. Details of the measurements are given in Section 6.
Diesel-Electric Locomotives
Three types of engines are currently in use:
1. Two-stroke Rootes blown
2. Two-stroke turbocharged
3. Four-stroke turbocharged.
A turbocharged engine produces about 50 percent more power than does a Rootes-blown
engine. The number of cylinders on a diesel engine may be 8, 12, 16, or 20, with each cylinder
having a displacement of 640 cu in. Each cylinder produces 125 hp when Rootes blown and 187.5
to 225 hp when turbocharged. These engines are employed on-the two basic types of locomotive:
1. The switcher, which is used primarily to shunt cars around the railroad yard and is
powered by engines of 1500 hp or more.
5-9
-------
2. The road locomotive, which is used primarily for long hauls, and is powered by engines
of 15 00 hp or more.
A diesel locomotive engine drives an electric alternator that produces electricity to run the
electric traction motors attached to each axle of the locomotive. The rated power of the engine
is the maximum electrical power delivered continuously by the alternator. The engine has eight
possible throttle settings. As can be seen in Table 5-1, engine power and noise levels increase with
throttle position. The data in this table are taken from a presentation given at an Associated of
American Railroads (AAR) meeting in August 1973, by the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of
General Motors Corporation and were developed from a study of local cell information for a
number of U.S. railroads. Of the approximately 27,000 locomotives in service on major railroads
(see Appendix A), about 20,000 were built by EMD. The percent of horsepower and percent of
time given for each throttle position are typical of all locomotives. The dBA levels vary, of course,
from engine to engine. The example here is for a 2000 hp, EMD GP40-2 locomotive.
TABLE 5-1
EFFECT OF THROTTLE POSITION ON
ENGINE POWER AND NOISE LEVELS
Throttle
Position*
Idle
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
% of Rated
hp for
Diesel Engines
0.75t
5
12
23
35
51
66
86
100
% of .Time at
Throttle Position
Road Loco
41
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
30
Switcher
77
7
8
4
2
1
—
—
1
dBA at
100 Ft for
2000 hp Engine
69.5
72.0
74.0
77.0
80.0
84.5
86.0
87.5
89.0*
Three cooling fans were operating during measurement for throttle position 8, only one
fan for other measurements.
f Locomotive auxiliary hp only—no traction.
5-10
-------
Locomotive at Rest
During the course of this study, sound level measurements were made on individual loco-
motives at different power settings during load-cell or self-load testing. The results of these tests
are shown in Table 5-2.
For those locomotives listed in Table 5-2, the average overall noise level for the EMD
locomotives at 100 ft is 90 dBA ±4 dBA, where the variance includes allowances for all possible
measurement and locomotive differences; for example, different observers and different test sites.
The GE measurement for its 3000-hp locomotive is 86 dBA ±3 dBA, again allowing for all possible
measurement variations, which is slightly lower than those measured by EMD. The reason for this
difference may be that on GE locomotives, the exhaust stacks rise about 6 in. above the hood,
while on EMD locomotives the stacks are flush with the hood and radiate sound more efficiently.
In addition to exhaust and casing noise, the noise from cooling fans may be significant.
Figure 5-1 shows that the noise from an EMD GP-40-2 3000-hp locomotive with its engine access
doors open measured 9 dBA higher with three cooling fans running than with no fans running.
Since it was necessary to open the engine access doors during the measurements, the recorded levels
are somewhat higher than would be generated under normal operating conditions. However, there
is little doubt that cooling fan operation can significantly contribute to overall levels. The fans on
GE engines run continuously, thus contributing to total noise levels under all operating conditions.
Fans on EMD locomotives are thermostatically controlled.
In summary, the major components of locomotive noise are, in order of significance,
engine exhaust noise, casing-radiated noise, cooling fan noise, and wheel/rail noise. Table 5-3
shows average levels in dBA at 100 ft for each of these sources. Other sources, such as engine air
intake, traction motor blowers, and the traction motors themsleves have noise levels too far below
the other sources to be identified. Also, Rootes-blown engines have an unpleasant "bark", which
does not show up in any generally used method of measurement.
Locomotive in Motion
Another method of characterizing locomotive noise is doing so as a locomotive passes by a
fixed point during normal operation. Levels recorded in this manner contain all sources of loco-
motive noise discussed previously. Measurements of this nature are meaningful, since this is the
noise that is emitted into the community. Unfortunately, the specific parameters that affect the
level of noise produced are not easily controlled. These include horsepower, velocity, throttle
setting, and number of locomotive units coupled together. However, by recording the sound levels
of a large number of passby events, typical levels may be established.
Figure 5-2 and Table 5-4 display the results of approximately 105 passby events. As indi-
cated, locomotive passbys range from 74 dBA to 98 dBA when measured at 100 feet.
Figure 5-3 shows, for the same events, the maximum sound level as a function of the ve-
locity. There does not appear to be a definitive relationship between speed and maximum locomo-
tive noise.
Figure 5-4 relates, again for the same events, the maximum sound levels as a function of
velocity and number of locomotives. There does not appear to be a definitive relationship between
the number of coupled locomotives and the noise emitted.
The measurement of locomotive passby events is explained in Section 7.
5-11
-------
TABLE 5-2
STATIONARY NOISE EMISSION DATA FOR
GENERAL MOTORS AND GENERAL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotive
Identification
EMD-SW1500
EMD-F7A
EMD-SW1500
EMD-SW1500
EMD SD 9
SD 4328
EMD 25014
SD9
EMD-GP/SD38
EMD 5077
GP 38-2
EMD
GP 38-2 535
EMD
GP 38-2 535
EMD 41 15
72635-1
GP 38-2
EMD 41 11
72735-12
GP 38-2
EMD 4053
5806-4
GP 38-2
EMD 4050
5806-1
GP 38-2
EMD 4508
SD24
SD 35 1921
EMD 29355
SD35
EMD 1952
29340
SDP35
EMD FP/SD-40
Horsepower
1500
1500
1500
1500
1750
1750
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
2400
2500
2500
2500
3000
Loading
Conditions
T
T
T
T
T
—
T
S
S
T
S
S
S
S
T
T
T
S
T
Aspiration
—
—
—
—
RB
RB
—
RB
—
TC
RB
RB
RB
TC
—
TC
TC
—
Throttle Setting
0
—
66*
69*
—
68
70
—
65
67
66.5
66*
63*
62*
61*
68
69
68
70
72
8
84.5**
86
92*
93
89
—
91.5
91
88.5
88.5
91
90
88
89
86.5
86
88
88
89.5
Reference
3
1
1
3
11
10
3
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
7
8
8
3
5-12
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Cont'd)
STATIONARY NOISE EMISSION DATA FOR
GENERAL MOTORS AND GENERAL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotive
Identification
EMD
GP 40 3049
EMD
GP 40 301 8
EMD
GP 40 3182
EMD
GP 40 3195
EMD
GP 40 3156
EMD 15 59
32623
GP40
EMD 15 62
32960
GP40
EMD-GP40-2
EMD 31 15
SD45
EMD 3124
SD45
EMD
SD 45-T2
SP9212
EMD
SD45
GEU25
GE 38573
4300
GE 1472
38417
U30C
GE1581
37970
U30C
Horsepower
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3200
3200
3600
3600
2500
3000
3000
3000
Loading
Conditions
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
S
S
S
T
T
—
S
S
Aspiration
—
—
—
—
—
TC
TC
—
TC
TC
TC
—
—
TC
TC
TC
Throttle Setting
0
64.5
69.5
67
68.5
67
69
68
70*
68
70
72
—
—
72
66*
65*
8
88
88.5
85.5
88
88
92
87
88*
90
90
94
90.5
86*
—
89
87
Reference
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
7
8
8
11
3
5
10
8
8
5-13
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Cont'd)
STATIONARY NOISE EMISSION DATA FOR
GENERAL MOTORS AND GENERAL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotive
Identification
GE 1473
38418
U30C
GEU30
GE3811
U33C
GE8717
U36C
38879
GE U36B
1759
GE U36B
1825
GEU36B
1780
GE U36B
1855
GE U36B
1832
GE U36B
1815
GE 1767
37430
U36B
GE 1796
37792
U36B
GE 1766
37429
U36B
GE 1771
37434
U36B
GE 1764
37427
U36B
Horsepower
3000
3000
3300
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
3600
Loading
Conditions
S
T
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Aspiration
TC
—
TC
TC
—
—
—
—
—
—
TC
TC
TC
TC
TC
Throttle Setting
0
67*
—
68
72
68
67
66
66
65
64.5
66
67
67
67
67
8
87
86*
90
91.5
91
93
90.5
85.5
89.5
90
87
91
93
91
94
Reference
8
4
8
9
7
7
7
7
7
3
8
8
8
8
5-14
-------
TABLE 5-2 (Cont'd)
STATIONARY NOISE EMISSION DATA FOR
GENERAL MOTORS AND GENERAL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
Locomotive
Identification
GE1526
38048
U36B
GE1800
37796
U36B
GE U36B
Horsepower
3600
3600
3600
Loading
Conditions
T
S
s
Sample Size
Aspiration
TC
TC
—
Throttle Setting
0
66
68
64.5
47
8
90
92
90
51
Reference
8
8
7
S - Self Load *Data taken at 50 ft.;
T - Load Cell ' 6 dBA added
TC - Turbo Charged **Pre-1960 muffler
RB - Rootes Blown
REFERENCES TO TABLE 5-2
Idle
Range 61-73 dBA
Mean 67.3 dBA
Standard
Deviation 2.45 dBA
Throttle 8
84.5-94 dBA
89.3 dBA
3.36 dBA
1. R. A. Ely, "Measurement and Evaluation of the Impact of Railroad Noise Upon Communi-
ties," BBN Report No. 2623, August 1973.
2. E. K. Bender and R. A. Ely, "Noise Measurements In and Around the Missouric Pacific
Centennial Yard, Fort Worth, Texas," BBN Report No. 2648, October 1973.
3. Electromotive Division of General Motors, presentation to American Association of Rail-
roads, August 8, 1973.
4. General Electric, presentation to American Association of Railroads, August 8, 1973.
5. J. W. Awing and D. B. Pies, "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Opera-
tions," Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5, July 1973.
6. E. J. Rickley, Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, unpublished
data.
7. M. Alakel, C. Malme, M. Rudd, Bojt Beranek and Newman Inc., unpublished data.
8. EPA Region IV study of locomotive noise, unpublished data.
9. EPA Region VII study of locomotive noise, unpublished data.
10. EPA Region VIII study of locomotive noise, unpublished data.
11. EPA Region IX study of locomotive noise, unpublished data.
5-15
-------
Figure 5-1. Effect of Fan Noise on the A-Weighted Spectrum of EMD
GP40-2 Locomotive Noise at 55 ft (Engine Access Doors
Open)
TABLE 5-3
SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS TO LOCOMOTIVE NOISE LEVELS
(Based on Prediction Techniques of Ref. 4)
Source
Exhaust
Casing
Cooling Fans
Wheel/Rail I
at 40 mph J
Locomotive only
Total train
dBAatlOOFt
(Throttle 8)
86-93
80-85.5
80-84
78
81
5-16
-------
DIESEL-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES
100
9CF
80
70
UJ
LU
g 60
0
UI
UJ
VE PASS-BYS EX
Ln
O
i
§ 40
u.
O
2
U
(E
S 30
20
10
n
— x—
105 MEASUf
X
xx
CEMENTS
X
X
X
X
xx
X
X
J
X
X
X
X
xx
X
70
75
80 86 90
PEAK dB(A) AT 100 FT.
95
100
Figure 5-2. Diesel-Electric Locomotive Passbys
5-17
-------
TABLE 5-4
LOCOMOTIVE PASSBY NOISE EMISSION LEVELS MEASURED AT 100 FEET
(sec Figure 5-3)
dBA
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96 •
97
98
Road Noise Studies
I
1
1
2
2
4
3
3
1
2
1
2
4
2
3
4
3
1
1
II
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
III
2
1
1
3
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
1
IV
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
4
2
3
1
2
1
1
1
TOTAL
2
2
1
5
2
2
4
8
7
8
1
8
5
4
7
6
7
6
7
7
1
3
2
I. Department of Transportation - Office, of Noise Abatement
II. Department of Commerce — National Bureau of Standards
III, Wyle Laboratories
IV. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Noise Abatement and Control
5-18
-------
120
no
100
90
80
70
60
\ DIESEL
\
\
/ XN
V \!
ELECTRIC
V __
""
TURBOTfiAIN
Ts^A/
METROLINER
CONVENTIONAL PASSENGER AND FREIGHT
HIGH SPEED PASSENGER
_L
_L
_L
10
20
30
40
50 60 70
SPEED (mph)
80
90
100
110
Figure 5-3. Peak Locomotive Noise Level vs. Speed
-------
110
100
on
K)
o
8
LLt
UJ
80
*v4P
FIVE & SIX
THREE
FOUR
TWO
ONE
70
60
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
SPEED (mph)
Rgure 5-4. Relationship Between Maximum Noise Level and Number of Coupled Locomotives
-------
Locomotive Noise Abatement
Locomotive noise abatement may be grouped into two broad categories:
1. Abatement by equipment modification
2. Abatement by operational procedures.
Abatement By Equipment Modifications
Mufflers. Since locomotives contribute most of the noise of railroad operations and since
exhaust noise dominates locomotive noise, the first step in reducing locomotive sound levels is to
require that locomotives be fitted with an effective muffler. This section contains muffler manu-
facturer estimates of various factors affecting the feasibility of supplying both new and in-service
locomotives with mufflers. (Please refer to Appendices G, I, M, and N for discussions of muffler
design, space availability, nonrailroad muffler applications, and AMTRAK experience with muffled
locomotives.)
One such factor is the amount of back pressure a muffler creates. Back pressures on the
engine may affect its performance and life to a small extent. The engine must pump against the
back pressure, thereby reducing the power that can be distributed to propel the train. Normally,
this degradation in performance is about 1.0 percent when back pressures are held within manufac-
turer limits. Back pressure may shorten engine life because when gases with increased temperature
and density exhaust into a region of high pressure, they raise the temperature of exhaust valves and
turbochargers. The following information on back pressure and its effects was determined by
muffler manufacturers.
Engine Type Back Pressure Effect
Rootes Blown 47.5 in. H2 O measured
at engine exhaust port
Turbocharged 5 in. H2 O measured at 10° rise in turbocharger
exhaust stack temperature
20-hp loss on 3000 hp engine
0.6% increase in fuel consumption
Mufflers have no appreciable effect on exhaust emissions; muffler-equipped locomotives
give off insignificant incremental amounts of NOX, CO, and smoke (EMD (1973)).
Three manufacturers with experience in fabricating mufflers for locomotives have indicated
that their products will materially assist the railroads in complying with the proposed regulations:
Donaldson of Minneapolis, Minn.; Harco Engineering of Portland, Ore.; and Universal Silencer of
libertyville, 111. The following are these manufacturer's estimates of the attenuation that could be
achieved with their mufflers alone, without any allowance installation, and the amount of back
pressure they create.
5-21
-------
Donaldson has had experience with the Chicago and Northwestern Railroad in equipping a
locomotive with an off-highway truck type of muffler. The results were:
• Muffler Cost* - approximately $800 for two mufflers
• Back Pressure — further testing necessary
Harco Engineering has achieved the following results for a switcher locomotive. The muf-
ler is fitted to a Harco spark arrester [20].
• Attenuation - approximately 5 dBA**
• Muffler Cost - $75
The results for road locomotives are:
• Rootes Blown
Attenuation — approximately 10 dBA**
Muffler Cost - $750
• Turbocharged:
Attenuation - approximately 10 DBA**
Muffler Cost - $1000
Back Pressure — 13-20 in. H2 O (EMD claims that the back pressure is too
high)
Universal Silencer has built mufflers for EMD locomotives (3 DRG and 40 AMTRAK).
According to EMD (presentation at AAR meeting, 1973) these mufflers achieved:
• Attenuation — 9-10 dBA at full power
• Muffler Cost - approximately $1200
• Back Pressure — 3 in. H2 O
The estimated overall noise that would result from equipping various locomotives with
mufflers that give 5 and 10 dBA attenuation in throttle 8 is indicated in Table 5-5.
*Muffler cost figures are given in 1973 dollars.
**This measurement was performed by the manufacturer.
5-22
-------
TABLE 5-5
LOCOMOTIVE NOISE LEVELS EXPECTED FROM EXHAUST MUFFLING, THROTTLE 8
Locomotive Type
EMD 1000-hp Rootes Blown
Switcher
EMD 1500-hp Rootes Blown
Switcher
EMD 2000-hp Rootes Blown
Road Locomotive
EMD 3000-hp Turbocharged
Road Locomotive
GE (or Alco) 3000-hp
Turbocharged Road
Locomotive
EMD 3600-hp Turbocharged
Road Locomotive
GE (or Alco) 3600-hp
Turbocharged Road
Locomotive
5 dBA Exhaust Muffling
Total Noise
Level
(dBA)
86.0
88.0
89.0
86.5
87.5
87.5
88.5
Total
Attenuation
(dBA)
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
10 dBA Exhaust Muffling
Total Noise
Level
(dBA)
82.0
84.0
85.0
84.5
86.5
85.5
87.5
Total
Attenuation
(dBA)
8.0
8.0
8.0
5.5
4.0
5.5
4.0
*Because of problems integrating with spark arrester.
Muffler manufacturers have said that they could supply fully developed and tested muffler
systems for all locomotives by the following dates within the 4-year period allotted for design,
development, and installation:
HARCO
Switchers
Road
DONALDSON
All types
UNIVERSAL SILENCER
Turbocharged Locos
Rootes Blown
Switchers
1 January 1974
1 January 1976
1 January 1976
1 January 1976
1 January 1977
1 January 1978
5-23
-------
EMD and GE have said that they could fit mufflers on new locomotives by the following dates.
EMD
Turbocharged 1 January 1976
Road
Rootes Blown 1 January 1977
Switchers 1 January 1978*
GE
Turbocharged 1 January 1976
EM and GE agree that mufflers can be incorporated in new locomotives. The cost of instal-
ling mufflers on locomotives must be compared with a total cost of $300,000 to $400,000 per
locomotive (GE and EMD presentations to AAR meeting, 1973). The following methods would be
used by each locomotive manufacturer in fitting mufflers on new engines.
• New GE Road Locomotives. Mufflers would be installed above the engine, and the
hood roof would be raised 8 in. A locomotive would still clear the required 15-ft,
7-in. gauge. Cost * = $1500 per locomotive.
• New EMD Road Locomotives. Turbocharged - The muffler would be installed over
the turbocharger. Mountings would have to be changed, as would the roof structure,
brake cabling, and extended range dynamic brakes. Cost = $2500 per locomotive.
Rootes Blown - The muffler would be integrated with the spark arrester. There
would be changes to the dynamic brake contactors, roof structure, and coolant piping.
Cost = $3000 per locomotive.
• New EMD Switchers. The muffler would be integrated with the spark arrester, but
EMD is not quite sure how. Cost = $200-$500 (estimate based on Harco figures).
• Retrofitting Older Locomotives. Retrofitting mufflers on locomotives involves finding
out how many of each type of locomotive are still in service and adopting muffler
installation procedure to the peculiarities of each model.
Table 5-6 illustrates the distribution of switchers in service, categorized by manufacturer.
*Cost estimates cited here for fitting new locomotives with mufflers are based on 1973 quotations
as given by EMD and GE and are expressed here in 1973 dollars. For a complete discussion of new
locomotive muffling costs please refer to Section 9.
5-24
-------
TABLE 5-6
SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVES IN SERVICE
Manufacturer
EMD
ALCO
GE
Baldwin, Lima Hamilton
Fairbanks Morse
Year Built
1940-59
1960-present
1940-61
1940-58
1946-56
1944-58
No. in Service
3200
1100
950
116
415
220.
TOTAL 6000
Few new switchers are being built, only about 120 per year, since switchers appear to run
indefinitely. Furthermore, old road locomotives can be downgraded for switching use.
Most switching locomotives built before 1960 were equipped with mufflers, but after 1960,
railroads generally fitted spark arresters instead.
In general, there does not seem to be any difficulty in fitting a muffler to the exhaust stack
above the hood of a switcher. This has already been done in many cases with spark arresters, result-
ing in some loss in visibility for the driver. Harco has designed and tested a muffler that integrates
with its spark arrester. The Harco muffler costs $75. However, this unit may have inadequate
muffling for the regulation or too high a back pressure. Keeping this in mind, EPA estimates the
cost of other spark arresters to be $200 to $500 plus 1 man-day of labor for installation.
The 8758 EMD Rootes-blown road locomotives built before 1 January 1972 have less space
for mufflers than the new model GP/SD 38-2. Care must be given to the siting of mufflers, but
installation is considered to be possible. The dynamic brake grids will have to be re si ted, and the
roof structure will have to be modified. Railroads might have changed exhaust systems on rebuild-
ing. Discussions with a representative from Penn Central have led to the following cost estimates
for fitting each of these older models with a muffler. Please refer to Section 6 for a comprehensive
discussion of retrofit costs.
Muffler = $1500
Labor = 25 man-days ($/man-day=$46.40)
Parts = $200-$500
Labor covers the resiting of dynamic-brake grids, plumbing and cabling, modifying the roof struc-
ture, and installing the muffler.
Mufflers that produce 5 to 10 dBA of exhaust muffling are currently feasible. It is important
that a muffler be designed to give as good muffling at idle as at full power, since locomotives idle
much of the time. Unless other noise sources on the locomotives are also treated, the net locomotive
quieting will be only about 6 dBA due to contributions from these sources (see Table 54).
Mufflers could be developed and ready for production by January 1976. The manufacturers
have sufficient capacity to produce the mufflers required.
5-25
-------
Cooling Fan Modification. The next contributor to locomotive noise that may be treated
is the cooling fan. Cooling fan noise is essentially aerodynamic noise resulting from the air move-
ment created by the fan. Methods of treatment include increasing the diameter of the fan, adjusting
clearances between blade and shroud, and varying the pitch of the blade. Although fan modifica-
tions are feasible, the application of fan retrofitting has not been developed for locomotives. Fur-
ther, the impact of such a requirement could not be assessed with regard to cost and the effect on
the total noise.
Engine Shileding. The vibration of the engine casing is a significant component of the total
locomotive noise. On a limited basis, work has been done to reduce the noise from this source by
adding acoustic panels to the engine, stiffening the engine casing, and using sound-absorbing mate-
rials. This technique has not been developed to the extent that it could be applied to locomotives
at this time. Due to new data that demonstrates the dominant effects of casing-radiated noise at
idle, the regulation as proposed has-been amended to raise allowable long term idle emissions from
67 to 70 dBA. Please refer to Appendix F.
Noise Abatement By Operational Procedures
Parking Idling Locomotives Away from Residences. One of the most frequent complaints
about railroad noise is that locomotives are left idling overnight. Railroads are reluctant to shut
down locomotives, except during their monthly inspection, because:
• Shutting down and starting locomotives require a special crew.
• Engines do not contain any antifreeze in their cooling systems and would have to be
heated in cold weather.
• Locomotive engines are likely to leak cooling fluid into the cylinders, which could
damage an engine on starting if precautions were not taken to drain it.
Railroads are sometimes rather careless about where idling locomotives are left. Frequently
they are parked on the edge of a rail yard close to residences. With a little effort, locomotives
could be parked near the center of a rail yard, where they would be less troublesome to neighboring
homes.
Speed Reduction. The power needed to pull a train increases almost directly with speed,
but the noise of a given locomotive increases rapidly with speed. Thus, one could achieve some
reduction by lowering the speed limit for trains passing through residential areas. For example,
the throttle settings of the locomotives of passing trains would generally be lower, and, thus, the
locomotive noise would be reduced. Further, other noise sources, such as wheel/rail noise, would
also be reduced.
This noise reduction method may not be generally practical, except perhaps in special urban
areas, since the net effect would be to slow the movement of train traffic. The cost to the railroads
of lower speeds has not been calculated.
5-26
-------
Ban on Night Operations. Many freight trains, particularly in the eastern United States,
operate at night. Their noise is most disturbing at this time, since the background noise is lowest
and people can be awakened from sleep. Thus, a significant impact on the annoyance resulting
from the train noise can be made by banning night operations. However, such a ban on night oper-
ations would frequently be impractical, since trains are scheduled for markets that open in the
morning and the trains are loaded during the previous day. The resulting burden on the flow of
interstate commerce could be extensive.
Use of More or Larger Locomotives for a Given Train. One paradox emerged from the
model of locomotive noise presented earlier. A large locomotive in a low throttle position devel-
ops less noise than a small locomotive in a high throttle position, even when the two develop the
same horsepower. For example, a 3600-hp locomotive in throttle 4 generates 15 dBA less noise
than a 2000-hp locomotive in throttle 8. Thus, a considerable noise reduction is achieved by using
a 3600-hp engine to haul a train requiring only 2000-hp. Similarly, a 9-dBA reduction could be
obtained by using four 3600-hp locomotives with lower throttle settings to pull a train that nor-
mally requires two 3600-hp locomotives, but which operate at high throttle settings.
This noise reduction technique is considered to be impractical in general, since the extra
hauling power required is large. However, this method could be used in some situations, such as
switching operations. Locomotive engineers could use low throttle positions rather than gunning
the engine in throttle 8.
Electric/Gas Turbine Locomotives
There are other means of train propulsion, apart from diesel-electric, currently in use on
American railroads. All-electric and gas turbine locomotives are becoming more popular, particu-
larly in the Northeast corridor. Rickley, Quinn, and Sussan have measured the wayside noise
levels of the Metroliner, Turbotrain, and electric passenger and freight trains. The levels at 100 ft
are given in Table 5-7. In general, levels do not exceed 88 dBA. For those trains, namely two
Metroliner trains and one standard passenger train, exceeding 88 dBA, it is felt that the cause was
the wheel/rail interaction phenomena as opposed to locomotive engine-generated noise, per se, since
these vehicles travelled at rates of speed at which rail noise is likely to predominate. (See discus-
sion which follows.)
Thus, in passby situations, non-diesel-electric locomotive noise is well below that of diesel-
electric locomotives, and the former are likely to comply with any regulation written for the latter.
However, in the case of gas turbine locomotives, the Agency could not obtain data on stationary
noise levels and, as such, has exempted them from compliance with the stationary standards.
Stationary standards for gas turbine locomotives may be promulgated in the future.
Wheel/Rail Noise
Rail car noise includes all sources of train noise other than that produced by the locomo-
tive. These sources are
• wheel/rail interaction
• structural vibration and rattle
• refrigerator car cooling system noise.
5-27
-------
TABLE 5-7
NOISE LEVELS FROM ELECTRIC AND GAS-TURBINE TRAINS
Train
Metroliner
Electric Pass
Electric Freight
(2 Locos)
Turbo train
-
No. of
Cars
4
4
4
6
4
6
6
3
5
5
3
3
Direction
South
South
North
North
North
North
South
South
East
West
East
West
Speed
(mph)
106
110
106
110
80
84
84
49
97
91
89
104
SPL(dBA 100ft)
89
89
84
84
78
80
90 (wheel/rail)
88
85
85
84
88
Of these sources, the interaction of the wheel and rail is the major component. As discussed
in Reference 43, this source is generated by four mechanisms:
• Roar
• Impact
• Flange rubbing
• Squeal.
Roar describes the noise that predominates on welded tangent track. It is believed that
roar is due to roughness on the wheels and rails.
Impact noise refers to the noise produced by wheel and rail discontinuities such as wheel
flats, rail joints, frogs and signal junctions. This noise is characterized by a clickety-clack sound
and may cause significant increase in wayside noise.
Flange rubbing describes the sound made when the flange contacts the rail and squeal does
not occur. This noise is characterized by a low-frequency grinding sound. It could be caused by a
stick-slip phenomenon or by roughness on the flange and rail head.
Squeal is a high pitched noise produced when a train negotiates a tight curve. Three possi-
ble ways in which squeal can occur are:
1. Differential slip between inner and outer wheels on a solid axle.
5-28
-------
2. Rubbing of the wheel flanges against the rails.
3. Crabbing, or lateral motion of the wheel across the top of the rail.
Structural vibration and rattle emanate from the car bodies and couplings. Noise from
these sources may be distinguishable in a slowly moving train. Normally, however, this noise com-
bines with the other sources of car noise and is not readily distinguishable.
Refrigerator cars are railroad cars used to transport perishable freight requiring refrigera-
tion. It is necessary for the cooling equipment to operate continuously when the car is loaded, and
also when the car is empty but a load is anticipated. This cooling equipment usually contains a
diesel engine, sometimes with muffler (of undetermined adequacy), to drive a compressor. These
engines are similar in size and performance to engines used in other applications in a muffled con-
figuration.
It is believed that the muffler industry could supply the additional muffler requirement for
rail refrigerator cars. However, application consideration would also have to include space availa-
bility and installation and replacement costs. The maximum noise level from this source is approxi-
mately 75 dBA at 50 ft [40]. When a train is moving, the noise levels emitted from a refrigerator .
car cannot be distinguished from overall train noise; however, if the train stops or if the cars are
held over, the continuous operation of the compressor engine may be a source of undesirable
noise.
Refrigerator cars parked with then- cooling systems running, as they often are in marshal-
ling and humping hards, may cause noise problems, but only in places where refrigerator cars are
parked near noise-sensitive areas. At this time, such localized problems can best be controlled as
a part of railroad yard noise control, through measures such as parking refrigerator cars away from
noise-sensitive areas or installing noise barriers, rather than by requiring modifications to the entire
refrigerator car fleet. For an expanded discussion of reefer car noise please refer to Appendix O.
Typical measured levels of rail car noise are illustrated in Figures 5-5, 5-6, and 5-7. Figure
5-8 indicates that the A-weighted wheel/rail noise level varies as 30 log V, where V is the train ve-
locity. This relationship primarily describes the roar component of the noise. The higher levels
present are most probably indicative of impact, flange rubbing and squeal noise.
Wheel/Rail Noise Abatement
A number of techniques have been suggested to reduce noise from railroad cars operating
on open track. In most cases, testing has been limited and, thus, the results regarding effectiveness
are inconclusive.
Grinding of train wheels and rail would reduce roar noise by reducing the amplitude of the
excitation. Bender and Heckl [44] report differences of approximately 6 dBA between noise
levels for ground and unground rails on the Munich Subway. The important parameter to control
during grinding is irregularities having wavelengths on the order of 0.5 inch to 1.0 foot, rather than
the micro-surface finish. Such wheel irregularities (wheel flats) can be controlled by spinning the
wheel during grinding. For rail, it is more difficult because running a vehicle with a grinding wheel
attached slowly over the rails causes the grinder to move vertically in response to the vertical
motion of the vehicle wheels.
5-29
-------
95
m 90
Si 85
O
m
5 80
UI75
fro
V)
O 60
• ZERO GRADE
- O ZERO GRADE, EMPTY CARS
A UP 1 % GRADE
A DOWN 1% GRADE
SPL [dBA] AT 50FT«75 + 30LOG[V(MPH)/20] -
1 I I
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 80 901OO
SPEED(MPH)(V)
Figure 5-5. Wheel/Rail Noise Measured on Level Ground and on a 1% Grade
too
I I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I
MKENGER,
EQUIP.
• B8N
§ EMBLETON AND THIESSEN
A WYLE
O TSC
SO
IS
>3 SO 93 40
SPEED (MPH) (V)
45 80 65 60 65 TO 75 M
Figure 5-6. Measured Wheel/Rail Noise
5-30
-------
110
100
90
§
5
<
CD
TJ
Ul
Ul
O
Z
I
O
Ul
O
3 70
-
60
PEAK
AVG ••• — BOLTED RAIL
MIN
PEAK
AVG
MIN
• WELDED RAIL
CONVENTIONAL FREIGHT & PASSENGER
I
HIGH SPEED PASSENGER
10.
20
30
40
SO
60
SPEED (mph)
70
80
90
100
110
Figure 5-7. Average, and Minimum Rail-Wheel Sound Level vs. Speed for Typical Railroad Cars on Welded and Bolted Rail
-------
The use of resilient wheels has undergone considerable development since they were in-
vented in. 1889. There are now four different designs available:
1. Penn Cushion wheels, available in the U.S. from Penn Machine Co., Johnstown, Pa.
2. Acousta Flex wheels, marketed by the Standard Steel Division of Baldwin-Lima-
Hamilton Corporation, Burnham, Pa.
3. SAB resilient wheels, marketed in the U.S. by American SAB Company, Inc.,
Chicago, Illinois.
4. P.C.C. wheels, made by Penn Machine Co., Johnstown, Pa.
The Penn Cushion and Acousta Flex wheels are similar in principle. Both utilize an elasto-
meric ring between the rim and the hub of the wheel. The SAB and PCC wheels also are similar to
each other in principle. In these wheels, the rim is part of a steel disc, and the hub assembly con-
sists of one or more parallel steel discs. The rim disc is connected to the hub assembly via rubber
elements that deform as the wheel is loaded radially. The experimentation and data for resilient
wheels on rapid transit cars indicate that such wheels would be of negligible benefit for reducing
railroad freight car noise. Freight cars operate principally on tangent track, where resilient wheels
are least effective.
Another technique explored is wheel damping. B. F. Goodrich Company constructed a
wheel with a layer of viscoelastic damping material bonded to the inside of the wheel rim and
covered with a bonded steel constraining layer. This treatment is said to have eliminated screech,
reduced far field noise obtained on tangent track by up to 2 dBA at high speeds, and attenuated
rail vibration. Some limited experiments by B. F. Goodrich showed that use of an unconstrained
viscoelasf c layer resulted in no significant noise reduction. However, the Toronto Transit Com-
mission found a 12 to IS dBA squeal noise reduction when applying unconstrained damping layers.
Use of a four-layer damping configuration on a BART prototype car had no significant effect on
interior and wayside noise on tangent track, but eliminated some screeching on curved track.
Reductions of 20 dBA in screeching noise and 4 dBA for nonscreeching noise were realized for
curved track.
Rail welding is a method that can be used to reduce the noise caused by the discontinuities
at rail joints. On the average, it can be expected to reduce wayside noise by as much as 3.5 dBA.
However, maximum levels are as high on welded rail as on bolted rail (see Figure 5-8). Other
advantages of welded rail are the potential for less maintenance and a decrease in average rolling
resistance. Both are due to the absence of rail joints.
Rail damping is a technique that has undergone only limited testing. A damping compound
is applied to the nonrunning surfaces of the rails, which should shorten the length of rail that
vibrates when a wheel passes over it. At this time, experimentation is so limited that no conclu-
sions can be reached as to the effectiveness of this technique.
In summary, although there are some new techniques and systems that show a degree of
promise, the only available methods today for reducing moving rail car noise emissions is through
the maintenance practices of car wheel and rail grinding, in addition to the use of welded rail. For
5-32
-------
a discussion of the applicability of track and rail safety standards to noise, please refer to Appen-
dix P.
Retarder Noise
Within rail car classification yards, several thousands of cars are moved in each 24-hr period,
as trains are assembled/disassembled. Two general methods are used for car movement:
1. Small switcher locomotives are used to maneuver (one or more cars) and to create
rail car vehicle velocity prior to release for self-movement to pre-selected tracks.
2. Heavy duty pusher locomotives push rail cars up an incline and over a hump,
where the cars are released to travel on their own to predetermined yard
locations.
As a result of the technique used in hump yards, a single rail car or several rail cars coupled
together may be traveling at 10 to 15 mph and accelerating while moving down the hump.
To manage the rail car(s), retarders are used to reduce car(s) speed or to stop them. In the
process of slowing or stopping the car(s) intense noise, characterized as a squeal, is often generated.
Figure 5-8 shows the amplitude distribution of noise associated with railcar movement through
retarders. Noise levels as high as 120 dBA at 50 feet have been observed.
*o
EVENTS
w
O
0 20
0
|
10
0
.
-
-
—
0
1 1 1 1 1
| [
VMM^^M
1 1 1 1 1
90 100 110
1 1
-
••
_T— I
1
120 M
Ul
Ul
"I
fc
10 H
Ul
£
3 °"
8
SOUND LEVEL AT 50FEET [dBA]
Figure 5-8. Retarder Squeal Amplitude Distribution
5-33
-------
Although studies [36, 24] have been conducted to determine the mechanism of wheel/
retarder noise generation, a thorough understanding of the phenomenon is not yet at hand. It is
thought that the intense wheel squeal is the result of excitation of the rail car wheel at its resonant
frequencies. Apparently, the noise levels emitted by the car wheels are influenced by car type, car
weight and loading, type of wheels, structure and composition of the retarder, and the decelerating
force that the retarder applies to moving cars.
According to the Federal Railroad Administration, there are approximately 130 hump yards
in this country. A listing of the current in-use hump yards by location, railroad, and number of
classification tracks is shown in Appendix C.
Retarder Noise Abatement
Though the mechanisms of wheel/retarder noise are not fully understood, several methods
to control the noise are thought feasible. One method, namely, the use of barriers, would control
the noise once it is generated. In other words, it would minimize the noise propagation efficiency,
while four methods would control noise at the source; i.e., minimize noise generation efficiency.
1. Retarder lubrication
2. Use of ductile iron wheel shoes
3. Use of releasable inert retarders
4. Retarder control by computers.
While the five methods cited are thought to be possible alternatives for retarder noise con-
trol, much further study is required to assess the benefits and costs associated with each method.
To date, known benefit and cost information associated with the aforementioned methods are
summarized as follows.
Benefits
The only completed study that models the impact on people of retarder noise reduction was
of the Cicero Yard outside of Chicago. (See Appendix D.) The results of that study showed
that the reduction of retarder noise levels by 20 dBA allowed about 200 more people to be ex-
posed to less than an Ljn of 65 dBA. The maximum reduction that would be experienced by any
of the 200 people would be a 2 dBA change in Ldn. If retarders were completely silenced, the
noise reduction would benefit only 200 more people (total of 400) as per the preceding criteria,
according to the study.
Although it is not altogether accurate to project a study of a single yard to a national im-
pact, if the assumption was made that Cicero Yard is typical of all rail yards, approximately 26,000
more people would be exposed to less than an L^n of 65 dBA.
By reducing locomotive exhaust noise by 10 dBA in the Cicero Yard, approximately twice
the benefit was realized (400 people less than 65 L(jn) than with the 20-dBA reduction in retarder
noise, according to the study.
5-34
-------
Costs*
• Barriers (material costs of initial installation only)
1. $70 to $ 100 per linear foot.
2. $75,000 to $ 150,000 per yard.
3. $9.6 to $19.1 million for railroad industry.
4. Maintenance/replacement costs unknown.
5. Space and safety hazards unknown.
6. Down time and track modification costs are unknown.
• Source Control
1. Lubrication Systems (excludes maintenance/operation costs)
a. Specific costs unknown, estimated by industry to be $375,000 to
$750,000 per retarder system (master plus 4 to 8 group retarders) or
5 to 10 percent of total capital investment.
b. Estimated initial cost of new equipment on basis—$ 150 million
(assuming 200 retarder systems)
c. Maintenance and operational down time and mofification costs to
track system are unknown.
2. Ductile Iron Shoe
a. Initial cost ($37 per foot) is twice that of regular retarder shoes.
b. Ductile shoes wear 10 times faster than regular retarder shoes.
c. Estimated additional cost for using ductile iron shoes to replace
present shoes is $150,000 per retarder system.
d. Estimate of national cost impact to industry is $150 million
(assuming 200 retarder systems).
e. Yard down time is not included in this cost estimate.
3. Releasable Inert Retarders
a. Conversion of nonreleasable inert retarders to releasables cost $7,500
per retarder, not including labor, down time, or operation costs.
"The cost of shutting down a yard or part of a yard during installation or maintenance of these
systems could double or triple the estimated costs.
5-35
-------
b. The number of nonreleasable inert retarders in use is unknown. Gross
estimate is 20,000.
c. Estimate of national cost to convert is $ 150 million.
4. Computer Control of Retarders
a. Computer control of retarders seems practicable only at the newer
yards, where computer control systems were installed when the yard
was built.
b. There are approximately 40 computer controlled yards.
c. The cost, during new construction of a yard, for computer control of
a retarder system is $2.25 million.
d. Cost of feasibility of retrofitting a yard with compuer control is
unknown.
e. If hardware installation costs were assumed to triple the new installa-
tion cost, the national cost impact for retrofit of existing yards for
computer control would be $800 million, assuming 120 retarder
systems.
Car-Car Impact Noise
The time histories of car-car impact noise illustrated in Figure 5-9 show some features of
the physical phenomena that accompany car-car'impact. The initial impact of the car couplers
causes a crack, as illustrated by the sharp rise in sound level in both parts of the figure. The high-
frequency portion of the mechanical energy fed into couplers often excites an entire car body. The
second time-trace in the figure shows how, as the resulting vibrational energy decays exponen-
tially, the radiated noise falls off proportionally. The time-trace for a tank car hitting two loaded
flat bed cars shows the noise sometimes generated by secondary impacts as cars pull away from
each other and coupler slack is subsequently taken up. The time-trace for the noise measured
eight cars away from a point of impact shows how the energy from an impact can propagate along
a chain of cars.
Warning Devices
This source of noise includes bells, horns, and whistles, which are sounded to warn pedes-
trians and motorists that a train is approaching a grade crossing. The noise level at 50 ft due to
either a horn or a whistle is 105 dBA ±10 dBA. Of prime consideration in addressing these sources
of noise is the measure of safety that they provide.
Methods of noise abatement for warning devices have not been fully evaluated. Some
localities have required that the devices not be sounded, while others have required the opposite.
5-36
-------
law
O
JO
AJ
(\J
0 120
O
0
o
CO 110
1 1
_J
UJ
UJ
J 100
o
z
o
90c
1 1 1 1 1
—
at 10 feet
Box Car into
String of Cars
1
|
1
1
H i i i i
> 2 4 6 8 1O 12
TIME (seconds)
IOW
o
(VI
0 120
O
0
4)
V.
m no
i
-j
UJ
UJ
"J 100
O
15
O
to
90c
1 1 1 I 1
at 10 feet
—
—
Piggyback into
Empty Freight
-
i i i i
) 2 4 6 8 10 12
TIME (seconds)
Figure 5-9. Car-Car Impact Noise Time Histories (Sheet 1 of 2)
-------
130
v
w
oo
o
.o
90
I I I I I
at 10 feet
Tank Car into
Two Loaded Flat Bed Cars
ll II I
ii
I
6 8 10 12
TIME (seconds)
no
CM
o 100
O
q
o
GO 9O
•o
UJ
>
Ul
o
o
80
14
16
18
70
I I I I
at 10 feet
Eight Cars Away from
Covered Hopper into Eight
Covered Hoppers Connect-
ed to a String of Box Cars
246 8 10
TIME (seconds)
Figure 5-9. Car-Car Impact Noise Time Histories (Sheet 2 of 2)
-------
Various alternatives for controlling their noise include requiring reduced levels, specifying direction-
ality, or limiting the times and areas in which the devices should be sounded.
Public Address Systems
Although the frequency of occurrence of noise from loudspeakers in railroad yards is
sporadic and unpredictable, the level of the noise from speakers is comparable to the level of noise
from other sources in the yards. Where abatement is desired or necessary, more speakers could be
strategically located so that less volume is necessary, or railroad yards could follow the recent trend
to two-way radio communication.
Maintenance and Repair Shops
The noise from shops conies mainly from running the engines of stationary locomotives.
Other noises from maintenance and repair shops are overshadowed by the noise from retarders,
car impacts, and locomotives moving about the yard. If controls are applied to noise from loco-
motives, car impacts, and retarders, that part of shop noise not due to locomotive engines may
then emerge as a significant part of the remaining noise.
Refrigerator Cars
These cars are railroad cars used to transport freight that requires refrigeration. It is neces-
sary for the cooling equipment to operate continuously when the car is loaded and when the car
is empty but a load is anticipated. This cooling equipment usually contains a diesel engine, some-
times with muffler (of undetermined adequacy), to drive a compressor. These engines are similar
in size and performance to engines used in other applications in a muffled configuration. It is
believed that the muffler industry could supply the additional muffler requirement for rail refriger-
ator cars. However, application consideration would also have to include space availability and
installation and replacement costs, (see additional discussion under Wheel/Rail Noise in this sec-
tion, as well as Appendix O.)
Auxiliary Diesel Engines
Passenger locomotives and cars are frequently equipped with (1) diesel engines to drive an
alternator supplying electric power to the train, and (2) steam generators (on the locomotive) to
supply heat for the train. AMTRAK is purchasing new locomotives with auxiliary diesel engines on
board; some of their club cars already have them.
Data on noise levels.from auxiliary engines were provided by the Illinois Railroad Associa-
tion (IRA) in its submission to Docket ONAC 7201002. The IRA cited noise levels of two auxi-
liary engines as measured by the Chicago and Northwestern Railway. These engines were Cummins
V-block diesels running at 1800 rpm so as to generate 60-Hz electricity. Noise measurements were
taken with no load on the engines; they would have been higher if a load had been applied. The
measured levels were 58 and 55 dBA at 100 ft from the locomotive.
5-39
-------
Section 6
GENERAL PROCEDURE TO MEASURE RAILROAD NOISE
INTRODUCTION
The EPA did not propose or publish a detailed measurement methodology as part of its
original rule making establishing railroad noise emission levels. The Agency did reference it in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) and described it in detail in the Background Document
to the proposed railroad noise regulations. The proposed regulation did not include a detailed
measurement methodology since it was contemplated that it would be included as part of the
compliance regulation to be issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT).
Section 17 of the Noise Control Act of 1972 places the responsibility for promulgation of
compliance regulations with the Secretary of Transportation. The EPA develops and promulgates
standards that provide the basis from which DOT develops the requisite compliance regulations.
Such EPA standards must be sufficiently detailed as to the requisite definition that there is no
question as to the standard promulgated. Proper definition of such standards is particularly critical
with respect to railroad noise because there is no generally accepted measurement scheme in use
throughout the affected industry, unlike the situation in other industries subject to Federal noise
regulation, such as the Motor Carrier industry.
A measurement methodology, dealing with the enforcement aspects of railroad noise measure-
ment, will still be developed by the Department of Transportation. The Agency, however, as a
result of its own further analysis and after consideration of the questions and suggestions received
during the public review process, has decided to incorporate additional measurement criteria into
the standards as an added subpart of the final regulation being promulgated herein. Such measure-
ment criteria contain specifications for ambient noise, wind noise, test site conditions, test equip-
ment orientation, and other parameters necessary for the consistent and accurate measurement of
the sound levels specified in the regulation.
The criteria were derived from the EPA methodology which was published in the Background
Document to the proposed regulation and commented on as a result of the public review process.
That methodology has since undergone thorough review by concerned Agencies of the Federal
government, including the Department of Commerce/National Bureau of Standards, and the
Department of Transportation/Federal Railroad Administration, and been revised by the EPA in
response thereto.
If issue is taken with the data supporting the railroad standards proposed by EPA, such data
submitted to the Agency in support of the respondent's position should be based on measurement
methods or procedures similar to those of the Agency. The equivalency of correlation between
different measurement practices must be clearly explained, to permit adequate comparisons with
the data and levels in regulation.
6-1
-------
It is recommended that technically competent personnel select the equipment to be used for
the test measurements. Proper test instrumentation and experienced personnel are essential to
obtain valid measurements. Operating manuals or other literature furnished by the instrument
manufacturer should be referred to, for both recommended operation of the instruments anrf
precautions to be observed. Following are the measurement criteria as they appear in the regulation.
SUBPART c - MEASUREMENT CRITERIA
201.20 Applicability and Purpose
The following criteria are applicable to and contain the necessary parameters and procedures
for the measurement of the noise emission levels prescribed in the standards of Subpart B of this
regulation. These criteria are specified in order to further clarify and define such standards.
201.21 Quantities Measured
The quantities to be measured, under the test conditions described below, are the A-weighted
sound levels for fast meter response as defined in the American National Standard SI .4-1971.
201.22 Measurement Instrumentation
(a) A sound level meter that meets, as a minimum, all the requirements of American National
Standard SI .4-1971 for a Type II instrument shall be used with the "fast" meter response
characteristic.
(b) In conducting the sound level measurements, the general requirements and procedures of
American National Standard SI .13-1971 shall be followed. This publication is available
from the American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, New
York 10018.
(c) A microphone wind-screen recommended by the manufacturer of the sound level meter or
microphone of an alternate sound level measurement system shall be used.
201.23 Acoustical Environment, Weather Conditions and Background Noise
(a) The standard test site shall be such that the locomotive or train radiates sound into a free
field over the ground plane. This condition may be considered fulfilled if the test site
consists of an open space free of large, sound reflecting objects, such as barriers, hills,
sign-boards, parked vehicles, locomotives or rail cars on adjacent tracks, bridges or build-
ings within the boundaries described by Figure 6-1, as well as conforms to the other
requirements of Section 201.23.
(b) Within the complete test site, the top of at least one rail upon which the locomotive or
train is located shall be visible (line of sight) from a position 4 feet above the ground at
the microphone location, except as provided in Section 201.23(c).
6-2
-------
100'
MICROPHONE
LOCATION
Figure 6-1. Test Site Clearance Requirement for Locomotive Stationary,
Locomotive Passby, and Rail Car Passby Tests
6-3
-------
(c) Ground cover such as vegetation, fenceposts, small trees, telephone poles, etc., shall be
limited within the area in the test site between the vehicle under test and the measuring
microphone such at 80 percent of the top at least one rail along the entire test section
of track be visible from a position 4 feet above the ground at the microphone location;
except that no single obstruction shall account for more than 5 percent of the tot«d
allowable obstruction.
(d) The ground elevation at the microphone location shall be within plus 5 feet or minus 10
feet of the elevation of the top of the rail at the location in-line with the microphpne.
(e) Within the test site, the track shall exhibit less than a 2 degree curve or a radius of
curvature greater than 2,865 feet (873 meters). This paragraph shall not apply during
a stationary test. The track shall be tie and ballast, free of special track work and bridges
or trestles.
(f) Measurements shall not be made during precipitation.
(g) The maximum A-weighted fast response sound level observed at the test site immediately
before and after the test shall be at least 10 dB(A) below the level measured during the
test. For the locomotive and rail car pass-by tests this requirement applies before and
after the train containing the rolling stock to be tested has passed. This background
sound level measurement shall include the contribution from the operation of the load
cell, if any, including contribution during test.
(h) Noise measurements may only be made if the measured wind velocity is 12 mph (19.3
kph) or less. Gust wind measurements of up to 20 mph (33.2 kph) are allowed.
201.24 Procedures for the Measurement of Locomotive and Rail Car Noise
(a) Microphone Positions
(1) The microphone shall be located within the test site according to the specifications
given in the test procedures of sections 201.24 (b), (c) and (d), and shall be posi-
tioned 4 feet above the ground. It shall be oriented with respect to the sources in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations.
(2) The observer shall not stand between the microphone and the source whose sound
level is being measured.
(b) Locomotive Stationary Test (Load Cell Test)
(1) For stationary locomotive tests, the microphone shall be positioned on a line per-
pendicular to the track at a point 100 feet from the track centerline at the longi-
tudinal midpoint of the locomotive.
6-4
-------
(2) The sound level meter shall be observed for thirty seconds after the test throttle
setting is established to assure operating stability. The maximum sound level
observed during that time shall be utilized for compliance purposes.
(3) Measurement of locomotive noise shall be made with all cooling fans operating.
(c) Rail Car Pass-by Test
(1) For rail car pass-by tests, the microphone shall be positioned on a line perpendicular
to the track 100 feet from the track centerline.
(2) Rail car noise measurements shall be made when the locomotives have passed a
distance of 500 feet or 10 rail cars beyond the point at the intersection of the track
and the line which extends perpendicularly from the track to the microphone loca-
tion, providing any other locomotives are also at least 500 feet or 10 rail car lengths
away from the measuring point. The maximum sound level observed in this manner
which exceeds the noise levels specified in Section 201.13 shall be utilized for com-
pliance purposes.
(3) Measurements shall be taken on reasonably well maintained tracks.
(4) Noise levels shall not be recorded if brake squeal is present during the test
measurement.
(d) Locomotive Pass-by Test
(1) For locomotive pass-by tests, the microphone shall be positioned on a line perpen-
dicular to the track at a point 100 feet from the track center line.
(2) The noise level shall be measured as the locomotive approaches and passes by the
microphone location. The maximum noise level observed during this period shall
be utilized for compliance purposes.
(3) Measurements shall be taken on reasonably well maintained tracks.
6-5
-------
Section 7
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF A RETROFIT PROGRAM
The imposition of a railroad locomotive muffler retrofit program, as proposed in the '
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, elicited several public comment docket submissions that
contained technical and economic data that conflicted significantly with that appearing in the
original background document. The principal areas of conflict involve disparities in determina-
tion of the best available technology as it exists today and the resultant costs of its application.
There is a further complicating factor in that the available space configurations within
many locomotives have been altered over the years due to the addition and modification of
various locomotive components such as dynamic braking systems and spark arresters. As a
result of this practice, there are numerous and diverse locomotive configurations, each possessing
specific peculiarities that must be accounted for in a retrofit program. The implications of this
diversity of locomotive configurations and the accompanying disagreement concerning available
technology and the cost of its application (i.e., labor rates, capital costs of new facilities, etc.)
have given rise to cost of compliance figures ranging from the original EPA estimates of $80 to
$100 million to industry estimates approximating $400 to $800 million.
The purpose of this portion of the background document is to present the economic
analyses that the Agency has performed concerning a locomotive retrofit program:
• The analysis of the economic effects of retrofit as presented in the original back-
ground document.
• Subsequent economic cost and impact analyses of retrofit that constitute refinements
to the original analysis.
These studies have been unable to reconcile the differences between Agency and the Rail-
road Industry positions on the economics of retrofit. Although the generation of additional
information concerning the availability of technology might allow the Agency to reconcile such
widely varying retrofit cost estimates, the collection of such data would be a costly and time con-
suming process. Further that process may produce a retrofit cost estimate remaining substantially
high relative to the resultant public health and welfare benefits, especially since railroad noise has
not been identified as one of the major sources of noise in the environment.
Such factors were the major reasons for the Agency decision to remove the retrofit require-
ment from the final regulation.
7-1
-------
INITIAL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
The Impact on the Railroad Industry
General Impact
The engineering data gathered from discussions with various manufacturers and railroad
operating personnel were used to estimate the direct cost of muffler retrofit by locomotive type and
manufacturer. The differences in construction between switcher and road locomotives required
that these be treated separately. The three categories of direct cost are mufflers, additional hard-
ware, and labor. Since each make of locomotive is unique, it was necessary to make separate
analyses of each type. The cost are "Shown in Table 7-1. The retrofit costs associated with the
various types of locomotives are based on the designs of several common types, which make up
about 90 percent of the population. For some locomotives, retrofit costs, may be significantly
higher than the figures shown here. This may be the case, for example, for several hundred units
that, although originally conforming to one qf the common designs, have been heavily modified
during service so that their configurations now present difficult hardware problems to a muffler
installer. Also, there are some 1000 older road locomotives manufactured by Alco and Fairbanks-
Morse and owned by a total,of 22 railroads, the design of which may render muffler installation
difficult. The Agency has been advised that these units are, in fact, in the process of being replaced.
Thus, this discussion assumes that such units will be retired from service during the compliance
period.
TABLE 7-1
MUFFLER COSTS* PER LOCOMOTIVE
(Source: Manufacturers' and Operators' Estimates)
Time of Installation
New Production
Muffler Only
Additional Hardware
Labor @5.80/hr
Total
Locomotive Manufacturer and Type
GM
Road
$3000 (RB)
2500 (TC)
1500
200- 500
464-1163
$2164-3163
GM
Switcher
$200 - 500
200 - 500
46
$246 - 546
GE
Road
$1500
1500 -
1500-2500
187
$3187-4187
Other
Road
1500
1500-2500
187
$3187-4187
Other
Switcher
500 - 800
46
$546 - 846
(RB) = Rootes Blown
(TC) = Turbocharged
7-2
-------
The estimates of the direct cost of mufflers and additional materials were gathered from
locomotive and muffler manufacturers. The sources of the data on required labor input were loco-
motive manufacturers, muffler manufacturers, and management personnel of selected railroads.
An hourly wage rate of $5.80 was arrived at by taking total compensation of maintenance
personnel as reported in annual Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) summaries and dividing
by total hours worked.* Although this wage rate probably includes some overtime compensation,
it may be an accurate reflection of the true labor cost, since some retrofitting may be done at the
overtime rate. We assume that the current mix of straight time and overtime will be used in the
retrofit program.
No capital costs for maintenance facilities were assigned to the retrofit program. Annual
compensation statistics and discussions with the Association of American Railroads indicate that
the roads have been generally cutting back their maintenance staff over the last decade, while not
necessarily reducing the size of their plant.** Frequently, therefore, excess physical capacity would
be available for a retrofit program. In an economic, although not necessarily an accounting sense,
such excess capacity can be utilized at zero cost.
The next step was to determine how many of each type of locomotive are in service. The
May 1973 issue of Railway Locomotives and Cars lists, by railroad, the make and horsepower of
each locomotive in service. In most cases, the horsepower of the engine could be used to determine
whether it is a switcher or road locomotive. General Motors (GM) produces both a 1500-hp switcher
and a 1500-hp road locomotive, but because road locomotives outnumber switchers by about seven to
one, we assumed all GM 1500-hp locomotives to be road locomotives. This biased the cost esti-
mates upward by a small amount. Table 7-2 shows the distribution of locomotives by type and
manufacturer, both nationally and for each of the three ICC regions.
Total direct cost of the retrofit program was obtained by multiplying the cost per loco-:
motive by the number of locomotives and is given in Table 7-3 in terms of minimum and maximum
costs for each region and for the entire nation. Normally, some locomotives would be retired
during the compliance period and, therefore, would not incur retrofit costs. (Their replacements
would presumably have been quieted at the factory.) This consideration has not been included here,
because it is difficult to forecast replacement rates in the light of an endemic shortage of motive
power such as presently exists. If we assume, instead, that past retirement rates (about 2000
units per year from 1965 through 1969) are cut in half due to the shortage of locomotives, this
will result in 5000 fewer units needing muffler retrofit for a 5-year compliance period and 2000
fewer over a 2-year period. The total cost estimates projected would then be high by about 20
percent and 8 percent for the two compliance periods, respectively.
* All railroad data presented in this section come from Interstate Commerce Commission,
Transportation Statistics in the U.S., (1971) [67]unless otherwise specified.
**Sources in the AAR state that this may not be the case for roads that have recently modernized
their plants and that may have divested themselves of some unneeded facilities. In these cases,
according to the AAR, the cost of installing or renting the needed plant and equipment may
significantly increase retrofit costs. Unfortunately, precise estimates of capital stock in main-
tenance facilities do not exist.
7-3
-------
TABLE 7-2
DISTRIBUTION OF LOCOMOTIVES BY MANUFACTURER, TYPE, AND REGION
(Source: "Railway Motive Power, 1973," Railway Locomotives and Cars, May 1973)
Manufacturer
and
Type
GM Road
GM Switcher
GE Road
Other Road-
Other Switcher
Region
Total
16,155
2,811
1,930
1,737
1,504
East
(29 Roads)*
7,006
1,462
878
1,052
734
South
(8 Roads)*
2,026
304
230
289
139
West
(22 Roads)*
7,123 ,
1,045
822
396
631
*Number of roads in each district obtained from ICC, op. cit. Other listings of roads may not tally with
this one, due to varying methods of accounting for mergers, subsidiaries, etc.
TABLE 7-3
TOTAL DIRECT COST OF RETROFIT PROGRAM
(Millions of Dollars)
Region
East
max.
min.
West
max.
min.
South
max.
min.
National
max.
pin.
Locomotive Manufacturer and Type
GM
Road
$22.160
15.161
22.530
15.414
6.411
4.386
GM
Switcher
$0.798
0.360
0.570
0.257
0.166
0.075
GE
Road
$3.676
2.798
3.442
2.620
0.963
0.733
Other
Road
$4.405
3.353
1.659
1.262
1.210
0.921
Other
Switcher
.$0.621
0.401
0.534
0.345
0.118
0.076
-
Total
$31.660
22.073
28.735
19.898
8.868
6.191
69.263
48.162
7-4
-------
The annual direct costs in Table 7-4 were derived from Table 7-3 by dividing total cost by
the number of years allowed to complete the retrofit program. In addition, the annual cost for
2- and 5-year compliance periods is shown as a percentage of the 1971 net operating revenue.
It should be noted that we are assuming 2 and 5 years beginning at the time the muffler becomes
available. Generally, mufflers will not be available until 2 years after the regulation is promulgated,
so that the 2-year program will not be completed until 4 years after promulgation, and the 5-year
program until 7 years after promulgation.
It appears that the direct cost of a retrofit program will not constitute a significant burden
on the railroads. Total direct cost is invariant with respect to compliance period, although annual
cost is not. Annual cost is, therefore, probably a more relevant measure of the financial impact on
the railroads.
The direct cost of retrofitting mufflers is only part of the total cost, however. If retro-
fitting requires that locomotives be taken out of service, and if the railroads have no excess capac-
ity with respect to locomotives, then there will be some loss of revenue. At present, most railroads
are operating a full capacity. The number of locomotives has decreased slightly from 1965 to 1973
(from 27,988 to 27,041) although total horsepower did increase from 52 million in 1971 to 55
million in 1973. It appears, therefore, that capacity has remained about constant or has decreased
slightly while demand has increased. It seems unlikely that the present high volume of grain
shipments will continue beyond a year. Other factors, however, indicate that the current high
levels of capacity utilization will probably continue into the future.
One of the developments that will tend to keep rail transportation at a high level of
capacity utilization is the "energy crisis." A general fuel shortage favors the railroads over other
modes of transportation. An increase in coal output, which seems inevitable, would stimulate
rail freight volume. Coal, because of its low value per ton, is hauled almost exclusively by rail.
A further impact of a general fuel shortage would be to potentially degrade the quality and
cost of truck transport relative to rail service. Restricted speed limits could induce delays and
uncertainties in truck schedules. Fuel price increases would have a greater adverse impact on
trucks than on rail, since trucks use 3.2 times as much diesel oil per ton-mile of freight. As a result
transportation demand would tend to shift from trucks to rail. The net effect of these considera-
tions is to support the assumption that railroads will be operating at close to full capacity for the
next 5 or so years. This means that locomotive downtime due to retrofit may likely result in lost
revenues.
One way in which operators may overcome this problem is to buy new locomotives to
take the place of those being retrofitted. Such a procedure would virtually eliminate the indirect
cost associated with the retrofit. This is an option, however, only if the locomotive manufacturers
can produce the extra units. At present, according to locomotive manufacturers, locomotive pro-
duction is below demand even though production facilities are operating at full capacity. It is
reasonable to assume that conditions of motor power shortage relative to demand for transpor-
tation will persist throughout the compliance period, resulting in lost revenue when units are
removed for retrofit.
The time lost may be significantly reduced by scheduling retrofits during regular locomo-
tive maintenance. Nationally, the average maintenance cycle is 4 years for an intermediate overhaul
and 8 years for a heavy overhaul. The length of the cycle for an individual railroad is a function of
locomotive mileage. Table 7-5 shows the national average adjusted regionally to reflect different
7-5
-------
TABLE 7-4
ANNUAL DIRECT COST OF 2- AND 5-YEAR RETROFIT PROGRAMS
Region
National
East
South
West
Total Direct Cost
(thousands of dollars)
2-Year
Max.
34,632
15,830
4,434
14,368
Min.
24,082
11,037
3,096
9,949
5-Year
Max.
13,853
6,332
1,774
5,747
Min
9,633
4,415
1,238
3,980
Cost as Percentage of
Net Revenue
2-Year
Max.
1.35
2.04
0.82
1.09
Min.
0.94
1.42
0.58
0.75
5-Year
Max.
0.54
0.82
0.33
0.44
Min.
0.38
0.57
0.23
0.30
-------
TABLE 7-5
AVERAGE MAINTENANCE INTERVAL BY DISTRICT (years)
(Source: 1971 ICC Statistics and Operators' Estimates)
Type of
Maintenance
Intermediate
Heavy
Regional Average Maintenance
Interval (Years)*
National
4.0
8.0
East
5.5
11.0
South
4.0
8.0
West
3.5
7.0
"These figures do not include the effects of deferred maintenance as practiced by some roads in financial distress.
average locomotive miles per year. The maintenance cycle is shortest in the West, where
locomotives travel more miles per year and longest in the East, where miles per year are lowest.
An intermediate overhaul generally takes about 2 to 3 days, while a heavy overhaul takes
about 14 days. The estimated time required to retrofit a muffler ranges from 3 days for a GM
road locomotive to 1 day for a switcher. Table 7-6 shows the number of lost locomotive days
charged to retrofit under different conditions. Line 1, for example, gives lost days by type of
locomotive if the locomotive is taken out of service specifically for retrofit. One can see that
there are no lost days for any type of locomotive if all retrofitting is done during heavy overhaul.
TABLE 7-6
DAYS LOST DUE TO RETROFIT
(Source: Manufacturers' and Operators' Estimates)
Basis of Retrofit*
If done by itself
If done during regular
intermediate overhauls
If done during regular
heavy overhaul
Locomotive Manufacturer and Type
GM
Road
3
1
0
GM
Switcher
1
0
0
GE
Road
2
0
0
Other
Road
2
0
0
Other
Switcher
1
0
0
"Assumes no lost time due to travel to and from shop and no muffler retrofitting done during emergency repairs.
7-7
-------
As is shown, the total lost locomotive time due to muffler retrofits depends on how many
locomotives can be treated during the normal maintenance cycle. Table 7-7 shows the expression
used to compute total lost days for each line or district. The first term represents the time lost by
GM road locomotives undergoing intermediate overhaul. The remaining three terms account for
time lost by those locomotives that will not be due for routine maintenance during the compliance
period and that, therefore, must be specially called in for muffler retrofit. (Recall from Table 7-6
that, except for GM road locomotives, units undergoing intermediate or heavy overhaul will
experience no extra time lost due to retrofitting a muffler.)
The equation in Table 7-7 has been used to compute lost locomotive days for each region.
These have been summed to give a national total. The figures are shown in Table 7-8. Two com-
pliance periods are used to illustrate the decrease in lost time with a longer retrofit period. We
see from the table that increasing the period from 2 to 5 years results in a decrease of the lost
locomotive days per year by 70 percent.
TABLE 7-7
EQUATION FOR TOTAL LOST TIME PER DISTRICT
LT = N,
GM
+ NGM X
x Y x *
3days
m
NGEO x( i -T?-
L \ lm
X 1 day
for
> 0
N
GM
X l dav
for
('-f
where
N
SW
m
= number of years allowed for retrofit
= number of GM road locomotives
= number of GE and "other" road "locomotives
= tota* num^er °f switchers of all makes
= time interval for "Intermediate" maintenance
7-8
-------
TABLE 7-8
LOST LOCOMOTIVE DAYS BY REGION AND COMPLIANCE PERIOD
Compliance
Period
2-year
program
5-year
program
Lost
Locomotive
Days
Yearly
Total
Yearly
Total
Region
National*
17,048
34,096
2,044
10,220
East
(29 roads)
9,252
18,504
1,129
5,645
South
(8 roads)
2,143
4,286
203
1,013
West
(22 roads)
6,378
17,048
712
3,562
'Locomotive days lost nationally is not the sum of the three regions, since the national was calculated
using an average maintenance cycle and the regional was adjusted to reflect different utilization rates.
A change in the compliance period affects only the number of lost locomotive days. The
direct cost of the retrofit program does not change. If we take the total number of lost locomo-
tive days resulting from a 2-year period and assign it the number 1, then the total number of lost
days for a 3-year program is 0.76, the total of a 4-year program is 0.52, and the total of a 5-year
program is 0.29. As the compliance period is lengthened, lost locomotive days decrease; thus, the
indirect cost of the program decreases.
The calculations of lost locomotive days must be translated into dollar costs. A number
of problems arise in calculating the value of a locomotive. First, should a distinction be made
between road locomotives and switchers? It seems desirable to treat the transportation revenue
earned by rail service as being earned by both road and switch engines, since the lack of either
(if both are used to full capacity) would cause a reduction in service. We have therefore assumed
that each has the same value per day.
Secondly, what value should be assigned to a locomotive-day? If all roads are operating
at full capacity, then removing a locomotive causes a daily loss of revenue amounting to the value of
one locomotive-day. A locomotive-day is thus evaluated at the value of the average product. This
technique is further justified in capital theory, which states that the value of a piece of capital is
the present value of its discounted future stream of earnings; that is, the present value of the
marginal product.
Given the conditions just stated, the value of a locomotive-day was calculated by taking
total transportation revenue and dividing by the total number of locomotive days available.
Table 7-9 shows these calculations nationally and regionally. Table 7-10 gives estimates of the
indirect costs of a 2- and 5-year retrofit program by incorporating the lost locomotive-days from
Table 7-8 and the value of a locomotive day from Table 7-9. Note that the shorter the compliance
period, the larger the total indirect costs. This is a function of the increase in the number of lost
locomotive-days as the compliance period is shortened.
7-9
-------
TABLE 7-9
REGIONAL ANNUAL REVENUE PER LOCOMOTIVE DAY
Total tranportation
revenue (millions of $)
Transportation revenue
per locomotive day ($)
Region
National
$12,417
1,251
East
$4,497
1,186
South
$2,121
1,256
West
$5,799
1,304
TABLE 7-10
ESTIMATED LOST REVENUE DUE TO RETROFIT
(Thousands of Dollars)
Region
National
East
•South
West
2- Year Program
Per Year
21,982
10,973
2,692
8,317
Total
43,963
21,946
5,383
16,634
5- Year Program
Per Year
2,557
1,338
254
928
Total
12,785
6,690
1,270
4,640
7-10
-------
Table 7-11 arrives at the annual net retrofit cost by combining the direct and indirect costs and
subtracting the reduction in operating costs that would occur as a result of a reduction in traffic.
Cost reductions were determined from the ICC detailed accounts and include the following:
Account No. Description
365 Dispatching Trains
367 Weighing, Inspection, and Demurrage Bureaus
368 Coal and Ore Wharves
371 Yard Conductors and Brakemen
373 Yard Enginemen
374 Yard Switching Fuel
382 Train Enginemen
383 Train Fuel
387 Trainmen
388 Train Supplies and Fuel
395 Employees'Health and Welfare Bureaus
The estimates of cost reductions used here are much lower than those used by the ICC.*
They have claimed that 80 percent of costs are out of pocket or variable costs. This might be true
if railroads were curtailing service in the face of falling demand. Variabel cost may constitute 80
percent of total cost, but the situation dealt with here is an unplanned reduction in capacity in
the face of full utilization of equipment. Under these circumstances, it seems unlikely that the
railroads would curtail other operations but rather that they would attempt to offset locomotive
shortages by changes in labor and equipment usage patterns. In addition, if there are adjustment
costs and since the cutback in capacity is temporary, the railroads would be expected to respond
differently from a situation in which the reduction was anticipated to be longer. Table 7-12 gives
the total net cost of the 2- and 5-year programs. Again, it points up the cost differential associated
with different compliance periods. Much of the computed retrofit cost is the result of lost revenue
to the railroads. Figure 7-1 shows the breakdown of annual cost into direct and indirect com-
ponents for compliance periods of 2 to 5 years.
The annual costs shown in Table 7-11 are best understood in the context of total operating
revenue for each region. Table 7-13 shows that the eastern roads would pay a higher percentage of total
total revenue toward a retrofit program than would the other regions.
*See U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission, Bureau of Accounts, Explanation of Rail Cost
Finding Procedures and Principles Relating to the Use of Costs. St. 7-63, Washington, D.C.,
1 November 1963 and U.S. Interstate Commission, "Rules to Govern the Assembling and
Presenting of Cost Evidence," Docket No. 34013,321 I.C.C.
7-11
-------
TABLE 7-11
ANNUAL NET COST OF RETROFIT
(Thousands of Dollars)
Direct Cost
2-year program
max
min
5-year program
max
min
National
$34,632
24,082
13,853
9,633
East
$15,830
11,037
6,332
4,415
South
$4,434
3,096
1,774
1,238
West
$14,368
9,949
5,747
3,980
Indirect Cost
2-year program
5-year program
21,982
2,557
10,973
1,338
2,692
254
8,317
928
Reduction in
Operating Costs
2-year program
5-year program
4,964
597
2,748
335
555
53
1,856
207
Net Cost
2-year program
max
min
5-year program
max
min
51,650
41,100
15,813
11,593
24,055
19,262
7,335
5,418
6,571
5,233
1,975
1,439
20,829
16,410
6,468
4,701
7-12
-------
TABLE 7-12
TOTAL NET COST OF RETROFIT PROGRAM
(Thousands of Dollars)*
Compliance
Period
2 years
3 years*
4 years*
5 years
National
Max
103,300
95,221
87,143
79,065
Min
82,200
74,121
66,043
57,965
East
Max
48,110
36,675
Min
38,524
27,090
South
Max
13,142
8,875
Min
10,466
7,195
West
Max
41,658
32,340
Min
32,820
23,505
'These represent linear interpolations of the 2- and 5-year programs.
TABLE 7-13
ANNUAL RETROFIT COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF 1971 TOTAL
OPERATING REVENUE
Compliance
Period
2 years
5 years
National
Max
0.42%
0.13%
Min
0.33%
0.09%
East
Max
0.53%
0.16%
Min
0.43%
0.12%
South
Max
0.31%
0.09%
Min
0.25%
0.07%
West
Max
0.36%
0.11%
Min
0.28%
0.08%
*Net operating revenue is defined as transportation revenue minus variable transportation costs. Subtracting
rents, taxes, and interest payments from net operating revenue gives net operating income.or profit from
freight operations.
7-13
-------
60
50
40
z
o
= 30
C/3
O
u
20
10
_L
Q TOTAL ANNUAL COST
O DIRECT ANNUAL COST
COST OF LOST LOCOMOTIVE DAYS
_L
JL
3 4 5
COMPLIANCE PERIOD (YEARS)
Figure 7-1. Cost of Retrofit Program as a Function of Compliance Period
7-14
-------
Annual retrofit cost as a percentage of net operating revenue* gives the best indication of the
rail industry's ability to pay for a retrofit program (see Table 7-14). Retrofit constitutes a small per-
centage of net operating revenue both nationally and regionally. As we have seen earlier, however,
the eastern railroads will pay the highest percentage of net revenue for the retrofit program. This
partly reflects the fact that eastern roads as a group tend to earn less profit than roads in other
regions.
TABLE 7-14
ANNUAL RETROFIT COST AS A PERCENTAGE OF 1971 NET
OPERATING REVENUE
Compliance
Period
2 years
5 years
National
Max
1.96%
0.60%
Min
1.56%
0.44%
East
Max
2.48%
0.95%
Min
0.31%
0.70%
South
Max
1.22%
0.38%
Min
0.97%
0.27%
West
Max
1.58%
0.49%
Min
1.24%
0.36%
Bankrupt roads constitute a special subset for which financial and operating problems are
substantially different than for normal roads. This subject will be treated elsewhere.
To give a more detailed picture of the industry's ability to pay for a retrofit program, program
cost as a percent of net operating revenue has been computed for each Class I railroad (including
bankrupt roads but excluding those with negative net revenues). Figure 7-2 shows how the rail-
roads are distributed with respect to cost-to-net revenue ratio. The figure shows that the impact
of a 2-year program is much greater than that of a 5-year program.
The Impact on Marginal Railroads
The adverse effects of extra operating costs is greater on firms in financial distress than those
that are healthy. This is of concern in the case of the railroads, because a number of them face
difficulties in maintaining profitable operations. It is important to estimate the number of rail-
roads that may have trouble paying the cost of a retrofit program even though the magnitudes of
the expenses involved in such a program are small relative to other expenses faced by the railroads.
(For example, a 30-percent increase in the price of diesel fuel would increase operating costs by roughly
$125 million.** This would represent from 2.5 to 12.0 times the annual cost of a muffler retrofit
program, depending on the compliance period allowed.)
*Net operating revenue is defined as transportation revenue minus variable transporation costs.
Subtracting rents, taxes, and interest payments from net operating revenue gives net operating
income, or profit from freight operations.
**This figure is computed by using as a baseline the total cost of fuel for all Class I railroads in 1971,
which was $417 million [67 ].
7-15
-------
25 -
5-YEAR PROGRAM
2-YEAR PROGRAM
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0+
PERCENT OF NET OPERATING REVENUE
Figure 7-2. Distribution of Railroads by Retrofit Cost as a Percent of Net Operating Revenue
for 2- and 5-year Compliance Periods. (Maximum Total Cost Assumed. Bankrupt
Roads Included; Made with Negative Net Operating Revenue Excluded.)
7-16
-------
This section attempts to gauge the extent of the problem posed in paying for a retrofit
program by determining how many railroads are in financial distress. This is done by computing,
for each road, several financial ratios that are generally accepted as indicating the financial condition
of a business enterprise. A summary of the number of roads with unfavorable values for each ratio
is then given. This technique does not give a quantitative definition of which railroads cannot
afford a retrofit program. At best, it gives a rank ordering. The cutoff value that determines
financial distress is arbitrary.
The following financial ratios were computed:
1. Current assets/total assets
2. Operating ratio (operating expenses/operating revenues)
3. Total liabilities less stockholder equity/total assets
4. Income after fixed charges/total assets
5. Retained earnings/total assets
6. Net income/total assets
7. Net income/operating revenue
All bankrupt roads are excluded from this discussion, which is concerned only with roads
that have not been declared bankrupt but that may be in financial distress.
In most cases these ratios parallel those used by Edward Altman [1 ]. Ratios 1 and 2 are
measures of the liquidity* of a railroad, while 2,4, 6, and 7 are measures of profitability and
efficiency. Ratio 3 measures solvency.
With respect to ratio 1, the analysis seems inconclusive. A large number of roads had
ratios of current to total assets in excess of three standard deviations from the mean. This indi-
cates that the distribution of values of this ratio did not approximate a normal distribution. This
being the case, ratio 1 does not constitute a valid indicator of which roads may be in distress.
The analysis of ratio 5 (retained earnings/total assets) indicated that 14 railroads have
negative retained earnings, while 2 have zero, showing that these roads lack liquidity. While internal
financing may not be important in the rail industry, the negative retained earnings indicate that
these roads are drawing down cash reserves.**
The most commonly used measure of profitability is 2, the ratio of operating revenue to
operating expenses. Three roads have operating ratios greater than one, indicating that expenses
exceed revenue. An additional seven roads have operating ratios more than three standard deviations
higher than the mean. Certainly, the three roads and possibly some of the seven must be considered
to be in an adverse position. Ratios 6 and 7 are similar measures, in that a road with a negative net
income will have a negative ratio for both 6 and 7. Six roads have negative net incomes. In addi-
tion, two other roads must be considered to be poor performers as measured by the ratio of net
income to total assets (6).
*Liquidity is the ability of a firm to convert assets into cash.
**This may also represent an insufficient amount of funds allocated to depreciation.
7-17
-------
Ratio 4 indicates that nine roads have negative income and two have zero income after
fixed charges. These roads are unprofitable by definition. The ratio of total liabilities (less stock-
holder equity) to total assets (3) appears to have also yielded inconclusive results. One road stands
out as being extremely poor by this measure, and there are four other roads for which this ratio is
greater than one.
A word of caution should be issued in the interpretation of any ratio that uses total assets.
Under the betterment accounting procedure, total assets tend to be inflated. However, to the
extent that this bias is uniform throughout the Industry, it is possible to compare different roads.
It is not possible to compare these ratios with other firms outside the rail industry.
Table 7-15 summarizes the preceding findings with respect to the named ratios. As
mentioned before, the table lists worst-performers as indicated by each ratio, the cutoff point
being arbitrary. More significant is Table 7-16, which shows how many of the railroads contained
in the previous table appear under more than one ratio. Table 7-16 shows that 12 roads are in
distress with respect to three or more indicators. It can reasonably be presumed that these 12, at
least, could have difficulty in financing a retrofit program.
The Impact on Bankrupt Railroads
Of the 71 Class I line-haul railroads in the United States, 7 are bankrupt: Boston and Main,
Central Railroad of New Jersey, Erie Lackawanna, Lehigh Valley, Penn Central Transportation Co.,
The Reading Co., and Ann Arbor. These seven railroads operate about 20 percent of the locomo-
tives owned by Class I railroads in the U.S. Not surprisingly, the total cost of retrofit for these,
roads (see Table 7-17) is about 20 percent of the total cost for the entire muffler retrofit program.
These railroads will have difficulty financing the cost of a muffler retrofit program. There
is no question that the financial positions of these roads are bad. All seven have negative net
income, and are'currently meeting their deficits in part by drawing down cash reserves. Many of
these road's are currently receiving some form of subsidy, and all are in default on interest payments,
bonds, and taxes.
The Impact on Users of Rail Transportation
The effect of a muffler retrofit program may be felt by railroad users in either or both of
two ways. First, the possibility exists that the railroads may try to recover their retrofit expenses
through a rate increase. Second, the withdrawal of locomotives from service could result in
reduced hauling capacity and a consequent decline in the quality of service. Either of these develop-
ments would tend to encourage some shippers to go elsewhere for transportation services. This
discussion examines the possible magnitude of these effects.
The Effect on Railway Freight Rates
The ability of the rail industry to recapture the cost of a muffler retrofit program depends
on the characteristics of the market it faces. The establishment of AMTRAK and the low volume
(and high price elasticity) of passenger service probably precludes the railroads from recovering any
of the retrofit costs through increases in passenger fares. Rather, increased revenues would be
more likely to come from increasing freight rates.
7-18
-------
TABLE 7-15
NUMBER OF RAILROADS IN UNFAVORABLE FINANCIAL
POSITION RELATIVE TO EIGHT INDICATORS
(For Each Indicator, Railroads Listed in Order of
Increasingly Favorable Position)
Indicator
Number of Roads in Unfavorable Position
1. Current assets/total assets
2. Operating ratio
3. Total liabilities (less stockholders'
equity)/total assets
4. Income after fixed charges/
total assets
5. Retained earnings/total assets
.6. Net income/total assets
7. Net income/operating revenue
Inconclusive
4 roads greater than 1 (expenses > revenues)
4 roads between 1 and .85
3 roads greater than 1
2 roads equal 1
2 roads between .99 and .71
8 roads negative
1 road zero
13 roads negative
1 road zero
4 roads negative
4 roads zero
2 roads positive but less than .011
4 roads negative
2 roads zero
2 roads positive but less than .031
7-19
-------
TABLE 7-16
NUMBER OF RAILROADS DESIGNATED AS BEING IN FINANCIAL
DIFFICULTY BY ONE OR MORE FINANCIAL INDICATORS
Number of Financial Indicators,
N, in Table 7-15
Number of Railroads Appearing
under N Indicators in Table 7-15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2
6
3
2
1
TABLE 7-17
NET COST OF MUFFLER RETROFIT PROGRAM FOR THE
SEVEN BANKRUPT CLASS I RAILROADS
Length of
Program
2 Years
5 years
Annual Cost
Max
$10,569,000
3,197,000
Min
$8,393,000
2,326,000
Total Cost
Max
$21,139,000
15,984,000
Min
$16,786,000
11,631,000
7-20
-------
Freight rate increases must be approved by the ICC. Inquiries to the ICC indicate that the
Commission places no a priori limits on the magnitude of rate increases that may be requested.
It is entirely the railroad industry prerogative to decide if requests for rate increases are to be
submitted to cover the costs shown in Table 7-12. Any cost factor could form a legitimate basis
for increasing rates to recover costs. Furthermore, the ICC is considering environmental aspects in
its rate determination. As a result of litigation involving the environmental effects of various rate
structures, the ICC has prepared serveral Environmental Impact Statements showing their concern.*
In summary, there are strong indications that the rate increases that could be requested by
railroad companies to defray the costs of noise reduction would fall within the practice of the ICC.
No a priori bias would be applied by ICC agents, and they could be expected to act with a positive
attitude toward the objective of improving the quality of the environment.
To place the level of expenditure and possible freight rate increase in perspective, previous
cost increases and subsequent rate increases may be used for reference. In the ICC report served
4 October 1972, in Ex Parte 281, a rate increase for railroad freight was authorized. The railroads
claimed in their rate request that expenses had increased $1.312 billion from January 1971 to
April 1972. The authorized rate increases were:
• .National Average 3.44%**
• East 3.60%
• South 3.10%
• West 3.44%
These increases, if fully applied, would have increased revenue by $426 million; however, the most
usual case is that they are not fully applied. The industry estimates that only 85 percent, or $349
million, will actually be realized.***
Since the rate increase of September 10,1972, costs have risen by $930 million. About
80 percent of this rise has stemmed from wage increases and increased payroll taxes. In light of
these higher costs, in April of 1973 the railroads applied for a 5-percent rate increase. The maxi-
mum cost of the 2-year muffler retrofit program is about $51 million, which is only 5.5 percent of
the $930 million cost increase that led to the request for a 5-percent rate increase. The rail industry
claims that if the entire $930 million cost increase is to be recovered, it will require a 7.5-percent
increase in rates.****
*See ICC Docket, Ex Parte 281 and Ex Parte 344F, Supplement 927.
**The National average was calculated by using regional data.
***These figures come from estimates made by the rail industry. They assume that the elasticity
of demand is zero-an unlikely situation. The question of elasticity is considered later in this
section.
****Again, this estimate assumes that the elasticity of demand for rail service is zero.
7-21
-------
The amount of the recoverable costs and the attendant freight rate increase necessary will
depend on the elasticity of demand for rail freight.* The annual (maximum) retrofit costs for the
2-year program represent about 0.4 percent of 1971 freight revenue, while the 5-year (minimum)
program represents only about 0.1 percent of freight revenue (see Table 7-13).
Data from Friedlaender [47] for 1961 have been used to calculate an overall rail freight demand
elasticity of-0.7. Using this elasticity, we can estimate the increase in freight rates necessary to
offset the increased costs. The freight increases are shown in Table 7-18. Also shown is the percent
these increases would represent of the 1971 average rate per ton-mile, which was $.01594.
TABLE 7-18
RATE INCREASE THAT WOULD ENABLE RAILROADS
TO RECOVER RETROFIT EXPENSES
Length of
Program
2-year
max
min
5-year
max
min
Rate Increase
(Cents per Ton-Mile)
.0232
.0184
.0076
.0057
Percent of 1971
Average Freight Rate
1.46%
1.15
0.48
0.36
These rate increases must be interpreted carefully. They were calculated by using demand
elasticities derived from 1961 data. Since then, a number of changes have taken place that would
probably increase the elasticity of demand for rail service.
• First, the near-completion of the interstate highway system has improved the service
rendered by trucks and has reduced operating costs.
• Second, the rise in interest rates has made the cost of holding inventories higher and
might have made shippers more sensitive to other service characteristics, causing a
downward shift in the demand curve and potentially increasing its elasticity.
•"Elasticity of demand is the ratio of the percent rise in quantity demanded to the percent rise
in price. An elasticity coefficient of-0.1, therefore, indicates that a 10-percent price increase
would result in a 1-percent decrease in demand.
7-22
-------
• Third, shifts among the various commodity classes of freight might have resulted in an
increase in the elasticity. For example, if the price elasticity of demand for rail service
is higher for mineral ores than for manufactured products and if the share of mineral
ores has increased relative to manufactured product, then the overall elasticity would
have increased.
We have attempted to make some estimates of the new elasticity, taking into account the shift
in the distribution of commodities. The results should be interpreted only as tentative. We have
used the 1961 elasticities for each commodity group but have weighted tham by the 1971 com-
modity distribution.
Data from Friedlander [47] have been used to obtain the following elasticities for the five
major commodity groups:
Commodity Elasticity
Agriculture 0.5
Animal products 0.6
Products of forests 0.9
Products of mines 1.2
Manufacturing and other 0.7
These figures represent the pre-1964 commodity classification used by the ICC. To determine the
current elasticity of demand, we used these commodity group elasticities and weighted them by
the current distribution of freight within these groups. These weighting factors are:
Commodity Elasticity
Agriculture .097
Animal products .0002
Products of forests . 144
Products of mines .420
Manufacturing and other .387
To determine the distribution, it was necessary to take the current freight classifications and assign
them to one of these categories.
The overall elasticity was calculated to be -0.953, significantly more than the estimate of
-0.7 obtained from Friedlander's data. Even more interesting is the distribution of elasticities by
district. To arrive at these estimates, it was necessary to assume that the rate per ton-mile for
each of the 1971 commodity classifications was equal for each of the three districts. Although
this is not the case, we believe the errors to be small. The estimated elasticities are:
• East -0.99
• South -0.95
• West -0.83
7-23
-------
These figures indicate that the eastern roads, which are in financial difficulty, would have the most
trouble recovering the cost of a retrofit program. The western roads, which, as a group, are the
most profitable, would easily recover the cost of a retrofit program.
Given the energy crisis, however, even this tentative analysis may not be valid. As discussed
earlier, railroads use less energy per ton-mile of freight moved than trucks, pipelines, or airlines. As
a result, railroads would be impacted less than these other competitive modes by increases in fuel
costs.
It is not possible to accurately predict at this point, the effects of any rate increases the ICC
might grant to the railroads to recover the costs of a retrofit program. The possible effects of
increased rates on demands for rail service are directly related to the energy situation. If com-
petitive modes of transportation (i.e., trucks, pipelines, and airlines) are more severely impacted by
increased fuel rates, the fact that railroads increased their rates to cover the costs of a retrofit pro-
gram might well be insignificant.
The Effect on Quality of Service
It has previously been shown that, to accomplish a retrofit program within a compliance
period of 5 years or less, some locomotives would likely have to be withdrawn from service in
addition to those undergoing maintenance by the usual schedules. The number of locomotive-days
taken up in this manner is given in Table 7-19 in absolute numbers and as a percentage of locomotive
days available. If, under normal conditions, the railroads are operating at or near full capacity, then
the figures shown in the table represent the upper bound of lost freight hauling capability.
TABLE 7-19
ANNUAL LOCOMOTIVE DAYS TAKEN UP BY RETROFIT PROGRAM
Compliance
Period
2-year
5-year
Locomotive
Days
Absolute
% of Total
Available
Absolute
% of Total
Available
Region
National
17,048
.194%
2,044
.023%
East
9,252
.225%
1,129
.027%
South
2,143
.197%
203
.0187%
West .
6,378
.174%
712
.0195%
The impact of decreased hauling capability on the various commodities shipped by rail depends
on how the railroads react to the capacity decrease. There are two ways in which demand for rail
service can be made to equal the available supply: non-price rationing or price rationing.
In the case of non-price rationing, the railroads could simply allow service to decline in quality
while maintaining the same rates. The resulting delays and uncertainties in the transporation
network would have differential impacts on the various commodities being shipped. Those items
7-24
-------
highly sensitive to the quality of service will tend to be diverted to other modes of transportation.
Commodities in this category are high-value products, for which transportation charges are a small
fraction of total value, and perishables.
Price rationing involves raising the price of service (with the approval of the ICC) to decrease
demand to the level of the new, reduced capacity. Such a policy would affect commodities sensitive
to freight rates. Examples of these would be mineral ores and semi-finished products. Such goods
would tend to be shipped by other modes, or the quantity shipped would be reduced.
The probable magnitude of the effect of price rationing can be estimated. Table 6-19 shows
that, in the worst case, capacity would decline by about 0.2 percent nationally. Assuming that the
elasticity of demand for rail transportation is about -0.7 gives a price rise of 0.28 percent necessary
to effect the required reduction in demand. This amounts to an average increase of 0.004 cents
per ton-mile relative to the 1971 average freight rate. This increase is fairly small, so minimal changes
in transportation patterns may be expected as a result of the retrofit program.
Summary and Conclusions Concerning Initial Economic Analysis
Impact on the Railroad Industry
Cost. The cost of a muffler retrofit program is highly sensitive to the compliance period
allowed. Maximum total cost for a 2-year program is estimated to be $103 million. Allowing 5
years for compliance would reduce the total cost to approximately $79 million.
Change in net revenues. The impact of a 2-year program would be to reduce overall Class I
railroad annual net operating revenues by about 2 percent.
Effect on prices. For the railroads to recover the expense of a retrofit program would require
an average freight rate increase of approximately .023 cents per ton-mile in the 2-year case and
.008 cents per ton-mile in the 5-year case. These figures represent, respectively, 1.46 percent and
0.48 percent of the 1971 average freight rate.
Effect on capacity. A 2-year retrofit program would result in an annual loss of as many as
17,000 locomotive-days, or about 0.2 percent of the total available, for the duration of the pro-
grams. This would drop to about 0.02 percent for a 5-year program.
Impact on marginal railroads. Approximately a dozen railroads are in financial difficulties,
as indicated by the computed values of a number of standard financial ratios. These roads may
have difficulty in raising the funds necessary to pay for a retrofit program.
Impact on bankrupt railroads. Seven roads are presently bankrupt, and may not be able to
finance a retrofit program without an external source of funds. The total program cost for these
roads would be $21 million for a 2-year program and $16 million for a 5-year program.
7-25
-------
Impact on Users of Rail Services
Prices. Increases in freight rates would tend to encourage some shippers to seek alternate
modes of transportation. This would occur primarily among shippers of commodities having
prices sensitive to transportation cost, such as semi-finished products. It is not likely, however,
that the small rate increases foreseen by this study would cause any major hardships or dislocations.
The energy crisis may make any railroad rate increases insignificant compared with competitive
modes of transportation, which would be more severely impacted by rising fuel costs.
Quality of service. A decrease in the hauling capacity of the railroads may result in the
diversion of some freight to other modes of transport. Which commodities would be affected
depends on how the railroad would decide to reduce demand to the level of supply. If rates were
raised, the effect would be the same as discussed in the previous paragraph. If rates remained
constant but shipping delays were allowed to develop, commodities sensitive to transit time (such
as perishables) would be most affected. Such diversions, however, will tend to be localized and on
a small scale in view of the small reductions in capacity anticipated.
SUBSEQUENT ECONOMIC COST AND IMPACT ANALYSES
The Cost of Retrofitting Mufflers on Locomotives
The costs of installing mufflers on operating diesel railroad locomotives fall into three categories:
1. Initial direct cost, consisting of the costs of materials (including the muffler and other
hardware), labor, capital (including the cost of new shop facilities if required), and testing.
2. Initial indirect cost, consisting of the net revenue lost due to taking locomotives out of
service for retrofit and the costs of developing suitable muffler designs.
3. Continuing cost, consisting of the annual costs of maintaining mufflers and costs of
extra fuel consumed by locomotive having mufflers.
This discussion contains detailed estimates of each of these cost categories. These estimates are
refinements of the cost estimates contained in the original Background Document, refinements
made on the basis of questions raised in EPA Docket No. ONAC 7201002, and information sub-
mitted to that docket.*
The costs projected here are computed for muffler designs based on the analyses presented in
Appendices G and H. That is, the basic muffler designs are arrangements of expansion chambers and
baffles, with no internal sound-absorbing materials or unconventional chamber configurations. The
mufflers are presumed to effect a 10-dB reduction in exhaust noise level while meeting manufacturer
"Costs presented here are as of 1973, the last year for which complete data are available, unless
otherwise stated. The effect of inflation would be to raise the absolute costs by 8 to 10 percent
per year, but the percentage impacts would remain unchanged.
7-26
-------
warranty restrictions on additional backpressure (5-in. H20 for turbocharged engines, 21-in. H20 for
Rootes blown). It is also presumed that the mufflers are designed to fit the space currently available
within or above the engine hood and to require no rearrangement of major internal components
such as dynamic brake assemblies. The feasibility of designing mufflers within these constraints
has been analyzed in Appendices G and H.
Initial Direct Costs
The initial direct cost of a muffler retrofit program is determined by:
The cost of materials, including mufflers and other required hardware.
The hourly cost of labor.
The man-hours of labor required for retrofit.
The cost of capital equipment.
The cost of performing noise tests.
Cost of Materials. The primary material cost incurred in a muffler retrofit program is the cost of
the muffler itself. Since no locomotive exhaust mufflers have been manufactured on a production
basis, there are no data on the actual cost of such units. Therefore, the probable cost of such
units will be estimated on the basis of the current price of mufflers designed for similar diesel en-
gines, but not built for locomotive applications (i.e., without size restrictions). The example chosen
is the Maxim M-31 silencer designed for a turbocharged 16- or 20-cylinder GM 645 series diesel
engine. The 1975 list price of this muffler is $2206, with discounts of up to 40 percent available
for volume purchases. This muffler averages 20-dB attenuation over the band ranging from 37.5 to
5000 Hz, measures 14.3 ft long by 4.5 ft in diameter, and weighs 3200 Ib. This unit is substantially
larger and more effective than would be required for locomotive exhausts, which need only about
a 10-dB noise reduction. Therefore, the price shown represents a highly conservative (i.e., over-
stated) estimate of the price of mufflers for locomotives. We have chosen $1500 as a typical price
to be paid for a muffler to be installed on a turbocharged locomotive. This figure agrees with the
$1500 price price estimated for EMD series 20, 30, 35, 39,40, and 45 locomotives by the Associa-
tion of American Railroads [20].
The $ 1500 price applies only to turbocharged locomotives, which, according to the analyses
of Appendix G can have mufflers installed directly on the turbocharger outlet stack. Rootes-
blown road locomotives, on the other hand, typically have a space problem when mufflers are
added to the exhaust line. The most effective way of quieting such units, according to the Appen-
dix G analysis, is to enlarge the existing segmented exhaust manifold collector into a single manifold-
muffler. It is estimated that the cost of this will be the cost of a replacement manifold, which is
$3690 [20], plus $1000 to cover internal baffles and resonance chambers that may be required.
These figures give a total cost of approximately $4700 for muffling a Rootes-blown road locomotive.
Switchers, which are Rootes-blown, do not have the space limitations of road locomotives, since
they have room for mufflers over their low hoods. Switchers, it is claimed, need their low hoods for
visibility, and mufflers would interfere with this visibility. The first half of this statement is only
partly true, as shown by the frequent use of old high-hooded GP7 and GP9 locomotives as switchers.
The second statement is not true at all, since the volume of the muffler can be distributed over the
7-27
-------
length and breadth of the hood so that the vertical dimension need not be large. For example,
a muffler having the same volume as the Maxim MSA-1 for a 12-cylinder EMD 645E engine
(42.4 ft) could be built to have dimensions of 5 ft in width, 10 ft in length, and less than 1 foot
in height. This muffler would easily fit over the hood of an EMD SW1500 switcher with minimum
visibility interference.
The cost of switcher mufflers, therefore, is based on the price of a Maxim MSA-1 muffler spark
arrester designed for a 12-cylinder Rootes-blown GM 645E engine, such as is used on an EMD
SW1500 switcher locomotive. The 1975 list price of this muffler is $848, with discounts available
for quantity purchases. Therefore, $700 is selected as the 1973 price for switcher mufflers.
Some turbocharged road locomotives will require hardware changes to allow installation of the
muffler.* EMD turbocharged units will require heat shielding for dynamic brake cables, larger
turbocharger removal hatches, and heavier turbocharger exhaust ducts. General Electric units will
require new roofs that can accommodate the mufflers. The material cost for these hardware changes
is shown in Table 7-20.
TABLE 7-20
HARDWARE MODIFICATIONS AND MATERIAL COSTS FOR TURBOCHARGED
ROAD LOCOMOTIVES
Make
Modification Required
Materials Price
EMD
GE
Apply new turbocharger exhaust
duct
Replace turbocharger removal
hatch
Apply heat shields to dynamic
brake cables
TOTAL
Apply new hood roof
$ 8001
3001
251
$1135
$20002
Source: Garin, p. 12 in AAR, 1974 [20].
^Source: Estimate of P. Baker, General Electric Co., as stated to M. Rudd, BBN, August 1973.
The estimate assumes that the cost of body modification would include only the pur-
chase of a new, center cab section; the original side doors would be used again.
*Rootes-blown locomotives will require no modifications, because the muffler consists simply of
a larger manifold, having no effect on the locomotive internal arrangement or cab design.
7-28
-------
Hourly Cost of Labor. Computed here is the average cost of labor in railroad maintenance for
the year 1973, the last year for which statistics are available. The cost of labor consists of wages
(including overtime compensation), fringe benefits, and payroll taxes. Because these quantities vary
depending on the quality of labor, the average must be weighted for the prevailing mix of skilled
craftsmen and other employees. The average cost of supervisory labor must also be included.
Presented first is the average hourly wage rate for skilled and other workers. These were
obtained by dividing the total 1973 compensation by the total hours worked for each of the two
labor categories. The result is shown in the third column of Table 7-21 for the three U.S. railroad
regions.
The next step is to determine, for each labor category, the average wage rate times an appropriate
multiplier for fringe benefits and payroll taxes. AAR Sources [5] indicate that this multiplier is
1.16 for all regions. The result is shown in the last column of Table 7-21.
TABLE 7-21
AVERAGE 1973 HOURLY WAGE RATE FOR SKILLED AND
OTHER WORKERS
Labor
Category
Skilled
Other
Region
East
South
West
East
South
West
Compensation 1
($ millions)
457.9
162.7
458.2
91.7
39.9
112.6
Hours Worked1
(million)
69.3
25.1
68.9
17.9
8.3
22.2
Average Wage Rate,
including Overtime
($/hr) '
6.61
6.49
6.45
5.12
4.83
5.07
Average Hourly
Labor Cost
($/hr)
7.67
7.53
7.72
5.94
5.60
5.88
Source: Betts, 1973.
The third step is to combine the skilled and other labor costs for each railroad region, weighting
the average according to the appropriate labor mix. For all Class I railroads in 1973, the skilled
crafts represented 84 percent of the hours paid for under the category Maintenance of Equipment
and Stores.* The remaining 16 percent were other laborers. The resulting weighted average hourly
labor costs for each region are shown in the first column of Table 7-22. To obtain a national average,
the regional figures are weighted according to the percentage of locomotives found in the last column
in Table 7-22.
*Source: ICC Statement A-300, 1973.
7-29
-------
TABLE 7-22
1973 WEIGHTED AVERAGE HOURLY LABOR COST DEVIATION
Region
East
South
West
Weighted
Average Hourly
Labor Cost 1
($/hr)
7.47
7.22
7.43
Hourly
Weighting Factor^
(% of Locomotive
Population)
36
18
46
National Weighted
Average Hourly
Labor Cost
($/hr)
7.41
1 Source: Computation in text.
2Source: Computed from. ICC Transportation Statisitcs, 1973.
^Excludes supervisory labor. Add $0.51 per hour to account for supervision; see text
The computation so far does not include supervision. Supervisory personnel make up about
6 percent of the labor input in the Maintenance of Equipment and Stores account, and their average
compensation was about 15 percent higher than the average of all workers in that sector. Multiply-
ing 0.06 X 0.15 X $7.41 gives a figure of $0.51 per hour, which is added to the average labor cost
to obtain a total of $7.82 per hour.
Labor Required for Retrofit. The estimates of required retrofit labor given in the Background
Document were based on informal discussions with railroad maintenance personnel. Since that time,
the Association of American Railroads has submitted detailed information to the docket on this
topic. A summary of the labor hours by work item and the total labor cost per locomotive is given
in Table 7-23.
Cost of Capital Equipment. The muffler retrofit program will be carried out primarily in railroad
shops. If the maitenance shops do not have enough unused capacity to perform the work, they will
have to acquire new facilities. In the latter case, the cost of such facilities would be charged to the
retrofit program.
Peabody and Associates [57] have estimated that the curent level of excess capacity in rail diesel
shops, unadjusted for possible retirements, is 14.3 percent. They calculated this figure by taking the
level of expenditures adjusted to constant dollars for each year from 1969 to 1973 and by taking the
year in which expenditures were highest as defining the level of full capacity. An annual productivity
increase of 1.0 percent was allowed for.
In addition to using total maintenance expenditures as an indicator, excess capacity can be
estimated by examining the labor hours in that sector; labor hours represent a physical measure of
input. If it is assumed that the ratio of capital to labor required to maintain locomotives did not
7-30
-------
TABLE 7-23
LABOR MAN-HOURS AND TOTAL LABOR COST FOR MUFFLER
RETROFIT PROGRAM
Locomotive
Turbocharged
road
Rootes-blown
Road
Switcher
Item
Exchange turbocharger duct
and turboremoval hatch
Apply heat shields for dynamic
brake cables
Apply muffler
TOTAL
Replace manifold
with manifold silencer
Apply muffler
Man-Hours
per Locomotive^
33
9
9
51
9
9
Cost
@ $7.92/hr
$260
73
73
$406
$ 73
$ 73
1 Source: Obtained by dividing AAR labor cost for each item (Garin, pp. 12, 16, and 17 in
AAR 1974) by the AAR "labor rate" of $14.00. The AAR "labor rate" includes
shop overhead; i.e., cost of capital equipment, which is treated separately in this
development.
change from 1969 to 1973, then any decline in labor hours worked must be reflected in an equivalent
percentage of the capital equipment standing idle (barring retirements of equipment).
During the period from 1969 to 1973, the labor input in the maintenance sector decreased
by 13 percent. If one allows for a 1 percent annual increase in productivity in both capital and
labor, then the predicted 13 percent excess shop capacity is increased to about 17 percent. The
labor required for the proposed retrofit program is less than 1 percent of the labor hours currently
used in the Maintenance of Equipment and Stores sector.
One other factor to consider is the possible retirement of capital over the period 1969 to 1973.
A sample of 10 roads, which was conducted by Peabody Associates, indicated that 95 percent of the
capacity in diesel shops that existed in 1969 is still in existence today. This figure reflects the
conservative assumption that all retirements reduced capacity while all new investment had no effect
on capacity. A more realistic appraisal would be obtained from net investment (i.e., investment minus
depreciation) less retirements. However, even with these conservative assumptions and the assumption
that the sample of 10 roads gave a true picture of the industry, there will be sufficient capacity to
complete the retrofit program, and further acquisition will be unnecessary.
7-31
-------
Cost of Testing. The cost of installing mufflers on locomotives includes testing each unit to
determine whether it needs treatment. Two types of stationary tests are:
1. Load cell test. The generator output is connected to a bank of resistors that absorb the
electrical output, so that the engine may be run at full throttle under load while stationary.
This is the only test for units that do not have dynamic brakes capable of absorbing the
generator output. Disadvantage: stationary load cells found in railroad yards may not be
in an acoustically acceptable environment.
2. Self-load test. The generator output is dissipated through the dynamic brake resistor
grid. Advantage: this test can be performed at any location. Disadvantage: on EMD
locomotives, a separate fan cools the resistor grid; noise from this fan may bias the test
results.
A problem may exist in providing enough acoustically acceptable load cells to test locomotives
that do not have dynamic brakes. One solution: railroads can buy portable load cells. These are
commercially available and can be built large enough to accommodate locomotive generator outputs
(typically, 2500 kW maximum at 60 Vdc). They can be mounted on trucks and transported to
acoustically acceptable sites near yards or shops accessible to locomotives. Units of this size are not
generally available, but discussions with load cell suppliers indicate that no design or manufacturing
problems would prevent their being supplied. The projected price for such a unit is $ 100,000 at
current cost levels.*
The total cost of acquiring portable load cells can be estimated by assuming that
• Half the locomotive population will be|tested by this means. Note that all GE locomotives
(15% of the population) can be tested under self-load, and it is assumed that stationary
cells can accommodate the remaining 35%.
• An average of one locomotive per day will be tested by each cell for two years. Note that
in actual use each cell would spend several days in transit, followed by several days
measuring locomotives at each site.
The number of load cells needed would therefore be obtained by computing
(0.5 X 27,000 locomotives)
(2 years X 365 days per year x 1 locomotive per cell per day)
which gives an answer of 18.49, or approximately 20 cells. The total cost of $2,000,000, divided
by 27,000 locomotives, comes to $74 per unit.
'Source for information on load cells: conversations with D. Partridge, Simplex Co., Springfield,
Dlinois.
7-32
-------
Another piece of equipment that will be required for testing will be a sound level meter. Type
2 meters, with fast and slow readings, are available, with calibrators, at about $200 each. The precise
number required is not known, but it is assumed to be 500 (i.e., one meter for every 54 locomotives).
The total cost would be $100,000.
The labor used in testing each locomotive would consist of one technician for approximately 2
hours.* Using the average of the skilled labor costs derived above (Table 7-21) and allowing for 6
percent supervisory time at a 15 percent labor cost premium, an average labor cost of $8.18 per hour is
obtained, or $16.36 per locomotive.
Summary of Initial Direct Costs. Table 7-24 summarizes the direct cost of locomotive retrofit.
Note that the subtotal figure represents costs incurred only by those locomotives actually retro-
fitted, or approximately 75 percent of the population.
TABLE 7-24
INITIAL DIRECT COSTS OF RETROFITTING EXHAUST MUFFLERS
TO LOCOMOTIVES
Cost Areas
Muffler
Additional Hardware
Labor
Subtotal
Testing
Total
Locomotive Type
EMD Road,
RB
$4690
73
$"4763"
91
$4854
EMD Road,
TC
$1500
1135
406
$3041
91
$3132
GE Road
$1500
2000
406
$3906
91
$3997
Switcher
$700
73
$773
91
$864
Initial Indirect Costs
Two elements comprise indirect initial costs: (1) cost net revenue due to locomotive downtime
and (2) cost of developing suitable muffler designs. The first of these categories will be analyzed in
two phases: the cost of locomotive downtime and the expected number of lost locomotive-days.
*It is assumed that protable load cells will be located in areas easily accessible by locomotives in the
course of their normal operations. There will, therefore, be negligible cost for locomotive transit
time or down time or for crew time.
7-33
-------
Cost of Locomotive Down time. The marginal value of a locomotive-day is the extra net
revenue the locomotive would have generated had it been available for use. This is defined as the
gross revenue per locomotive-day less the locomotive daily operating expenses. If there is excess
capacity in the locomotive fleet, then the revenue generated by an extra locomotive is zero; that is,
down time is free, since there are idle locomotives. At present, however, the railroads' hauling capacity
is under considerable strain. The value of marginal revenue is, therefore, taken to be the average per
revenue per total locomotive in the fleet.* Dividing the total locomotives (27,117) times 365 days
per year into 1973 gross operating revenues ($14.2 billion) gives an average revenue figure of $ 1438
per locomotive-day.
To show that this is a correct procedure an example is presented. If retrofit were to be per-
formed over a 4-day period in which railroads were closed, the lost revenue would be the revenue
that would have been earned over those 4 days. The total lost revenue could be expressed in terms
of revenue per locomotive times the number of locomotives. If revenue per locomotive were to
be derived by including only serviceable locomotives and then were to be multiplied by the total
number of locomotives, the estimated revenue loss would exceed the actual revenue loss. Of course,
lost revenue per serviceable locomotive could be calculated and then multiplied by the number of
serviceable locomotives. Thus, computations of total revenue loss must be done using either serviceable
locomotives or total locomotives consistently in both the numerator and the denominator. Either
method gives the same answer, as long as one is consistent. Total locomotives were chosen, since it
avoids using one population for lost revenue and another for direct cost.
To obtain the true cost to the railroad, this figure must be reduced by an amount equal to the
expenses saved by not having to operate the locomotive. In the Background Document, this was
done by identifying those ICC cost accounts that would be reduced and by calculating the level of
these reductions (see Table 7-11). The ratio of expenses to revenue thus derived was 4964/21,982 =
.226. The AAR submission to the docket (p. 62) [20] uses a ratio of expenses to revenue of
39,826,000/64,978,000 = 0.61 (Welsh, p. 62) [20]. The $39,826,000 figure does not appear on that
page but can be calculated by subtracting from lost revenue, $64,978,000, net losses of $25,152,000).
(While the AAR claims that 0.61 is the ratio used in the Background Document, it is not.) However,
the 0.61 figure is consistent with the ICC evaluation of railroad expenses, which are claimed to be
about 80 percent out-of-pocket expenses (i.e., variable). Using the ICC figure and a 1973 operating
ratio (total operating expenses divided by total operating revenue) of 79.3, the ratio of variable
expenses to revenue is 63.4. In the subsequent calculations, 0.61 is used since this is the ratio AAR
uses and it is consistent with the ICC percent-variable (i.e., out of pocket) calculations. Using $ 1438 as
as the value of a locomotive-day, the reduced expenses equal $877 (i.e., 0.61 X $1438), and the net
cost of a locomotive-day is $561.
*Some concern may arise over whether one should divide gross revenues by the total number of
locomotives (27,117) or the number of serviceable locomotives (26,245). The choice is arbitrary,
as long as the same figure is used to compute both revenue per locomotive and total lost revenue.
See subsequent discussion.
7-34
-------
Number of Lost Locomotive-Days, Table 7-25 shows the EPA estimate of the time lost per
locomotive during retrofit. This table is based on Table 7-25 of the original Background Document,
which, in turn, was derived from conversations with railroad maintenance personnel. The EPA
figures are contrasted in the table with the elapsed-time estimates provided by the AAR in their
submission to the docket (Garin, p. 16) [20]. The difference arises because of the large amount
of extra work entailed in the AAR projected retrofit program, work involving the relocation of
dynamic brakes, fans, and cooling system pipes. If this type of work (which is necessitated by the
AAR space-inefficient muffler design) is discounted, the two estimates are not dissimilar.
The actual number of days lost by the total fleet depends on how frequently locomotives
undergo major repair. As shown in Table 7-25, some time is saved if mufflers can be retrofitted
TABLE 7-25
DAYS LOST DUE TO RETROFIT
Estimator
EPA2
AAR3
Basis of
Retrofit1
If done by
itself
If done
during
regular
intermedi-
ate over-
hauls
If done
during
regular
heavy
overhaul
Done by
Locomotive Manufacturer and Type
EMD Road,
RB
3
1
0
2.5 -54
EMD Road,
TC
3
1
0
3-3.5
GEand
Other Roads
2
0
0
2.5 - 54
Switcher
1
0
0
3-3.5
1 Assumes no lost time due to travel to and from shop and no muffler retrofitting done during
emergency repairs.
2Source: EPA Original Background Document, June 1974.
SSource: AAR, 1974.
^Depends on whether extended-range dynamic brakes are present.
7-35
-------
while other repairs are being made. The EPA original Background Document gave an average
maintenance interval of 4 years for intermediate overhauls and 8 years for heavy overhauls.*
The annual total of lost locomotive-days for the nation is now computed, assuming a 2-year
compliance period, and the annual cost of those lost days. In any given year, one-eighth of all
locomotives undergo heavy repairs,and another eighth undergo intermediate overhaul. The number
of lost days is therefore given by
LT = NER X ^-|x 3 days j + Ux 1 day) ]
+ NGEx(fx2days)
where
LT = lost time in locomotive-days,
NER = number of HMD road locomotives,
= number of GE and other road locomotives,
= number of switchers.
The total number of locomotives in each category is shown in Table 7-26. It is assumed, in the
interest of being conservative, that no locomotive retirements will take place during the retrofit
period. Inserting the figures in the table into the preceding expression gives a total of 5 1,840
locomotive-days lost. This total is based on the assumption, however, that all locomotives would
be retrofitted, whereas in fact only 75 percent would actually be retrofitted. Therefore, the
number of lost locomotive-days would be 38,880 (5 1 ,840 times 0.75). At $56 1 per day (the cost
of one lost locomotive-day), the cost per year to the industry would be $ 1 0.9 million, or $2 1 .8 1
million over the 2-year complaince period.
Cost of Developing Mufflers. At present, mufflers designed for railroad service conditions are
not commercially available. It may be assumed that it will be necessary to develop, fabricate, and
test several prototypes of each basic design before the designs can be approved for service. In the
absence of detailed designs, it is not possible to plan such a development program and project its
costs. However, we can make some reasonable assumptions to estimate the cost.
It is assumed that six basic muffler designs are to be developed and tested, with several models
based on each design. If the cost of the development and test program for each design is $500 000
the total effort would cost $3 million. ' '
*Peabody and Associates (1974) report an average interval of 7.3 years for overhaul. They do not
discriminate between intermediate overhauls, in which the cylinders are changed in place and the
bearings are renewed, and heavy overhauls, which involve lifting off the cab and rebuilding the loco-
motive components as necessary [57].
7-36
-------
TABLE 7-26
NUMBER OF LOCOMOTIVES BY TYPE (1973 AVERAGE)
Type of Locomotive
EMD Rootes-blown Road
EMD Turbocharged Road
GE and Other Road
Switchers
Total
Number
7786
9579
4381
5371
27,117
*Source: Railway Locomotives and Cars, May 1974. Due to
a small discrepancy in the total number reported in
this reference relative to the ICC total, the figures
in the reference were scaled downward by a factor
of 0.985 to give a total of 27,117.
Continuing Costs
Two types of operating costs may be affected by muffler retrofit. First, mufflers will probably
need to be maintained. Second, the backpressure imposed on the diesel engine by the muffler may
result in degraded fuel economy and, thus, higher fuel costs.
Maintenance Requirements. The original Background Document does not explicitly identify
extra maintenance costs due to muffler retrofit. The original analysis noted that mufflers are
similar in construction, materials, and service conditions to the exhaust manifolds that presently
exist on locomotives. There is no evidence to show that exhaust manifolds fail in service or require
other than occasional attention. Accordingly, it was assumed that the extra effort required to
maintain mufflers would be small compared to the other identified costs.* A highly conservative
estimate would be to assume that mufflers will require replacement at every major overhaul, or
approximately every 8 years. If $1600 is allotted for parts and labor per locomotive for a locomo-
tive population of approximately 27,000, with 75 percent having mufflers, an average annual expendi-
ture of $4.1 million per year is calculated.
*This is the case, for example, with mufflers on heavy diesel trucks. Conversations with truck fleet
operators indicate that service failures of such mufflers are virtually unknown,and that an
occasional patch weld is the most maintenance required.
7-37
-------
Fuel Costs. An increase in the back pressure on an engine exhaust line increases the work the
engine must do to pump exhaust gases through the line. The result is a decrease in overall engine
efficiency. There are, however, no test data available on the magnitude of this effect for large diesel
engines. General Electric estimates that "If forced to run with 20°F higher pre-turbine temperatures,
the increase in fuel consumption would be on the order of 1 percent [70]. The AAR (1974) also
cites the 1-percent figure, although without any supporting data. Therefore, 1 percent will be used
as a conservative figure appropriate to line-haul operation. If I 'percent is multiplied times the 1972
railroad fuel consumption of 3690 million gallons (for line-haul freight and passenger operations;
source: ICC statistics [67,68]), we obtain an extra 36.9 million gallons of diesel oil consumed per
year. At the 1975 wholesale price of $0.30 per gallon for diesel fuel, this amounts to an extra
$11.1 million per year.
Summary of Locomotive Retrofit Costs
Tables 7-27 and 7-28 show the breakdown of initial and annual costs for the entire locomotive
retrofit program. The total parts and labor costs were obtained by multiplying 0.75 (the fraction
of locomotives needing retrofit) by the numbers of locomotives in each category as shown in
Table 7-26, and then by the direct costs for each category as given in Table 7-24. Testing cost was
obtained by multiplying $91 from Table 7-24 by the total number of locomotives. As before, it
was assumed that no locomotives would be retired during the retrofit period.
Economic Impact of Muffler Retrofit
In the public docket for the proposed noise regulation on diesel electric locomotives, a num-
ber of economic issues have been raised, including the availability of labor, the impact on railroad
financial viability (which includes the impact on freight volume), and the impact on product prices
as a result of possible freight rate increases. This discussion provides an analysis of these and other
issues associated with the economic impact of muffler retrofit. Included are:
• An evaluation of possible labor shortages in the rail sector.
• A discussion of alternate measures of financial impact on the railroads.
• A description of the current economic condition of U.S. Class I railroads, along with a
discussion of the issue of the differential impact of fuel costs on railroads and
trucks.
• Consideration of the question of freight diversion.
• Consideration of the impact of retrofit on freight rates and on the U.S. economy.
7-38
-------
TABLE 7-27
SUMMARY OF INITIAL LOCOMOTIVE RETROFIT COSTS FOR A 2-YEAR PROGRAM
(Figures in $ Millions)
Initial Direct Costs (2 yrs)
Parts and Labor
Testing
Total
Initial Indirect Costs (2 yrs)
Lost Locomotive Time
Muffler Development
Total
Total Initial Costs (2 yrs)
$65.63
2.47
$68.10
$21.81
3.00*
$24.81
$92.91
'"Estimate based on conservative assumptions; no data available. See Text.
TABLE 7-28
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COSTS OF
LOCOMOTIVE RETROFIT FOR A 2-YEAR PROGRAM
(Figures in $ Millions Per Year)
Initial Costs (Direct and Indirect;
obtained from Table 7-27)
Continuing Costs (annual average)
Extra Maintenance
Extra Fuel
Total
$46.45
4.05*
11.10*
$15.15
*Estimate based on conservative assumptions; no data available. See text.
7-39
-------
Labor Supply
The ability of the railroads to perform a retrofit program depends on whether the required labor
is available. To odentify whether a labor shortage exists, a means for testing for labor shortages must
first be established.
Firms adjust to labor shortages first by increasing the number of hours worked per employee
and then, if the increased demand for workers is sustained, by adding new employees. Thus, in the
short run, the number of hours rises, and in the long run, the number of employees rises. Increases
in hours worked and number of employees are therefore indicative of short-term and long-term
labor shortages, respectively. The hours that should be considered are hours worked, including
straight time and overtime. One should not consider only overtime, since the distribution of hours
between overtime and straight time is, in part, a function of institutional arrangements (e.g., union
contracts). Thus, a rise in overtime does not necessarily indicate a labor shortage.
The last 4 years have constituted a period of decreasing labor hours and decreasing employment
in the Maintenance and Equipment and Stores sector (ICC designation). The number of employees,
the number of hours for which employees were paid (including vacations and holidays), the total
hours worked, and the average hours worked per employee all declined from 1970 to 1973. Comparing
1970 to 1973* average hours paid per employees increased, while hours.worked per employee de-
creased, indicating an increase in paid time off. Average overtime hours per employee decreased
each year from 1970 to 1972 and then increased from 1972 to 1973, but were still below the 1970
level. These trends are summarized in Figure 7-3.
The Maintenance of Equipment and Stores sector does not exhibit any of the characteristics
of a labor market in which a labor shortage exists. However, the rise in overtime from 1972 to
1973 could indicate shortages in specific categories in labor; i.e., the rise in overtime could be the
result of an increase in overtime of specific categories of labor, and offsetting reductions in overtime
and lay-offs in other categories of labor could have caused average hours worked to remain constant
and overtime hours to rise. This would indicate a shortage in specific trades. To determine whether
this has been the case, trends in hours worked and workers employed in specific trades shall be
examined.
In the 25 categories of labor listed under Maintenance of Equipment and Stores, one cateogry
(helper apprentice, 65*) had more employees in 1973 than in 1970. Average hours worked per
employee increased for the same time period in three categories (electrical workers B & C, 59, 60;
skilled trades helper, 64). The adjustment in hours and employment may have begun more recently.
Labor demand would have reached a low point and then increased during this period.
From 1972 to 1973, average hours worked per employee increased in five categories (inspectors,
52; boilermakers, 55; electrical workers B & C, 59, 60; skilled trades helpers, 64; and gang foreman
in stores, etc., 69). In three cases, average hours per employee remained unchanged, and in the
rest, they declined. During the same period (1972 to 1973), employment increased in five categories:
general, assistant general, and department foreman, 50; electirical workers.B, 60; helper apprentices,
65; regular apprentices, 66; and classified laborers, 70. In two of the remaining 25 categories,
employment was virtually unchanged, and in all others it decreased.
*Numerical designations refer to ICC Standard Accounts.
7^0
-------
300
125
CO
oc
O
250
tO
OC
15
O
100
200
I
I
I
70 71 72 73
YEAR
a-TOTAL SERVICE HOURS (MILLIONS)
b-TOTAL HOURS WORKED (MILLIONS)
75
I I I
70 71 72 73
YEAR
AVERAGE OVERTIME HOURS PER EMPLOYEE
CO
01
UJ
150
125
100
I
I
70 71 72 73
YEAR
TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES (THOUSANDS)
to
oc
O
70
71
72
73
YEAR
a-AVERAGE TOTAL SERVICE HOURS PER
EMPLOYEE (THOUSANDS)
b-AVERAGE TOTAL HOURS WORKED PER
EMPLOYEE (THOUSANDS)
Figure 7-3. Patterns in Maintenance of Railroad Equipment and Stores
-------
Thus, the following categories in which there appear to be some recent increases in labor input
(either through increased hours or increased employment) can be identified:
Foreman (general, etc.), 50
Inspectors (equipment, shop, electrical, etc.), 52
Electrical workers B & C, 59,60
Skilled trades helpers, 64
Helper apprentices, 65
Regular apprentices, 66
Gang foreman (stores, etc.), 69
Classified laborers (shops, engine houses, etc.), 70.
In the 16 categories not listed, the labor input has been reduced by reducing hours and reducing
employment, indicating that there is not a shortage of labor in these 16 categories and that, in fact,
they could probably be expanded by increasing hours.
In four categories (50,65,66,70), average hours per employee decreased, while employment
increased. If the 1973 hours worked per employee were increased to the 1970 levels, the increase
in total hours worked would be 2 to 3 percent.
Category 50 is supervisory labor, which is not likely to be affected by a muffler retrofit program.
If it should be, however, then the current labor input could be increased by 3 percent (of the 1973
total) by increasing hours worked to the 1970 levels. Category 70 (classified laborers) is an un-
skilled occupation that could be increased through new hires or by increasing hours worked to the
1970 levels, thus increasing the labor input by 2 percent (of the 1973 level).
Categories 65 and 66 are not homogenous, since they include helper and regular apprentices,
respectively, in different trades. It would be inappropriate, therefore, to consider an overall increase
in hours, particularly if the distribution of apprentices in different trades has changed over time.
Increases in the number of apprentices from 1972 to 1973 do indicate the industry is training journey.
men, which in turn may indicate an inability to hire trained workers in 'the skilled trades. The number
of apprentices has only increased by 99 from 1972 to 1973; the 1973 level is still below the 1970
levels.
Hours worked have increased from 1972 to 1973 for:
• Inspectors, 52
• Electrical workers B & C, 59,60
• Skilled trades helpers, 64
• Foreman (stores, etc.), 60.
The average hours worked per employee in categories 59 and 60 in 1973 exceeded the 1970
levels. However, the number of employees in Category 59 was 11 percent (111 employees) fewer
in 1973 than in 1972, but in Category 60,12 percent more (15 employees). In Categories 52, 64,
and 69, the average hours worked per employee was less in 1973 than in 1970. Since 69 is a super-'
visory classification for stores and ice and reclamation and timber treating plants, this group would
be unaffected by a retrofit program.
7-42
-------
TABLE 7-29
LEVELS OF EMPLOYMENT AND AVERAGE HOURS WORKED IN 1970 AND 1972 COMPARED TO 1973
Categories
50
52
59
60
64
65
66
69
70
1970
Level of
Employment
larger
larger
larger
larger
larger
smaller
larger
larger
larger
1970
Average
Hours Worked
per Employee
larger
larger
smaller
smaller
larger
larger
larger
larger
larger
1972
Level of
Employment
smaller
larger
larger
smaller
larger
smaller
smaller
larger
smaller
1972
Average
Hours Worked
per Employee
larger
smaller
smaller
smaller
smaller
larger
larger
smaller
larger
Increase in 1973 Hours Worked
if the Hours were Increased to the
1970 Level but Employment Remained
at 1973 Level (hrs per employee)
3% (67)
2% (45)
None (73 exceeds 70)
None {73 exceeds 70)
2% (29)
3% (64)
1%(20)
4% (80)
2% (33)
10
-------
Table 7-29 shows, by category, the increases in 1973 hours worked that would occur if the
hours were increased to the 1970 level per employee: 64 would increase labor input by about 2
percent, and 52 would increase by about 2 percent.
There seems to be a strong indication that a labor shortage does not exist and that hours could
be increased to provide the labor required for a retrofit program. The exceptions to this are:
• The increase in training identified by apprentice categories 64 and 65 (one might also
assume that skilled trades helpers, 64, is an entry level job that can provide skilled
workers through upgrading)
• The electrical workers B & C, 59 and 60. The fact remains that the number of apprentices
in 1973 is less than the 1970 level.
As shown in Table 7-30, the total hours required for a retrofit program are small compared to
the total hours worked in the maintenance sector:
TABLE 7-30
MAN-HOURS REQUIRED FOR LOCOMOTIVE RETROFIT
Locomotive
Type
EMD (RB)
EMD (TC)
GE & Other
Road
Switcher
Man-Hours
Per Locomotive
9
51
51
9
Locomotives
in Service
7786
9579
4381
5371
Total
Man-Hours
70,074
488,529
223,431
48,339
Total Hours 830,373
Annual total hours over 2 years 4 1 5, 186.5
Annual total hour as a percent of 1973 hours
covered in Maintenance of Equipment and Stores Sector.* 0.19%
*Total hours worked in Maintenance of Equipment and Stores in 1973 was 221.04 million hours.
Impact on Railroad Revenue and Profits
The question considered in this section is the appropriate base to use for comparing the total
cost of retrofit. A retrofit program has both a short- and a long-term impact on railroads. The
7-44
-------
short-run impact occurs over a 2-year period and then disappears. Some costs continue after
retrofit (e.g., increased fuel costs) and must be considered separately.
Since the nonrecurring costs of a retrofit program cover only a 2-year period, the appropriate
base against which to compare these costs is net revenue. A firm will sustain short-term losses so
long as it covers its variable costs, and net revenue is a measure of the excess of revenue over
variable costs. Net operating income measures the excess of revenue over variable plus fixed costs
and is, therefore, indicative of the firms long-term ability to pay. (Note that in no case should
recurring costs be compared to net income after taxes, since taxes will be reduced by increased
costs.)
The total annual nonrecurring costs are $46.45 million. The 1973 net operating revenue
of railroads was $3,097.68 million. The short-term costs of a retrofit program would therefore
represent 1.50 percent of the 1973 net revenue per year over each of the 2 years. As pointed out
in Table 7-28, the increased fuel costs would be $ 11.10 million. During the first 2 years (while
retrofit is being carried out), the increased fuel costs would be 25 percent of this for the first
year and 75 percent for the seond year. These percentages represent the average portion of the
fleet that will have completed the retrofit program in the first and second years, respectively.
Thus, $2.78 million is added to the first year and $8.33 million to the second year retrofit costs,
making the first year $49.23 million and the second year $54.78 million.
It is assumed that no extra maintenance (beyond the retrofit itself) will be necessary in the
first 2 years. Thus, the first year costs are 1.59 percent and the second year costs are 1.77 percent
of net operating revenue.
The recurring expanse of $ 15.15 million per year represents 1,83 percent of the 1973 net
railway operating income before Federal income taxes. (The 1973 net income before Federal
income taxes was $830.7 million).
Financial Impact
In general, the adverse effect of extra operating costs is greater on firms in financial distress
than on healthy firms. This is of particular concern in the case of the railroads, a number of which
face difficulties in maintaining profitable operations. The extent to which this is a problem is
illustrated by the seven lines that are presently bankrupt. It is clearly important to estimate the
number of railroads that might have trouble paying the cost of a retrofit program.
It should be noted that it is impossible to predict whether a firm already in difficulty will be
bankrupt as a result of this ( or any other) externally imposed cost, for two reasons. First a
declaration of bankruptcy is not necessarily related to a firm's financial position at any one
moment but is based instead on the management's opinion of the firm's viability in the long term.
Thus, a short-term nonrecurring expense would not necessarily have an impact. Second, the
magnitudes of the expenses involved in such a program are small relative to other problems faced
by the railroads.
While it is unlikely that the cost of retrofitting mufflers would actually cause bankruptcy, it
is still true that roads in financial trouble may have difficulty affording the program cost. This
section attempts to gauge the extent of this problem by determining how many railroads are in
financial distress. This will be done by computing, for each road, several financial ratios that are
generally accepted as indicating the financial condition of a business enterprise. A summary of the
745
-------
number of roads that have unfavorable values for each ratio is then provided. Of course, this
technique cannot provide a quantitative definition of which railroads cannot afford a retrofit pro-
gram. At best, it gives a rank ordering. The cutoff value that determines financial distress is
entirely arbitrary.
The following financial ratios were computed:
1. Current assets/total assets.
2. Operating expenses/operating revenues.
3. Total liabilities less stockholders' equity/total assets.
4. Income after fixed charges/total assets.
5. Retained
6. Net income/total assets.
7. Net income/operating revenue.
In most cases these ratios parallel those used by Edward Altman [ 1 ]. Ratios 1 and 5 are measures
of the liquidity* of a railroad, while 2,4, 6, and 7 are measures of profitability and efficiency. Ratio
3 measures solvency.
With respect to ratio 1, the analysis seems inconclusive. A large number of roads had ratios
of current-to-total assets in excess of three standard deviations from the mean. This indicates that
the distribution of values of this ratio did not approximate a normal distribution. This being the
case, ratio 1 does not constitute a valid indicator of which roads may be in distress.
The analysis of ratio 5 (retained earnings/total assets) indicated that 14 railroads have negative
retained earnings, while 2 have zero, showing that these roads lack liquidity. While internal
financing may not be important in the rail industry, the negative retained earnings indicate that
these roads are drawing on cash reserves.* *
The most commonly used measure of profitability is operating ratio 2, the ratio of operating-
revenue-to-operating-expense. Three roads have operating ratios greater than 1, indicating that
expenses exceed revenues. An additional seven roads have operating ratios more than three
standard deviations liigher than the mean. Certainly, the three roads and possibly some of the
seven must be considered to be in an adverse position. Ratios 6 and 7 are similar measures, in that
a road with a negative net income will have a negative ratio for both 6 and 7. Six roads have nega-
tive net incomes. In addition, two other roads must be considered to be poor performers as measured
by the ratio of net-income-to-total-assets (6).
Ratio 4 indicates that nine roads have negative income and two have zero income after fixed
charges. These roads are unprofitable by definition. The ratio of total liabilities (less stockholder
equity)-to-total-assets (3) appears to have also yielded inconclusive results. One road stands out
as being extremely poor using this measure, and there are four other roads for which this ratio is
greater than 1.
A word of caution should be issued in the interpretation of any ratio that uses total assets.
Under the betterment accounting procedure, total assets tend to be inflated. However, to the
*Liquidity is the ability of a firm to convert assets into cash.
**This may also represent an insufficient amount of funds allocated to depreciation.
7-46
-------
extent that this bias is uniform throughout the industry, it is possible to compare different roads.
It is not possible to compare these ratios with other firms outside the rail industry.
Tables 7-31 through 7-37 show the railroads that had unfavorable values for each of the seven
financial indicators described above. The railroads are rank-ordered for each ratio, the railroad
with the most unfavorable ratio being listed first.
Freight Diversion as a Result of Differential Impacts of Fuel Costs
The manner in which fuel prices will affect the distribution of freight between rail and truck
can be demonstrated using the graph in Figure 7-4.
TABLE 7-31
RATIO 1-CURRENT ASSETS/TOTAL ASSETS
Ratio
.06
.06
.06
.07
.07
.08
.08
.08
.08
.09
Railroad
Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Texas Pacific
Bangor & Aroostook
(B) Lehigh Valley
(B) Reading
(B) Erie Lackawanna
Central Vermont
Western Maryland
Long Island
ICC No.
47
68
67
7
42
59
30
14
70
43
(B) Indicates bankrupt road.
7-47
-------
TABLE 7-32
RATIO 2-OPERATING EXPENSES/OPERATING REVENUE
Ratio
143.4
114.1
104.7
103.4
92.0
92.9
90.3
89.5
89.5
88.0
87.1
84.8
Railroad
Long Island
Pennsylvania Reading Seashore
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Bangor Aroostook
(B) Ann Arbor
Lake Superior & Ishpeming
Grand Trunk Western
(B) Lehigh Valley
Western Maryland
(B) Penn Central
(B) Reading
(B) Boston & Maine
ICC No.
43
57
58
7
3
41
35
42
70
56
59
9
TABLE 7-33
RATIO 3-TOTAL LIABILITIES LESS STOCKHOLDER
EQUITY/TOTAL ASSETS
Ratio
11.11
2.33
2.02
1.10
1.00
1.00
.99
.89
.75
.73
.71
Railroad
Pennsylvania Reading Seashore
Grand Trunk Western
Central Vermont
(B) Central Railroad of New Jersey
Georgia
Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Clinchfield
(B) Erie Lachawanna
(B) Penn Central
(B) Ann Arbor
(B) Lehigh Valley
ICC No.
' 57
35
14
13
33
47
21
30
56
3
42
7-48
-------
TABLE 7-34
RATIO 4-INCOME AFTER FIXED CHARGES/TOTAL ASSETS
Ratio
-.30
-.28
-.12
-.06
-.06
-.05
-.04
-.04
-.02
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.01
.00
.00
Railroad
Pennsylvania Reading Seashore
Long Island
Grand Trunk Western
(B) Penn Central
(B) vAnn Arbor
(B) 'Lehigh Valley
(B) Central Railroad of New Jersey
(B) Reading
(B) Boston & Maine
Western Maryland
Delaware
Fort Worth & Denver
Chicago Rock Island & Pacific
(B) Erie Lackawanna
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
ICC No.
57
43
35
56
3
42
13
59
9
70
23
32
19
30
18
TABLE 7-35
RATIO 5-RETAINED EARNINGS/TOTAL ASSETS
Ratio
-.31
-.29
-.15
-.13
-.06
-.05
-.04
-.04
-.03
-.03
-.03
-.02
-.02
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
-.01
.00
.00
Railroad
Pennsylvania Reading Seashore
Long Island
Grand Trunk Western
(B) Penn Central
(B) Ann Arbor
(B) Lehigh Valley
(B) Central Railroad of New Jersey
(B) Reading
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
(B) Boston & Maine
Baltimore & Ohio
Delaware & Hudson
Western Maryland
Chicago & Northwestern
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Kansas City Southern
Burlington Northern
Fort Worth & Denver
(B) Erie Lackawanna.
Monon
ICC No.
57
43
35
56
3
42
13
59
19
9
6
23
70
17
19
40
10
32
30
49
749
-------
TABLE 7-36
RATIO 6-NET INCOME/TOTAL ASSETS
Ratio
-.28
-.26
-.11
-.04
-.04
-.03
-.02
-.01
-.01
.00
.00
.00
.00
.01
.01
Railroad
Long Island
Pennsylvania Reading Seashore
Grand Trunk Western
(B) Penn Central
(B) Ann Arbor
(B) Lehigh Valley
(B) Reading
(B) Central Railroad of New Jersey
(B) Boston & Maine
Fort Worth & Denver
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Monon
Delaware & Hudson
Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Western Mayland
ICC No.
43
57
35
56
3
42
59
13
9
32
19
49
23
47
70
TABLE 7-37
RATIO 7-NET INCOME/OPERATING REVENUE
Ratio
-7.24
-6.87
-1.97
-1.22
-1.06
- .85
-.40
-.14
-.14
.00
.00
.03
.03
Railroad
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Bangor & Aroostook
Grand Trunk Western
(B) Lehigh Valley
(B) Ann Arbor
(B) Penn Central
(B) Reading
(B) Boston & Maine
(B) Central Railroad of New Jersey
Fort Worth & Denver
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific
Monon
Delaware & Hudson
ICC No.
58
7
35
42
3
56
59
9
13
32
19
49
23
7-50
-------
(9
UJ
OC
LL.
O
UJ
5
5
M
T Z' M*
VOLUME OF RAIL FREIGHT
Figure 7-4. Effect of Fuel Prices on Distribution of Freight
Line Q represents the quantity of freight service (truck and rail) necessary to produce a given level
of output (given level of GNP). Any point on Q (and the combination of rail and truck freight it
represents) is a possible equilibrium position. Line ZZ' represents the volume of rail and truck
freight that can be carried for a constant dollar expenditure on freight. That is, if the level of
expenditures is K, the total expenditures on freight and truck freight are constrained to
PrQr + PtQt = K, where Qr and Qt are the quantities of truck and rail freight, respectively, and
Pr and Pt are the freight rate for rail and truck, respectively. Note that the slope of line ZZ' is
equal to -(Pr/Pt), which is the ratio of the price of rail freight to the price of truck freight. The
equilibrium position (which minimizes total freight cost at Pr/Pt relative freight rates) is the
tangency point at n. The volume of freight is Qt and Qr. Line MM' represents a different price
ratio, which has a lower relative cost of rail freight.
Fuel composes part of the cost of providing both rail and freight service. The following cost
functions are assumed to represent the cost of providing truck and rail services:
and
Cf=f(Qi)+PbQ!
where Qt is the quantity of truck freight in ton miles. Qr is the quantity of rail freight in ton miles,
P is the price of fuel, a is a constant that reflects fuel consumed per ton-mile of freight for trucks, b
is a constant that reflects fuel consumed per ton-mile of freight for rail, and f(Q) represents the
other nonfuel cost elements.
7-51
-------
Trucks consume four times as much as rail per ton-mile of freight, therefore a = 4b. If fuel
price increase the impact on cost will be
dDt
aF
and
3Cr
Since a = 4b, the change in cost per ton-mile on trucks is four times that of railroads. For example,
if freight rates Pj and Pr are increased to fully reflect the increased fuel costs, rates increase to PI
+ dPa (for truck) and Pr + dPb (for rail). This means that the slope of line ZZ' will change so that
the new price ratio will be similar to line mm'. The new equilibrium position j will be at a point
on Q so that the quantity of rail freight will increase or the quantity of truck freight will decrease.
One possibility is that the Q may shift down towards the origin (for example Q! ). This would
indicate that either the quantity of transportation services needed to support a given level of out-
put had decreased or that the level of output (i.e., GNP) had decreased. In any case, the relative
share of total transportation will be larger for rail (than for truck) after the fuel price increase. *
One additional observation should be made. First, it has been assumed that the price increase
per BTU (of fuel) will be equal for rail and truck. If it is higher for rail than for truck, this will
offset some rail fuel efficiency advantage. If it is greater for trucks (which seems most likely, due
to the effect of market structure in petroleum) it will cause even a greater shift to rail.
Impacts on Consumers
The impact of a muffler retrofit program on consumers can be measured by the price increases
that would result if rail freight rates are increased. Table 7-38 shows both the direct and indirect
rail inputs for the commodities listed. The first column shows the cents of rail transportation per
dollar of output for each commodity listed. For example, commodity 24, motor vehicles, requires
2.9^ of rail transportation per dollar of sales. The 2. 91 reflects all rail transportation inputs for
raw materials, intermediate inputs, and the final product.
The second column shows the percent increase in selling price that would result from a
1 -percent increase in rail freight rates. Note that this does not allow for a shift to other modes. If
truck or water transport is used in place of part of the rail transport (because truck or water is
cheaper after the rail price increase), the price increases will be smaller than those shown. The
figures in the table, therefore, represent the maximum expected price increases resulting from a
1 -percent rail freight rate increase.
*This result depends upon Q being mathematically a convex set. The intuitive argument for
convexity is that as rail is substituted for trucking transportation, the substitution becomes more
difficult because in some applications rail service is quite inferior to truck. For a discussion of the
theoretical points relating to this analysis, see C. E. Ferguson, The Neoclassical Theory of Produc-
tion and Distribution, Cambridge University Press, 1969 or R. Frish, Theory of Production, Rand
McNallyA Co., 1965 [48].
7-52
-------
TABLE 7-38
EFFECT OF A 1-PERCENT RAIL FREIGHT RATE INCREASE ON COMMODITY PRICES
Ul
co
Department of Transportation Sector
1. Agriculture
2. Iron ore mining
3. Nonferrous mining
4. Coalmining
5. Miscellaneous mining
6. Construction
7. Ordnance
8. Food and drugs
9. Textiles and apparel
10. Lumber and products
11. Furniture
12. Paper and paper products
13. Printing
14. Chemicals
15. Plastics, paints, and rubber
16. Petroleum and products
17. Stone, clay, glass products
18. Iron and steel
19. Nonferrous metals
20. Fabricated metals
21. Farm, construction machinery
22. Industrial machinery
23. Electrical machinery
24. Motor vehicles
25. Aircraft
26. Other transportation equipment
27. Scientific, optical instruments
28. Communications
29. Utilities
30. Services
3 1 . Auto repairs
32. Government enterprises
33. Business travel, gifts
34. Miscellaneous Manufacturing
35. Scrap sales
Rail Transportation
(cents per dollar
of selling price)
2.0^
15.3
6.2
20.8
12.4
2.2
1.4
2.4
.9
7.5
2.3
5.1
1.4
3.8
2.0
1.0
3.8
3.9
2.7
1.8
2.7
1.7
1.1
2.9
.9
2.2
.6
.3
2.7
.5
1.0
4.4
2.2
2.7
14.5
% Increase in Selling
Price for a 1% increase
in Freight Rates
.02
.153
.062
.208
.124
.022
.014
.024
.009
.075
.023
.051
.014
.038
.020
.010
.038
.039
.027
.018
.027
.017
.011
.029
.009
.022
.006
.003
.027
.005
.010
.044
.022
.022
.145
-------
The freight rate increase necessary to offset the increased costs due to retrofit are shown in
Table 7-39. This analysis assumes that there will be no reduction in freight volume as a result of
these price increases. Given the small increases, this is a reasonable assumption. This analysis
should not be construed as a recommendation for a freight increase, nor is it assumed that one
would be granted.
TABLE 7-39
FREIGHT RATE NECESSARY TO OFFSET INCREASED COSTS DUE TO RETROFIT
(In Millions)
1973 freight revenue
Retrofit cost (including fuel)
year 1
year 2
Percent increase in rates necessary
to recover all costs
year 1
year 2
Recurring costs
Percent increase in rates necessary
to recover all recurring costs
$13,793.7
49.23
54.78
0.36%
0.39%
$ 15.15
0.11%
7-54
-------
Sections
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE FINAL REGULATION
Beginning in 365 days, the regulation being promulgated will stop the noise emitted by
railroad trains from increasing, and 4 years from the date of promulgation, will progessively
reduce the noise presently emitted by railroad locomotives. As a result, the number of people
currently subjected to annoying levels of railroad noise will be reduced.
A detailed analysis of both the number of people presently adversely impacted by railroad
noise and the number who would potentially be relieved of such impact was presented in the Back-
ground Document for the proposed regulation. Since then studies utilizing different assumptions
have been instituted by the Agency to attempt to more clearly assess the nature and extent of rail-
road noise and its possible abatement. Both analyses are presented in this section.
INITIAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACT RELATED TO ACOUSTICAL ENVIRONMENT
Case Studies of Railroad Lines
Ten cities with widely varying populations were selected to make detailed comparison of
train traffic with population densities near railroad tracks and with the type of land use adjacent to
tracks (see Table 8-1). Such comparisons provide a basis for determining how many people are
exposed to railroad noise, how often they are exposed, and what activities they are engaged in at the
time.
The schedules of trains moving over the railroad lines were determined from The Official
Guide of the Railways, July 1973 [26], or from employee timetables. Estimates of speed maxima
and minima were taken from employee timetables or obtained from railroad employees. Speeds for
AMTRAK trains were not obtained. The period between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. was desig-
nated as night, and the rest of each 24-hour period was designated as day. Table 8-2 summarizes
the results of the 10 case studies.
Analysis of Train Noise Impact
There are three major noise sources that contribute to L$n (see discussion of Ldn at the
end of this section for a definition of L^n) at point along and away from railroad tracks: loco-
motives, wheel/rail interaction, and horns or whistles.
8-1
-------
TABLE 8-1
LAND USE NEAR RAILROAD LINES
City and State
Newton, Mass.
Boston, Mass.
Valparaiso, Ind.
St. Joseph, Mo.
Akron, Ohio
Somerville, Mass.
Michigan City, Ind.
ECalamazoo, Mich.
Altoona, Pa.
Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.
Lewiston, Maine
Denver, Colo.
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Cambridge, Mass.
Macon, Ga.
Average
Land Use Within 500 Ft of Track
(Percent)
Residential
75
59
43
42
40
30
29
22
16
12
12
12
9
8
_6_
28
Business
21
9
8
13
23
18
15
5
18
22
19
3
11
24
_4.
14
Industrial &
Other
4
32
49
45
37
51
56
73
65
66
68
85
79
68
90
Mileage
Studied
6
7
9
26
25
7
17
20
6
21
11
51
15
9
25.
58 Total 255
8-2
-------
TABLE 8-2
TRAIN TRAFFIC AND COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS NEAR TYPICAL RAILROAD LINES
CITY ft STATE
Akron, Ohio
Altooni, P«.
Boston, Mm.
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Columbus, Ind.
Denver, Colo.
Durhun, N.C.
Mkhigm City, Ind.
Newton, Miss.
Valparaiso, Ind.
POPULATION
542,775
81,795
961,071
40,914
27,141
1,047^11
100,764
39,369
91,066
20,020
NUMBER OF
FREIGHT TRAINS
DAY
22
7
0
?
1
24
11
5
7
19
NIGHT
18
5
8
?
1
10
1
2
1
10
MAXIMUM
FREIGHT
SPEED (mph)
55
50
40
7
50
60
65
50
50
60
NUMBER OF
PASSENGER TRAINS
DAY
0
2
0
2
0
4
0
2
0
0
NIGHT
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAXIMUM
PASSENGER
SPEED (mph)
—
70 '
—
1
—
7
— .
50
—
—
LAND USE
(%}
RESIDENTIAL
40
16
59
9
1
12
?
29
75
43
BUSINESS
23
18
9
11
7
3
?
IS
21
8
OTHER
37
65
32
79
7
85
?
56
4
49
NO. OF PEOPLE
PER SQUARE MI.
WITHIN 500 FT
1,662
3,090
20,660
1,471
730
3,027
1,780
608
5320
1.528
MILEAGE
STUDIED
LAND USE
25
6
7
15
—
51
—
17
6
9
POPULATION
31
12
7
9
20
26
31
43
6
9
00
u>
-------
Figure 8-1 shows some L$n profiles that were calculated by applying the prediction tech-
niques to actual operations on a specific railroad line. The profiles shown in Figure 8-1 were
calculated from the following data supplied by Penn Central:
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
6 freight trains
each 14 loaded cars and 10 empty cars
40 mph
and
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
36 passenger trains, each
40 mph
Passenger trains with eight cars correspond to the national average passenger loading of cars [25].
The curve for two cars is displayed to demonstrate the influence of the number of cars on the
results.
Since there are no crossings along the branch picked for this study, no whistle noise was
considered. In addition to the usual geometric attenuation, atmospheric absorption and ground
surface attenuation were included in the calculation for Figure 8-1. (See the discussion of Excess
Attenuation of Railroad Noise at the end of Section 8.)
Figure 8-2 shows L
-------
\ i i i i
TOTAL
FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVES
FREIGHT WHEEL/RAIL
PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVES
(8CARS)
PASSENGER WHEEL/RAIL
(SCARS)
PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVES
(2 CARS)
PASSENGER WHEEL/RAIL
\ \
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM TRACK (FEET)
10000
Figure 8-1. L^ vs Distance From the Track for the Dorchester Branch of Penn Central
-------
oo
M
z
4.
o
CM
•o
'
c
-o
TOTAL
FREIGHT LOCOMOTIVES
FREIGHT WHEEL/RAIL
PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVES
PASSENGER WHEEL/RAIL
WHISTLES a HORNS*
** OBSERVER EVEN WITH CROSSING
SEE ATTACHED GRAPH FOR
COMPLETE PROFILES
\ ^
30
100
1000
DISTANCE FROM TRACK (FEET)
10000
TO Distance From Track for N$tional Avenge Train Traffic
-------
20
19
18
-------
80
70
O
UJ
O 60
O
z
O
.»
UJ 50
o
X
UJ
tn
UJ
? 40
o
Ul
X
UJ
UJ
Q.
8
a.
to
o
O
I-
30
20
10
fO dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
5 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
PRESENT EQUIPMENT
4O
50
60
70
80
Ldn (EXCLUSIVE OF WHISTLES AND HORNS)
Figure 8-4. Thousands of People Exposed to Various Ljn by 7.2 Miles of Track on the Dorchester
Branch of the Perm Central
8-8
-------
20
19
18
to 17
i! «
UJ
O 15
UJ
B i4
5~ 13
CO
•S310
o
X Z 9
O 13
U
<
tr
O
(X
UJ
o
Z
Z
CO
5
I
10 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
5 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
PRESENT
EQUIPMENT
I
I
40 50 60 70 80
Ldn(EXCLUS1VE OF WHISTLES AND HORNS)
Figure 8-5. Distance From Track at Which Various Ldn Occur Due to National Average Train
Traffic
8-9
-------
10 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
5 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
PRESENT EQUIPMENT
"40 50 60 70 80
Ldn( EXCLUSIVE OF WHISTLES AND HORNS)
Figure 8-6. Millions of People Exposed to Various L(jn by National Average Train Traffic
8-10
-------
Population densities used to construct Figures 8-3 and 8-6 were obtained from the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. The census results show 28,098 people living
within 1000 feet of the 7.2 miles of track comprising the Dorchester Branch of Perm Central. The
population density in the first 500 ft next to the line was taken to be one-half of the density for
the entire region, in keeping with national trends.
The figures for the number of people exposed to noise from national average train traffic
were based on estimates of 30,000 miles of railroad rights-of-way in urban areas in the U.S. Urban
areas are defined as the 40 Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs) having average popula-
tion densities in excess of 500 people per square mile and a total population greater than 250,000.
The 40 SMSAs defined have a total land area of 58,200 square miles and a total population of
71,082,000, for an average population density of 1220 people per square mile. This figure must be
modified, however, since there tends to be a concentration of industrial, commercial, and other
nonresidential activities in the vicinity of rail lines. Land use and zoning maps indicate that the
residential population density in the vicinity of a railroad line tends to be about 50 percent of the
average density for the entire region.
REFINEMENTS ON INITIAL ANALYSIS OF IMPACT RELATED TO ACOUSTICAL
ENVIRONMENT
This discussion contains an estimate of the number of people exposed by noise from rail-
road trains to noise levels of L(jn = 55 dB or more. This analysis differs from the analysis in the
original Background Document; it contains a more rigorous estimate of the number of miles of
track in urbanized areas and more conservative assumptions regarding the transmission of railroad
noise into communities. This discussion also contains a recomputation of the exposure estimates
given hi the Background Document on the basis of improved data regarding numbers of locomotives
and their average sound levels.
The number of people exposed depends on five factors:
1. The number of miles of railroad track in urban areas
2. The population density near railroads
3. The number of train operations per day
4. The noise level of the trains
5. The propagation of the train noise into the community.
Each factor will be addressed in turn.
Miles of Railroad Track
The original background document cited a Federal Highway Administration/Federal Rail-
road Administration (FHWA/FRA) report (1971) to the effect that there are 30,000 miles of rail-
road track in urbanized areas in the United States. The FHWA/FRA report cited no source for that
figure, and direct inquiry with those agencies did not uncover a rationale for its derivation. In this
analysis, therefore, an independent estimate shall be derived.
According to a survey of 106 cities [52], the percentage of the land in central cities presently
devoted to railroad averages 1.7 percent in cities of 100,000 or more people and 2.4 percent in
8-11
-------
cities of 250,000 or more. The total land area of central cities having populations greater than
100,000 is approximately 9.84 X 103 sq mi [5 1 ] . If it is assumed that half of the land used by
railroads is right-of-way (the remainder occupied by yards and terminals) and that the typical right
of-way is 100 ft wide, the following calculations results:
X .017 X 9,840 mi2 X = 4416 miles.
Therefore, it is estimated that there are approximately 4000 miles of right-of-way in centra] cities.
In another category of built-up areas, the urban fringe land area is 14,700 sq. mi. The per-
centage of that land used by railroads is not known; a figure of 1 percent, therefore, is assumed, of
which half is devoted to rights-of-way. A calculation similar to the preceding one gives a figure of
388 1 miles of right-of-way, which is rounded to 4000. The estimate, therefore, of the total mileage
in urban areas, the sum of mileages in central cities and urban fringes, is approximately 8000 miles.
Population Densities
Hoyt [51] gives 58.6 million as the total population of central cities having populations of
100,000 or more. Dividing that figure by the total area of 9.84 X 103 sq mi. (see preceding discus.
sion) gives an average density of 5.9 X 103 people per sq. mi. Census maps of land in the vicinity
of central-city railroad lines indicate that the population density near rail lines is slightly less than
half that of the local average [8] . One reason is probably the concentration of industrial and com-
mercial property near rights-of-way. It is therefore estimated that the population density near
central city rail lines is approximately 2500 people per sq mi.
The population of the urban fringe is roughly 48 million. Dividing by the area (14,700
sq mi.) gives an average density of 3300 people per sq mi. Statistics on the density near railroad
tracks are not available. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the ratio of the density near
tracks to the average density is less than one, but greater than the ratio for central cities because of
the prevailing lower concentrations of industry and commerce in urban fringes. It is therefore esti-
mated that the near-tracks population density in urban fringes is 2500 people per sq mi., or the
same density as was derived for the central cities.
Traffic Volume in Urban Areas
Statistics on the frequency of train movements along urban rights-of-way may not exist.
However, these statistics can be estimated on the basis of a study of train movements through high.
way grade crossings in urban areas [45] . If it is assumed that the traffic observed at grade crossings
is a representative sample of traffic along the rail network as a whole, then the distribution of
traffic at grade crossings can be used to determine the statistics in which we are interested. The
distribution observed in Reference is given in Table 8-3.
The mean of this distribution is approximately 8 trains per day.
As a check on this figure, the average traffic on a random segment of railroad line can be
estimated from a knowledge of national train traffic totals. Tables 8-4 and 8-5 show the numbers
of miles of right-of-way, train-miles per year, and road locomotive-miles per year, as derived from
ICC statistics for 1971 (the latest year for which detailed data is available). From these statistics,
8-12
-------
TABLE 8-3
DISTRIBUTION OF URBAN GRADE CROSSINGS
BY VOLUME OF TRAIN TRAFFIC
Trains per Day
Oto2
3 to 5
6 to 10
1 1 to 20
21 to 40
over 40
Percent of Grade
40
18
20
13
6
3
Crossings
TABLE 8-4
COMPUTATION OF NATIONAL AVERAGE DIRECT-POWERED TRAIN TRAFFIC
Train
Type
Freight
Passenger
Miles of
Right-of-Way
(a)
210 X 103
40 X 103
Train-miles
per Year
(b)
425 X 106
42 X 106
Average Trains Per
Day Per Segment of
Right-of-Way
(b *a*365)
5.5
2.9
'Source: ICC, 1971.
8-13
-------
TABLE 8-5
AVERAGE TRAIN CHARACTERISTICS1
Train
Type
Freight
Passenger
Train-miles
per Year2
(a)
430 X 106
6.95 X 106
Road Locomotive
Miles per Year2
0>)
1280X 10«
100 X 10*
Locomotives
per Train
(b-a)
3.0
1.4
Car-miles
per Year2
(c)
29620 X 106
389 X 105
Cars per
Train
(c-a)
68.8
5.6
1 Figures include all forms of motive power.
2 Source: ICC, 1971.
-------
the average number of trains per day over a segment of right-of-way and the number of locomotives
per train can be computed. These are displayed in the third column of Table 8-4 and 8-5, respec-
tively, for freight and passenger traffic. If it is assumed that right-of-way in cities is used for both
freight and passengers, then it can be seen from the third column that the total average train traffic
(freight plus passenger) is 8.4 trains per day. This total agrees with the previous estimate. Assuming
that freight trains are distributed randomly in time, it is estimated that at the average location four
freight and one passenger trains pass during the day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and two freight and one
passenger trains pass at night.
Average locomotives per train and cars per train are similarly developed in Table 8-5. The last
characteristic, train speed, is obtained by inspection of railroad employee timetables for the North-
eastern United States. These timetables show 33 mph as the average maximum allowed speed for
freight trains and 36 mph for passenger.
people Exposed
To determine the number of people exposed to various levels of L
-------
The energy radiated by the cars in a train as measured at 100 ft is expressed as
SENELc » 72 + 30 log ^ + 10 log t, (8.3)
where V is train speed in miles per hour and t is the passby time in seconds (Source: Bender et aL
1974). '
For a train speed of 33 mph and a passby time of 73 sec (70 cars X 50 ft/car •*• 48 ft/sec),
.
SENELT = log ^Iog-i -IQ- + log'1 -io (8-4)
= 101.9dBAat 100ft.
In the preceding expression, T denotes total.
To compute the equivalent day-night energy level, the SENELs for all events are summed
and divide by 24 hours, while the nighttime events are weighted by a factor of 10. Table 8-4 shows
that approximately six trains move over the average segment of track each day. (Passenger trains
are typically 10 to 20 dB quieter than freight trains and so are excluded from the exposure estimate
(see figure IX. 15 of Reference 8.) Assuming that the train movements are distributed evenly through
the day, this traffic breaks down into two night and four day events. The equivalent number of
movements is therefore 2 X 10 + 4 = 24. The Ljn at 100 ft from a segment of average track is,
therefore,
Ldn = SENELT + 10 log 24- 10 log (3600 sec/hr X 24hrs)
(8-5)
= 66.3 dBA.
The model for train noise propagation into communities is based on the model developed
for urban highway noise by Kugler, Commins, and Galloway [72] . The theory on which that
model is based shows the noise falloff with distance from the track (or highway) to be 4.5 dB per
doubling of distance. In addition, there will be another 4.5 dB of attenuation caused by the
shielding effects of the first row of buildings next to the track. This attenuation behavior is
approximated by using a straight line falling off at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. This
approximation is reasonably accurate (given the uncertainty of the precise location of the shielding
buildings) out to about 700 ft, which is beyond the limit of the range of interest. With this propa-
gation model and the L&n level at 100 ft (called L100), the range, r, to any Ljn level can be com-
puted using the expression
r = 100 ft X 10
-------
in Table 8-6, which shows the distribution of people by L
-------
TABLE 8-6
PRESENT DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE BY
INTERVAL
Ldn
Interval
65-70 dBA
60-54
55-60
Distances
of Strip
Boundaries
from Track
(ft)
65-116
116-207
207-367
Width
of
Strip
(ft)
51
91
160
Aggregated
Area of
Strips
in U.S.
(sq. mi.)
155
276
485
People
Within
Strip
(million)
0.387
0.690
1.213
TABLE 8-7
PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATIONS
EXPOSED TO VARIOUS LEVELS OF Ldn
(Cumulative)
Ldn
55 dBA
60
65
70
Millions of People Exposed to Given
Ldn or Greater
Present
2.29
1.80
0.39
—
4 dB Locomotive Noise
Reduction
1.77
0.83
0.30
—
8-18
-------
TABLE 8-8
DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE BY LH,, INTERVAL
ASSUMING MUFFLER RETROFIT
Ldn
Interval
65-70 dBA
60-65
55-60
Distances
of Strip
Boundaries
from Track
(ft)
51-90
90-160
160-285
Width
of
Strip
(ft)
39
70
125
Aggregated
Area of
Strips
in U.S.
(sq. mi.)
118
212
379
People
Within
Strip
(million)
0.295
0.530
0.948
the exposed population is weighted by its Fractional Impact (FIj), as given by the following
expression:*
Fli = 0.05 (Li - 55) for LI > 55 dBA
FIj = 0 for Li < 55 dBA
The ENI is then computed using the formula
ENI = ]C Fli ' pi »
i
where PJ is the population in the ith exposure interval.
Applying these expressions to the population figures shown in Tables 8-6 and 8-8 gives the
results shown in Table 8-9. A muffler retrofit program will reduce the Equivalent Noise Impact by
151,000 people.
Impact Related to Land
These regulations will have no adverse effects relative to land.
Impact Related to Water
These regulations will have no effect on water quality or supply.
Impact Related to Air
The use of more efficient exhaust muffling systems can cause a change in the back pressure
to the engine and may result in a change in the exhaust emissions level. The data, at present, are
8-19
-------
TABLE 8-9
EQUIVALENT NOISE IMPACT FOR PRESENT AND
QUIETED LOCOMOTIVE POPULATIONS
Ldn
Interval
Population
Pi
(millions)
Fractional
Impact
Fi
FIjXPj
(millions)
Current Noise Impact
65-70 dBA
60-65
55-60
0.387
0.690
1.213
0.625
0.375
0.125
0.242
0.259
0.152
Total ENI = 0.653
Projected Noise Impact with Muffler Retrofit
65-70 dBA
60-65
55-60
0.295
0.530
0.948
0.625
0.375
0.125
0.184
0.199
0.119
Total ENI = 0.502
insufficient to make other than a general statement concerning the directions the various emission
levels take when a different back pressure is applied, since the behavior of the various engines and
exhaust emission control systems vary widely. However, internal combustion engine exhaust
emissions are affected by changes in exhaust system back pressure, and they must be con-
sidered. It is important to note, however, that motor carrier exhaust emissions are higher
than rail carrier exhaust emissions per ton mile of goods transported, indicating that, in the
overall balance, rail carriers are already more efficient than motor carriers from an exhaust
emission standpoint.
It must also be noted that promulgating stricter rail carrier noise regulations at this time
may inadvertently divert cargo traffic from the rails toward motor carriers due to difficulties in
compliance with regulations, thereby causing an increase in total exhaust emissions to the atmos-
phere as well as increasing noise emissions. Based on the analysis presented, problems such as this
are not expected to arise as a result of the proposed regulation.
8-20
-------
DAY NIGHT EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVEL (Ldn)
Lan is a modified energy-equivalent sound level. The energy-equivalent sound level
is the level of the continuous sound associated with an amount of energy equal to the sum of the
energies of a collection of discontinuous sounds. Leg is defined by
where NL is the instantaneous overall noise level in dB(A) at time t, and the time period of interest
is from time t! to time t2 . L^n is determined precisely like Lgq, except that all noise levels NL
measured at night (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.) are increased by 10 dB(A) before being
entered into the above equation.
EXCESS ATTENUATION OF RAILROAD NOISE
Many mechanisms cause attentuation of s'«und beyond that caused by geometric spreading,
including molecular absorption in the air, precipitation, barriers, ground cover, wind, and tempera-
ture and humidity gradients. The attenuation variest with location, time of day, and season of the
year. To account for the attenuation produced by these highly variable sources, it is necessary to
compile detailed records of wind, temperature, humidity, precipitation, and even cloud cover on a
statistical or probabilistic basis. The following discussion is directed at a base case that includes two
reliable sources of excess attenuation: atmospheric molecular absorption and attenuation associated
with variations in the physical characteristics of the atmosphere near the ground. Both attenuations
vary with frequency. The attenuation factors were evaluated for reference conditions of 50°F and
SO percent relative humidity.
Figure 8-7 shows how atmospheric molecular absorption and variations of atmospheric
characteristics near the ground change the shape of the locomotive noise spectrum. The high
frequencies become less important as the sound travels outward from the source. The attenuation
of the overall sound level (logarithmically summed octaveband sound levels) was found to be about
2 dB per thousand feet out to 400 ft. That value was used to calculate the propagation of locomo-
tive noise described in this report. The value for the effective overall attenuation coefficient for
locomotive noise is about the same for throttle position 8 and throttle position 1 .
Figure 8-8 shows how the frequency-dependent attenuations change the shape of the spec-
trum of wheel/rail noise. Notice that here, too, the high frequencies become less important as the
sound travels outward from the source. The attenuation of the overall sound level (logarithmically
summed octaveband sound levels) was about 3 dB per thousand feet out to 3000 ft. That value
was used to calculate the propagation of locomotive noise described in this Background Document.
8-21
-------
90
^n 80
o
M
O
o
9 70
o
u
UJ
_J
o
z
o
Q
00
UJ
8
a
UJ
£
I
-------
80
70
r— «
ce
<
(D
$.
(VI
o
8 60
•
o
o>
CO
50
LU
>
UJ
Z 40
D
O
CO
S 30
O
o
I I 1 I I I I I
25'
1000'
I
3000'
I i I I
rn
16 63 250 1000 4000
32 125 500 200 8000
OCTAVEBAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
Figure 8-8. Influence of Frequency-Dependent Attenuations of Wheel/Rail Noise, Train No. 6,
Region 2
8-23
-------
Section 9
ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE FINAL REGULATION
The costs incurred in the muffling of newly manufactured locomotives may be more readily
identified than in the case of locomotive retrofit. The following discussion identifies the major
cost areas involved in the muffling of newly manufactured locomotives, including initial costs as
well as increased operating and maintenance costs incurred.
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL INCREASED LOCOMOTIVE MANUFACTURING COSTS ATTRIBUT-
ABLE TO MUFFLER INTRODUCTION
Unit Incremental Total Cost
No of Manufacturing (Millions of
Type Locomotives [8] Cost 181 Dollars)
GMRoad 843 $302543630 S2.55-S3.06
GM Switcher 146 $ 242-$ 605 S0.04-S0.09
GERoad 100 $1815 $0.18
1089 $2.77-$3.33
Total Annual Manufacturing Cost = $2,770,000-$3, 330,000
Total Annual Manufacturing Costs Expressed as a Capital Investment Depreciated Over 25 Years.
$110800 . $I33i200
Annual Incremental Manufacturing Costs = $110,800-$ 133,200
Equivalent Annual Increased Manufacturing Costs (over 25 years, i = 12%)
= 6.77 x $110,800 + $110,800 = $ 860,900
= 6.77 x $133,200 + $133,200 « $1,034,900
Equivalent Annual Increased Manufacturing Costs = $860,900-$ 1,034,900
• The A verage Cost Increase Per Locomotive Will Be
$2550-$3060 per locomotive average cost increase.
9-1
-------
Expressed As a Percentage of New Locomotive Costs
$337,000 ' $337,000
where $337,000 equals the 1975 average price of a new locomotive without a muffler
[72].
The addition of mufflers to newly manufactured locomotives should cause an
approximately 0.75 to 0.91 percent unit price increase.
EQUIVALENT ANNUAL INCREASED FUEL COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MUFFLER INTRO-
DUCTION ON NEWLY MANUFACTURED LOCOMOTIVES (OVER AN ESTIMATED 25-YEAR
FLEET REPLACEMENT PERIOD)
• Population of owned locomotives [68], assumed constant = 27,11 7.
• A verage No. of new locomotives manufactured annually = 1 089.
• Annual Fuel Cost Increase (Based on 1% Increased Consumption):
After 25-yr. fleet replacement period* = $1 1,900,000.
To determine an annual increased fuel cost for the initial 25 year period during which
fuel costs attributable to muffled locomotives increase in a gradient fashion as the
number of muffled locomotives similarly increases, the equivalent annual cost has been
calculated:
First Year Increased Fuel Cost:
= 1089 new locomotive's x $1 1.900,000
27,1 17 fleet locomotives
= $480,000
Equivalent Annual Increased Fuel Cost (over 25 yrs., i = 1 2%):
= 6.77 x $480,000 + $480,000
= $3,730,000
Equivalent Annual Increased Fuel Cost = $3,730,000.
MUFFLER REPLACEMENT COSTS
It is anticipated that mufflers can be designed to last the life of the locomotive and will
require only highly infrequent replacement. Mufflers may be constructed of heat resistant, anti-
corrosive alloys that will extend their useful lives. Also an important consideration is the fact that
the muffler will be located within the carbody of the locomotive and will be sheltered from the
*$ 11,900,000 annual fuel cost increase computed by updating AAR's (1% or 40,000,000 gal./
year) increased fuel costs estimate of $11,600,000 at 1974 prices (29 cents/gal.) to 1975 price of
(30 cents/gal.).
9-2
-------
harmful effects of exposure to the elements. Further, industrial mufflers have been designed to have
useful lives of more than .20 years and it is expected that locomotive mufflers may be designed for
similarly long life spans. Accordingly, it is expected that muffler replacement costs will be
negligible.
SUMMATION OF THE MAJOR COSTS INCURRED THROUGH THE ADDITION OF MUFFLERS
TO NEWLY MANUFACTURED LOCOMOTIVES:
• Annual incremental locomotive manufacturing costs attributed to muffler introduction:
$860,900-$ 1,034,900
• Equivalent Annual increased fuel costs (over 25 yrs., i = 12%);
$3.730,000
• Total Cost: $4)590,900-$4,764,900
• Costs to be incurred by bankrupt and marginal railroads:
Seven bankrupt railroads may absorb approximately 22 percent of the cost for the
industry.*
Eleven marginal railroads may absorb approximately 6 percent of the cost for the
industry.
NOTE: (1) All dollar amounts used in the preceding discussion have been converted
from 1973 and 1974 dollars to 1975 dollars, using the Bureau of Labor
Statistic's "Wholesale Prices and Price Indexes, WPI Code 24-4, Railraod
Equipment", 1975.
(2) Annual equivalent costs are the equal annual annuity payments made
on a hypothetical loan borrowed by the user of a product to pay for the
additional annual operating, maintenance, and capital expenditures incurred
over the life of the product due to the application of noise abatement tech-
nology. The principal of this hypothetical loan is equal to the total present
value of these initial and future expenditures.
*Percentage estimates based on present locomotive ownership, assuming that these railroads will
buy new locomotives in numbers proportional to the size of their present fleets.
9-3
-------
SECTION 10
INDEX OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE
INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER NOISE EMISSION REGULATIONS
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
COMMENT
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R001
Mr. B. Leath
Commented that railroad acoustic warning
signals are ineffective due to often load
noise levels that exist -in motor vehicle
interiors
Suggested that roadway drop gates equipped
with flasher units provide adequate visual
warning without acoustic signals
R002
State of New
York, De-
partment of
Environmen-
tal Conser-
vation,
Albany
1. Suggested that the term "retarder" be elim-
inated from Section 201.1
Suggested that railroad warning devices be
regulated
3. Suggested test equipment and requested the
specification of error tolerances within
the measurement procedures
Commented that the 100 ft. measuring dis-
tance in the standards is too far
2
4
45
46
•R004
Shell Oil
Company
1. Suggested that the Federal standards should
not apply to private-owned cars
28
R005
ADM Company
1. Commented that since a track standard was
not included in the regulation, quiet rail-
cars might be penalized for wheel/rail
noise caused by faulty track
. Commented that the EPA rail car noise stand
ards would require greater maintenance than
that prescribed by the FRA (1974) railroad
freight car safety standards already in ef-
fect
15
10-1
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
COMMENT
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R009 1. Commented that the proposed regulations 35
Mr. R. would have a substantial adverse economic
Harnden impact upon bankrupt and marginal railroads
2. Commented that adequate information as to 40
the number of people impacted by railroad
noise or benefited by the regulation was
not provided
3. Suggested that the regulation of railroad 40
equipment in rural areas is not called for
R010 1. Commented that adequate information as to 40
Mr. E. the number of people impacted by railroad
Schmidt noise or benefited by the regulation was
not provided
2. Suggested that the regulation of railroad 40
equipment in rural areas is not called for
R011
U.S. Depart-
ment of
Transporta-
tion
1. Suggested that the terms "retarder" and
"sound pressure level" be eliminated from
Section 201.1
2. Questioned why EPA chose to regulate only
certain railroad equipment and not all rail-
road facilities and equipment at this time
3. Suggested that retarder noise emissions be 10
regulated
4. Suggested that a regulation be promulgated 12
to protect railroad workmen from retarder
noise
5. Suggested the inclusion of noise standards 16
for refrigerator cars in the regulation
6. Suggested that refrigerator car owners' 18
ability to pay for mufflers be considered
apart from the economic position of the
railroads
7. Questioned the acoustical acceptability of 24
the typical load cell test site
10-2
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
COMMENT
AGE NO.
IF REPLY
IY EPA
N DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R011
DOT (cent.)
8. Questioned the validity of the self load-
ing test
9. Commented that local enforcement of sta-
tionary standards could result in obstruc-
tion of routine railroad operation
10. Suggested a moving locomotive standard as
a substitute for a stationary standard and
that EPA's definition of wayside surface
conditions be improved
11. Commented that it is appropriate to limit
any rail car regulation to curves of 2
degrees or more
12. Commented that the 270-day standards pro-
vide a disincentive to rebuild old locomo-
tives into compliance or to specify new
locomotives be delivered with the mufflers
needed to comply
13. Suggested $153 million for retrofit as op-
posed to original EPA estimates of $80-
$100 million
14. Suggested types of test equipment that
should be utilized
15. Suggested certain sound measurement param-
eters in the regulation
16. Requested more than 270 days to develop
compliance regulations
17. Suggested that EPA propose property line
standards on railroad noise
25
25
26
27
28
34
45
45
46
50
R012
Illinois
railroad
Association
(IRA)
1. Questioned why EPA chose to regulate only
certain railroad equipment and not all rail
road facilities and equipment at this time
2. Commented that mufflers may cause excessive
backpressure when applied to locomotives
3. Commented that local governments do not
have the ability to determine the technical
feasibility and cost of compliance of noise
regulations
36
43
10-3
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATIOis
COMMENT
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R012 (cent.)
4. Commented that local governments could
make the federal regulation meaningless by
exercise of their non-preempted regulatory
authority
49
R013
Association
of American
Railroads
(AAR)
1. Questioned why EPA chose to regulate only
certain railroad equipment and not all rail
road racilities and equipment at this
time
2. Suggested that EPA should prescribe noise
standards for area-type sources such as
yards
3. Suggested that EPA establish noise limits
applicable to noise from special purpose
equipment
4. Commented that a muffler which meets the
proposed full throttle standard is not
likely to meet the idle requirement too
5. Commented that EPA understimated retrofit-
muffler introduction costs
6. Commented that the proposed regulations
may have substantial adverse economic im-
pact upon bankrupt railroads
7. Commented that mufflers may cause excessive
backpressure when applied to locomotives
and warned of increased chemical and
particulate air emissions
8. Commented that carbon collection in mufflers
presents a potential fire hazard
9. Commented that increased railroad rates to
cover compliance costs may divert traffic
to more fuel intensive and polluting modes
0. Commented that the application of mufflers
will result in decreased reliability of
locomotives
13
20
29
35
36
37
37
38
10-4
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
COMMENT
'AGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R013 (cont.)
(AAR)
1. Commented that muffler manufacturers would 39
have difficulty in designing mufflers for
particular engines unless they knew all the
parameters of the engines involved
2. Suggested information be given as to whethej 40
people were adversely affected by railroad
noise from a health and welfare standpoint
initially
3. Commented that, as a matter of statutory 42
interpretation, EPA must regulate all rail-
road noise sources according the noise con-
trol act of 1972
4. Commented that the setting of federal emis- 43
sion standards for locomotives and railcars
should preempt every effort to control nois
from that same equipment by local authorities
R015
Department o
Environments
Quality,
Portland,
Oregon
1. Suggested that railroad warning devices be
regulated
2. Commented that acoustic warning devices are
not needed around railroad yards
4
6
R016
Fruit
Growers Ex-
press Com-
pany , et. al
1. Questioned why EPA chose to regulate only
certain railroad equipment and not all rail-
road facilities and equipment at this time
2. Suggested the inclusion of noise standards
for refrigerator cars in the regulation
3. Requested an extension of the period of
time prior to promulgation of the final
regulation so that refrigerator car noise
emissions could be studies in relation to
wheel/rail noise
16
18
4
10-5
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
R017
Salt River
Project,
Phoenix,
Arizona
R018
National
Railroad
Passenger
Corporation
CAMTRAK
R019
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
R020
Donaldson
Company, Inc.
COMMENT
1. Commented that backpressure increase from
muffler installation will cause an increase
in fuel consumption
2. Suggested that the regulation of railroad
equipment in rural areas is not called for
1. Suggested separate regulations dealing with
passenger related cars equipped with
auxiliary power equipment
2. Commented that diesel electric locomotives
equipped with auxiliary power generators or
twin traction engines, and gas turbine
locomotives, may not be able to meet the
idle standard
3. Suggested that the moving locomotive stand-
ard should be speed related
4. Suggested certain sound measurement para-
meters in the regulation
1. Questioned the absence of track and right-
of-way standards in the proposed regulation
-^— — — — ———^~~'^~
1. Commented that muffler costs will be higher
than EPA estimates
2. Commented that mufflers may cause excessive
backpressure when applied to locomotives
3. Commented on retrofit problems of certain
types of locomotives
4. Commented that muffling/silencing systems
cannot be developed independently of the
locomotive manufacturers
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
36
40
16
22
26
45
15
34
36
39
39
10-6
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
COMMENT
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
R021
Minnesota
Pollution
Control
Agency
1. Questioned the absence of track and right-
of-way standards in the proposed regulation
2. Questioned the interpretation of the pro-
vision in the act for special local deter-
minations
15
48
R023
Forestry De-
partment ,
Salem,
Oregon
1. Suggested that EPA consider the production
and control of carbon particles in the
locomotive exhaust
36
R024
Town of
Bloomfield,
New Jersey
1. Commented that inadequate information was
provided as to the number of people impacted
by railroad noise nor the number to be bene-
fited by the regulation
2. Requested that local railroad noise
regulations not be prohibited by the EPA's
regulatory action
3. Requested that EPA impose property line
standards on railroad noise
40
48
50
R025
General
Motors Cor-
poration
(GM)
1. Commented on the proposed idle standard
2. Questioned the validity of the 6dB(A) con-
version factor for changing measurements
made at 50 ft. to an equivalent 100 ft.
value
3. Commented that muffler installation will
not always provide a 6dB(A) reduction of
all locomotive noise levels
4. Questioned the distance at which the meas-
urements on noise emissions of an EMD
6P40-2 locomotive were made
20
51
51
52
R026
Mr. K. K.
King
1. Commented that the proposed regulations
would have a substantial adverse economic
impact upon bankrupt railroads
35
10-7
-------
DOCKET NO.
PERSON OR
ORGANIZATION
R026 (cont.)
King
R028
South
Carolina
Department of
Health and
Environmental
Control
R029
City of
Chicago, De-
partment of
Environmental
Control
5030
Citizens
Against
Noise
5043
Mr. G.W.
Kamperman,
Kamperman
Associates
COMMENT
2. Commented that adequate information as to
the number of people impacted by railroad
noise or benefited by the regulation was
not provided
3. Suggested that the regulation of railroad
equipment in rural areas is not called for
1. Suggested that railroad warning devices
be regulated
2. Commented that acoustic warning devices are
not needed around railroad yards
3. Suggested that the standards be reviewed
periodically and strengthened as technolog-
ical advances are made
1. Commented that the 100 ft. measuring dis-
tance in the standards is too far
2. Commented on the interpretation of the
provision in the act for special local
determinations
3. Suggested that local railroad noise regula-
tions not be prohibited by the EPA's
regulatory action
1. Suggested the reduction of railroad warning
devices through the authority of the noise
control act
2. Suggested that the regulation be made
applicable to the operation of intraurban
mass transit systems
1. Suggested that the C-scale would be mote
appropriate for this regulation than the
A-scale
PAGE NO.
OF REPLY
BY EPA
IN DOCKET
ANALYSIS
40
40
4
6
49
46
48
48
5
19
•
45
10-8
-------
REFERENCES
(1). Altman, E.I. (1971). "Railroad Bankruptcy Propensity,"/. Finance, Vol, XXVI, pp. 333-346.
(2). American Association of Railroad Superintendents (1972). "Computers - Who Needs Them?"
Report of Committee No. 3, Annual Meeting.
(3). Baker, P.H., General Electric Co. (1973). Oral presentation before the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C., August 8.
(4). Bender, E.K. et al. (1974). "Railroad Environmental Noise: A State of the Art Assessment,"
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Report No. 2709.
(5). Betts, W.F. (1973). "Verified Statement before the Interstate Commerce Commission in Support
of Railroad's Petition for 5 Percent Increase in Freight Rates and Charges.'.'
(6). Beranek, L.L., Ed. (1971). Noise and Vibration Control, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
(7). Boline, J.J. (1973). "Illinois Central Gulfs Computerized Motive Power Accounting and Charac-
teristics System (MACS)," Railroad International, October.
(8). Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (1973). "Contribution to Background Document for Rail Carrier
Noise Regulations," Report to the EPA,
(9). Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (1975). "Comparison of Alternative Strategies for Identification
and Regulation of Major Sources of Noise," Report No. 2966, prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. 68-01-1547.
(10). Burlington Northern Railroad Co. (undated). Diesel Locomotive Diagrams.
(11). Coelen, C. (1973). Properties of the Adjustment Equation in a Model of the Demand for Workers.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Syracuse: Syracuse University Department of Economics.
(12). Fair, R.C. (1969). The Short-Run Demand for Workers and Hours, Amsterdam North Holland
Publishing Company, 1969.
(13). Anon., "Retarders Are Key to Yards," Railway System Controls, June 1973.
(14). Altman, Edward I. (1971), "Railroad Bankruptcy Propensity," Journal of Finance, Vol XXVI,
pp. 333-346.
(15). American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, Sl.4-1971.
(16). Bietry, M. (1973), "Annoyance Caused by Railroad Traffic Noise," Proceedings of a Congress on
Traffic Noise, Grenoble, France, Jan. 9, 1973.
(17). DOT (1970), "A Study of the Magnitude of T%i^ttation Noise Generation and Potential Abate-
ment, Vol. V, Train System Noise," U.S. Department of Transportation Report No.
OST-ONA-71-1.
Ref-1
-------
(18). DOT (1971), "Noise and Vibration Characteristics of High-Speed Transit Vehicles," U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation Report No. OST-ONA-71 -7.
(19). Embleton, T.F.W. and G.J. Thiessen (1962), "Train Noises and Use of Adjacent Land," Sound,
1:1, pp. 10-16.
(20). EPA Docket 7201001.
(21). Friedlaender, Anne (1969), The Dilemma of Freight Transportation Regulations, Brookings Insti-
tution, Washington, D.C.
(22). Kendall, Hugh C. (1971), "Noise Studied in Retarder Yards," Railway Systems Controls, July 1971
pp. 9-13.
(23). Kurze, U. and L.L. Beranek, "Sound Propagation Outdoors" Noise and Vibration Control, edited
by L.L. Beranek, McGraw-Hill, 1971.
(24). Kurze, U.J., E.E. Ungar, and R.D. Strunk (1971), "An Investigation of Potential Measures for the
Control of Car Retarder Screech Noise," BBN Report No. 2143.
(25). Moody's Transportation Manual (1971).
(26). National Railway Publication Company (July 1973), The Official Guide to the Railways.
(27). Rand McNally & Co. (1971), Commercial A tlas and Marketing Guide.
(28). Railway System Controls (1972), "BN Studies Retarder Noise Abatement," Railway System
Controls, November 1972, pp. 14-20.
(29). Rickley, E.J., R.W. Quinn, and N.R. Sussan (1973), "Wayside Noise and Vibration Signatures of
High Speed Trains in the Northeast Corridor," Department of Transportation Report No.
DOT-TSC-OST-73-18.
(30). Rapin, J.M. (1972), "Noise in the Vicinity of Railroad Lines. How to Characterize and Predict It,"
Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment, Cahiers, Building Research Establishment,
Garston, Watford, WD2 75R.
(31). Ratering, E.G., "The Application of Vehicle Noise Test Results in the Regulatory Process,"
Conference on Motor Vehicle Noise, General Motors, April 3-4, 1973.
(32). Rathe, E.J. (1968), "Effect of Barriere on the Noise of Railroad Trains," Eidgenossiche Material
Prufungs-und Versuchsanstatt fur Industrie, EMPA No. 38 155/2, Bubendorf (in German).
(33). Ringham, R.F. and R.L. Staadt, International Harvest Company Presentation to Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, San Francisco, Calif., September
1971.
(34). Schultz, T.S. (1972), "Some Sources of Error in Community Noise Measurement," Sound and
Vibration, 6:, 2, pp. 18-27,
(35). Schultz, T.S. (1971), "Technical Background for Noise Abatement in HUD's Operating Programs,"
Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Report No. 2005R.
(36). Ungar, E.E., R.D. Strunk, and P.R. Nayak (1970), "Ah Investigation of the Generation of Screech
by Railway Car Retarders," BBN Report No. 2067.
Ref-2
-------
(37). U.S. Bureau of Census, Census of Housing (1970), Block Statistics, Final Report HC(3).
(38). U.S. Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Population (1970), Number of Inhabitants, Final Report
PC(1) - Al, United States Summary.
(39). Wilson, G.P. (1971), "Community Noise from Rapid Transit Systems," in Noise and Vibration
Control Engineering, Proceedings of the Purdue Noise Control Conference, July 14-16, 1971,
p. 46, at Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind., edited by Malcolm J. Crocker.
(40). Wyle Laboratories (1973), Preliminary Data from Wyle Laboratories Research Project No. 59141,
"Communities Noise Profiles for Typical Railroad Operations."
(41). "Business Week", McGraw-Hill, Inc., Sept. 8, 1923, p. 63.
(42). "Railway Age," Simmons Boardman Publishing Corp, Jan. 27, 1975, p. 68.
(43). Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Report No. 2709, "Rail Environmental Noise: A State of the Art
Assessment," Cambridge, Mass.
(44). E.K. Bender and M. Heckl (1970), "Noise generated by Subways above Ground and in Stations,"
DOT Report No. OST-ONA-70-1 (January 1970).
(45). Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Aministration (1971). "Report to Congress:
Railroad Highway Safety, Parts I and II."
(46). Ferguson, C.E. (1969).. The Neoclassical Theory of Production and Distribution, Cambridge
University Press.
(47). Friedlaender, A. (1969). The Dilemma of Freight Transportation, Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution.
(48). Frisch, R. (1965). Theory of Production, Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.
(49). General Motors Corporation (1974). "Locomotive Exhaust Muffler Retrofit; Cost Study Reports
Nos. 1-4."
(50). Hultgren, T. (1960). Changes in Labor During Cycles, New York: New York National Bureau of
Economic Research.
(51). Hoyt, H. (1968). Urban Land Use Requirements, 1968-2000, Homer Hoyt Institute, The American
University, Washington, D.C., Research Monograph No. 1.
(52). Manvel, A.D. (1968). "Land Use in 106 Cities," in Three Land Research Studies, National Com-
mission on Urban Problems, Research Report No. 12.
(53). McGaughey, R.S., Gohring, K.W., and McBrayer, R.N. (1973). "Planning Locomotive and Caboose
Distributions," Rail International, November-December.
(54). Murray, R.F. (1971), "Lessons for Financial Analysis," /. Finance, May, pp. 3275-3332.
(55). New Jersey, State of. "Measurements of Locomotive Noise at Secaucus Shops, Erie Lackawanna
Railroad," Docket submission to Department of Public Utilities, State of New Jersey Docket
No. 7312-1013.
(56). Osthoff, F.C. (1974). "Railway Motive Power - 1973," Railway Locomotives and Cars, New York:
Simmons Boardman Publishing Corp.
(57). Peabody & Associates, Inc. (1974). "Analysis of the Costs of Compliance to the Proposed Interstate
Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation," Report to the EPA.
Ref-3
-------
(58). Pinkepank, J.A. (1973). The Second Diesel Spotter's Guide, Milwaukee: Kalmback Books.
(59). Primbramsky, R., General Motors Copr. (1913). "Diesel-Electric Locomotive Noise Emission,"
oral presentation before the Environmental Protection Agency and the Association of
American Railraods, Washington, D.C., August 8.
(60). Remington, P.J., Rudd, MJ. and Ver, I.L. (1975). "Wheel/Rail Noise and Vibration; Vol. 2:
Applications to Control of Wheel;Rail Noise," DOT Report UMTA-MA-06-0025-75-10.
(61). Rudd, M.J. and Blackman, E.S. (undated). "Computer Program for Predicting the Propagation of
Railroad Noise," Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. Technical Memorandum No. 199.
(62). Swing, J.W. and Pies, D.W. (1973). "Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad
Operations," Wyle Laboratories Report WCR 73-5.
(63). Railway Equipment and Publication Co. (1973). Railway Line Clearances, Annual Issue.
(64). Rickley, E.J., Quinn, R.W., and Sussan, N.R. (1974). "Noise Land Measurements of Railroads:
Freight Yards and Wayside," Department of Transportation Report No. DOT-TSC-OST-73-46.
(65). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1974a). "Background Document/Environmental
Explanation for Proposed Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations," Report No.
500/9-74-005a.
(66). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1974b). "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety," Report
No. 500/9-74-004.
(67). U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission (1972). Eighty-Fifth Annual Report on Transport
Statistics in the United States for the Year Ended December 31,1971.
(68). U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission (1974). Class I Railroads; Financial and Operating Statistics
for the Twelve Months Ended December 31,1973; Statement No. 100.
(69). Wilson, T.A. and Echsten, O. (1964). "Short-Run Productivity Behavior in U.S. Manufacturing,"
Review of Economic and Sta tistics, Vol. XLVI, pp. 41 -54.
(70). Bellis, M.W., General Electric, from letter to BBN, Oct. 21, 1974.
(71). Kugler, Cummins, and Galloway, "Design Guide for Highway Noise Prediction and Control,"
Report NCHRP3 713, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences,
November 1974.
(72). "Transport Statistics in the U.S.; Year ended December 1970; Part I, Railroads; Table 37, p. 15.
Ref-4
-------
Railroad Contacts
Personnel in the operations departments of the following railroads were contacted in the
course of this study.
AMTRAK
Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe
Baltimore and Ohio
Boston and Maine
Burlington Northern
Chesapeake and Ohio
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific
Chicago and North Western
Chicago and North Western
Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific
Denver and Rio Grande Western
Durham and Southern
Gulf, Mobile, and Ohio
Illinoise Central Gulf
Louisville & Nashville
Norfolk Southern
Norfolk and Western
Penn Central
Union Pacific
Yard superintendents, yard masters, or engineering department personnel with the following
railroad companies were contacted in the course of this study.
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul, and Pacific Railroad Yards,
Bensenville, Illinoise
Chesapeak & Ohio/Baltimore & Ohio Railraod Yard,
Walbridge, Ohio
Illinois, Central and Gulf Railroad Yard
Markham, Illinois and Centreville, Illinois
Norfolk & Western Railroad Yard,
Bluefield, West Virginia
Penn Central Railraod Yard,
Elkhart, Indiana
Boston and Maine Railroad Yard,
Mechanicville, New York
Ref-5
-------
Southern Pacific Railroad Yard,
Roseville, California
Union Pacific Railroad Yard,
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Burlington Northern Railroad
Chicago, Illinois and St. Paul, Minnesota
Miscellaneous contacts in the railroad, or related, industry
Association of American Railroads, Research and Test Department
Washington, D. C.
General Electric Company
Erie, Pennsylvania
General Electric Company Sales
Chicago, Illinois
General Motors/EMD
Lagrange, Illinois
Ref-6
-------
Appendix A
MAJOR TYPES OF DIESEL-ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVES IN CURRENT U.S. SERVICE
(1 JANUARY 1973)
-------
Manufacturer
3er.eral Motors
' ~1 of •f-T>_".*nt- 1 \rc
division)
*
*•—
I
Type
5v; it cher
General Purpose
Special Duty
Road Switcher
I
Model
NW2
NV/3,5
SW1
SW8
SW600
SW900
SW7
SW9
SW1200
svaooo
SW1500
GP/SD 7/7B
GP/SD 9/9B
GP/SD 18/28
GP 20
SD 24/24B
GP 30/30B
GP/SD/35
GP/SD 38
H.P. c
1000
1000
600
800
600
900
1200
1200
1200
1000
1500
1500
1750
1800
2000
2^00
2250
2500
2000
Turbo-
harged
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Muffler
Type
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
c
B
Number
Sold
1119
20
660
306
15
260
^93
786
737
168+
546+
2803
4072
426
335
224
946
1645
1103*
Years
39-49
39-47
39-56
50-54
54-62
54-65
49-51
51-53
54-66
66-
66-
49-54
54-59
59-65
59-62
58-63
61-63
63-66
66-
Number In
Class I
721
J
^
' 628
• 1618
.
168+
546+
2550
3603
400
300
200
940
1642
1103+
Service
Class II
137
107
305
, .... .
—
133
21
9
i
%•>
—
3
3
-------
Manufacturer
C-er.eral Motors
(Electro-Motive
^ iV -5 ion ;
*•
10
General
Electric
Type
Road Switcher
Streamlined
Cab/Booster
Freight/
Passenger
Passenger Only
(Twin Engines)
Switcher
Road Switcher
!
Model
GP"39
GP/SD 40
SD 45
DD 35A/35B
DDA 4 OX
FTA/FTB
F2A/F2B
F3A/F3B
F7A/P7B
F9A/F9B
E7A/7B
E8A/E8B
E9A/E9B
44 ton
70 ton
95 ton
U25B/C
U28B/C
U23B/.C
H.P.
2300
3000
3600
5000
6600
1350
1350
1500
1500
1750
2000
2250
2400
400
500-
660
buu--
660
2500
2800
2250
Turbo-
charged
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Muffler
Type
• c
c
c
2C
2C
B
'B
B
B
B
-
-
-
-
-
-
D
D
D .
Number
Sold
87
2217 +
1362 +
45
47
1096
76
1801
3982
235
510
457
144
334
193
46
591
219
212+
Years
6.9-7.0..
66-
65-
63-65
69-71
39-45
46
45-49
49-53
54-57
45-49
49-53
54-63
40-56
46-58
49-56
59-66
66
68-
Number I
Cla.ss I
84
2213 +
1362+
45
47
| «
J
440
1207
205
245
226
.88
[• 18
J
- 524
. 219
212+
n Service
Cla_ss II
. 3
J:
. '
--
__
--
.
95
—
—
— , •
-------
1
Manufacturer
General
Electric
Alco
*
oj
Type
Road Switcher
Switcher
Road Switcher
Model
U30B/C
U33B/C
U36B/C
U503/C
Sl/3
S6
T6
S2/4
RS1/RSD1
RS2
RS2/3
RSD4/5
RS11/12/36
C415
RS32
C-420
RSD7/15
RSD2?
C-424
C-425
C-623
H.P.
3000
3300
3600
5000
660
900
1000
1000
1000
1500
1600
1600
1800
1500
2000
2400
2400
2500
2750
Turbo-
charged
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Muffler
Type
D
D
D
2D
-
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Number
Sold
470+
497
157
66
653
100
55
2012
497
400
1312
203
436
26
164
102
80
91
135
Years
66-
67-
69-
63-70
40-53
55-60
58-69
40-61
41-60
46-50
50-56
51-56
56-63
66-68
61-68
54-60
59-67
64-66
63-68
Number Ir
Class I
470+
497+
157 +
66
! 92
]
• 681
76
1 564
]
348
26
121
] 119
89
91
i Service
Class II
__
—
—
—
7 Q
2Q3
i-l
_>
30
11
—
1
--
—
—
—
-------
Manufacturer
Alec
Baldwin
Li.T.a Kanilton
*
^
Fairbanks
Morse
V.Taitcomb
Plymouth
Ccoper Bessemer
Type
Road Switcher
Streamlined
Cab/Booster
Switcher
Road Switcher
Streamlined
Switcher
Road Switcher
Switcher
Switcher
Switcher
Model
C-430/630
C-636
FA/FBI
FA/FB/2
PA/PB1
PA/PB1/2/3
S-8
DS-4-4-10
S-12
RS-12
DRS-N-16
RS-N16
RF16/16B
H10-44
H17-44
H16-44/66
H24-66
Turbo-
H.P. charged
3000 Yes
3600 Yes
1500 Yes
1600 Yes
2000 Yes
2250 - Yes
800 No
1000 Yes
1200 Yes
1200 Yes
1600 Yes
1600 Yes
1000 No
1200 No
1600 No
2400 No
600
300
1200
Muffler
Type
D
D
-
-
-
-
Number
Sold
93
34
581
491
210
84
61
433
449
46
447
160
197
306
384
105
Years
66-68
67-68
46-50
50-56
46-50
50-53
50-54
46-51
51-56
51-56
47-55
50-53
44-49
50-58
50-63
53-56
Number I
Class I
84
31
—
—
—
—
22
136
190
36
40
164
105
31
—
I
n Service
Class II
—
—
—
—
—
—
15
46
3c
29
6
a
—
.
5
3
7
-------
Manufacturer
v. * »'•
Cu.Tjr.ins
H.K. Porter
Type
Switcher
Sv;itcher
Model
H.P.
0
170
500
Turbo-
charged
Muffler
Type
Number
Sold
Years
Number I
Class I
21
n Service
Class II
—
4
T
-------
Appendix B
REVIEW OF THE USE OF AUDIBLE TRAIN-MOUNTED WARNING DEVICES AT
PROTECTED RAILROAD HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
-------
REVIEW OF THE USE OF AUDIBLE TRAIN MOUNTED
WARNING DEVICES AT PROTECTED RAILROAD -
HIGHWAY CROSSINGS
B.I Requirements For the Use of Audible Warning Devices
The stopping distance of trains is much longer than
that of motor vehicles, they are much more difficult to
reaccelerate, and due to their length they often overlap
more than one road intersection at a time. Therefore,
trains have traditionally had the right-of-way at level
crossings, while motorists are expected to look out for
trains and give way. The burden is then placed upon
the railroad to assist the motorist in determining when
a train passage is imminent. The traditional method of
doing this is to sound a whistle and/or bell and keep a
headlight burning on the head ends of all trains, and to
mark the crossing in some manner so as to attract the
attention of approaching travelers.
Public Railroad-Highway grade crossings may be equipped
with one of the following, which are classified herein
into the three major headings shown:
(a) Unprotected
(1) Unilluminated stop-look-listen sign or
"cross buck" at the crossing generally accompanied by
striping and words painted on the road surface and passive
prewarning signs in advance of the crossing.
B-l
-------
(2) As above, plus continuous (night time)
illumination of the crossing and/or the signs.
(3) As above plus flashing amber caution lights.
(4) Any of the above, plus "rumble strips11 on
the road surface.
(b) Protected (no gates)
This group of systems may employ combinations of the
signs,lights, markings, etc. from (a) above, but is distin-
guished by the addition of:
(1) Flashing lights generally plus bells, which
are actuated upon the approach of the trains(s) by virtue
of automatic electrical signals attached to the tracks.
These systems are arranged to be fail-safe, in that most
internal failures cause the signal to indicate the approach
of a train.
(2) Traffic lights may be used in some places,
in lieu of the characteristic flashing crossing lights,
but also conveying the intelligence that a train(s) is in
fact in the vicinity.
(3) Watchmen, stationed at the crossing, or
trainmen walking with their train, will "flag" motorists
or may activate lights or other devices.
(c) Protected With Gates
In addition to active signals and advance warnings
as in (b) physical barriers are automatically dropped in
the motorists' path upon the approach of the train(s),
often with lights attached thereto.
B-2
-------
These gates may interrupt only the approaching highway
lanes (half gates) or both lanes on each side (to discourage
driving around) and may be .supplemented by small
pedestrian gates at walkways. However, these gates are
not constructed so as to physically restrain vehicles, but
are really a type of "sign", intended to assure driver
i
attention and realization that a train is to be expected.
Gates are commonly used at busy crossings where there are
two or more tracks, to add a degree of protection against
motorists proceeding as soon as one train has passed, when
there may be one approaching on another track.
The cost of installation of crossing signals varies
widely and depends greatly upon particular local circum-
stances. Modest installations with gates average about
$30,000, and may be as high as $60,000. The annual cost
of inspecting, maintaining, and repairing protected
crossings is about $1,000 each, not including the cost
of roadway and track work.
Complete grade separations may cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars, or even millions, and while many
are being constructed, the number is not statistically
significant within the context of the overall problem.
(When separations are installed, it is usually possible
to arrange for the outright closing of a few nearby
crossings, thus expanding the safety benefit of this
large investment.)
B-3
-------
The level of crossing protection installed at a
particular location is determined by the hazard involved
which is effected by the amount of road traffic, the
number and speed of trains passing and topography. This
may be determined by the judgement of local officials,
the railroad managements, or both and is often established
simply by a past record of accidents at a crossing in
question. The investment in crossing equipment may be
the responsibility of the railroad, the State or local
government, the Federal government or any combination
thereof. This question has been the subject of much
controversy in the past, and is in a state of flux
at present, with the trend being toward greater govern-
ment responsibility although some railroads continue to
spend large sums of their own money on new systems every
year. Automatic signal system maintenance has always
been the responsibility of the railroad.
Train-born signals to warn motorists and pedestrians
of the approach of trains are required by most States.
Federal safety regulations are confined to the inspection
of such devices on locomotives, to the end that - if
present - they shall be suitably located and in good
working order (Safety Appliance Act, 45 USCA; 49 Code of
Fed. Regulation 121, 234, 236, 428, 429). The Federal
government has shunned greater regulatory responsibility
in this field in the past. There is a very significant
B-4
-------
Federal research and promotional effort underway to
improve grade corssing safety, however.
The State laws requiring train-born signals do
not quanlify their loudness. It is common for the State
laws to quatify the requirement to apply all public
crossings except in municipalities, leaving the use of
horms or bells in towns and cities to local discretion.
A survey of the 48 contiguous States yields the
following summary of information regarding their
regulations:
.. Requirements for sound signals at public crossings
imposed by:
Statute 38
Public Utility Commission 1 (Calif.)
Common Law 3
Penal Code 1 (N. Y.)
None or no information 5
48 \
Requirement at private crossing: - if view is
^obstructed 1
Signals to consist of:
Whistle or bell 24
Whistle and bell 7
Whistle 6
Bell only 2 (Fla. & R.I.)
-------
Distance at which signal is to be sounded:
Beginning at a minimum of distance (35 States
varying from 660 feet in Michigan to 1500
feet in South Carolina, with an average of
1,265, the most common being 1/320 feet
(80 rods).
Beginning at a maximum distance (3 States):
Montana 1,320, Ohio 1,650, and Virginia
1,800 feet.
To continue until train:
Reaches crossing 35
Is entirely over crossing 3
Exception of some form provided for incorporated
areas in at least 15 States:
California, Lowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missours, New Jersey, New York,
Nevada, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin,
and Florida.
.. Exception provided at crossing with:
Gates and/or watchmen - Delaware
Flashing lights and bells - Illinois
(More is said about exceptions in a later section of
this report.)
B-6
-------
Railroad operating rules reflect the ordinances in
effect in the areas through which they pass, generally
encouraging the use of warning signals at the discretion
of the operator to avoid accidents, but admonishing
against unnecessary soundings. Specific supplementary
advice is contained in Standard Rule 14, which is adopted
by many carriers, requiring the sounding of signals in all
situations where two or more trains are at or approaching
a crossing simultaneously/ due to the extra hazard con-
sequent to the limited view and preoccupation of approach-
ing motorists and pedestrians when they see or hear just
one of the trains.
Two good examples of State requirements for the
sounding of warning signals at crossings are those of
California and West Virginia, attached hereto as Appendix
Al, A2, and B, respectively.
Over and above statutory and regulatory requirements
for the use of warning signals on trains, the judiciary
and juries have tended to assume that there is a burden
upon the operators of railroads to employ such devices.
Numerous judgments have been made against railroads in
court cases wherein the sufficiency of warnings were
questioned, particularly by juries and seemingly to a
relatively greater degree in California. As a result,
railroads are reluctant to dispense with any ordinary
action which might be construed to be a contributing factor
in crossing accidents. More will be said on this topic
B-7
-------
in a later section.
In addition to requirements for warning travellers
at level crossings, the State of New Jersey Public Utilities
Commission has ordered that passenger carrying railroads
operating in that State sound a horn or whistle prior to
stopping at or passing through a. passenger station on
a track adjacent to a platform. (January 20, 1972,
Docket 7010-525) Subsequent modifications limited this
requirement to one long blast, during daylight hours, and
then only when the engineer has reason to believe persons
may be in the vicinity of such platforms.
B.2 Railroad - Highway Accidents,
There are over 220,000 public rail highway crossings
at grade in the United States, of which 22% are actively
protected (Categories 2_ and 3) . (There are also about
150,000 private crossings.)
In 1972 there were almost 12,000 public crossing
accidents, resulting in 1,260 deaths. These totals have
been decreasing slowly since 1966. In 67% of these accidents
the train -struck a motor vehicle, in 28% a motor vehicle
struck trains and in 5% trains struck pedestrians or there
NOTE: Figures in this section are taken from references
(4) and (5). Accident figures sometimes differ
between references due to the $750 cost baseline
for reporting accidents to the Federal Railroad
Administration. Crossing figures may differ due
to the inclusion or exclusion of private crossings,
B-8
-------
were no trains involved. 39% of the collisions occurred
at crossings provided with gates, watchman, audible and/or
visible signals, while 61% were at crossings having signs
which did not indicate the approach of trains (Category JL).
63% of the collisions occurred during daylight, and
37% at night. It is believed that about 67% of motor
vehicle traffic flows in the daytime, 33% at night, suggest-
ing a slightly higher crossing hazard at night (37% of
the collisions with 33% of the traffic).
Automobiles constituted 73% of the motor vehicles
involved, trucks 25%, motorcycles 1.3% and buses 0.3%.
V
When motor vehicles struck sides of trains, they
usually contacted the front portion thereof, particularly
during daylight; the propensity to strike elsewhere in-
creases at night. The side of train category appear to
be twice as hazardous at night, in that 53% of them occur
then, with 33% of the traffic, with the peak occurring
between midnight and 2 a.m. In fact, when these are de-
ducted from the total, the train-strikes-vehicle collisions
are in about equal proportion to the traffic distribution,
day and night.
The propensity for accodents at actively protected
crossings is also greater at night than in daylight, per
unit of traffic, perhaps indicating that driver alterness
is a more significant factor in these cases.
iB-9
-------
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC CROSSING TYPES,
LOCATIONS AND ACCIDENTS (1970)
URBAN
RURAL
TOTAL
5970
18050
4240
28260
(3624)
50860
(3827)
79120
(7451)
2970
14620
2680
20270
(1533)
12385
(3428)
144120
(4961)
8940
32670
6920
48530
(5157)
17471
(7255)
223240
(12412)
GATES (category 3)
SIGNALS (category 2)
OTHER OR MANNED
TOTAL ACTIVE
(ACCIDENTS)
PASSIVE (category 1)
(ACCIDENTS)
GRAND TOTAL
(ACCIDENTS)
There were 70 fatalities in 1972 at gates, and
440 total at all active crossings, somewhat less than one
per 100 crossings.
Accident rates and severity are significantly higher
at actively protected crossings, indicating that the
greater hazards where they are installed are not fully
compensated for by the increased protection. The rates
are also higher in urban areas than rural, for both
active and passive crossings, so that in the very areas
where noise exposure is greatest, the safety situation
is worst.
B-10
-------
It could also be argued that the accidents which
occurred in spite of the active protection demonstrate
the ineffectiveness or waste of warnings such as train
horns in such areas.
While vehicle traffic, train traffic and speed
continue to increase, protection installations are also
increasing, and the total number of crossings is de-
creasing. The 1973 Highway Act provides a total of
$175 million over a three year period for crossing safety,
on a 90/10 Federal share basis, or a potential total of
$193 million, of which at least half is to be spent on
active protection systems. Gate installations constitute
about 30% of all new protection, and since such systems
cost about $30,000 on the average, approximately 1,000
more gate installations should occur during this three
year period, in addition to those installed at railroad
initiative. The Northeast Corridor is already on its
way to being totally without level crossings of any kind.
NOTE: Reports of crossing statistics vary from year to
year, are often based on different reporting
criteria and may be for either public and private
crossings.
B-ll
-------
B.3 The Impact and Effectiveness of Locomotive Horns
Acoustical Characteristics and Noise Impact
The audibility of air horns, the predominant warning
devices which are the subject of attention herein, has
been investigated (1) as part of a DOT program to make
crossing warning systems more effective. It was found
that the horns which are presently employed are not very
effective, and to be so it would be necessary to increase
their loudness, "warbling" and/or the use of as many as
5 chimes (pitches) have been recommended. Obviously,
since the whole purpose is to gain attention and instill
a sense of imminent danger and alertness in persons
located at 1/4 mile distance, such signals are bound to
be disturbing - by definition.
Figure 1 shows the approximate noise pattern of an
average locomotive horn. In order to increase motorist
impact to a degree sufficient to be of real value, the
loudness would need to be increased as much as 23 dB,
resulting in a loudness of 128 dB at 100 feet. (The
A and C weighted loudness of the common air horns are
almost identical; no distinction is made in the literature)
Loudness at 90° from the direction of movement is
5 to 10 dB less than straight ahead and it is possible
B-12
-------
that this pattern could be improved somewhat, but the loud-
ness should be substantially maintained to at least 30°
each side of center due to the variation in angle of approach
of railroads and highways.
This problem of audible warning is shared with emer-
gency vehicle sirens. Fire, police and rescue units have
a parallel problem. With motor vehicle' windows closed,
in modern, acoustically well constructed vehicles, and
with road noises and/or air conditioning, radios, etc.
competing with the warning devices, at least 105 dB is
needed outside a vehicle in order to gain the attention
of most drivers. Research is underway to determine the
feasibility of installing warning devices inside motor
vehicles, which would be actuated by the approach of a
train or an emergency vehicle.
In Figure 1 are shown the acoustical characteristics
of the common railroad air horns, the orientation of
train and vehicles in a set of relatively high speed en-
counters, such that the motor vehicles shown would have
a reasonable stopping distance to the point and instant
of train passage at a crossing. Table 2 lists the required
noise levels at vehicles travelling at various speeds
(exterior background noise assumed dominated by running
noise of vehicle) to gain the attention of the drivers;
the 50% attention column nearly corresponds to the average
B-13
-------
dB
tECOMMENDED
AVERAGE
TODAY
ILLUSTRATION OF HORN
LOUDNESS VS DISTANCE &
EXAMPLE OP DISTANCES TO
APPROACHING VEHICLES
VEHICLE SPEED
>_ 35 mph
36 - 50 mph
51 - 65 mph
(SOURCE: REF 1)
TABLE 2
dB OUTSIDE VEHICLE"FOR % FOR DRIVERS TO NOTICE
50% 98%
83 101
87 105
91 109
STANDARD DEVIATION - 6dB
B-14
-------
situation today. To alert 98% of the drivers at (B)
it would be necessary to increase the sound levels by
about 30 dB, resulting in a level at 100 feet abreast of
the locomotive of about 130 dB.
Figure 2(a) illustrates the noise pattern which
characterizes most horns in use today, and Figure 2(b)
depicts the areas lying within an envelope in which the
noise from a horn being blown for a crossing will equal
or exceed 77 dB for some period with each train passage.
The 77 dB figure is chosen rather arbitrarily, largely
because it corresponds to a 1,000 foot boundary adjacent
to the track, which is compatible with the modest data
available on residential population alongside railroads.
It is also a reasonable number as regards nuisance levels
of intermittent noise intrusion, being used herein
merely for the purpose of approximating the scope of the
impact of warning device noise.
Some 202 miles of railroad route in 12 fereas of 10
cities of varying overall size, selected randomly, have
been reviewed. The population within 1,000 feet of the
railroads in this examination average 2,410. Therefore,
in urban areas, about 600 persons are usually exposed to
77 dB from an instant up to 10 or 15 seconds each time a
train passes a level crossing.
-------
LOCOMOTIVE HORNS - AVERAGE NOISE PROPAGATION UNDER
IDEAL CONDITIONS
800'
1000'
a) 77 dB Profile
o
o
4000'
b) Area subjected to 77dB level or more
Based upon extension of profile along route
FIGURE 2
-------
Table 3
% of Population
1. Unprotected 33.0 million 16
2. Signalled 13.7 6
3. Gated (3.7) (2)
Total 46.7 million 22
(Signalled includes gated)
This would indicate that one-fifth of the total
population is "within hearing" of a grade crossing. In
fact, the noise patterns are probably much less severe
than shown here, due to topographical features, and many
of the protected as well as some of the unprotected
crossings are covered by restrictive ordinances, so that
probably more like 10-15% of the people are exposed to
the 77 dB or greater level used here for illustration
(exterior to dwellings, etc.).
If the use of horns was prohibited at all actively
protected crossings, 30% of these exposures would be
avoided. If such a restriction was confined to crossing
with gates, 8% of the exposures would be avoided. These
abatement measures would be noticeable to about 3% or 1%
of the population, respectively, allowing for attenuation
B-17
-------
locally and background noise and the fact that many
crossings are already covered by such rules.
Assuming that the use of signals and gates corresponds
to the highest hazard levels or volume classes as depicted
by the Department of Transportation, the number of daily
train and vehicle passages at the crossings in question
has been estimated as shown in Table 4.
Table 4
Daily Trains Daily Vehicles
Total over signalled
crossings 950,000 160,000,000
Average per signalled
crossing 20 3,300
Total over gated crossings 200,000 70,000,000
Average per grated crossing 22 7,800
If the average train sounds its horn over a period of
12 seconds, the average citizen within 1,000 feet will experi-
ence the noise at 77 dB or more for an average of 8 seconds.
At gated crossings where horn blowing occurs 22 times per day,
the equivalent energy produced (L ) is 50.1 dB, whereas at
signalled crossings where it occurs only 20 times per day, the
equivalent energy would be 49.7 dB.
People residing within hearing of grade crossings
are generally conditioned to the sound, which tonewise
B-18
-------
is not particularly disturbing. The most common casual
notice of the use of horns at crossings is expressed by
persons staying at motels, which are not infrequently
located on highways which parallel railroads and are near
road crossings. Being otherwise unaccustomed to the sound,
it is quite noticeable, particularly at night.
Warning Effectiveness of Horns
As noted above, at present only about half of all
motorists can notice the sound of a train horn when they
are driving and their windows are closed, even under ideal
conditions. And the alerting capability - even if the
horn is noticeable - is still less. It is impossible to
determine how many accidents have been prevented by the
routine sounding of horns, although it is apparent from
the experience of train drivers that many accidents have
been averted by the ad hoc sounding of horns, while an
even greater number have occurred in spite of it. However,
these comments are directed to all crossings, passive
(unprotected) as well as active (protected). It is unlikely
that either routine or ad hoc use of horns at crossings
where lights are flashing and bells are ringing at the
crossing significantly improves ordinary driver attention,
particularly where gates are lowered as well. On the other
hand, some drivers and most pedestrians can hear the horn
when it is sounded. Also, in those occasional incidents
where a vehicle is stalled on a crossing the horn may serve
B-19
-------
to divert people from continued efforts to move their
vehicle and to depart forthwith on foot. But in the latter
case, sounding on a routine basis is probably not necessary.
Attached hereto as Enclosures C, D, and E are (abridged)
reports on three rather typical grade crossing accidents
wherein the accidents occurred in spite of crossing signals
and the sounding of warnings by the train. These are
selected somewhat randomly, to illustrate by example a
kind of crossing accident whi*ch is all too common.
B.4 Prohibition against the use of audible devices
It is already quite common for the routine sounding
of horns or whistles to be prohibited, except in emergencies.
It is also common for these prohibitions not to be enforced.
A careful search for cases where such prohibitions appeared
to, or were claimed to contribute to an accident has not
yielded evidence of a single such situation.
. Among the localities which restrict the use of horns
are those listed in Table 5.
B-20
-------
Table 5. Some Localities with Restrictions
Notes
The State of Florida (2)
The State of Illinois (1)
The State of Massachusetts
Chicago, Illinois (1) (2) (3)
Houston, Texas (1) (2)
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Buffalo, New York (1) (2)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Knoxville, Tennessee (1) (2)
Durham, North Carolina (2)
Mason City, Iowa (3)
Warren Pennsylvania
Elkhart, Indiana
Toledo, Ohio
Columbus, Ohio
Akron, Ohio
Lynchburg, Virginia (1) (2)
San Bernadino, California (1)
South Holland, Illinois
Elmhurst, Illinois
Lockport, N.Y.
Rochester, N.Y.
(1) Contacted local authorities in course of this study.
(2) Specific Information contained in Enclosure F.
(3) Not enforced. B-21
-------
The 15 states where requirements to use horns are
excepted, but not necessarily prohibited, in incorporated
areas are:
Table 6.
California* New Jersey
Florida New York*
Iowa* Nevada*
Kansas Utah
Kentucky* Virginia*
Michigan* Washington
Minnesota Wisconsin
(*also have local-option provision)
In 4 additional states there is a local option provision,
allowing cities and towns to relieve requirements:
Table 7.
Illinois North Carolina
Indiana West Virginia
Two states permit silent running at crossings with
certain protection systems:
.. Delaware: warning requirements do not apply when
crossing is protected by watchman or gates.
.. Illinois: requirements do not apply when crossing
is protected by automatic signals (with or without
gates).
B-22
-------
One of the most comprehensive Noise Control Regulations
thus far drafted in the United States is that of the State of
Illinois. As it stands, its property line limitations would
affect the use of audible crossing warning devices except that
its Rule 208, Exceptions, states: "Rules 202 through 207
inclusive shall not agply to sound emitted from emergency
warning devices and unregulated safety relief valves."
Thus, it can be seen that there is considerable
precedent for placing constraints upon the use of audible
warnings, with no apparent adverse effects. However, they
are not uniformly enforced, and where enforced, the carrier
generally receives written instructions from the constraining
authority, and is nevertheless impowered to sound warnings
"in emergencies"..."in the event of impending accident"...
etc.
B.5 Judicial Background
Tort litigation constitutes the bulk of the legal or
judicial history of grade crossing safety responsibility.
Abstracts of 2500 cases throughout the United States during
the period 1946 to 1966 have been surveyed (3), checking
into 300 possibly related to the question at hand.
In addition, 5 cases were cited by a cooperating
railroad as illustrative of the railroad liability question.
One of these was found to be inapplicable to the question
at hand, three were decided in favor of the railroad. In
the other, a jury found for the plaintiff, although a
B-23
-------
whistle had in fact been sounded. Of these, 21 appeared to
be somewhat related and the case records were reviewed.
Nothing was unearthed which would appear to deter Federal
or local constraints on audible traincarried devices at
protected crossings.
Several themes are woven through the opinions rendered
in the many cases on record. These are certainly not
uniformly respected, but they are sufficiently common as
to be noticeable:
.. Safety provisions, including warnings, should be
compensurate with the specifics of local conditions.
.. The railroad is expected to give "adequate and
timely" warning of the approach of a train. The railroad's
case is often intended to show that their warning could
have been heard by an attentive motorist.
.. To be cause for placing liability, an omission on
the part of the carrier generally must be shown to have
contributed to the event in question.
.. Motorists are generally expected to be cautious
at crossings, to the extent even of stopping or look
"and listen".
.. Contributory negligence on the part of a motorist
is generally taken into account.
The fact remains, however, that courts, especially
juries, have extracted severe payments from railroads,
B-24
-------
seeming usually to give plaintiffs the benefit of all doubt.
For this reason, railroad companies are understandably at
pains to make any changes which could conceivably be con-
strued as a reduction in safety precaution (or increase in
hazard). Also, the employees charged with operating trains
are usually subject to prosecution under criminal law if
negligence and/or violation of a statute might be involved,
and are thus inclined to err in the direction of sounding
their warning devices, not to mention their sincere personal
desire to avoid injury to even the negligent public, as
well as themselves. (Collision between trains and large
trucks, especially those'carrying hazardous materials, are
very dangerous to the occupants of the train.) A possible
fine for violation of a noise ordinance is not nearly as
imposing a threat as the liablility, criminal action and con-
science which accompany the threat of collision.
B.6 Summary
One of the railroad noise sources which has been
commented upon in the course of interstate rail carrier
regulatory development by this Agency's Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, is that of railroad train horns
which are sounded routinely at grade crossings. It has
B-25
-------
been suggested that such sounding be prohibited in cases
where automatic, active protection is in operation at
the crossing itself, particularly where this protection
includes gates.
However, it remains that the routine sounding of horns
might be contributing to the prevention of some accidents.
Certainly, a small segment of the population is exposed to
serious noise intrusion thereby and a reduction in their
welfare, particularly at night. But it is the Agency's
position at this time, that it would be imprudent to single
out and restrict night time use of horns, since the crossing
hazard with regard to driver behavior is, if anything, worse
at night.
In view of the questionable value of train horns for
warning highway drivers, particularly at locations having
active crossing signals, it may be appropriate to encourage
the abolition of routine use of horns at crossings so
v_
equipped, particularly but not necessarily only those
with gates. The circumstances which determine hazard
levels as well as noise intrusion vary widely and are
peculiar to local circumstances. It is therefore concluded
that regulation of railroad warning be best left to the
option of local authorities at this time, recommending
thereto that consideration be given to restrictions upon
the routine sounding of train horns at protected crossings.
B-26
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Visibility and Audibility of Trains Approaching
Rail-Highway Grade Crossings; J. P. Amelius, N. Korobow;
NTIS-PB-202668'.
2. Driver Information Systems for Highway-Railway Grade
Crossings; K. W. Heathington, T. Urbanik.
3. American Digest System, 6th and 7th Dicennial Digests.
4. Rail Highway Grade Crossing Accidents from the Year
1972, Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration.
5. Report to Congress on Railroad-Highway Safety, No. II,
Department of Transportation, FRA/FHWA.
B-27
-------
ENCLOSURE A
Public Utilities Code Annotated of the
State of California
Adopted May 31, 1951
Page 784
ARTICLE 8
CRIMES
Collateral References
§7678. emission to sound bell or whistle. Every person in charge of
a locototive-engine who, before corssing any traveled public way, omits
to cause a bell to ring or steam whistle, air siren, or air whistle to
sound at the distance of at least 80 rods from the crossing, and up to
it, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
Legislative History
Enacted 1951. Based on former Pen C §390, as amended by Stats 1949
eh 391 § 1 p 733, without substantial change.
Collateral References
Cal Jur 2d Railroads 44
McKinney's Cal Dig Railroads § 71.
Am Jur Railroads S S 357 et seq.
B-28
-------
PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(Abridged)
7604. A bell, of at least 20 pounds weight, shall be placed on
each locomotive engine, and shall be rung at a distance of at
least 80 rods from the place where the railroad crosses any
street, road or highway, and be kept ringing until it has
crossed the street, road, or highway; or a steam whistle, air
siren, or an air whistle shall be attached, and be sounded
except in cities, at the like distance; etc.
B-29
-------
ENCLOSURE B
THE WEST VIRGINIA CODE
(Abridged)
§ 31-2-8. Warning of approach of train at crossings; crossing
railroad tracks.
A bell or steam whistle shall be placed on each locomotive engine, which shall
be rung or whistled by the engineer or fireman, at a distance of at least sixty
rods from the place where the railroad crosses any public street or highway, and
be kept ringing or whistling for a time sufficient to give due notice of the
approach of such train before such street or highway is reached, and any failure
so to do is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not exceeding one hundred
dollars; and the corporation owning or operating the railroad shall be liable to
any party injured for all damages sustained by reason of such neglect.
I. SCOPE OF STATUTE AS TO
WARNINGS.
A. In General.
Mlchlc'i Jurisprudence. — For full treatment
of accidents at crossings, see 15 M.J., Railroads,
If 69-101. As to duty to give signal by bell or
whistle, see 15 M.J., Railroads, §§ 81-83.
ALR references. — Railroad company's
negligence in respect to maintaining flagman at
crossing, 16 ALR 1273; 71 ALR 1160.
Duty of railroad company to maintain flagman
at crossing, 24 ALR2d 1161.
Admissibility of evidence of train speed prior
to grade-crossing accident, and competency of
witness to testify thereto, 83 ALR2d 1329.
The common-law requirement as to signals
i* fully as exacting as the statutory duty. What
the notice and warning to the public shall be
depends, under the common law, upon the
circumstances of each case; but some adequate
methods of apprising travelers of the crossing
must be practiced. Niland v. Monongahela &
West Penn Pub. Serv. Co., 106 W. Va. 528, 147
S.E. 478 (1928).
Both bell and whistle are not required
without statute. — There is no absolute
requirement upon a railroad company to blow a
whistle and ring a bell at a crossing unless made
so by statute. Niland v. Monongahela & West
Penn Pub. Serv. Co., 106 W. Va. 528,147 S.E. 478
(1928).
The methods of apprising travelers of a
crossing almost universally adopted are by the
ringing of a bell or the sounding of a whistle, but
in order to make both obligatory, the use of both
must be called for by a statute. Niland v.
Monongahela & West Penn Pub. Serv. Co., 106
W. Va. 528, 147 S.E. 478 (1928).
Provisions of section are minimum
requirements. — The provisions of this section
as to warning signals are of broad application
and are minimum requirements, and in every
case the compliance with this statute, plus the
presence of an efficiently operating
crossing-bell will not (apart from the question of
contributory negligence of the plaintiff)
constitute an ironclad defense to the railroad,
under all circumstances. Baltimore & O.R.R. v.
Deneen, 161 F.2d 674 (4th Cir. 1947).
Travelers have the right to assume that
trains will give the usual signals at crossings.
Morris v. Baltimore & O.R.R., 107 W. Va. 97,147
S.E. 547 (19291.
But railroad only owes duty to signal a*
required by statute. — The driver of an
automobile on a public crossing is an invitee, and
the railway company is bound only to use
reasonable care not to collide with the
automobile, and owes only the duty to give the
signals provided by statute. Chesapeake A 0.
Ry. v. Hartwell, 142 W. Va. 318, 95 S.E.2d 462
(1956).
As this section is intended to protect penou*
on highway. — The duty imposed by statute to
sound a bell or whistle when approaching a
public crossing does not require a railroad
company to give such warning elsewhere than
at the places so designated, because they are not
intended to afford protection to employees of the
operating company, but to petwnnriivvf'ftght
may use the railroad track* as part* of the public
highway. Jones v. Virginian Ry., 74 W. Va. 666,
88 S.E. 54, 1915C L.R.A. 428 (1914).
B-30
-------
II. FAILURE TO GIVE WARNINGS
AS NEGLIGENCE; CONTRIBU-
TORY NEGLIGENCE.
Violation of section is negHgence. — The
failure to give proper signals of the approach of
a train to a railroad crossing as required by this
section would constitute negligence on the part
of a defendant railroad. Cavendish v.
Chesapeake & 0. Ry., 95 W. Va. 490, 121 S.E.
498 (1924).
But does not impose liability unless it
proximately causes injury. — Liability for
injury to baby of 13 months could not be based
on failure to give signals since the failure was
not the proximate cause of the injury. Virginian
Ry. v. Armentrout, 158 F.2d 358 (4th Cir. 1946).
Failure to ring the bell or blow the whistle at
crossings, though required by law, will not
render the company liable, unless that be the
proximate cause of the injury. Beyel v. Newport
News & Miss. Valley R.R., 34 W. Va. 538,12 S.E.
532 (1890).
Thus, railroad is not liable if contributory
negligence is proximate cause. — Where one is
injured by carelessly driving on a railroad
crossing in front of a moving engine or train, the
proximate cause of his injury must be regarded
as his contributory negligence, and not the
negligence of the railroad company in failing to
ring the bell or blow the whistle. Cline v.
McAdoo, 85 W. Va. 524, 102 S.E. 218 (1920).
Where the only evidence was that the warning
signals required by this section were not given,
and that the failure to do so constituted
negligence on the part of defendant, it was held
that notwithstanding defendant's negligence, if
deceased's contributory negligence is
established as a matter of law, plaintiff can have
no recovery. Arrowood v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 127
W. Va. 310, 32 S.E.2d 634 (1944).
And signal requirement does not relieve
traveler of exercising ordinary care. — Failure
to ring bell or blow a whistle on an engine, as
required by this section, is negligence for which
a railroad company is chargeable; but this does
not excuse the traveler on a highway crossing
a railroad track from the exercise of such
reasonable care and caution as the law requires,
to ascertain whether a train is approaching the
crossing. Beyel v. Newport News & Miss. Valley
R.R., 34 W. Va. 538,12 S.E. 532 (1890); Bassford
v. Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry.,
70 W. Va. 280, 73 S.E. 926 (1912); Cline v.
McAdoo, 85 W. Va. 524, 102 S.E. 218 (1920);
Robinson v. Chesapeake & 0. Ry., 90 W. Va. 411,
110 S.E. 870, 22 A.L.R. 892 (1922); Cavendish v.
Chesapeake & 0. Ry., 95 W. Va. 490, 121 S.E.
498 (1924); Gray v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 99 W. Va.
575,130 S.E. 139 (1925); Berkeley v. Chesapeake
& 0. Ry., 43 W. Va. 11, 26 S.E. 349 (18%).
Though a traveler has the right to assume that
warning signals required by this section will be
given, failure to give them will not excuse him
from exercising ordinary care, and taking the
necessary precautions for his safety. Arrowood
v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 127 W. Va. 310, 32 S.E.2d
634 (1944).
III. EVIDENCE.
The burden of proving that signals were not
given rests upon the plaintiff. Parsons v. New
York Cent. R.R., 127 W. Va. 619, 34 S.E.2d 334
(1945).
No conflict in evidence where some
witnesses heard signals and some did not —
The fact that witnesses have heard signals given
by a locomotive approaching a crossing warning
travelers of danger, is not necessarily in conflict
with the evidence of other witnesses who did not
hear them; for the observation of the fact by
those who heard is consistent with the failure of
the others to hear them. Cavendish v.
Chesapeake & 0. Ry., 95 W. Va. 490, 121 S.E.
498 (1924).
Unless witnesses not hearing had equal
opportunity to do so. — Testimony with
reference to the statutory warning signals
which only goes so far as to establish that the
witnesses did not hear the bell rung and the
whistle sounded is not in conflict with the
testimony of other witnesses who testified that
in fact the whistle was blown and the bell rung.
An exception to the foregoing rule arises where
there was equal opportunity of a witness to hear
the signals and special circumstances or events
directed the attention of the witness to the
failure to give them. Holiman v. Baltimore &
O.R.R., 137 W. Va. 874, 74 S.E.2d 767 (1953).
Witnesses in position to observe but not
hearing signals are entitled to peculiar weight.
— Where the witnesses were in a position to
observe with unusual care the circumstances
surrounding the accident, their testimony as to
the neglect to sound the customary warnings by
bell or whistle, or both, within a reasonable
distance from the crossing, a duty dictated by
reason and required by this section, is entitled
to peculiar weight. Casdorph v. Mines, 89 W. Va.
448, 109 S.E. 774 (1921), citing Carnefix v.
Kanawha & Mich. R.R., 73 W. Va. 534, 82 S.E.
219 (1914); Southern Ry. v. Bryant, 95 Va. 213,
28 S.E. 183 (1897).
Thus, denial that signals were given may
produce jury question. — The testimony of one
witness, who denies that a railroad whistle was
sounded on a given occasion, is as positive
evidence as the testimony of another who
affirms the fact, where each has equal
opportunity of hearing and the attention of the
former because of special circumstances is
equally drawn with that of the latter to the
B-31
-------
sounding of the whittle. The denial by the one
and the affirmance by the other produces a
conflict of evidence, which it is the province of
the jury to determine. Tawney v. Kirkhart, 130
W. Va. 650, 44 S.E.2d 684 (1947).
Whether a conflict arises between positive and
negative evidence of this character depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case,
from which it may be determined whether such
negative evidence has any probative value.
Cavendish v. Chesapeake & 0. Ry., 95 W. Va.
490,121 S.E. 498 (1924); Tawney v. Kirkhart, 130
W. Va. 550. 44 S.E. 634 (1947).
Since. If evidence conflicts, question is for
Jwy. — Where the evidence as to blowing the
whistle and ringing the bell is in conflict, the
question of fact is one to be determined by the
jury. Kelley v. Kanawha & Mich. Ry.. 99 W. Va.
568,130 S.E. 677 (1925); Tawney v. Kirkhart, 130
W. Va. 550, 44 S.E.M 634 (1947).
Where the evidence conflicts and is credible,
the question is one for the jury. Parsons v. New
York Cent R.R., 127 W. Va. 619, 34 S.E.2d 334
(1946).
Where the evidence conflicts as to whether
proper signals by ringing bells or blowing
whistles were given, the court cannot say that
the verdict of the jury is ml supported by the
evidence. Coleman v. Norfolk & W. Ry., 100 W
Va. 679,131 S.E. 563 (1926).
Question of traveler's contributory
negligence held tor Jury. — See Arrowood v.
Norfolk & W. Ry., 127 W. Va, 310,2 S.E.2d 634
(1944).
Evidence held insufficient to submit
railroad's negligence to jury. — In action for
injuries sustained in crossing collision evidence
was insufficient to justify submission to jury of
question of railroad's negligence in failure to
comply with this section. Baltimore & O.R.R. v.
Deneen, 161 F.2d 674 (4th Cir. 1947).
Evidence held sufficient to sustain verdict
for either party. — Conflicting evidence on
question of whether railroad gave statutory
warning signals required by this section was
sufficient on both sides to have sustained s
verdict in favor of either party. Tawney v
Kirkhart, 130 W. Va. 550. 44 S.El2d 634 (1947).
Evidence held to favor railroad't
compliance with section. — In Krodel v.
Baltimore & O.R.R., 99 W. Va. 374,128 S.E. 824
(1925), there was some conflict of testimony as
to sounding the whistle and ringing the bell at
a railroad crossing, but it was held that the
weight was in favor that the defendant complied
with the statute.
B-32
-------
ENCLOSURE C
MULTIDISCIPLINARY ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Case No. UC852D
(Abridged)
Prepared by
University of California
Los Angeles, California
The contents of this report reflect the views of
the performing organization which is responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data pre-
sented herein. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the official views or policy of the
Departcant of Transportation. This report does
not constitute a standard, specification or
regulation.
B-33
-------
UCLA COLLISION INVESTIGATION PROGRAM
VEHICLE COLLISION REPORT
Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway Safety Bureau,
Under Contract FH-11-6690
Certain information contained in this report is obtained from indirect sources.
The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those
of the authors and not necessarily of the National Highway Safety Bureau.
B-34
-------
U. C. 852D
1. STANDARD CASE SUMMARY
1.1 SUMMARY TEXT
IDENTIFICATION: This train versus automobile collision occurred on a Thurs-
day at 10:51 a.m. at a combination intersection/railroad
crossing in California. Maximum occupant injury severity: critical (06) Collision
causation: driver inattention.
AMBIENCE: Day; weather clear and dry; roadway dry.
ROADWAY: A straight, asphalt, undivided roadway, 75ft. wide with
curbs, in a suburban area with speed limit of 35 mph. The
collision site is at a railroad crossing, 25 feet before a T-intersection. The road has a
negligible crown, and is upgrade at the site. The roadway has three intersections within
one-quarter mile of this intersection.
TRAFFIC CONTROLS: The lanes are separated by broken white lines with opposing
lanes divided by double-double yellow lines. There is a
railroad automatic signal and a traffic signal at the railroad crossing. There were no
crossing gates at the time of the collision. Four auto/train collisions at this site in past 3 yrs
VEHICLES: Vehicle *1; Freight traia weighing approximately 400 tons.
Vehicle *2; 1967 Cadillac Coupe de Ville two-door hardtop
with power windows and seat. No apparent defects. Collision damage to right door
causing intrusion of 12". Occupant contact with intruding door and train. Deformation
Index: 03RPMW2.
OCCUPANTS: Vehicle *2: Driver; 59-year-old female, height, 64",
weight, 160 Ibs. Lap belt in use. No HBD or drugs. In-
juries: fractured rib, lumbar back strain, abrasions, and contusion.
Right Front; 63-year-old female. No restraint
in use. No HBD or drugs. Injuries: compound, depressed skull fracture with cerebral
contusion, abrasions and contusions over body.
DESCRIPTION:
Pre-collision; Vehicle *2, the Cadillac, approaching the T-intersection,
failed to stop at the railroad crossing in spite of the warning
ligSrs and bell. Slowing for the red light at the intersection, the Cadillac entered the
tracks, into the path of the train. The train was eastbound at approximately 15 mph,
approaching the crossing. The train engineer was sounding the whistle and applied his
brakes when he saw the Cadillac in crossing.
B-35
-------
U. C. 852D
Collision; The train struck the Cadillac in the right side, pushing it 150
: ft. along the railroad tracks. The Cadillac remained in a
position at a right angle to the railroad tracks. Occupants of the Cadillac moved to the
right, and the right front occupant was struck by the intruding train.
Post-collision: Occupants were hospitalized. Railroad crossing gates were
later installed at the crossing.
1.2 CAUSAL FACTORS, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS:
Matrix cell Explanation
("indicates positive factor)
1 Driver inattention and/or distraction appear to be
the chief cause of this collision.
4 Air conditioning on, with windows rolled up, makes
it difficult to hear train or warning bells.
5 Right door penetration of 12"due to side impact.
Door metal torn in area of hinges.
5 It is recommended that integrated side structures
be employed, combining strength of frame, door
sill, body pillars and roof..
5* Right .door latch and hinges did not fail.
7 Driver's view of oncoming train partially blocked
by shrubbery along tracks.
7 Vehicles were allowed to stop on railroad tracks
while waiting to turn at intersection.'
7 It is recommended that visibility of oncoming trains
be maximized by removing obstructions. Vehicles
should not be allowed to wait on railroad tracks.
8* Railroad crossing gate was installed and light
locations were altered after the collision.
B-36
-------
U.C.#852D
CROSS
WALK
OLEAN
BUSHES
WARNING I
DER
1.3
N
BUILDING
OLIVE TREES
LIGHTS! V*}?*,
^3U£-X"*
TRAFFIC LIGHT_ — — —
FEET
0 20 40 60 80 100
SCALE 1" =40'
r
1 VI-FREIGHT TRAIN
V2-1967 CADILLAC COUPE DE VILLE
B-37
-------
IDENTIFICATION
ENCLOSURE D
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
CASE SUMMARY
(MV-TRAIIM-INTERSECTION COLLISION)
CasoNo. 717&
(Abridged)
This accident occurred at the MKT railroad grade crossing on Eisenhauer Rd. at IH35 in San Antonio,
Bexar County, Texas, on Thursday, September 30, 1971 at 1335 hours, involving the collision of a diesel
freight engine and a 1970 four-door station wagon with a lone driver. The westbound automobile was
struck on its left side by the northbound locomotive. The area .is residential. The accident was injury-
producing; AIS Severity Code No. 3.
AMBIENCE
It was daytime with partly cloudy sXies, 85°F dry bulb, 57 percent relative humidity, 10-mph breeze
blowing from the southeast; the road surfaces were dry and clear of debris and loose gravel.
HIGHWAY
Eis«nhauer Rd. is a major access artery between the interstate loop expressway system and the
residential areas of northeast San Antonio. It is a 41-ft-wide, four-lane, two-way roadway with an asphalt
surface of the intermediate type in good condition. The road is divided at this immediate area of the IH35
access road-Eisenhauer Rd. intersection by 6-in.-high concrete channelizing islands. The traffic lanes are
10 ft wide. Eisenhauer Rd. runs east-west and is bounded on both sides by a 6-in. curb. The road is straight
and level. It is not crowned. The coefficient of friction on the dry surface was 0.61. A southbound, one-way,
two-lane 24-ft-wide frontage road runs 60 ft east and parallel to a mainline, single track railroad right-of-way;
both intersecting Eisenhauer Rd. at this point. An exit ramp from IH35 is immediately north of this inter-
section and an entrance ramp is immediately south. These ramps connect IH35 to the frontage road.
TRAFFIC CONTROLS
The posted' speed limit on Eisenhauer Rd. is 30 mph. The speed limit is 40 mph on the frontage
road. A railroad company-imposed speed limit of 25 mph is assigned for 0.5 mile each side of the crossing.
Traffic control devices consist of pavement markings, b-in.-high channelizing islands, regulatory, warning,
and guide signs. There are two flashing amber lights, 36-in.-diameter yellow railroad advance warning signs,
and black-on-white railroad crossbticks. There are neither traffic control signal(s) in the area nor a flashing
red light or bell warning signals, gates, or guards to provide immediate warning of an approaching train.
VEHICLES
No. 1. 1968 GP40 Electromotive diesel freight engine. The 3-yr-old engine is considered to be in good
operating condition with no indicated defects. Minor secondary damage includes- bent brakeman's steps,
bent coupling actuator lever, and airhose torn loose, secondary vehicle deformation index 12FDLW1. The
retail repair cost was nil.
No. 2. 1970 Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser, four-door, three-seat, yellow station wagon; odometer reading
22,224 miles; valid Texas Motor Vehicle Inspection sticker with a damaged illegible date; equipped with a
standard 350-cu in. eight-cylinder gasoline engine; automatic transmission, power steering, and power front
disc-type brakes; radio, heater, air conditioner, and tape deck; padded armrests, sunvisor, seat back tops,
interior rearview mirror, windshield interbeam. and instrument panel. Three seatbelts and two shoulder
straps for front bench-type seat and three seatbelts for the second bench-type seat. The shoulder straps
B-38
-------
were in the stored position. No defects were apparent or indicated. The last vehicle maintenance w'
performed.it 13,663 miles on January 21,1971 and included lubrication and oil and filter change. Primai
contact damage was 16-in. sheet metal and frame deformation to the left side, primary vehicle deformatic.
index 09LPAW5. Secondary damage was to the tires, rear bumper, and roof. The retail replacement vali
was $3075 (total less S200 salvage value).
OCCUPANTS
Vehicle No. 1. Engineer: 46-yr-old white male, 71 in., 155 Ib (estimated). An interview was nc
obtained. He was familiar with the vehicle and the route traveled.
Injury: None.
Vehicle No. 2. Occupant No. 02. Driver: 42-yr-old white female of Latin-American extraction, 62 in.,
132lb. She has been driving 20 yr and currently drives approximately 9000 miles/yr. She was en route
from her husband's office to home, a distance of 10 miles. The accident occurred 1 mile from her destina-
tion. She had no definite ETA. She was familiar with the vehicle and with the route traveled. She has had
no formal driver's education. Her physical condition was excellent. Her precrash state was rested with no
' stress: she was inattentive to her driving task. Lap and shoulder restraints were available, but not in use.
Injury: Severe (not lire-threatening). AlS Severity Code No. 3.
STANDARDS
The following Highway Safety Program Standards (HSPS) and/or Motor Vehicle Program Standards
(MVPS) were relevant to this case:
HSPS No. 4-Drivvr Education Use of Occupant Restraints. Radio, and Failure to Look for T'^t-
HSPS No. ^-Identification and Surveillance of Accident Locations
HSPS No. 13-Traffic ( ntrol Devices
MVPS No. 201 -Occ-'pant Protection in Interior Impact
MVPS No. 214-SiJe Door Strength.
DESCRIPTION
Precrash: The driver of vehicle No. 2 (passenger car) was traveling to her home from her husband's office.
She had left northbound IH3S and turned west onto l-isenhauer Rd., passing under the IH3S overpass. She
crossed the southbound frontage road at a relatively low speed (estimated not more than 25 mph) and
drove in front of vehicle No. I (diesel freight engine), which was moving north at about 25 mph with its
horn blowing for-the crossing. There were no skidmarks from vehicle No. 2 prior to impact. The car radio
was in operation.
Crash: Impact occurred on the left side of vehicle No. 2, centered approximately at the "A" pillar line, as it
crossed the railroad track in front of vehicle No. 1. The coupler of the freight engine forced in the forward
portion of the door structure, firewall, cowl, and instrument panel structure. Other portions of the front
structure of the engine - brakcman's steps and brackets-forced in the doors, floor, and frame left sidcrail to
a depth of 16 inches. The passenger vehicle was pushed northward on the railroad right of way. It then
yawed left and came to rest 88 ft from the impact point, parallel to and 7 ft west of the tracks facing the
crossing. The unrestrained driver was first thrown left against the incavmg side structure of the car. Then she
was thrown to the right. Vehicle No. 1 stopped 314 ft from the point of impact.
Poster ash: The driver of vehicle No. 2 was not ejected from the vehicle. She was removed from vehicle
No. 2 through the right front door without complications. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance
B-39
-------
approximately 20 nun after the crash. Because the automobile came to rest a considerable distance from
the roadway, there was no appreciable interference with traffic. A wrecker had no complications in picking
up the vehicle and towing it away. Since the locomotive was not significantly damaged, it was able to
proceed. Traffic on Hisenhauer Rd. was estimated at IS vehicles/min; on the frontage road, traffic was
estimated at 5 vehicles/min.
CAUSAL FACTORS. CONCLUSIONS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Matrix Cell
(• Indicates
Positive Factors)
I
I
I
2
3
Explanation
Driver No. 02 was inattentive and did not observe normal precautions when approach-
ing the railroad track.
Driver No. 02 had her radio on and windows up, which may have prevented or
seriously interfered with her ability to hear the train's signal horn.
The engineer may have been speeding, with respect to the company-imposed limit of
25 mph, 40 to SO mph. This is the situation if the train brakes were adequate and if
the engineer maintained a locked brake mode throughout the stopping sequence.
Driver No. 02 was not wearing the available seatbelt or shoulder strap.
Driving in a veil of interior noise (radio, air conditioner, etc.) with the windows closed
should be discouraged in driver education programs.
The train should have been capable of stopping within 104 ft from 25 mph. The 314-ft
stopping distance, from the point of impact, suggests that either the driver did not
fully apply the brakes at some point during the collision sequence or that the brakes
were not performing adequately.
Occupant injuries from impact against interior surfaces and protuberances were miti-
gated as a result of adequate padding and interior design.
This site has an extremely high accident rate; however, more adequate traffic control
by a train-approach signal system has not yet been authorized.
B-40
-------
IH.35 FRONTAGE RD.
or* -o-
0 2O 4O 60
| . I . I . I
SCALE (FEET)
LEGEND
I ONEWAY 5IK 35 SOUTHBOUND
2. KEEP RIGHT & YIELD
1 RAILROAD CROSSBUCK 7 REFLECTOR
4 NO PARKING ANYTIME
-------
ENCLOSURE E
Maryland Medical-Legal' Foundation
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
State of Maryland
Truck/Train Impact
Caae # MMF 72-24
(Abridged)
MULTIDISCIPLINARY ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
IDENTIFICATION OF COLLISION
The highway is a state road traversing, north and south in the south-
east portion of an industrial section of Baltimore" County. The accident
occurred in September of' 1972 at 0400 hours on a Friday involving a trac-
tor trailer and a freight train at a front to side impact. The accident
caused fatal injuries to the driver of the tractor trailer.
INJURY SEVERITY SCALE: Driver of Vehicle #1 FATAL-AIS-8
AMBIENCE
Night; no illumination; misty; 58 degrees F.; 607. relative humidity;
wind 10 m.p.h. from the northwest; visibility of 500 feet; road surface
was wet; coefficient of friction .55 dry (measured) and .45 wet (estimated).
HIGHWAY
The highway on which the accident occurred is a major arterial state
road with a total width of 106 feet consisting of two 12 foot lanes going
north and two 12 foot lanes going south divided by a 48 foot grass median.
The roadway is of black top macadam with an 8 foot shoulder on the east
side and a 2 foot shoulder on the west side. The roadway is straight and
level. There is no artificial lighting and within % mile there are. two in-
tersections; one being 800 feet south of the railroad crossing and the other
being 600 feet north. There are 9 telephone and transit poles within ^
mile. The accident history at this point within a year previous is 6 pro-
perty damage and 3 personal injury accidents with an average daily traffic
of 22,500 vehicles.
B-42
-------
TRAFFIC CONTROLS
The speed limit is posted at 55 m.p.h. and there are intermittent lane
lines with solid edge lines painted in the roadway. There are standard
railroad crossing signs and lights at the right side of the road with over-
head signals actuated by the train
VEHICLES INVOLVED
Vehicle #1 was a 1969 G.M.C. Tractor, two-door, red in color with an
odometer reading of 49,760 miles. There is no inspection data but the
vehicle was well maintained by the company garage. The vehicle was equipped
with manual steering, manual transmission, air brakes (drum type), seat
belts (being used by the driver when the accident occurred). There was no
previous damage noted'. Damage to Vehicle £1 on impacting the train at an
eleven o'clock principal impact force was to the left front causing a sheet
metal crush of 38 inches. The bumper, grille, fender and hood deformed
rearward into the engine compartment whereby the engine separated from mounts.
The left front wheel and assembly, moved rearward. The seats moved forward
and the driver impacted the steering wheel and column with his chest and
his head impacted the left A-Pillar as it was deformed inward and rearward.
After the initial impact a second impact of 06 hours principal force occurred
as the trailer sheared from the fifth wheel and impacted the rear of the cab
with a sheet metal crush of 18 inches compressing the cab interior by 50%
pinning the operator in.
VEHICLE DEFORMATION INDEX: Principal Impact - 11 FLAW-4
Secondary Impact - 06 BDHW-4
Vehicle #2 was a General Motors E.M.D. type locomotive pulling 47 box
cars and it sustained minor damage to the right front side.
VEHICLE DEFORMATION INDEX: 02 RFMW-1
OCCUPANT DATA
The driver of Vehicle #1 was a 46 year old white male, 68 inches tall,
weighing 115 pounds having 30 years driving experience at approximately
15,000 miles per year. At the time of accident he was enroute from his place
of employment with a delivery for a distant city expected to arrive 5 hours
after the accident occurred. The accident occurred within 5 miles from the
origin. He was familiar with the vehicle and the area having used both daily
for the past several years. His- physical condition was normal as was V :.s men-
tal condition. There was no alcohol or drug involvement and seat belts were
available and in use by the operator. During the accident the driver sus-
tained the following injuries: fractures of skullj ribs, pelvis and extremi-
ties contusions of lungs with hemothorax, laceration of heart, laceration
of liver and spleen with hemoperitoneum, rupture of bladder; and contusions
of hippocampi and temporal lobe of brain. (AIS-8)
B-43
-------
The driver of Vehicle #2 (train) was a 57 year old vhite male, weight
and height unknown having 40 years driving experience with 15 years as a
railroad engineer. His driving record is good with 10,000 miles per year
plus rail usage undetermined. He is familiar with the engine using same
three to four times weekly. At the time he was shifting cars along the
railroad from yard to yard. His engineering ability was taught to him by
the railroad company. There were no drugs or alcohol involved. There were
no restraints available and no injuries. There were three passengers on
the train and they were not injured or restrained. Passenger #1 was a
white male, 56 years of age and he was seated in the front center. Passen-
ger #2 was a white male, 36 years of age and he was seated in the front right.
Passenger #3 was a white male, 54 years of age and he was seated in the rear
left.
STANDARDS
1. FHSPS #9 - Identification and Surveilance of Accident Locations.
The railroad crossing is well protected with traffic signals ac-
tuated by the train, but it is so Little used that drivers attempt
to beat the train. It is recommended that gates be installed at
the railroad crossing..
COLLISION DESCRIPTION
Pre-Crash
The driver of Vehicle #1 reported to work at the usual time, 0130 hours,
and had proceeded from the terminal to deliver a load of hardware to a dis-
tant city. He was operating the vehicle northbound oh a state road at an
estimated speed of 45 to 50 m.p.h. and when he approached the east/west rail-
road c'rossing he failed to stop for the signals and collided with the right
front side of a slow moving freight train. The freight train was proceeding
eastbound at an approximated speed of 8 to 10 m.p.h. There is no evidence
to -show that the driver of Vehicle #1 tried to take any evasive action, how-
ever, the operator of the train did apply his air brakes for an emergency
stop.
Crash
Vehicle #1 impacted the right front side of the train with its left front
at an eleven o'clock principal force impact with a secondary impact force of
06 o'clock when the trailer sheared off the fifthQwheel and impacted the
rear of the truck cab. As the vehicle rotated 25 clockwise, and coming
to rest 42 feet east of the impact, the driver, who was restrained, moved
forward and to the left impacting the steering wheel and the left A-Pil-
lar and was impacted from the rear by the cab body and seat.
Vehicle #2 was impacted at the right side at front initial impact
force at 02 o'clock deforming the entrance steps and the hand rail. The
unrestrained occupants were well to the rear of the impact point and suf-
fered no effects of the accident. The driver of the train applied his air
brakes for an emergency stop and the train remained on the rails coming to
a stop 168 feet east of the impact.
B-44
-------
Post-Crash
Vehicle #1 came to rest 42 feet east of the impact facing east off the
roadway and Vehicle #2 came to rest' 168'feet east of the impact, on rails.
The operator and passengers of Vehicle #2 were unhurt. The operator of
Vehicle #1,- due to the compression of the truck cab from the front and rear
impacts, vas pinned in the cab. Emergency rescue equipment of the Police
and Fire Departments were called, responding within 10 minutes and pro-
ceeded to cut the metal attempting to free-the driver. Due to severe de-
formation, extrication was difficult and took two hours to free the driver.
He was pronounced dead at the scene and was taken to the Office of the Chief
Medical Examiner. During the rescue operation, traffic was tied up in both
directions and suitable detours were maintained by the police. A two com-
pany was contacted to clear the scene of the truck and debris. The truck
was towed to the terminal and the train was moved under its own power. The
scene was cleared and open for traffic within four hours.
CAUSAL FACTORS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCIDENT CAUSATION
Matrix Cell
INJURY CAUSATION
Matrix Cell
2
Explanation
Primary Cause
Driver of Vehicle #1 failed to perceive
the approaching train and danger of going
through signals. (Definite)
Severity Increasing
Driver of Vehicle #1 made no attempt at
evasive action. (Definite)
Relevant Conditions
Driver of Vehicle #1 was apparently'pre-
occupied with thoughts of his trip. (Pro-
bable)
The crossing was well protected with ac-
tuate'd signals (at side and overhead) but
it allows room for passage. (Probable)
Explanation
Driver of Vehicle #1 was wearing available
restraints but they were of no use in this
case. (Probable)
The collapse of Vehicle #1 from front and
rear impacts added to severe injury. (De-
finite)
B-45
-------
POST-CRASH FACTORS
Matrix Cell Explanation
3 Ambulance and rescue arrival within 10 min-
utes, but extrication was difficult taking
two hours with metal saws. (Definite)
6 The load of Vehicle #1 shifted after the
initial impact. (Definite)
9 There were no fires or explosions, detours
were set and maintained adequately, and the
clean-up operation took four hours. (Defi-
nite)
B-46
-------
WFOOL- LFG«L
i
B-47
-------
niHffyi.fi/YD mrooz.- LFG/U
I
&RTKK
72-2 V
RCCJDfWr
B-48
-------
ENCLOSURE P
Durham City Code
Durham, N.C.
Ch. 18 § 9 Locomotive Whistle.
It shall be unlawful for any person to blow or allow to
be blown any locomotive whistle under his control within the city
limits. (Code 1940, C. 28, § 8.)
Knoxville City Code
Knoxville; Tenn.
Ch. 33 t 8 Blowing Whistles.
It shall be unlawful for any person operating or in charge
of a locomotive engine within the corporate limits of the city
to blow the whistle on the same except as may be absolutely
necessary in the use of the signals as laid down by the rules
and regulations of railway companies, or as required by the
laws of the state. (10-21-04.)
Houston City Code
Houston, Texas
Sec. '1843 Blowing Whistles; Blowing out Boiler
All persons are prohibited from blowing any whistles on
any locomotive, or single blasts therefrom, within the limits
of the city, for a longer period of time than five seconds,
except when there is imminent danger of an accident. All
persons are prohibited from blowing off or blowing out a
B-49
-------
boiler when crossing any public street or other thoroughfare
within the limits of the city. Each and every person violat-
ing any provision of this section shall be fined in any sum,
upon conviction, not less than five dollars and not exceeding
fifty dollars.
Mason City, Iowa
26-29 Sounding of Locomotive Whistles
It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit
any locomotive whistle to be sounded within the limits of the
City except for the purpose of making necessary signals
required by law or required for the safe operation of the
railway, and where requisite signals cannot be made by other
means. (R '16, Sec. 545.)
Chicago, Illinois
188-44. No person owning or operating a railroad shall cause
or allow the whistle of any locomotive engine to be sounded
within the city, except necessary brake signals and such as may
be absolutely necessary to prevent injury to life and property.
Each locomotive engine shall be equipped with a bell-
ringing device which shall at all times be maintained in
repair and which shall cause the bell of the engine to be rung
automatically. The bell of each locomotive engine shall be
rung continuously while such locomotive is running within the
city, excepting bells on locomotives running upon those
railroad tracks enclosed by walls or fences, or enclosed by a
-------
wall on one side and public waters on the other side, and
excepting bells on locomotives running upon those portions of
the railroad track which have been elevated. In the case of
these exceptions, no bell shall berungor whistle blown except
as signals of danger.
Buffalo, New York
Chapter V. RAILROADS
#4. It shall not be lawful for any person in the employ of
any railroad company operating within the limits of the city
to permit the whistle of the locomotive under his control to
be blown, except for necessary signal purposes. Any person
violating the provisions of this section shall pay a penalty
of $25.00 for such offense.
NOTE: This restriction is generally associated with a train
speed restriction of 6 MPH and the use of flagmen.
Lynchburg, Virginia
CITY CODE SUPPLEMENT (Railroad)
Sec. 3809. Sounding whistles or horns.
The sounding or blowing of locomotive whistles or horns
within the corporate limits of the city of Lynchburg is hereby
prohibited, except as may be necessary for the transmission
of signals-or in emergency to prevent accidents.
The provisions of this section shall not apply to the
two crossings of the tracks of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
B-51
-------
Company at Reusens, in the vicinity of the E. J. Lavino
Company, because of the lack of sight distance and warning
devices at these crossings.
Any violation of this ordinance shall be punished by a
fine of not less than five dollars nor more than ten dollars
for each offense. (1931, §704; 6-8-42; 8=28-56; 10-9-56)
State of Illinois
Under authority delegated to it by the State Legislature
(llU-59), the Illinois Commerce Commission adopted General
Order #176 on August 15, 1957, excusing the sounding of horns
and whistles at crossings protected by flashing lights. This has
now been incorporated in General Order No. 138, Revised, August
22, 1973, Rule 501.
State of Florida
§351.03 limits signals to bells only in incorporated areas, with
an accompanying speed limit of 12 mph.
B-52
-------
ENCLOSURE G
VCKNON L. OTUROeON, FHIHOINt
WILLIAM SYMONS. J«.
f. r. VOKA8IN, JH.
THOMA< MORAN
P. W. MOLMO
November 10, 1972
Itiltttrs fflomnusstcn
STATE OP CALIFORNIA
APDRCtfi ALL COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE COMMISSION
CALIFORNIA BTATC BUILDING
•AN CHANCIOCO, CALIFOHNIA K4IO1
YCLKPMONd <«!•> BB7- 1Q45
FILCNO. 1C 79403
Honorable Arlen Gregorio
The State Senate
12th District, San Mateo County
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Gregorio:
^
Subsequent to receipt of your letter of October 4, 1972, our representative
has discussed the use of train whistles approaching railroad grade crossings
with Mr. John Gilroy and Ms. Charlotte Schultz of your staff.
As discussed with them, it may be necessary to sound the train whistle
even at crossings equipped with automatic gates for the following
reasons :
1. Possibility of a malfunction of the automatic grade crossing protection
due to being struck by vehicles, vandalism or failure of track circuitry
or signal apparatus.
2. Rail highway crossings are frequently traversed by bicyclists and
pedestrians after the protective devices have been actuated by an
approaching train.
3. Impatient motorists sometimes ignore crossing signals and have been
known to drive around protective gate arms in an attempt to avoid
being delayed by a train.
4. Liability on the part of the railroads for failure to use every means
available to avoid an accident.
In view of the above, the staff feels that in the interest of safety, the
railroads should not be prohibited from using the train whistles to warn
persons that a train is approaching.
Yours very truly,
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
WILLIAM R. JOHNSON, Secretary
B-53
-------
Appendix C
OPERATING RAILROAD RETARDER YARDS IN THE UNITED STATES
-------
OPERATING RAILROAD RETARDER YARDS IN THE UNITED STATES
(CLASS I Railroads)
State
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Yard
Birmingham
Birmingham
Sheffield
N. Little Rock
Pine Bluff
City of Industry
East Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Richmond
Roseville
West Colton
Grand Jet.
Pueblo
Cedar Hill (East)
Cedar Hill (West)
Tampa
Atlanta
Atlanta
Atlanta
Macon
Pocatello
Railroad
L&N
Sou
Sou
M. P.
St. L. S. W.
S. P.
U.P.
S. P.
S.P.
S. P.
S.P..
D&RGW
AT&SF
P.C.
P.C.
S. C. L.
Sou
Sou
L&N
Sou
U.P,
Number of
Tracks
40
56
32
64
30
12
16
40
8
49
56
31
16
45
38
8
12
65
24
50
40
C-l
-------
State
Illinois
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Yard
Bensenville
Blue Island
Chicago, Clearing
(East)
Chicago, Clearing
(West)
Chicago, Cicero
Chicago, Corwith
Chicago, 59th St.
E. St. Louis
E. St. Louis
Galesburg (East)
Galesburg (West)
Madison
Markam
Markam
Proviso
Silvio
Elkhart
Gary
Gibson (South)
Gibson (North)
Indianapolis
Argentine (East)
Argentine (West)
Armourdale
DeCoursey (North)
DeCoursey (South)
Russell
Stevens
Geismer
Cumberland (West)
Cumberland (East)
Boston
Railroad
C.M.S.P.&P.
I. H. B.
B. R. Chgo
B. R. Chgo
B. N.
AT&SF
P.C.
A. &S.
I. C. G.
B. N.
B. N.
T. R. R. A.
I. C. G.
I. C. G.
C. N. W.
C. R. I. P.
P.C.
E. J. & E.
I. H. B.
I. H. B.
P.C.
AT&SF
AT&SF
C. R. I. P.
L&N
LAN
C&O/B&O
C&O/B&O
I. C. G.
C&O/B&O
C&O/B&O
B&M
Number of
Tracks
70
42
44
36
43
32
42
42
26
49
35
34
64
45
59
50
72
58
30
30
64
48
56
40
20
24
32
15
6
32
16
22
C-2
-------
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Yard
Detroit
West Detroit
Minneapolis
St. Paul
Kansas City (East)
Kansas City (West)
N. Kansas City
Missoula
Lincoln
N. Platte
N. Platte (West)
Morrisville
Pavonia
Buffalo
Buffalo
DeWitt
Mechanicville
Hamlet
Minot
Bellevue
Columbus
Grandview
Marion
Portsmouth
Portsmouth (West)
Sharonville
Stanley
Walkridge
Willard
Tulsa
Railroad
DT&I
P. C.
B. N.
C.M.S.P.&P.
M. P.
M. P.
B.N.
B. N.
B.N.
U.P.
U. P.
P.C.
P. C.
E. L.
P.C.
P.C
B&M
S. C. L.
B.N.
N&W
P.C.
P.C.
E. L.
N&W
N&W
P.C.
P.C.
C&O/B&O
C&O/B&O
S. L. S. F.
Number of
Tracks
36
31
63
40
42
32
42
9
36
62
42
38
32
56
63
27
36
58
40
42
40
9
24
18
35
35
42
68
52
40
C-3
-------
State
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Yard
Eugene
Allentown
Connellsville
Conway (East)
Conway (West)
Enola (East)
Enola (West)
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
Rutherford (East)
Rutherford (West)
Chattanooga
Knoxville
Memphis
Nashville
Beaumont
Fort Worth
Houston
Alexandria (North)
Alexandria (South)
Bluefield
Lamperts Point
(empty)
Lamperts Point
(loaded)
Lamperts Point
Newport News
Roan ok e
Pasco
Seattle
Railroad
S. P.
CNJ/LV
C&O/B&O
P. C.
P.C.
P.C.
P.C.
U. R. R.
Mon-Conn.
Reading
Reading
Sou
Sou
S. L. S. F.
L&N
S.P.
M. P./T. P.
S.P.
R. F. P.
R. F. P.
N&W
N&W
N&W
N&W
C&O/B&O
N&W
B.N.
B.N.
Number of
Tracks
32
19
15
54
56
33
36
23
22
33
18
50
46
50
56
12
44
48
49
39
13
36
36
30
15
56
47
16
C-4
-------
State
Wisconsin
Yard
Milwaukee
Railroad
C.M.S.P.&P.
Number of
Tracks
35
Abbreviations of Railroad Names Used in this Table*
L&N - Louisville and Nashville
Sou - Southern
M.P. - Missouri Pacific
St. L.S.W. - St. Louis Southwestern
S.p, _ Southern Pacific
U.P. - Union Pacific
D&RGW - Denver and Rio Grande
Western
AT&SF - Atchison, Topeka and
Santa Fe
P.C. - Penn Central
S.C.L. - Seaboard Coast Line
C.M.S.P.&P. - Chicago, Milwaukee,
St. Paul and Pacific
I.H.B. - Indiana Harbor Belt Railway
B.R. Chgo - Belt Railway of Chicago
B.N. - Burlington Northern
I.C.G. - Illinois Central Gulf
A. & S. - Alton and Southern
T.R.R.A. - Terminal Railroad Assoc. of
St. Louis
C.N.W. - Chicago and North Western
C.R.I.P. - Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific
E.J. & E. - Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern
C&O/B&O - Chesapeake and Ohio
Baltimore and Ohio
B&M - Boston and Maine
D.T.&I. - Detroit, Toldeo, and Ironton
E.L. — Erie Lackawanna
N&W - Norfolk and Western
S.L.S.F. - St. Louis San Francisco
CNJ/LV - Central Railroad of New Jersey
Lehigh Valley
U.R.R. — Union Railroad
Mon-Conn. - Monongahela Connecting
Reading - Reading Company
M.P./T.P. - Missouri Pacific/Texas Pacific
R.F.P. - Richmond, Fredericksburg and
/Potomac
*These abbreviations reflect mergers; the abbreviations on the accompanying map frequently
do not reflect mergers.
C-5
-------
Appendix D
SUMMARY OF YARD NOISE IMPACT STUDY
-------
SUMMARY OF YARD NOISE IMPACT STUDY
INTRODUCTION
The rail yard modeling study of noise impact on people used data collected at the Cicero
Yard of the Burlington Northern near Chicago Illinois. The study included the analysis of eight
railroad yards from a population density and yard layout standpoint which led to the selection of
the Cicero Yard for more detailed analysis. Characteristics of the noise emitted from the Cicero
Yard under a range of operating conditions were studied and a model of the yard was developed.
The model was then used to predict the impact on people (environmental noise levels) of various
noise abatement activities on different aspects of the Cicero Yard operation.
CASE STUDIES OF RAILROAD YARDS
Eight yards having a wide range of characteristics were selected in order to compare yard
traffic with population densities near them. Such a comparison provides a basis for determining
the number and frequency of exposure of people to noise from railroad yards. Figures D. 1 - D.8
are maps of the yards that were studied. Although no detailed studies of the zoning around the
yards were attempted, the maps provide some indication of land use. The configuration of the
yards and the traffic through the yards were determined by telephoning the yard superintendents
or the yard masters. Table D. 1 summarizes the population and traffic data for the yards.
The population information was taken from the 1970 Census of Housing, Block Statistics for
each city. The total populations for the cities studied were obtained from the 7970 Census of
Population, U.S. Summary. Population densities were derived for strips 250 or 500 ft wide for the
entire length of the yards and/or for a total of 2000 ft from the retarders. Often, separate popu-
lation density estimates were made for each side of a yard, since people are not evenly distributed
around yards. Figures D. 1 - D.8 contain graphs of the population distribution for each area.
The population of the cities in which the yards are located ranges from 67,058 (Cicero) to
1,800 (Roseville). Population cannot be considered an index of urbanization since all of the towns
are in urbanized areas generally outside a larger urban city. No yard located in a "rural" area was
studied as sufficiently detailed population statistics were not available for a yard located in other
than urbanized areas.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF NOISE NEAR RAILROAD YARDS
Many methods of describing community noise have been proposed, studied, and evaluated, but
the most suitable method for describing environmental noise and its effect on people, in EPA's
D-l
-------
N
i
Streets
—-~ Railroad Tracks
1000 2000 feet
FIG D.I. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE CICERO, ILLINOIS HUMP YARD.
-------
DISTANCE FROM
YARDJOUNDARY
(feet)
Streets
Railroad Tracks
1000
2000 feet
Both Sides Averaged Together
FIG. D.2. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE ELKHART,
INDIANA HUMP YARD.
D-3
-------
DISTlfcN
YAR
1000
Streets
Railroad Tracks
2000 feet
FIG. D.3. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE CHEYENNE, WYOMING FLAT YARD,
-------
DISTANCE FROM
Streets
Railroad Tracks
2000 feet
FIG. D.4. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE MARKHAM, ILLINOIS HUMP YARD
-------
Streets
Railroad Tracks
2000 feet
NORTWWEB
SECTlO
DISTANCE FROM NO.
YARD BOUNDARY PER
(feet)
2000
HUMP
Fig. D.5. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY FOR THE CENTREVILLE, ILLINOIS HUMP YARD.
-------
Streets
Railroad Tracks
1000 2000 feet
FIG. D.6. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE MECHANICVILLE, NEW YORK HUMP YARD,
-------
DISTANCE FROM
YARD BOUNDARY
9
00
.OF PEOPLE
ER SQ.MILE
N
Streets
Railroad Tracks
PIG. D.7. MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE WAL&RIDGE., OHIO HUMP YARD
-------
DISTANCE
YARD BOUN
(faet)
NO. OF PEOPLE
PER SO. MILE
9
VO
Streets
Railroad Tracks
1000 2000 (••*
FIG. D.8
MAP AND POPULATION DENSITY PROFILES FOR THE ROSEVILLE, CALIFORNIA
HUMP YARD.
-------
TABLE D-l POPULATION DENSITY AND RAILROAD CAR TRAFFIC FOR VARIOUS
RAILROAD YARDS
City tnd State
Tart Operator
Cicero, 111
Burlington North.
Elkhart, Ind.
Penn. Central
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Union Pacific
Xarkhaa. 111.
111. .Central t Qulf
Centrevllle, 111.
111., Central t Gulf
Meehanlerllle, N.Y.
Boston * Xalne
Walbrldge. Ohio
Baltimore 1 Ohio
Rosevllle. Calif.
Southern Pacific
Total
Population
67,058
13,152
10,152
15.987
11,978
6.217
3.028
17,895
No. of Cars
Per Day
1000
6800
i
•
4000
•
32PJ-3400
3300-tOOO
f
BOO
1500
• 6500
•
i
»
No. of Ptople Per Square Nile Mfthfa:
0-250* ZbO'-SOO' 500 '-1000' 1000'-1500' 1500'-2000*
12,383 16,638 19,105 22,600 18,316
8*038 20,192 16,200 15,276 14,552
* 293 576 \ 510 613 1.381
t
1
592 1.193 5.098 5,189 1,6*3
151 308 ; 2.280 3,535 *.H6
171 171 337 1,139 1,016
3,156 3,76.1 : 6,771 9,783 8,793
2,892 2,781 ! 5.216 3.689 2,189
391 ! 1,111 1.903 4,201
1,971 3,789 , 10,012 10,232 7,371
1,028 t 5,788 8,583
. 44 * 89 78 78 56
267 711 ! 789 l.*00 867
1,259 1,931 2,178 1,812 2.091
690 1.925 1,960 1,977 2,125
170 " 319 263 642 389
1,276 2,468 3,947 4,053 2.516
North Section
South Section
South Section
north Section
Bast Section
Heat Section
Northeast Section
Northwest Section
South Section
North Section
Western Section
Eastern Section
Southeast Section
(entire yard)
Northwest Section
(entire yard)
Southeast Section
(opposite retainers)
Northwest Section
(opposite retarders)
Come nts
43 tracks
one master t 6 group retardtrs
72 tracks
1200 cars/day bypass ret&rfier;
manual release Inert retarders
Airport nearby
Plat yard; loccr.otives work
entire length of t^.s yard
45 tracXs
two masters, £ Ir.teraediate. 15 gro-jc
retarders ; 400 oars/day bypass
retardsr, no inert retariers
30 tr&shs
one master, 3 group retarders
1200 cars/day through retar"3*r3
nanual or ^utoiratlc rel*?3*- 'rA^~s
one master 4 6 group r^'-ar'i'rrs
36 tracks, 13 In use;
19 inert retariisrs
68 tracks
one master t 8 group retprders;
no inert ret%rders
Airport nearby
49 tracks
two husps, two caster retarders
7 group retarders
49 spring-loaded Inert retarders
-------
judgment, is the day/night sound level (re: Levels Document). Ljn may be obtained from an
analysis of statittical records of noise (Schultz, 1972). Details of this procedure are in enclosure A
of section 8 of this document. "Time records" usually means magnetic tape recordings made at
the measurement site with rugged, portable, high-quality tape recorders. Permanent recordings
permit processing a given noise record in several different ways, freeing the investigator from the
restrictions imposed by the particular analysis that might be suitable in the field.
Figure D.9 shows portions of a time history of noise measured around 5:00 a.m. near resi-
dences about 400 ft from the boundary of a railroad yard. The record from which Figure D.9 was
constructed was produced by playing a magnetic tape recording of the noise through an A-weighting
network into a graphic level recorder. The figures show some significant noise events that are not
associated with railroad operations. Those events must be iliminated from statistical analysis of
the information on the tapes if the results are to be descriptive of railroad noise only.
An edited tape, from which all non-railroad noises were removed, was prepared by selectively
interrupting a re-recording of the original tape. Both the unedited and the edited tapes of railroad
noise were processed using an electronic statistical analyzer and a digital computer, to produce
statistical analyses like the one shown in Figure D.lOa. The tape which was generated is shown in
Figure D.9. Figure D. 1 Ob shows the result of a statistical analysis of the edited version of the tape
that generated Figure D.lOa. The solid lines in Figure D. lOb represent the data from Figure D.lOa.
Figure D.I Ob shows that editing out extraneous events did not cause large changes in the
statistical properties of the recorded noise, and the effect is typical of cases for which editing was
possible. For times when the community was active, it was impossible to discriminate between
noises due to railroad operations and other noises.
Figure D. 11 shows the results of a statistical analysis of an edited tape recording of noises at
the boundary of a busy yard. Even though a few diesel trucks traveled along a street adjacent to
the boundary, editing the recorded sounds produced negligible changes in their statistical properties.
Figures D. 12a and D. 12b demonstrate a contrasting situation. Figure D. 12a shows the
results of statistical analysis of an unedited tape recording of noises at the boundary of the yard
described above during a period of relative inactivity. Since much of the noise in the vicinity was
extraneous (mostly diesel trucks), editing changed the statistical properties of the recorded noise.
Figure D. 12b shows the effect of editing this tape. Even though there were few readily noticeable
railroad noises during the period covered by Figure D.I2, the continuous background noise is
higher at the boundary of the yard than in the community, illustrating the contributions of
continuously idling locomotives and other noise! associated with the activities of men and machines
assigned to the yard.
"Energy Mean Level" is one of the parameters shown in the computer listings in Figures D. 10
through D. 12. That parameter, usually called "Lgq" is the level of the continuous sound that
D-ll
-------
N>
< .. .
O
.a
CM
O
o
§
70
60
50
~ 40
<
CD
70
60
SO
40
_Hump Warning Signal
torn Loudspeaker
V
Retarder
I I I I I I I I I
UJ
_l
O
o
CD
2
Ul
§
Automobile
Door Closing
Locomotive
Whistle
Automobile
I I I I I I I I I I I
Propeller Airplane
-Locomotive
Impact of
Railroad Cars
LJ IIIIIIIJILI
Continuous "Background
i i i i i
ARBITRARY TIME (1 SECOND INTERVALS)
PIG. D.9. SELECTED EVENTS FROM A TIME HISTORY OF NOISE IN A COMMUNITY 400 FT
FROM THE BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD HUMP YARD.
-------
OUt^Ut OF STATISTIC*],
CICERO JAED, HAr 17,1973* 5|20 *,«,, WEST 3PT« SI,
<
99,9
99
P
£ 90
R
C
E
N
T
X 50
L
Z
I.
15
V 10
E
I
S
1
.1
.01
0'
tiitftffttlttlli
• ' t ' • • <
I
I
I
I
1
J
1
1
t
t
ft
9
I
f
f
1
',
I
1
1
I
1
» ,
1 1
»'t
1 9
1
1
I
1
9
'l
... t .....'.I.*'***,......,,...,.. • . t ««. t * .. t ••*»*», t ...<
>0 0K5 050 055 060 065 070 075 080 085 090 005 100 10$ 110 11$ 1;
CCnUUTXYB DISTRIBVTIQH
MAXxnun Koxse lev? i, « 12,5
HXNXHUn KOISE 4IVIL « 31.3
KOISE fOLLUTIQU IZVZL " 71,1
>3
-
2
1
8
X
oc
H
A
.1
.
.2
.3
t.
20
STANDARD DEViAHOS
ENEKQY HEA8 LEVEL
FIG. D.lOa.STATISTICS OF NO'lSE IN A COMMUNtTY 400 FT FROM THE
BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD YARD (TOTAL NOISE; UNEDITED
TAPE).
-------
GRAPHICAL OUTPUT Of STATISTICAL NOISE DATA
CICERO YARD, HAY 17,1973, 5130 A.M., NEST 30TH ST,
(EDITED)
i I i I . I ( I I • i t l |
I l i
»»» V
99
P
E 90
R
c
E
N
T
I 50
L
E
L
E
V 10
E
L
S
1
.1
.01
• • '
: l
: i ^
i 1
1
1
I
l *
1
1
1
1
1
1 *
•
1
1 V
l\
1 \
l\ *
1 ^^
1 1 N^
\ X /-TOTAL NOISE
i. \/ (UNEDITED TAPE- -
RAIL YARD *S*\ ' D<10a)
NOISE ONLY / S V
(EDITED TAPE)—7 l1*^ <
f j
2
1
S
X
00
M
A
" 1
.2
-3
k
000 0U5 050 0»5 060 065 070 075 080 085 090 095 100 105 110 115 120
CUMVUTIVE DISTRIBUTION
HAXXMUH NOISE LEVEL * 80,0
MINIMUM NOISG LEVEL * 31,3
NOISE POLLUTION LEVEL « *U,3
STANDARD DEVIATION • 3,3
ENERGY MEAN LEVEL * 55.S
PIG. D.lOb. STATISTICS OF NOISE IN A COMMUNITY 400 FT FROM THE
BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD YARD (COMPARISON OF EDITED
AND UNEDITED TAPES).
-------
GRAPHICAL OUTPUT OF STATISTICAL KOlS'E DATA
CICEP.O YARD, KA? 17,1973, 5118 A.M., OG&EN AVE,
(EDITED)
1 • 1 1
I I f I I I t I
99.9
99
P
E 90
R
C
E
M
T
I 50
L
E
L
E
V 10
E
I,
S
1
.1
,01
01
• 1,1, l , I t I Ml 1 MM ' II 4
I
I
1
« .
(
1
I
1
1
1
I
1 ,
1
1
1
t
I
1
1
1
1
' ,
' ,
I
f
9
' ,
1
l t
* »
i
l
» '
10 045 050 055 060 065 070 075 060 0B5 090 095 100 105 110 115 1
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL • 97,5
MINIMUM NOIS£ LEVEL • 65,0
NOISE POLLUTION LEVEL » 82,6
STANDARD DEVIATION « 3,3
ENERGY MEAN LEVEL « 74,0
»3
2
1
5
X
00
N
A
-1
• 2
• 3
f
20
FIG. D.ll.
STATISTICS OF NOISE AT THE BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD YARD
WHILE THE YARD WAS BUSY (RAILROAD NOISE ONLY; EDITED
TAPE).
Q-i.5
-------
GBAfHICAL OUTPUT F STATISTICAL [!OlSB DATA
CICERO YARD, HAy 17,1973, 3130 A.M., OGDBS AVB,
» » ' ' » i » « i < « < I I t i i
99.9J''11•»•««•»»1111n11M11•it»i 11 +3
99
P
E 90
R
C
E
T
I 50
L
E
.1
* I
I
!
t :
I t
'
, *
t t1
I t
I ;
I i s
I : z
t +06
t i n
i t A
1
s
v ;
E :• t
1 '• »
3 -: *
r
"*i !
I
i
..i, :.... ....:
000 0U5 050 055 062 065 070 075 080 085 U9id 095 100 109 110 115 120
CUMULATIVE DISTRIBUTION
MAXXffUn NOISE LEVEL « 99.8
MINIMUM NOISE LEVEL • 77.5
NOISE fOLLUTION LEVEL « 90,7'
STANDARD DEVIATION « 2,7
EKERCX Nb'AN LEVEL » 83,9
FIG. D.12*. STATISTICS OF NOISE AT THE BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD
URD WHILE THE YARD HAS QUIET (TOTAL NOISE; UN-
EDITED TAPE).
D-16
-------
GBAPHICU OUTPUT Of STAlZSTlCAl NOISE DATA
CICEBO IAHD,
(EDITED!
17,1973, 3*3B A,H,, CODES AYE,
99.9
99
p
E 90
R
C
E
K
T
X 50
L
E
I
E
V 10
E
L
S
'
1
.1
1l|fltTI1T||||fll|
1
1
•
1
',
i
I
RAIL YARD ' j
NOISE ONLY /,
(EDITED TAPE \J «
1
',
t
i
TOTAL NOISE
(UNEDITED TAPE-
FIG. D.12a)
"'••
'BaH'attb'eJa'BSb'pfia'B^'B^a'BH'aBB'aaJ'BSB'^SS'^BB'iSs'
DISTRIBUTION
i
+3
I
1
I
M
t
:
» S
t X
+03
I H
I A
t
•
1-1
+
t
t
t
1-2
* '
I
...*
»••*•*
115 1214
NOJSt
NOIS&
NOISE FOLLUTI9N
STRNDAPD DEV1ATXOH
EBEROX tttiXX LEX El,
PERCBNIIIE
t. 2
110
133, 3
150
L90
L99
BOISE xv&ex
99,8
62,5
68,0
1.6
6 it, a
«9.1
«7.U
66.5
63.5
63.3
«»7t9
PIG. D.12b.
STATISTICS OF NOISE AT THE BOUNDARY OF A RAILROAD
YARD WHILE THE YARD WAS QUIET (COMPARISON OF
EDITED AND UNEDITED TAPES).
U-17
-------
75
70
65
3 60
n
•o
o
UJ
._i
I~~J 55
50
1 T
CICERO YARD
"- MAY 17,1973
OGOEN AVE
{AT THE YARD
BOUNDARY)
_L
W. 30 TH (ABOUT
400 FT, FROM THE
YARD BOUNDARY)
J 1 1
2 3 4 56 7 8
TIME OF DAY (HOURS PAST MIDNIGHT)
FIG D 13 MEASURED LEQ VS TIME OF DAY FOR POINTS IN AND NEAR A
RAILROAD YARD (20-MIN RECORDINGS, SAMPLED 10 TIMES/
SEC}".
D-18
-------
would be associated with an amount of energy equal to the sum of the energies of a collection of
discontinuous sounds. The discontinuous sounds are analyzed for a specified period of time, and
LgQ is calculated for that same period. Figure D-13 shows plots of the computer-calculated Lgq's
for the observations described above.
MODELING YARD NOISE IMPACT ON PEOPLE
The two types of railroad switching yards are flat yards and hump yards. In a flat railroad
yard there are two major sources of noise — locomotives and car impact. In hump yards the squeal
caused by cars passing through retarders is significant.
The development of a yard noise model for this Background Document involves the computa-
tion of LDN* for yards which (1) describes the activities of locomotives, (2) determines the
probabilities of occurrence of various levels of retarder squeal and car impact noise, and (3) inte-
grates the cumulative acoustic energy that is developed at a given point in the space surrounding
the yard.
Figure D. 14a shows calculated Lrjjyj profiles for group retarders in a typical yard - the
Cicero Yard in Chicago. Figure D. 14b shows LFJN profiles for car-car impacts. Figure D. 14c shows
4)N Pr°files f°r locomotive operations in the yard.
The calculated Lpjyj profiles in Figure D.I4 are based on observed levels and frequencies of
occurrence of various noises. In addition to the usual geometric attenuation, atmospheric
absorption and ground attenuation effects (Beranek, 1971) were included in the construction of
the figure. The levels for the individual noise events at the measurement points shown in
Figure D. 14 were consistent with the points of origin of the events also shown in Figure D. 14.
The noise levels for retarders and rail car impacts are considerably loyer than those for loco-
motives, so that the total noise levels from all sources is approximately that of locomotives alone,
as shown in Figure D.I4. The noise levels determined from magnetic tape recordings of noise
emissions at the West 30th measurement point are also in good agreement with the total noise
emission levels (approximated by locomotive noise), as noted in Figure D.14c.
Retarder noise levels' and impact noise levels in Figure D. 14 generally would be dominant at
community observation points if the locomotive noise levels were lowered by 10 dB( A). Thus,
retarder and car impact noise will replace locomotive noise as the most obtrusive noise in the
community near the Cicero Yard, if locomotive exhausts can be muffled sufficiently to lower their
noise by 10 dB(A) (assuming that no other sources of locomotive noise produce levels comparable
to exhaust noise levels).
* Enclosure A of section 8.
D-19
-------
RETARDED (MEASUREMENTS
IMMCT MEASUREMENTS
•8838888
LOUDSPEAKERS
(a) Retarder Squeals
PIG. D.14a.
'ON
PROFILES FOR BURLINfiTON NORTHERN'S CICERO YARD
D-20
-------
(b) Impacts
PIG. D.14b. (CONT.)
'D-21
-------
4 RFOWOER MEASUREMENTS
WP*CT MEASUREMENTS
SOUND LEVEL
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE LDM ••», •! TO •• MCA8UHCD
(J.OO TO 7>OO A.M.)
O 1500 M^ LOCOMOTIVE IN THROTTLE
4, SO •/• OF THE TIME
O 1800 HP LOCOMOTIVE.
CONTINUOUS IDLE
(c) Locomotives
FIG. D.l4c. (CONT.)
D-22
-------
60
ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT
20 dB RETARDER
QUIETING
10 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING
10 dB LOCOMOTIVE
QUIETING AND
20 dB RETARDER QUIETING
I
I
9O
FIG. D.15
70 8O
LON [dB(A)]
NUMBER OF PEOPLE EXPOSED TO VARIOUS .L
YARD OPERATIONS.
D-23
100
DN
BY CICERO
-------
Figure D. 15 shows the number of people exposed to various Ldn around the Cicero Yard.*
Figure D.I5 indicates that a muffler which quiets locomotive exhaust noise by 10 dB(A) will
decrease by 400 the number of people exposed to L(jn of 65 or more from the Cicero Yard opera-
tions (assuming that no other sources of locomotive noise produce levels comparable to exhaust
noise levels). The figure also shows that barriers providing a 20 dB(A) reduction of retarder noise
would decrease by 200 the number of people exposed to L^n of 65 or more.
Analysis in more detail of Figure D. 15 shows that at the time of the study, at the Cicero Yard
approximately 4,800 people or more were exposed to noise levels higher than the L
-------
Appendix E
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER
RETROFIT COST STUDY REPORTS
-------
USG 350-74-13
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
Cost Study Report No. 1
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP49-2, GP40, GP38-2 and GP38
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
NOVEMBER 1, 1974
-------
USG 350-74-13
Environmental AcMvtttes Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
Warren. Michigan 48090
November 1, 1974
Dr. AlvJn F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building - Room 1115
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Va. 20460
Dear Dr. Meyer:
Attached are five (5) copies of General Motors Locomotive Exhaust Muffler Retrofit •
Cost Study Report No. 1.
This represents the first installment of a study undertaken by Electro-Motive Division
to estimate the cost of engine exhaust system hardware and associated locomotive
modification deemed necessary to meet the EPA proposed stationary locomotive
sound level limit of 87 dBA at 30 meters at any throttle setting.
The first report covers GM (EMD) locomotive models GP40-2, GP40, GP38-2 and
GP38. Cost Study Report No. 1 and a series of similar reports to be submitted to
EPA will ultimately cover 14 General Motors model locomotives representing a
total of 14,789 units delivered by EMD or 63.4% of the 23,307 total GM loco-
motives in service on Class 1 and 2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures
stated in this initial report are not necessarily representative of the amounts that
will be submitted for other locomotive models in subsequent reports.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely*'
Vehicular Noise Control
Atts. (5)
E-l
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 1
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP40-2, GP40, GP38-2, AND GP38
This study is undertaken by General Motors in response to a request by the Environmental
Protection Agency to provide cost information that would aid the EPA in evaluating the
expense to the railroads of retrofitting in-service locomotives with exhaust muffler hardware
to meet the EPA proposed stationary locomotive sound level limit of 87 dB(A) at any throttle
setting measured at 30 meters.
During a meeting at the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of GM on September 26, 1974,
EMD advised EPA representatives that it would undertake a "paper study" of the engine
exhaust system hardware and associated application modifications of certain EMD locomotive
models which would be necessary in order to comply with an 87 dBA sound level. EMD also
stated that this retrofit work was not being solicited by General Motors and that EMD
locomotive manufacturing facilities were not sufficient to undertake this retrofit work,
primarily due to the volume of new locomotive production. This work would presumably
be done by the railroads themselves or by others pursuant to contracts with railroads. No
attempt has been made to determine the cost for retrofit noise control treatment necessary
to achieve compliance with the EPA proposed locomotive noise standard of 67 dBA at
30 meters under stationary idle conditions.
This study was confined to the locomotive configurations as delivered to the railroads by
EMD. If there has been subsequent modification, alteration, addition, accident, damage,
etc., to a specific locomotive which might affect the time and/or materials necessary to
retrofit that locomotive, the estimate for that locomotive would have to be adjusted
B-2
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 2
accordingly. The figures established cover only the effort required to apply the engine
exhaust system hardware modifications. They do not include any allowances for the
repair of, or added costs resulting from defects, accident damage, etc. which may
have to be repaired before retrofit can be accomplished, e.g., there is no provision
for radiator repair. Cleaning and painting are confined to only those areas involved
in the retrofit modifications.
The estimated retrofit major new hardware would be developed and sold by EMD at HMD
Parts Department prices. The miscellaneous hardware are items purchased by EMD from
others. The amounts shown for these two classifications of hardware and for EMD labor
are based on known, current costs at EMD as of October 1974. None of the amounts
contain any provision for future economics, and significant adjustments may be necessary
due to inflation and other considerations. The amounts were established on preliminary
design information and sketches for engine exhaust system hardware retrofit requirements.
Labor costs and miscellaneous new hardware do not include profit on the amount shown,
whereas, any contractor that performed retrofit labor services for the.railroads would
include a mark-up on this labor and on purchased materials. These figures are also
predicted on the assumption that sufficient tooling, facilities, and raw materials are
available to manufacture the required parts/ rebuild the engine turbochargers, alter the
locomotive carbodies and perform other operations necessary to retrofit the locomotives
and that this could all be done under normal production conditions.
E-3
-------
Cost Stud/ Report No. 1
Page 3
Production line balancing, an important consideration at HMD, is not included in this
stud/. It should be emphasized that the necessary tooling and facilities, and floor space
required to retrofit locomotives/ manufacture additional quantities of certain piece parts,
and rebuild of increased volume of turbochargers do not exist at this time at EMD. Any
estimate of the cost of the requisite tooling and facilities could only be determined
after retrofit cycle times and a schedule by locomotive model type are established.
Once this information is obtained, the amounts stated herein would have to be modified
to include such additional tooling and factilities costs since the amounts presented do not
contain allowance for this significant area of cost. For example, we estimate that
approximately $300,000 in special tools would be required to retrofit these, four GP
locomotive models at the rate of two units per five-day week assuming two shifts per day.
/'
The stated costs for labor are based upon the labor costs, including burden, presently
existing at EMO's LaGrange, Illinois, plant and are not necessarily representative of
such costs at railroad maintenance installations or at other sources where retrofit work
might be done for the railroads. Furthermore, other sources may have different job codes,
shift allowances, etc., applicable to their labor force. Therefore, the labor costs at
such other sources would, of necessity, reflect other labor-related differences.
This study report No. 1 is the first in a series of several reports which will be submitted to
the EPA to cover ultimately 14 General Motors model locomotives representing a total of
14,789 units delivered by EMD, or 63.4 percent of the 23,307 total GM locomotives
in service on Class 1 and 2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated in this
Initial report are not necessarily representative of the amounts that will be estimated
for other locomotive models in subsequent reports;
E-4
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 4
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL :
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES :
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974 :
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 :
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 :
GP40-2 (Turbocharged, 3,000 HP)
January, 1972 to present
165
0.7%
0.6%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
20.0%
55.2%
24.8%
B-5
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 5
GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the turbocharger exhaust outlet
duct. The muffler is of straight-through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the
engine. The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger and, as a
result, a special -einforced turbocharger exhaust duct is required. Any electrical
cabling must be shielded from the exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark arrester; therefore the
turbocharged engine requires no additional provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-6
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 6
A. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new, reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The turbocharger removal opening in the hatch must be enlarged
to accommodate the exhaust muffler. The hatch is then reapplied
to the locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is-installed on the new turbocharger exhaust
duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the engine maintenance hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An e{ector must be added to the oil separator to overcome the
additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-7
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page?
A. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and application of
new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
I
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge
turbocharger removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : • $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 7,100.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 14,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 5 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY* : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 4,500
TOTAL COST : $ 18,700
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and
Penn Central Railroads.
-------
Cost Stud/ Report No. 1
Page 8
B. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine/ disassembled/
inspected/ and a new/ reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplted to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The turbocharger removal opening in the hatch must be
enlarged to accommodate the exhaust muffler. Insulated
panels must be installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in
the vicinity of the muffler. The dynamic brake hatch is then '
reapplied to the locomotive and dynamic brake cabling is
reconnected. ' •
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger exhaust
duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening in
the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome the
additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-9
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 9
B. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and application
of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge turbocharger removal
opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY *
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST
TOTAL COST
$ 6,800.
$ 400.
$ 7,700.
$ 14,900
6 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 5,000.
$ 19,900.
Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Rocli Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and
Penn Central Railroads.
E-10
-------
Cbst Study Report No. 1
Page 10
C. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine/ disassembled, inspected,
and a new reinforced exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then tested
and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive. The hatch structure must be modified to shift the hatch
assembly seven inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to accommodate the
muffler. Insulated panels must be installed to protect dynamic brake
cabling in the vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake
cabling, conduit, and control wires, lengthened seven inches over
the original, must be applied. The extended range dynamic brake
hatch is then reapplied to the locomotive and cabling and control
wires are leconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger exhaust
duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening in
the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome the
additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-ll
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 11
C. GP40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection/ machining, and application
of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge rurbocharger removal
opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate dynamic brake
hatch structure seven inches rearward on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables/ conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 500.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION i $ 10,200
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 17,500
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 7 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 5,500.
TOTAL COST t $ 23,000.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific
Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and Penn Central Railroads. '
E-12
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 12
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
GP 40 (Turbocharged, 3,000 HP)
January, 1965 - December, 1971
1,202
5.2%
4.0%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE:
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
19.8%
74.0%
6.2% *
* Not considered in this study due to low population in field.
E-13
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 13
GP 40 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the turbocharger exhaust outlet
duct. The muffler is of straight-through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the
engine. The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger and, as a
result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct is required. Any electrical
cabling must be shielded from the exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark arrester; therefore the
turbocharged engine requires no additional provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-14
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 14
A. GP40 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new, reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The turbocharger removal opening in the hatch must be enlarged
to accommodate the exhaust muffler. The hatch is then reappiied
to the locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger exhaust
duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening in
the engine maintenance hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome the additional
backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-15
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 15
A. GP40 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES!
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE'TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and application
of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
«
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED:
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge
turbocharger removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $" 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 7,100.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 14,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 5 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * ; $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST j $ 4,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 18/700.
Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and
Penn Central Railroads.
E-16
-------
-.Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 16
B. GP40 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new, reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The turbocharger removal opening in the hatch must be
enlarged to accommodate the exhaust muffler. Dynamic
brake cabling within the hatch must be removed and rerouted
to provide clearance around the muffler. Conduits, heat
shields, and insulated panels must be installed to protect
dynamic brake cabling in the vicinity of the muffler. The
dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied to the locomotive.
3. DYNAMIC BRAKE CABLING
Dynamic brake cables connecting the electrical control
cabinet and the dynamic brake hatch must be removed and
rerouted to provide clearance for the muffler. A closure
box to protect the cabling near the muffler must be applied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger exhaust
duct.
5. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the dynamic brake hatch.
6. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome the
additional backoressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-17
-------
Gist Study Report No. 1
Page 17
B. GP40 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and application
of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge turbocharger removal
opening.
2. Insulated panels, conduit, and sheet metal heat shields.
3. Dynamic brake cabling and associated connectors and cleats.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 800.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 10,500.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 18,100.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 7 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE/DAY* : $ 500
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 5,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 23,600
*Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific
Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and Penn Central Railroads. '
E-18
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 18
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
|N FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
: GP38-2 (Roots Blown, 2,000 HP)
: January, 1972 to present
: 538*
: 2.3%
: 1.8%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
(Optional)
19.1%
57.3%
23.6%
**
This total includes only those locomotives built since May 31, 1972.
The remaining 185 GP38-2 locomotives had a different cooling system
design (longer) and for retrofit of mufflers are considered with GP38
locomotives.
**
Not considered in this study due to time constraints. However, modifi-
cations would be similar to those for Standard Dynamic Brakes. Costs
would be slightly higher than for Standard Dynamic Brakes due to more
extensive hatch work required.
E-19
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 19
GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
The exhaust system consists of a set of engine-mounted spark arresting exhaust
manifolds connected in series and terminating in a common outlet. An exhaust
muffler is mounted in an opening made in the locomotive carbody roof structure
adjacent to the engine cooling system. A flexible connection is applied to
couple the engine-mounted exhaust manifolds to the hood-mounted muffler.
The muffler is a reactive-type and of straight-through design to minimize
»
backpressure imposed on the engine.
E-20
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 20
A. GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The rear section of the hatch is lengthened approximately 24 inches
and the structure is modified by providing an opening and supports
to accept an exhaust muffler.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filter compartment must
be removed from the locomotive. The carbody structure is modified
adjacent to the radiators to accept the lengthened engine maintenance
hatch. The carbody is then reapplied and all piping and wiring dis-
connected to remove the carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from the engine and scrapped.
A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied to the engine
including interconnecting hardware between the manifolds. The engine
maintenance hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler Is installed In the opening made in the engine
maintenance hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and the
exhaust manifolds is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PIPING
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance
around the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet and
the radiators must be altered.
6. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler and
complete the locomotive carbody roof.
E-21
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Poge 21
A. GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover.
5. Engine water outlet casting.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used Jo modify engine maintenance
hatch and locomotive carbody.
2. Engine water piping.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 11,300.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 500.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 10,800.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 22,600
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 9 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 29,100
*Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific,
Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and Penn Central Railroads.
E-22
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 22
B. GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the locomotive.
The rear section of the hatch is lengthened approximately 24 inches
and the structure is modified by providing an opening and supports
for an exhaust muffler.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filter compartment must
be removed from the locomotive. The carbody structure is modified
adjacent to the radiators to accept the lengthened engine mainten-
ance hatch. The carbody is then reapplied and all piping and wiring
disconnected to remove the carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust-manifolds are removed from the engine and
scrapped. A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied
to the engine including interconnecting hardware between the mani-
folds. The dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed in the opening made in the dynamic
brake hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and the
exhaust manifolds is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PI PI NG
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance
around the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet
and the radiators must be altered.
6. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler
and complete the locomotive carbody roof.
E-23
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 23
B. GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
•
1. Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
f
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover.
5. Engine water outlet casting.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify dynamic brake
hatch and locomotive carbody.
2. Engine water piping. . /
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 11,300.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 500.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 11,200.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST s $ 23,000..
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME « 9 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 29,500.
*Bosed on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific
Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and Penn Central Railroads.
E-24
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 24
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
: GP38 (Roots Blown, 2, 000 HP)
: January, 1966 to December, 1971
: 977*
: 4.2%
: 3.3%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE:
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No dynamic brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes {Optional)
15.6%
54.3%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
(Optional) and Oil Bath Engine
Air Filters
12.9%
D. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
(Optional) and Paper Engine Air
Filters
17.2%
*Th!s total includes 185 GP38-2 locomotives which were built with cooling systems
similar to GP38 locomotives.
E-25
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 25
GP38 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK
ARRESTING WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL
FEATURES:
The exhaust system consists of a set of engine-mounted spark arresting
exhaust manifolds connected in series and terminating in a common outlet.
An exhaust muffler is mounted in an opening made in the locomotive
carbody roof structure adjacent to the engine cooling system. A flexible
connection is applied to couple the engine-mounted exhaust manifolds to
the hood-mounted muffler. The muffler is a: reactive-type and of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
E-26
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 26
A. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKE)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOM-
MODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from locomotive. The
rear section of the hatch is lengthened approximately 24 inches and
the structure is modified by providing an opening and supports to
accept an exhaust muffler,
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY AND COOLING SYSTEM
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filter compartment must
be removed from the locomotive. The existing cooling system and
supporting structure must be removed from the carbody. This involves
radiators, cooling fans, shutters, piping, electrical wiring, and steel
structure. The structure must be rebuilt to accept a shortened radiator
set. The two cooling fans must be rebuilt with extra blades. New,
shorter shutter assemblies must be installed. The electrical wiring must
be relocated. A new fan hatch, and repositioning the fans is required.
In addition, the carbody structure must be modified to accept the
increased length engine maintenance hatch. The carbody is then
reapplied and all piping and wiring disconnected to remove the
carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from the engine and scrapped,
A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied to the engine
including interconnecting hardware between the manifolds. The engine
maintenance hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed in the opening made in the engine
maintenance hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and
the exhaust manifolds is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PI PING
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance around
the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet and the radiators
must be altered.
6. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler and
complete the locomotive carbody roof.
E-27
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 27
A. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover.
5. Engine water outlet casting.
6. Rebuilt cooling fans with extra blades (two).
7. Cooling fan hatch.
8. Radiator support assembly*
9. Radiator shutters.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify engine maintenance hatch.
2. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify cooling system and locomotive carl
3. Engine water piping.
4. Conduit and wiring.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 15,000.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 800.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 18,100.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 33,900.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 12 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY* : 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST . 8,000.
TOTAL COST : $ 41,900.
*Basedon Information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific,
Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific, and Penn Central Railroads.
E-28
-------
hjdy Report No. 1
8
GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch most be removed from locomotive. The rear
section of the hatch is lengthened approximately 24 inches and the
structure is modified by providing an opening and supports for an
exhaust muffler.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY AND COOLING SYSTEM
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filter compartment must
be removed from the locomotive. The existing cooling system and
supporting structure must be removed from the carbody. This involves
radiators, cooling fans, shutters, piping, electrical wiring, and steel
structure. The structure must be rebuilt to accept a shortened radiator
set. The two cooling fans must be rebuilt with extra blades. New,
shorter shutter assemblies must be installed. The electrical wiring must be
relocated. A new fan hatch and repositioning the fans is required.
In addition, the carbody structure must be modified to accept the in-
creased length dynamic brake hatch. The carbody is then reapplied
and all piping and wiring disconnected to remove the carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST'MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from the engine and scrapped.
A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied to the engine
including interconnecting hardware between the manifolds. The
dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed in the opening made in the dynamic brake
hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and the exhaust mani-
folds is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PI PING
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance
around the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet and
the radiators must be altered.
3. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler and
complete the locomotive carbody roof.
E-29
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 29
B. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover.
5. Engine water outlet casting.
6. Rebuilt cooling fans with extra blades (two).
7. Cooling fan hatch.
8. Radiator support assembly.
9. Radiator shutters.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify dynamic brake hatch.
2. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify cooling system and locomotive carbody,
3. Engine water piping.
4. Conduit and wiring.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 15,000.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 800.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION s $ 18,700.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 34,500.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 12 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST t $ 8,000.
TOTAL COST . $ 42,500.
'Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee, Missouri Pacific,
and Penn Central Railroads.
E-30
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 30
C. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
AND OIL BATH ENGINE AIR FILTERS
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be removed from locomotive.
The rear section of the hatch is lengthened approximately 24 inches and the
structure is modified by providing an opening and supports for an exhaust muffler.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY AND COOLING SYSTEM
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filter compartment must be
removed from the locomotive. The existing cooling system and supporting
structure must be removed from the carbody. This involves radiators,
cooling fans, shutters, piping, electrical wiring, and steel structure. The
structure must be rebuilt to accept a shortened radiator set. The two cooling
fans must be rebuilt with extra blades. New, shorter shutter assemblies must
be installed. The electrical wiring must be relocated. A new fan hatch
and repositioning the fans is required. In addition, the carbody structure
must be modified to accept the increased length dynamic brake hatch.
The carbody is then reapplied and all piping and wiring disconnected to
remove the carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from the engine and scrapped.
A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied to the engine
including interconnecting hardware between the manifolds. The dynamic
brake hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed in the opening made in the dynamic brake
hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and the exhaust
manifolds is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PIPING
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance around
the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet and the radiators
must be altered.
6. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler and complete
the locomotive carbody roof.
E-31
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 31
C. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
AND OIL BATH ENGINE AIR FILTERS _ . _ _
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1 . Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover,
5. Engine wafer outlet casting.
6. Rebuilt cooling fans with extra blades (two).
7. Cooling fan hatch.
i
8. Radiator support assembly.
9 . Radi ator shu tters .
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1 . Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify extended range dynamic brake hatch.
2. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify cooling system and locomotive carbody.
3. Engine water piping.
4. Conduit and wiring.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY *
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST
TOTAL COST
^
E-32
$ 15,000.
$ 800.
$ 18,900.
$ 34,700.
12 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 8,000.
: $ 42,700.
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 32
D. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
AND PAPER ENGINE AIR FILTERS
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be removed from locomotive.
Approximately 23 inches is removed from the front of the hatch to effectively
move the hatch forward on the locomotive. The rear section of the hatch is
then lengthened about 47 inches and the structure is modified by providing
an opening and supports for an exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake cables,
conduit, and control wires must be removed and rerouted.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY AND COOLING SYSTEM
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the air filtsr compartment must be
removed from the locomotive. The existing cooling system and supporting
structure must be removed from the carbody. This involves radiators, cooling
fans, shutters, piping, electrical wiring, and steel structure. The structure
must be rebuilt to accept a shortened radiator set. The two cooling fans
must be rebuilt with extra blades. New, snorter shutter assemblies must be
installed. The electrical wiring must be relocated. A new fan hatch and
repositioning the fans is required. In addition, the carbody structure must
be modified to accept the increased length dynamic brake hatch. The
carbody is then reapplied and all piping and wiring disconnected to remove
the carbody is reconnected.
3. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from the engine and scrapped.
A new set of spark arresting exhaust manifolds is applied to the engine
including interconnecting hardware between the manifolds. The dynamic
brake hatch is then reapplied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed in the opening made in the dynamic brake
hatch. A flexible connection between the muffler and the exhaust manifolds
is applied.
5. COOLING SYSTEM PIPING
A modified engine water outlet casting is required to provide clearance around
the exhaust system. Piping between the engine water outlet and the radiators
must be altered.
6. MUFFLER HATCH COVER
A muffler hatch cover must be added to cover the exhaust muffler and complete
the locomotive carbody roof.
E-33
-------
Cost Study Report No. 1
Page 33
D. GP38 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
AND PAPER ENGINE AIR FILTERS
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Spark arresting exhaust manifolds and interconnecting hardware.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Flexible connection.
4. Muffler hatch cover.
5* Engine water outlet casting.
i
6. Rebuilt cooling fans with extra blades (two).
7. Cooling fan hatch.
8. Radiator support assembly.
9. Radiator shutters.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify extended range
dynamic brake hatch.
2. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify cooling system
and locomotive cat-body.
3. Engine water piping.
4. Conduit and wiring.
5. Dynamic brake cabling.
E-34
-------
Cost Study Report No, 1
Page 34
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 15,000.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 800.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION i $ 20,500.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 36,300.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 13 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST . : $ 8,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 44,800.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Rock Island, Southern, Southern Pacific,
and Penn Central Railroads
E-35
-------
USG 350-74-16
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 2
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP7, GP9, GP18
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
NOVEMBER 15, 1974
E-36
-------
USG 350-74-16
Environmental Activities Stan
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
Warren, Michigan 48090
November 15, 1974
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building - Room 1115
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Dr. Meyer:
In response to your request for Locomotive Exhaust Muffler Retrofit-Cost Study,
we are attaching five (5) copies of Report No. 2.
This represents the second installment of a study undertaken by Electro-Motive
Division to estimate the cost of engine exhaust system hardware and associated
locomotive modification deemed necessary to meet the EPA proposed stationary
locomotive sound level limit of 87 dBA at 30 meters at any throttle setting.
The second report covers GM (EMD) locomotive models GP7, GP9, and GP18.
It should be pointed out that the proposed exhaust system hardware for these
three GP locomotive models is not available and would require further design and
performance evaluation with subsequent structural durability testing prior to pro-
duction usage.
Cost Study Report No. 2 and a series of similar reports to be submitted to EPA s
will ultimately cover 14 General Motors model locomotives representing a total
of 14,789 units delivered by EMD, or 63.4% of the 23,307 fotql GM locomotives
in service on Class 1 and 2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated
In this report are not necessarily representative of the amounts that will be sub-
mitted for other locomotive models in subsequent reports.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sinc
E.'G~. Ratering,
Vehicular Noise Control
Attachments (5)
E-37
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER REPORT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 2
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP7, GP9, and GP18
This study was undertaken by General Motors in response to a request by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to provide cost information on the expense to the railroads of
retrofitting in-service locomotives with exhaust muffler hardware. Such retrofit would
enable a diesel locomotive to meet the EPA proposed stationary locomotive sound level
limit of 87 dB (A) at any throttle setting measured at 30 meters.
During a meeting at the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of GM on September 26, 1974,
EMD advised EPA representatives that It would undertake a "paper study" of the engine
*
exhaust system hardware and associated application modifications of certain EMD
locomotive models which would be necessary in order to comply with an 87 dB (A) sound
level.
EMD also stated that this retrofit work was not being solicited by General Motors and
that EMD locomotive manufacturing facilities were not sufficient to undertake this retrofit
work, primarily due to the volume of hew locomotive production. This work would
presumably be done by the railroads themselves or by others pursuant to contracts with
railroads.
E-38
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 2
No attempt has been made to determine the cost for retrofit noise control treatment
necessary to achieve compliance with the EPA proposed locomotive noise standard
of 67 dB (A) at 30 meters under stationary idle condition.
It should be pointed out that the proposed exhaust system hardware for the three GP
locomotive models covered in this second cost study Is not available and would
require further design and performance evaluation with subsequent structural durability
testing prior to production usage.
This study was confined to the locomotive configuration as delivered to the .railroads
by EMD. If there has been subsequent modification, alteration, addition, accident,
damage, etc., to a specific locomotive which might affect the time and/or materials
necessary to retrofit that locomotive, the estimate for that locomotive would have to be
adjusted accordingly. These data cover only the effort required to apply the engine
exhaust system hardware modifications. They do not include any allowances for the
repair of, or added costs resulting from defects, accident damage, etc. which may
have to be repaired before retrofit can be accomplished, e.g., there is no provision
for radiator repair. Cleaning and painting are confined to only those areas involved
in the retrofit modifications.
The estimated retrofit mafor new hardware would have to be developed and sold by
EMD at EMD Parts Department prices. The miscellaneous hardware are items which
E-39
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Pa0e3
would be purchased by EMD from others. The amounts shown for these two classi-
fications of hardware and for EMD labor are based on known, current costs at EMD
as of October 1974. None of the amounts contain any provision for future economics,
and significant adjustments may be necessary due to inflation and other consideration's.
The amounts were established on preliminary design information and sketches for
*
engine exhaust system hardware retrofit requirements.
Labor costs and miscellaneous new hardware do not include profit on the amount shown,
ii
whereas, any contractor that performed retrofit labor services for the railroads would
Include a mark-up on this labor and on purchased materials. These figures are also
predicated on the assumption that sufficient tooling, facilities, and raw materials are
available to manufacture the required parts, alter the locomotive carbodies, and perform
other operations necessary to retrofit the locomotives. Moreover, it is presumed that
this could all be done under normal production conditions.
.»
Production line balancing (the utilization of labor in the most equitable and efficient
manner) is an important consideration at EMD, but is not included in this study. It
should be emphasized that the necessary tooling and facilities, and floor space re-
quired to retrofit locomotives and manufacture additional quantities of certain piece
parts, do not exist at this time at EMD. Any estimate of the cost of the requisite tool-
Ing and facilities could only be determined after retrofit cycle times and a schedule by
by locomotive model type are established. Once this information is obtained, the
amounts stated herein would have to be modified to include such additional tooling and
facilities costs since the amounts presented do not contain allowance for this significant
area of cost,
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 4
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED^AS OP
JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
GP7 (Roots Blown, 1,500 HP)
1949 - 1954
2,619
11.2%
8.7%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B.
Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Winterization (Optional) *
85.9%
14.1%
24.6%
Costs developed with regard to this optional feature are in addition to those established
for features A and B listed above. The winterization feature involves the addition of a
duct which takes warm air from the radiator and recirculares it to the engine room to melt
any snow which has accumulated there. Used on those locomotives which are regularly
operated In cold climates.
E-41
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 5
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
GP9 (Roots Blown, 1,750 HP)
1954 - 1959
3,480
14.9%
11.6%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Winterization (Optional) *
40.2%
59.8%
22.8%
Costs developed with regard to this optional feature are in addition to those established
for features A and B listed above. The winterization feature involves the addition of a
duct which takes warm air from the radiator and recirculates it to the engine room to melt
any snow which has accumulated there. Used on those locomotives which are regularly
operated in cold climates.
E-42
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 6
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
*
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
GP18 (Roots blown, 1,800 HP)
1959 - 1963
343
1.5% :
1.1%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Winterization (Optional) *
74.0%
26.0%
7.2%
Costs developed with regard to this optional feature are in addition to those established
for features A and B listed above. The winterization feature involves the addition of a
duct which takes warm air from the radiator and recirculates it to the engine room to melt
any snow which has accumulated there. Used on those locomotives which are regularly
operated in cold climates. . -
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 7
GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES
DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
The exhaust system consists of a set of four engine-mounted spark
arresting exhaust manifolds connected in pairs and terminating in
two flanged outlets. Two exhaust mufflers are mounted directly on
the exhaust manifold flanged outlets and protrude through openings
made in the roof structure. The weight of the mufflers is sup-
»
ported by the exhaust manifolds which are reinforced to accept the
added loads. The muffler is a reactive-type of straight-through
ft
design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
E-44
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 8
A. GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES - STANDARD CONFIGURATION
(NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. LOCOMOTIVE CARHOPY
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the cab
must be removed from the locomotive. The
existing exhaust stack openings in the carbody
roof must be enlarged and the adjacent structure
modified to allow the muffler to protrude through
the locomotive roof.
2 • ENGIISia EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from
the engine and scrapped. A new set of spark
arresting manifolds and interconnecting hardware t
is applied to the engine. The locomotive carbody
is then reapplied and all piping and wiring dis-
connected to remove the carbody is reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
Two exhaust mufflers are applied to the new
engine exhaust manifolds through the openings
made in the carbody roof.
4. MUFFLER COVER
A roof-mounted cover is applied over each muffler
to protect the muffler and minimize rain intrusion
into the locomotive.
E-45
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page 9
A. GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES - STANDARD CONFIGURATION
(NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Four spark arresting exhaust manifolds and inter-
connecting hardware.
2. Two exhaust mufflers.
3. Two muffler covers.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to modify locomotive
carbody.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 4,400.
b
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION* : $ 6,600.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 11,300.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 6 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * ; $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 5,000.
TOTAL COST : $ 16,300.
*Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central,Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific Railroads.
E-46
-------
Cost Study Report No. 2
Page K>
B. GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
' 1. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive. The existing exhaust stack openings
in the hatch must be enlarged and the structure
modified to allow the muffler to protrude through
the locomotive roof.
o
2. ENGINE EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
The existing exhaust manifolds are removed from
the engine and scrapped. A new set of spark
arresting manifolds and interconnecting hardware
is applied to the engine. The dynamic brake hatch
is then reapplied and all piping and wiring dis-
connected to remove the hatch is reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
Two exhaust mufflers are applied to the new engine
exhaust manifolds through the openings made in the
dynamic brake hatch.
4. MUFFLER COVER
A roof-mounted cover is applied over each muffler
to protect the muffler and minimize rain intrusion
into the locomotive.
E-47
-------
Cost Report Study No. 2
Page 11
B. GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
- 1. Four spark arresting exhaust manifolds and inter-
connecting hardware.
2. Two exhaust mufflers.
3. Two muffler covers.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Steel structural shapes used to modify dynamic brake
hatch.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 4,400.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 5,800.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 10,500.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 5 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 4,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 15,000.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-48
-------
C. GP7, GP9, and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES EQUIPPED WITH WINTERIZATION FEATURE
DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. LOCOMOTIVE CARBQDY OR DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
A five inch wide section of the winterization
opening in the carbody roof or dynamic brake
hatch must be altered to allow the rear ex-
haust muffler to be installed.
2. WINTERIZATION DUCT
The winterization duct must be removed from
the locomotive. The duct must be altered by
shortening the length of the duct five inches.
The duct must then be reapplied to the modified
carbody roof or dynamic brake hatch.
E49
-------
C. GP7, GP9f and GP18 LOCOMOTIVES EQUIPPED WITH WINTERIZATION FEATURE
' LISTING OF ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify carbody
roof or dynamic brake hatch.
2. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to modify
winterization duct.
TOTAL COST OF ADDITIONAL MISCELLANEOUS NEW
HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ — 0 -
TOTAL COST OF ADDITIONAL LABOR TO MAKE
MODIFICATION : $ 1,100.
TOTAL ADDITIONAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 1,100.
ADDITIONAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT
CYCLE TIME - : 1 day
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL ADDITIONAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 500.
TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST : $ 1,600.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
-------
USG 350-74-17
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 3
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS SD40, SD40-2, SD45, SD45-2
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
DECEMBER 4, 1974
E-51
-------
USG 350-74-17
Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
Warren, Michigan 48090
December 5, 1974
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building - Room 1115
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Dr. Meyer:
In response to your request for Locomotive Exhaust Muffler Retrofit-Cost Study,
we are attaching five (5) copies of Report No. 3.
This represents the third installment of a study undertaken by Electro-Motive
Division to estimate the cost of engine exhaust system hardware and associated
locomotive modification deemed necessary to meet the EPA proposed stationary
locomotive sound level limit of 87 dBA at 30 meters at any throttle setting.
The third report covers GM (EMD) locomotive models SD40-2, SD40, SD45-2,
and SD45.
Cost Study Report No. 3 and a series of similar reports to be submitted to EPA will
ultimately cover 14 General Motors model locomotives representing a total of
14,789 units delivered by EMD, or 63.4% of the 23,307 total GM locomotives
in service on Class 1 and 2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated
in this report are not necessarily representative of the amounts that will be sub-
mitted for other locomotive models in subsequent reports.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely yours,
E. G. Ratering, Dhycfor
Vehicular Noise^CoWrol
Attachments (5)
E-52
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 3
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS SD40-2, SD40, SD45-2, and SD45
This study is undertaken by General Motors in response to a request
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Its purpose is to provide
cost information that would aid the EPA in evaluating the expense to the
railroads of retrofitting in-service locomotives with certain exhaust
muffler hardware. This hardware would permit the locomotive to meet the
EPA proposed stationary locomotive sound level limit of 87 db(A) at any
• »>
throttle setting measured at 30 meters.
During a meeting at the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of GM on September
26, 1974, EMD advised EPA representatives that it would undertake a
"paper study" of the nature described above.
EMD also stated that this retrofit work was not being solicited by General
Motors and that EMD locomotive manufacturing facilities were not sufficient
to undertake this retrofit work, primarily due to the volume of new locomo-
tive production. This work would presumably be done by the railroads
themselves or by others pursuant to contracts with railroads.
This study does not purport to determine the cost for retrofit noise control
treatment necessary to achieve compliance with the EPA proposed locomotive
noise standard of 67 db(A) at 30 meters under'stationary idle conditions.
The EMD study was confined to the locomotive configurations as delivered by
them to the railroads. If there has been subsequent modification, alteration.
B-53
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 2
addition, accident, damage, etc., to a specific locomotive which might
affect the time and/or materials necessary to retrofit that locomotive,
the estimate for that locomotive would have to be adjusted accordingly.
. The figures established cover only the effort required to apply the
engine exhaust system hardware modifications. They do not include any
allowances for the repair of, or added costs resulting from defects,
accident damage, etc. which may have to be repaired before retrofit
can be accomplished, e.g., there is no provision for radiator repair.
Cleaning and painting are confined to only those areas involved in the
retrofit modifications.
The estimated retrofit major new hardware would be developed and sold
by EMD at EMD Parts Department prices. The miscellaneous hardware are
items purchased by EMD from others. The amounts shown for these two
classifications of hardware and for EMD labor are based on known, current
costs at EMD as of October 1974. None of the amounts contain any pro-
vision for future economics, and significant adjustments may be necessary
due to inflation and other considerations. The amounts were established
on preliminary design information and sketches for engine exhaust system
hardware retrofit requirements.
Labor costs and miscellaneous new hardware do not include profit on the
amount shown, whereas, any contractor that performed retrofit labor ser-
vices for the railroads would include a mark-up on this labor and on
purchased materials. These figures are also predicated on the assumption
that sufficient tooling, facilities, and raw materials are available to
manufacture the required parts, rebuild the engine turbochargers, alter
-------
Cost study Report NO.
Page 3
the locomotive carbodies and perform other operations necessary to
retrofit the locomotives and that this could all be done under normal
production conditions.
Production line balancing (the utilization of labor in the most equitable
and efficient manner), an important consideration at EMD, is not included
in this study. It should be emphasized that the necessary tooling and
facilities, and floor space required to retrofit locomotives, manufacture
additional quantities of certain piece parts, and rebuild of increased
volume of turbochargers do not exist at this time at EMD. Any estimate
of the cost of the requisite tooling and facilities could only be de-
termined after retrofit cycle times and a schedule by locomotive model
type are established. Once this information is obtained, the amounts
stated herein would have to be modified to include such additional
tooling and facilities costs since the amounts presented do not contain
allowance for this significant area of cost. »
The stated costs for labor are based upon the labor costs, including
burden, presently existing at EMD's LaGrange, Illinois, plant and are
not necessarily representative of such costs at railroad maintenance
installations or at other sources where retrofit work might be done
for the railroads. Furthermore, other sources may have different job
codes, shift allowances, etc., applicable to their labor force. There-
fore, the labor costs at such other source? would, of necessity, reflect
other labor-related differences.
This study report No. 3 is the third in a series of several reports which
will be submitted to the EPA to cover ultimately 14 General Motors model
locomotives representing a total of 14,789 units delivered by EMD, or
63.4 percent of the 23,307 total GM locomotives in service on Class 1
E-55
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 4
and 2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated in this
third report are not necessarily representative of the amounts that
will be estimated for other locomotive models in subsequent reports.
E-56
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 5
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
: SD45-2 (Turbocharged, 3,600 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES : January, 1972 to present
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
260
PERCENTAGE OP TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 1.1%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 0.9%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
0%
5.0% *
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
1. Welded on hatch 46.5%
2. Bolted on hatch 48.5%
* Not considered in study due to low population in field.
E-57
-------
Cost study Keport wo
Page 6
SD45-2 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design -to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark
arrester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no ad-
ditional provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-58
-------
C,l SD^S-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
(WELDED ON HATCH)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be
removed from the locomotive by burning off the
welds holding the hatch to the carbody. The hatch
structure must be modified to shift the hatch assembly
21 inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to ac-
commodate the muffler. Insulated panels must be
installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in the
vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake
cabling, conduit, and control wires, lengthened
21 inches over the original, must be applied. The
extended range dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied
to the locomotive and cabling and control wires are
reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by the
exhaust muffler.
E-59
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 8
C,l SD45-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
(WELDED ON HATCH)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure 21 inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
•»
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED ? $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OP MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 600.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 13,500.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 20,900.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 10 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME s 4 aays
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * ' : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST • $ 7,000.
TOTAL COST . $ 27,900.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Pacific Railroads.
E-60
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 9
C,2 SM5-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
(BOLTED ON HATCH)
\
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be
removed from the locomotive. The hatch structure
must be modified to shift the hatch assembly 21
inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to
accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must
be installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in
the vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake
cabling, conduit, and control wires, lengthened 21
inches over the original, must be applied. The ex-
tended range dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied
to the locomotive and cabling and control wires are
reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by the
exhaust muffler.
E-61
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 10
C,2 SD45-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
(BOLTED ON HATCH)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
>
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure 21 inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 600.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 10,200.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 17,600.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 8 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME ; 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * ' r $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,000.
TOTAL COST . $ 23,600.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific Railroad.
E-62
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 11
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL : SD45 (Turbocharged, 3,600 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES : 1966 - 1971
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974 ' : 1,267
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 5.4%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERV.ICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 4.2%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration 4.8%
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 35.3%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 59.9%
E-63
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 12
SDU5 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark
arrester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no ad-
ditional provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-64
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 13
A, SMS LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new, reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from
locomotive. The turbocharger removal opening in
the hatch must be enlarged to accommodate the ex-
haust muffler. The hatch is then reapplied to the
locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the engine maintenance hatch.
OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
Er65
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 14
A, SMS LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1.
Steel structural shapes used to enlarge
turbocharger removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION '
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY **
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST.
TOTAL COST
$ 6,800.
$ 300.
$ 7,100.
$ 14,200.
5 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 4,500.
: $ 18,700.
* Modification considered to be the same for costing as GP40-2
locomotive - Standard Configuration (no dynamic brakes).
** S?86* °? information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-66
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 15
B, SD45 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive. The hatch structure must be modified
to shift the hatch assembly 21 inches toward the
rear of the locomotive. The turbocharger removal
opening must be enlarged to accommodate the muffler.
Insulated panels must be installed to protect dy-
namic brake cabling in the vicinity of the exhaust
muffler. Dynamic brake cabling and conduit, len-
gthened 21 inches over the original, must be applied.
The dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied to the loco-
motive and cabling and control wires are reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-67
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 16
B, SD*i5 LOCOMOTIVE' EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC" BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
v
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure 21 inches rearward
on locomotives.
4. Dynamic brake cables.and conduit.
TOTAL PRICE OP MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OP MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 800'.
TOTAL COST OP LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 11,900.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST • s $ 19,500
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 8 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * s $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,000.
TOTAL COST , $ 25,500.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific Railroads.
E-68
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 17
C, SMS LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine. •
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be
removed from the locomotive. The hatch structure
must be modified to shift the hatch assembly 21
inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to
accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must be
installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in the
vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake
cabling, conduit, and control wires, lengthened
21 inches over the original, must be applied.
The extended range dynamic brake hatch is then
reapplied to the locomotive and cabling and control
wires are reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-69
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 18
C, SMS "LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARETO BE APPLIED!
I.
Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTIMG OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED:
1.
Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure 21 inches rearward
on locomotive.
4, Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OP MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED :
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY *
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST
TOTAL COST
$ 6,800.
$ 900.
$ 11,400.
$ 19,200.
8 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 6,000.
$ 25,200.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-70
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 19
GENERAL- MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
: SD40-2 (Turbocharged, 3,000 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
January, 1972 to present
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974
427
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 1.8%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974
1.4%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
19.1%
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 38.0%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 42.9%
E-71
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 20
SD4Q-2 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY; TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
-V
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark ar-
rester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no additional
provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-72
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 21
A, SD40-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new, reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from
locomotive. The turbocharger removal opening in
the hatch must be enlarged to accommodate the ex-
haust muffler. The hatch is then reapplied to the
locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
.j
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the engine maintenance hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-73
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 22
A, SMO-2 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3'. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge
turbocharger removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OP MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OP LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 7,100.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST i $ 14,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME ; 5 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY ** : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 4,500.
TOTAL COST . $ 18,700.
* Modification considered to be the same for costing as GP40-2
locomotive - Standard Configuration (no dynamic brakes).
** Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-74
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 23
B, SD40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGERS
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive. The hatch structure must be modified
to shift the hatch assembly nine inches toward the
rear of the locomotive. The turbocharger removal
opening must be enlarged to accommodate the muffler.
Insulated panels must be installed to protect dynamic
brake cabling in the vicinity of the exhaust muffler.
Dynamic brake cabling and conduit, lengthened nine
inches over the original, must be applied. The
dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied to the loco-
motive and cabling is reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new,larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-75.
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 24
B, ' SMO-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure nine inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables and conduit.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY *
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST
$ 6,800.
$ 600.
$ 10,900.
$ 18,300.
8 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 6,000.
COST : $ 24,300.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-76
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 25
C, • SMO-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be
removed from the locomotive. The hatch structure
must be modified to shift the hatch assembly 12
inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to
accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must
be installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in
the vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic
brake cabling, conduit, and control wires, len-
gthened 12 inches over the original, must be
applied. The extended range dynamic brake hatch
is then reapplied to the locomotive and cabling
and control wires are reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
EX77
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 26
C, SD40-2 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF. MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlatge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure 12 inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 500.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 11,400.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 18,700.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 9 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY. * ' : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,500.
TOTAL COST . $ 25,200.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-78
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 27
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL j SP4Q .(Turbocharged, 3,000 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES : 1966 - 1971
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974 . : 877
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 3.8%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 2.9%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE ' PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration 10.2%
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 23.5%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 66.3%,
D. Winterization (Optional) 1.1% *
* Not considered in this study due to low population in field.
E-79
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 28
SD4Q LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely 'by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark
arrester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no ad-
ditional provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-80
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 29
A, SMQ LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new, reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. ENGINE MAINTENANCE HATCH
The engine maintenance hatch must be removed from
locomotive. The turbocharger removal opening in
the hatch must be enlarged to accommodate the ex-
haust muffler. The hatch is then reapplied to the
locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the engine maintenance hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-81
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 30
A, SD40 LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge
turbocharger removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OP MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 7,100.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST ; $ 14,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 5 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY ** : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 4,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 18,700.
* Modification considered to be the same .for costing as GP40-2
locomotive - Standard Configuration (No Dynamic Brakes).
** Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee.
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-82
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 31
B, SD40 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive. The hatch structure must be modified
to shift the hatch assembly nine inches toward the
rear of the locomotive. The turbocharger removal
opening must be enlarged to accommodate the muffler.
Insulated panels must be installed to protect dy-
namic brake cabling in the vicinity of the exhaust
muffler. Dynamic brake cabling" and conduit, len-
gthened nine inches over the original,must be applied.
The dynamic brake hatch is then reapplied to the loco-
motive and cabling is reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
E-83
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 32
B, SMO LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure nine inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables and conduit.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 900.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 12,500.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 20,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 8 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * . : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,000.
TOTAL COST : $ 26,200.
* 5*sed °? information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific Railroads.
E-84
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 33
C, SMO LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine,
disassembled, inspected, and a new reinforced
exhaust duct applied. The turbocharger is then
tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The extended range dynamic brake hatch must be
removed from the locomotive; The hatch structure
must be modified to. shift the hatch assembly nine
inches toward the rear of the locomotive. The
turbocharger removal opening must be enlarged to
accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must be
installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in the
vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake
cabling, conduit, and control wires, lengthened
nine inches over the original, must be applied.
The extended range dynamic brake hatch is then
reapplied to the locomotive and cabling and control
wires are reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbo-
charger exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover, the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to
overcome the additional backpressure created by
the exhaust muffler.
EdB.5
-------
Cost Study Report No. 3
Page 34
C, SWO LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining,
and application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE. REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbo-
charger removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure nine inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 900.
TOTAL COST OP LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 13,300.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 21,000.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 8 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * - $ 5QO.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,000.
TOTAL COST . $ 27,000.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-86
-------
USQ 350-74-18
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 4
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP30, QP35, SD36
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
DECEMBER 11, 1074
E-87
-------
USG 350-74-18
*
Environmental Activities Stan
General Motors Corporation
General Motors Technical Center
Warren. Michigan 48090
December IT, 1974
Dr. Alvln F. Meyer, Jr.
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Noise Control Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
Crystal Mall Building - Room 1115
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, Virginia 20460
Dear Dr. Meyer:
In response to your request for Locomotive Exhaust Muffler Retrofit-Cost Study,
we are attaching five (5) copies of Report No. 4. Also attached is one (1) copy
of General Motors Corporation Locomotive Exhaust Muffler .Retrofit Application
Illustrations.
This represents the fourth and final installment of a study undertaken by Electro-
Motive Division to estimate the cost of engine exhaust system hardware and associated
locomotive modification deemed necessary to meet the EPA proposed stationary
locomotive sound level limit of 87 dBA at 30 meters at any throttle setting.
The fourth report covers GM (EMD) locomotive models GP30, GP35, and SD35.
Cost Study Report No. 4 and a series of similar reports submitted to EPA cover 14
General Motors model locomotives representing a total of 14,789 units delivered
by EMD, or 63.4% of the 23,307 total GM locomotives in service on Class 1 and 2
Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated in this final report are not
necessarily representative of the amounts that have been submitted for other locomotive
models in previous reports.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact me.
SincerelyVours,
Ratering, JM/ector
Vehicular Noise Control
fr
Attachments (6)
E-88,
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY REPORT NO. 4
LOCOMOTIVE MODELS GP30, GP35, and SD35
This study is undertaken by General Motors in response to a request by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide cost information that
would aid the EPA in evaluating the expense to the railroads of retrofitting
in-service locomotives with exhaust muffler hardware. This hardware would
permit the locomotive to meet the EPA proposed stationary locomotive sound
/»
level limit of 87 dB(A) at any throttle setting measured at 30 meters.
j
During a meeting at the Electro-Motive Division (EMD) of GM on September 26,
1974, EMD advised EPA representatives that it would undertake a "paper study"
of the nature described above.
EMD also stated that this retrofit work was not being solicited by General
Motors and that EMD locomotive manufacturing facilities were not sufficient
to undertake this retrofit work, primarily due to the volume of new locomo-
tive production. This work would presumably be done by the railroads them-
selves or by others pursuant to contracts with railroads.
No attempt has been made to determine the cost for retrofit noise control
treatment necessary to achieve compliance with the EPA proposed locomotive
noise standard of 67 dB(A) at 30 meters under stationary idle conditions.
This study was confined to the locomotive configurations as delivered to
the railroads by EMD. If there has been subsequent modification, alteration,
E-89
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 2
m
addition, accident, damage, etc., to a specific locomotive which might
affect the time and/or materials necessary to retrofit that locomotive,
the estimate for that locomotive would have to be adjusted accordingly.
The figures established cover only the effort required to apply the
engine exhaust system hardware modifications. They do not include any
allowances for the repair of, or added costs resulting from defects,
accident damage, etc. which may have to be repaired before retrofit Can
be accomplished, e.g., there is no provision for radiator repair. Cleaning
and painting are confined to only those areas involved in the retrofit
modifications. "
The estimated retrofit major new hardware would be developed and sold by
EMD at EMD Parts Department prices. The'miscellaneous hardware are items
purchased by EMD from others. The amounts shown for these two classifica-
tions of hardware and for EMD labor are based on known, current costs at
EMD as of October 1974. None of the amounts contain any provision for
future economics, and significant adjustments may be necessary due to in-
flation and other considerations. The amounts were established on prelim-
inary design information and sketches for engine exhaust system hardware
retrofit requirements.
Labor costs and miscellaneous new hardware do not include profit on the
amount shown, whereas, any contractor that performed retrofit labor ser-
vices for the railroads would include a mark-up on this labor and on pur-
chased materials. These prices are also predicated on the assumption that
sufficient tooling, facilities, and raw materials are available to manufacture
the required parts, rebuild the engine turbochargers, alter the locomotive
carbodies and perform other operations necessary to retrofit the locomotives
and that this could all be done under normal production conditions.
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 3
Production line balancing (the utilization of labor in the most equitable
and efficient manner), an important consideration at EMD, is not included
in this study. It should be emphasized that the necessary tooling and
facilities, and floor space required to retrofit locomotives, manufacture
additional quantities of certain piece parts, and rebuild of increased
volume of ,turbochargers do not exist at this time at EMD. Any estimate
of the cost of the requisite tooling and facilities could only be deter-
mined after retrofit cycle times and a schedule by locomotive model type
are established. Once this information is obtained, the amounts stated
herein would have to be modified to include such additional tooling and
facilities costs since the amounts presented do not contain allowance for
this significant,area of cost. •
The stated costs for labor are based upon the.labor costs, including burden,
presently existing at EMD's LaGrange, Illinois, plant and are not neces-
•
sarily representative of such costs at railroad maintenance installations
or at other sources where retrofit work might be done for the railroads.
Furthermore, other sources may have different job codes, shift allowances,
etc., applicable to their labor force. Therefore, the labor costs at such
other sources would, of necessity, reflect other labor-related differences.
This study report No. 4 is the last in a series of four reports which have
been submitted to the EPA to cover ultimately 14 General Motors model
locomotives representing a total of 14,789 units delivered by EMD, or
63.4 percent of the 23,307 total GM locomotives in service on Class 1 and
2 Railroads as of January 1, 1974. The figures stated in this final report
are not necessarily representative of the amounts that have been estimated
for other locomotive models in previous reports.
E-91
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 4
At the end of this report is a locomotive exhaust muffler retrofit cost
study summary table which is included along with observations made as a
result of this study and related Electro-Motive experience.
E-92
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 5
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
: GP30 (Turbocharged, 2,250 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
: 1962 - 1963
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OP
JANUARY; 1974 : 946
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 4.1%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 3.2%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
0.0%
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
87.8%
12.2%
B-93
-------
»ost Study Report No. 4
?age 6
GP30 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation. -
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark ar-
rester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no additional
provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-94
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 7
B, GP30 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, dis-
assembled, inspected, and a new reinforced exhaust
duct applied. The turbocharger is then tested and
reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The locomotive carbody, containing the dynamic brake
hatch (welded on), must be removed from the locomotive.
The turbocharger removal opening in the carbody must be
enlarged to accommodate the exhaust muffler. Dynamic
brake cabling must be removed and rerouted to provide
clearance around the muffler. Heat shields and insulated
panels must be installed to protect dynamic brake cabling
in the vicinity of the muffler. The locomotive carbody is
then reapplied to the locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening in
the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-95
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 8
B, GP30 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
L'ISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining/ and
application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,700.
*
TOTAL COST OP MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 300.
TOTAL COST OP LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 9,200.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 16,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 7 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 5,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 21,700.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific Railroads.
E-96
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 9
C, GP30 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The locomotive carbody, containing tho dynamic brake hatch
(welded on), must be removed from the locomotive. The
extended range dynamic brake contactors must be relocated
within the dynamic brake hatch. This involves structural
modifications and-recabling. The turbocharger removal
opening must be enlarged to accommodate the muffler.
Insulated panels must be installed to protect dynamic
brake cabling in the vicinity of the exhaust muffler.
The locomotive carbody is then reapplied to the locomotive.
•
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-97
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 10
C, GP30 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and
application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
i
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED; ,
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening. ,
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake contactors.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wire's.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,700.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 500.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 11,000.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 18,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 9 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 6,500.
TOTAL COST s $ 24,700.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and Southern
Pacific.
E-98
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 11
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL
: GP35 (Turbocharged, 2,500 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES
: 1963 - 1965
NO. OF LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OP
JANUARY, 1974 : 1,308
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 5.6%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 4.4%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTING AVAILABLE
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL
MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
18.1%
57.7%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional)
1. Welded on hatch 18.6% *
2. Bolted on hatch 5.6% **
* Not considered in study due to time constraints; however, mod-
ifications would be similar to those required for GP30 locomotive
equipped with Extended Range Dynamic Brakes. Costs would be slightly
higher due to more extensive hatch modifications and cable alterations.
** Not considered in study due to low population in field. However,
modifications would be similar to those required for GP40-2
locomotive equipped with extended range dynamic brakes.
E-99
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 12
GP35 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM/ INCLUDING SPARK ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported1solely by the turbocharger
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark ar-
rester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no additional
provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-100
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 13
A, GP35 LOCOMOTIVE-STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new, reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY
The locomotive carbody to the rear of the cab must be re-
moved from locomotive. The turbocharger removal opening
in the carbody must be enlarged to accommodate the exhaust
muffler. The carbody is then reapplied to" the locomotive.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the locomotive carbody.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-101
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 14
A, GP35"LOCOMOTIVE - STANDARD CONFIGURATION (NO DYNAMIC BRAKES)
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and
application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED:
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY *
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST
$ 6,800.
$ 300.
$ 8,400.
$ 15,500.
7 days
4 days
$ 500.
$ 5,500.
TOTAL COST : $ 21,000.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-102
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page I5
B, GP35 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OP LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new, reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. LOCOMOTIVE CARBODY
The locomotive carbody containing the dynamic brake hatch
(welded on), must be removed from locomotive. The turbo-
charger removal opening in the hatch must be enlarged to
accommodate the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake cabling
within the hatch must be removed and rerouted to provide
clearance around the muffler. Conduits,'heat shields,
and insulated panels must be installed to protect dynamic
brake cabling in the vicinity of the muffler. The loco-
motive carbody is then reapplied to the locomotive.
3. DYNAMIC BRAKE CABLING
Dynamic brake cables connecting the electrical control
cabinet and the dynamic brake hatch in the carbody must
be removed and rerouted to provide clearance for the
muffler. A closure box to protect the cabling near the
muffler must be applied.
4. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
5. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the dynamic brake hatch.
6. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-103
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 16
B, 6P35 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and
application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structural shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening.
2. Insulated panels, conduit, and sheet metal heat shields.
3. Dynamic brake cabling and associated connectors and cleats.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 700.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION t $ 12,700.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 20,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 10 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 7,000.
TOTAL COST . $ 27,200.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee
Missouri Pacific, Rock Island, Penn Central, Southern, and '
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-104
-------
ost Study Report No. 4
age 17
GENERAL MOTORS LOCOMOTIVE MODEL : SD35 (Turbocharged, 2,500 HP)
LOCOMOTIVE MODEL PRODUCTION DATES : 1964 - 1966
NO. OP LOCOMOTIVES PRODUCED AS OF
JANUARY, 1974 : 380
v
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GM LOCOMOTIVES
IN FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 1.6%
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES IN
FIELD SERVICE AS OF JANUARY, 1974 : 1.3%
MAJOR FEATURES AFFECTIVE AVAILABLE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL '
EXHAUST MUFFLER SPACE ' MODEL PRODUCTION
A. Standard Configuration 3.1% *
(No Dynamic Brakes)
B. Standard Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 40.6%
C. Extended Range Dynamic Brakes (Optional) 56.3%
* Not considered in study due to low population in field. However,
modifications would be similar to those required for GP35 loco-
motive - Standard Configuration (no dynamic brakes).
E-105
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Pago 18
SD35 LOCOMOTIVE
VERBAL DESCRIPTION OF MUFFLER SYSTEM, INCLUDING SPARK .ARRESTING
WHERE NECESSARY, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OPTIONAL FEATURES:
A reactive-type exhaust muffler is installed directly on the
turbocharger exhaust outlet duct. The muffler is of straight-
tt
through design to minimize backpressure imposed on the engine.
The weight of the muffler is supported solely by the turbocharger
*
and, as a result, a special reinforced turbocharger exhaust duct
is required. Any electrical cabling must be shielded from the
exhaust muffler heat radiation.
The turbocharger is considered an inherently effective spark ar-
rester and thereby the turbocharged engine requires no additional
provision for spark arrestance hardware.
E-106
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 19
B, SD35 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
- The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH
The locomotive carbody, containing the dynamic brake hatch
(welded on), must be removed from the locomotive. The
dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the locomotive
by burning off the welds holding the hatch to the carbody.
The hatch structure must be modified to shift the hatch
assembly nine inches toward the rear of the locomotive.'
The turbocharger removal openi'ng must be enlarged to
accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must be
installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in the
vicinity of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake cabling
and conduits lengthened nine inches over the original,
must be applied. The dynamic brake hatch is then re-
applied to the locomotive and cabling is reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the
exhaust muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger
removal opening in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-107
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 20
B, SD55 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH STANDARD DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED:
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and
application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to enlarge turbocharger
removal opening; '
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. ^ Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure nine inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables and conduits.
TOTAL PRICE OP MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 900.
TOTAL COST OP LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 15,800.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 23,500.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME •:. 10 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME . : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 5QO.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 7,000.
TOTAL COST : $ 30,500.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, Penn Central, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-108
-------
C, SD35 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED MNGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
DESCRIPTION OF LOCOMOTIVE MODIFICATIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE
RETROFIT EXHAUST SYSTEM:
1. TURBOCHARGER
_ The turbocharger must be removed from engine, disassembled,
inspected, and a new reinforced exhaust duct applied. The
turbocharger is then tested and reapplied to the engine.
2. EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKE HATCH STRUCTURE
The locomotive carbody, containing the dynamic brake hatch
(welded on), must be removed from the locomotive. The ex-
tended range dynamic brake hatch must be removed from the
locomotive carbody by burning off the welds holding the
hatch to the carbody. The hatch structure must be modified
to shift the hatch assembly nine inches, toward the rear of
the locomotive. The turbocharger removal opening must be
enlarged to accommodate the muffler. Insulated panels must
be installed to protect dynamic brake cabling in the vicinity
of the exhaust muffler. Dynamic brake cabling, conduit, and
control wires, lengthened nine inches over the original, must
be applied. The extended range dynamic brake hatch is then
reapplied to the locomotive and cabling and control wires
are reconnected.
3. MUFFLER
An exhaust muffler is installed on the new turbocharger
exhaust duct.
4. TURBOCHARGER REMOVAL HATCH COVER
A new, larger hatch cover must be applied above the exhaust
muffler to cover the enlarged turbocharger removal opening
in the dynamic brake hatch.
5. OIL SEPARATOR EJECTOR
An ejector must be added to the oil separator to overcome
the additional backpressure created by the exhaust muffler.
E-109
-------
Cost Study Report No. 4
Page 22
C, SD35 LOCOMOTIVE EQUIPPED WITH EXTENDED RANGE DYNAMIC BRAKES
LISTING OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE TO BE APPLIED;
1. Turbocharger disassembly, inspection, machining, and
' application of new, reinforced exhaust duct.
2. Exhaust muffler.
3. Turbocharger removal hatch cover.
4. Oil separator ejector.
.•••
LISTING OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED;
1. Steel structure shapes used to' enlarge turbocharger
removal opening.
2. Insulated panel heat shields.
3. Steel structural shapes and sheet used to relocate
dynamic brake hatch structure nine inches rearward
on locomotive.
4. Dynamic brake cables, conduit, and control wires.
TOTAL PRICE OF MAJOR NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 6,800.
TOTAL COST OF MISCELLANEOUS NEW HARDWARE REQUIRED : $ 900.
TOTAL COST OF LABOR TO MAKE MODIFICATION : $ 16,500.
TOTAL EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT COST : $ 24,200.
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE PLANT CYCLE TIME : 10 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE TRANSIT TIME : 4 days
LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST/DAY * : $ 500.
TOTAL LOCOMOTIVE OUT OF SERVICE COST : $ 7,000.
TOTAL COST : $ 31,200.
* Based on information furnished by Burlington Northern, Milwaukee,
Missouri Pacific, PennCentral, Rock Island, Southern, and
Southern Pacific Railroads.
E-110
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETROFIT
COST STUDY SUMMARY TABLE
AND '
OBSERVATIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF THIS
STUDY AND RELATED ELECTRO-MOTIVE EXPERIENCE
E-lll
-------
GgNEHAL MOTORS CORPORATION
LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST MUFFLER RETfiOFIT COST STUDY SUMMARY
Locomotive
Models
GP7 OP9
GP18
GP30 GP35
SD35
GP40
GP40-2
SD40
SD40-2
SD45
SD45-2 GP38 GF38-2
No. of Loco.
Produced A8
of January
1974
Percentage
Of Total GM
Units in Fieia
Service As of
Jan. 1974
Percentage
of Total
Locomotives
In Field
Service As
of January
197*1 »
Total
Exhaust
Muffler
Retrofit
Cost
(Millions)
Total
Cost
Including
Muffler
Retrofit
Plus Out
of Service
Cost (Millions)
2619
11. 2*
8.7*
30.01
43.24
3480
14.9*
11.6*
38.53
55.29
343
1.5*
1.1*
3.83
5.52
946
4.1*
3.2*
15.56
20.8?
1308
5.6*
4.4*
24.63
33-19
380
1.6*
1.3*
8.98
11.63
1202
5.2*
4.0*
20.83
•27.20
165
0.7*
0..6*
2.54
3-37
877
3.8*
2.9*
17-65
22.78
427
1.8*
1.4*
7.55
10.08
1267
5.4*
4.2*
24.16
31.67
260
1.1*
0.9*
4.75
6.35
977
4.2*
3-3*
33.94
41.84
538
2.3*
1.8*
12.33
15.83
Total overall muffler retrofit and out of service cost covering 14 General Motors model locomotives representing a total of 14,789
units delivered by 04D, or 63.4 percent of the total 23,307 total GM loconotlves In service on Class 1 and 2 railroads as of
January 1, 1974: $328.86 million
* Posed on
l<>rvirrot:i VT,
-------
OBSERVATIONS MADE AS A RESULT OF THIS STUDY ARD RELATED ELECTRO-MOTIVE
EXPERIENCE:
1. The magnitude of costs established in this study to retrofit in-
service locomotives with exhaust muffler hardware is indicative
of the modification complexity involved to not only meet EPA
proposed 87 dB(A) sound level limit but to insure retention of
satisfactory overall locomotive performance, reliability, and
maintainability as well as exhaust spark afrestance control
where necessary.
2. The length of locomotive "out of service plant cycle" time
established in this study to retrofit in-service locomotives
with exhaust muffler hardware raises a serious question as to
the practicability of the EPA proposed four year time period
for the railroads to obtain proven exhaust muffler hardware
and retrofit all of their in-service locomotives to meet
87 dB(A) sound level limit compliance.
3. The length of field service evaluation i's normally two years.
Electro-Motive's experience in the design and development of
locomotive exhaust system hardware has proven that the impor-
tance of adequate field test time to insure prototype muffler
design structural integrity cannot be over-emphasized. The
ultimate realistic determination of muffler structural re-
liability must take place on the intended locomotive model
involved with sufficient field service time experience under
actual revenue operating conditions.
4. It should be emphasized that the costs developed in this study
do not include additional tooling and facility costs necessary
to implement the locomotive exhaust muffler retrofit. This
additional significant area of cost can only be determined
after retrofit cycle times and a schedule by locomotive model
types have been established.
5. In view of this study covering 63.4 percent or 14,789 units out
of a total of 23,307 General Motors locomotives in service as of
January 1, 1974, the following projection of the costs established
in this study is suggested to estimate total retrofit cost for the
remaining 36.6 percent or 8518 locomotives:
E-113
-------
A. 30 percent or 6992 units -
use GP7 model cost of $15,000/unit. a
B. 3.6 percent or 839 units -
use average SD40 model cost of $25/970/unit.
C. 3.0 percent or 687 units -
use average GP7/9/18 model cost of $16,150/unit. c
a. The majority of these units are of the switcher
or lower horsepower type such that modifications
to the exhaust system of these units would be
similar to those needed for the GP7 model.
b. These units are turbocharged road locomotives and
would require modifications similar to those needed
on the SD40 units.
c. These units are the remaining lower horsepower units
not individually studied and would require modifications
similar to those on the GP7 GP9 and GP18 units.
E-114
-------
Exhaust Muffler
Cables
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Control Stand
4. No. 1 Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertial Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine Cranking Motors
12. Engine 20-645E3
13. Dynamic Brake Fans
14. Equipment Rack
15. Air Compressor
16. Radiators
17. Radiator Cooling Fans
18. No. 2 Electrical Cabinet
19. Trucks
20. Fuel Tank
21. Electrical Cabinet Air Filter
General Arrangement — SD45 Locomotive
SO 45/45-2
MODIFIED
-------
1_
0 • •
20
".J j r j p;
12
• 19 • * • • •
O) ''«) '- ?) C^/
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Control Stand
4. No. 1 Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertial Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine Cranking Motors
12. Engine 20-645E3
13. Dynamic Brake Fans
14. Equipment Rack
15. Air Compressor
16. Radiators
17. Radiator Cooling Fans
18. No. 2 Electrical Cabinet
19. Trucks
20. Fuel Tank
21. Electrical Cabinet Air Filter
General Arrangement — SD45 Locomotive
SD 45/45-2 STANDARD
-------
Exhaust Muffler
Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Locomotive Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Carbody Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine 16-645
12. Exhaust Manifold
13. Dynamic Brake Fan
14. Engine Governor
15. Lube Oil Strainer
16. Engine Water Tank
17. Fuel Pump
18. Lube Oil Filters
19. Lube Oil Cooler
20. Radiators
21. Radiator Fans
22. Fuel Filter
23. Air Compressor
24. AC And Compressor
Control Cabinet
(Back Of Equipment Rack)
25. Truck
26, Fuel Tank
Locomotive General Arrangement
GP 40/40-2
MODIFIED
-------
00
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Locomotive Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Carbody Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine 16-645
12. Exhaust Manifold
13. Dynamic Brake Fan
14. Engine Governor
15. Lube Oil Strainer
16. Engine Water Tank
17. Fuel Pump
18. Lube Oil Filters
19. Lube Oil Cooler
20. Radiators
21. Radiator Fans
22. Fuel Filter
23. Air Compressor
24. AC And Compressor
Control Cabinet
(Back Of Equipment Rack)
25. Truck
26. Fuel Tank
Locomotive General Arrangement
GP 40/40-2 STANDARD
-------
Exhaust Muffler
Spark Arresting Exhaust Manifold
Extcided Range Dynamic Brakes
GP 38-2
MODIFIED
-------
NJ
O
GP 38-2 STANDARD
-------
to
Exhaust Muffler
Spark Arresting Exhaust Manifold
Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
|0il lath dine Air filters)
Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
|Ptp«r li|iit An filters]
«
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Locomotive Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Carbody Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Engine Air Filter
10. Engine Blowers
11. DC Main Generator
And AC Alternator
12. Engine 16-645E
13. Exhaust Manifolds
14. Dynamic Brake Fan
15. Engine Governor
16. Accessory Rack
17. Air Compressor
18. Radiators
19. Radiator Fans
20. Trucks
21. Fuel Tank
MODIFIED
Locomotive General Arrangement
fiP 38
-------
Ni
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Locomotive Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Carbody Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Engine Air Filter
10. Engine Blowers
11. DC Main Generator
And AC Alternator
12. Engine 16-645E
13. Exhaust Manifolds
14. Dynamic Brake Fan
15. Engine Governor
16. Accessory Rack
17. Air Compressor
18. Radiators
19. Radiator Fans
20. Trucks
21. Fuel Tank
GP-38 STANDARD
Locomotive General Arrangement
-------
Exhaust Muffler
Standard Dynamic Brake Hatch Structure art Cables
Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
10
u>
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Control Stand
4. No. 1 Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertia! Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine Cranking Motors
12. Engine 16-645E3
13. Dynamic Brake Fans
14. Equipment Rack
15. Air Compressor
16. Radiators
17. Radiator Cooling Fans
18. Trucks
19. Fuel Tank
20. Electrical Cabinet Air Filter
General Arrangement — SD40 Locomotive
SO 35/40/40-2
MODIFIED
-------
WOOD
'L jL ™ <^^^^^^i^"T^T^l
10
LSand Box
2. Battery
3. Control Stand
4. No. 1 Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertial Air Filter
6. Traction Motor Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator
11. Engine Cranking Motors
12. Engine 16-645E3
13. Dynamic Brake Fans
14. Equipment Rack
15. Air Compressor
16. Radiators
17. Radiator Cooling Fans
18. Trucks
19. Fuel Tank
20. Electrical Cabinet Air Filter
General Arrangement - SD40 Locomotive
SD 35/40/40-2 STANDARD
-------
Exhaust Muffler
to
Ln
Extended Range Dynamic Brakes
5£
?'j ^/ QL- •& v '^ (T (5
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Loco. Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertial Separator
6. Traction Motor
Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator and
Alternator
11. Engine 16-567 D3A
12. Exhaust Manifold
13. Dyn. Brake Fan
14. Governor
15. Lube Oil Strainer
Housing
16. Eng. Water Tank
17. Fuel Pump
18. Lube Oil Filter
19. Lube Oil Cooler
20. Radiator
21. 48" Fan and Motor
22. 36" Fan and Motor
23. Fuel Pressure
Filter
24. Air Compressor
25. Trucks
26. Traction Motors
27. Main Air Reservoir
28. Fuel Tank
General Arrangement
GP 35
-------
to
1. Sand Box
2. Battery
3. Loco. Controls
4. Electrical Cabinet
5. Inertial Separator
6. Traction Motor
Blower
7. Generator Blower
8. Auxiliary Generator
9. Turbocharger
10. Main Generator and
Alternator
11. Engine 16-567 D3A
12. Exhaust Manifold
13. Dyn. Brake Fan
14. Governor
15. Lube Oil Strainer
Housing
16. Eng. Water Tank
17. Fuel Pump
18. Lube Oil Filter
19. Lube Oil Cooler
20. Radiator
21. 48" Fan and Motor
22. 36" Fan and Motor
23. Fuel Pressure
Filter
24. Air Compressor
25. Trucks
26. Traction Motors
27. Main Air Reservoir
28. Fuel Tank
General Arrangement
GP 35 STANDARD
-------
Exhaust Muffler
'Standard Dynamic Brake Hatch Structure and Cables
Extended Range Dri&mc Brakes
• • -no) • • •
1. Sand Box
2. Loco. Controls
3. Electrical Cabinet
4. Dust Filter & Blower Motor
5. Traction Motor Blower
6. Generator Blower
7. Auxiliary Generator
8. Turbocharger
9. Grid Blower Motor
10. D3 Diesel Engine
11. Exhaust Manifold
12. Governor
13. Engine Water Tank
15. Radiators
16. Lube Oil Cooler
17. Lube Oil Filter
18. Fuel Filter
19. Air Compressor
20. Fuel Pump
14. Engine Cooling Fans 21. Traction Motors 28. Batteries
General Arrangement
GP 30
22. Truck
23. Lube Oil Strainer
24. Fuel Tank
25. Air Reservoir
26. Main Generator & Alternator
27. Traction Motor Air Duct
I.DDIFIED
-------
ro
oo
©©©© ©©©€
©00© ©0©
1. Sand Box
2. Loco. Controls
3. Electrical Cabinet
4. Dust Filter & Blower Motor
5. Traction Motor Blower
6. Generator Blower
7. Auxiliary Generator
8. Turbocharger
9. Grid Blower Motor
10. D3 Diesel Engine
11. Exhaust Manifold
12. Governor
13. Engine Water Tank
15. Radiators
16. Lube Oil Cooler
17. Lube Oil Filter
18. Fuel Filter
19. Air Compressor
20. Fuel Pump
22. Truck
23. Lube Oil Strainer
24. Fuel Tank
25. Air Reservoir
26. Main Generator ft Alternator
27. Traction Motor Air Duct
14. Engine Cooling Fans 21. Traction Motors 28. Batteries
General Arrangement
GP-30 STANDARD
-------
GP9 DIESEL ROAD SWITCHING LOCOMOTIVE
EXHAUST MUFFLER
-
j
c
• Standard Dynamic Brake Hatch Structure
i STEAM GENERATOR
2 TRACTION MOTOR BLOWERS
3 BATTERIES
4 ENGINEER'S CONTROLS
5 ELECTRICAL CABINET
6 TRACTION MOTORS
7 FUEL AND WATER TANKS
8 DC GENERATOR
9 AC GENERATOR
O AUX GENERATOR
'I COOLING FANS
12 DIESEL ENGINE
'3 PG GOVERNOR
A ENGINE WATER TANK
i5 LUBE OIL COOLER
16 LUBE OIL FILTER
»«NSMDSION tNO CONTIOI
General Arrangement
GP 7/9/18
17 LUBE OIL STRAINERS
18 MAIN AIR RESERVOIR
19 LOAD REGULATOR
20 AIR COMPRESSOR
MODIFIED
-------
GP9 DIESEL ROAD SWITCHING LOCOMOTIVE
-•'
u>
-
STEAM GENERATOR
2 TRACTION MOTOR BLOWERS
3 BATTERIES
4 ENGINEER'S CONTROLS
'OOOO QOOO
oooo oooo
" ELECTRICAL CABINET
6 TRACTION MOTORS
7 PUEL AND WATER TANKS
8 DC GENERATOR
9 AC GENERATOR
iO AUX GENERATOR
il COOLING FANS
i2 DIESEL ENGINE
>3 PG GOVERNOR
A ENGINE WATER TANK
6 LUBE OIL COOLER
16 LUBE OIL FILTER
17 LUBE OIL STRAiNEF-
18 MAIN AIR RESERVO:^
19 LOAD REGULATOR
20 AIR COMPRESSOR
General Arrangement
GP 7/9/18 STANDARD
-------
Appendix F
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PROPOSED RAILROAD NOISE
EMISSION STANDARDS
-------
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROPOSED RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
DOCKET NUMBER ONAC 7201002
DESCRIPTION
The Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAC),
has published proposed standards for sound levels resulting from the operation of locomotives
and railroad cars of surface carriers engaged In interstate commerce by railroads. The
ONAC has also published a Background Document which explains the basis of, purposes for,
and environmental effects of the proposed standards.
To further support General Motors Corporation's response to the Environmental Protection
Agency's Proposed Railroad Noise Emission Standards, the following comments are offered
as an addendum to the August 15, 1974 Comments of General Motors Corporation With
Respect to Proposed Railroad Noise Emission Standards, Docket No. ONAC 7201002.
GENERAL COMMENTARY
General Motors believes that stationary locomotive sound level limits of 93 dBA at any
throttle setting and 83 dBA at idle measured at 30 meters effective 270 days from the date
of promulgation of the regulations, are reasonable requirements.
General Motors believes that a stationary locomotive sound level limit of 87 dBA at any
throttle setting measured at 30 meters and effective four years from the date of promulgation
of the regulations, is a technically feasible requirement. It can be achieved on future
production locomotives by the application of mufflers and necessary structural changes
to accommodate the muffler.
The following is a summary of General Motors additional comments to the proposed standards:
1. Exhaust noise is not the major contributor to overall locomotive idle noise measured
at 100 feet; and therefore, the addition of a locomotive exhaust muffler will not
reduce idle locomotive noise by 6 dBA from 73 dBA to 67 dBA as the EPA proposed
railroad noise emission regulation requires.
2. General Motors does agree that full power locomotive noise is exhaust noise
dominant and the addition of exhaust mufflers will permit the achievement of
the proposed regulation of 87 dBA at 100 feet effective four years from the
date of promulgation.
F-l
-------
-3-
1. FULL POWER OVERALL LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST NOISE AT 100 FEET
To demonstrate that full power overall locomotive noise at 100 feet is controlled
by the exhaust noise level, consider Figures 1, 2, and 3. The graphs compare
A-weighfed octave band sound levels measured at 3 feet from the exhaust
outlet and at 100 feet fro.Ti the side of the locomotive during full power (eighth
throttle) operation (radiator cooling fans not operating to eliminate their
influence) for three present production road locomotives, SD40-2, GP39-2, and
GP38-2, respectively. Inspection of these plots shows that a good correlation for
al( three locomotives can be made between the full power exhaust noise spectrum
at three feet and the overall locomotive noise spectrum measured at 100 feet when
a 30 dB attenuation factor for hemispherical sound spreading is used to correct for
the increased distance. For most points, the measured octave band level at 100 feet
is less than that predicted using the 30 dB attenuation factor indicating excess
attenuation not accounted for. When the measured octave band level is greater
than that predicted, structurally-radiate'd locomotive noise is contributing to the
overall locomotive noise*
Extending this correlation to analyze idle locomotive overall noise demonstrates that
exhaus* noise is not the major contributor at idle. Figures 4, 5, and 6 correspond
to figures 1, 2, and 3 respectively, but compare idle exhaust noise level at three
feet with idle overall locomotive noise at 100 feet for the same three locomotives.
It becomes immediately apparent upon applying the 30 dB attenuation factor to the
idle exhaust noise spectrum that the correlation observed between exhaust and
overall noise at full power does not exist at idle. For all three locomotives, which
include both turbocharged and roots blown engines, the octave bands controlling
the overall A-weighfed locomotive sound levef at 100 feet are not exhaust notse
dominated and are, in fact, controlled by structurally-radiated noise. Therefore,
it ts technically not possible to reduce idle overall locomotive noise with the
application of an exhaust muffler.
F-2
-------
-4-
2. STATIONARY LOCOMOTIVE IDLE NOISE EMISSION DATA -
TABLE 4-2 IN THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
General Motors evaluation of the stationary locomotive idle noise emission data presented
in Table 4-2 in the Background Document is as follows:
Considering only General Motors locomotives and only those measurements actually
taken at 100 feet, * the mean value of the locomotive idle noise level measurements
is 68.4 dBA and the standard deviation is 1.9 dBA. These values agree well with
General Motors data which indicates a mean of 68.2 dBA and standard deviation
of 1.7 dBA for present production locomotive models tested. Based on these means
and standard deviations, approximately 74% of all General Motors locomotives
exceed the proposed level of 67 dBA at 100 feet at idle.
*Refer to COMMENTS, Page 5, Item 2,
F-3
-------
-5-
CONCLUSIONS
In summary, it has been demonstrated that application of exhaust mufflers will not allow
locomotives to meet the proposed idle noise level requirement of 67 dBA at 100 feet.
Further, 74% of all GM locomotives, which account for approximately 75% of all
locomotives presently in service, currently exceed the proposed noise level of 67 dBA.
Therefore, taking into consideration available technology, cost of compliance and the
intent of the proposed regulation to insure 100% idle noise level compliance, it is
General Motors opinion that the idle noise level requirement should be maintained at
73 dBA.
F-4
-------
^
^ no
OQ
0
LU
100
90
o
C/J
1 80
o
a
t£?
70
60
50
SD40-2 LOCOMOTIVE
TURBOCHARGED - 3,000 HP
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
— t
3.
-i
•rf
M
*•
— —
•— _
•— —
™ —
•V ^v
«* _—
E 1-
I ~
/ -\
H / —
/ ~
~ /
/
I / ±
C I
— _
/ -
// -
/
:// z
V, =
"m f *~
•3 ~-
•^ •.
i i:
^ 1
A "
1 \ "
- \ -
1 ^
- \
— «—
— H
r- —
~- ^
j
^ —
— •—
••— MH
h^ — .
— v.
1^^ —V
S J:
— » *_
= /~
~ /-
= / =
J-
— • •*_
*T
~ /^
^ / -
" • bv
— —
— • .«
iO iC
-
£3
0
—
-
0 pi
•n
1C
— «— •
;OR :
ANCi
«£
» «
«• _—
—
m
-* «•
— _ _
00 4C
- X
T
;i^sE
i D
E \ i
-\ s
\-
00 «C
^ A
K
I
^
DO
100
1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
» i
10000
THROTTLE; FULL LOAD
3 FEET FROM EXHAUST OUTLET
100
FIGURE 1
F-5
-------
CD
CVJ
C£
PC*
I
GO
a
CQ
UJ
£
Q
110
100
90
80
70
~ 60
'«=c
50
GP39-2 LOCOMOTIVE
TURBOCHARGED - 2,300 HP
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
110 — 35S — 710 1400 — JMO
— MOO — MMO
100
1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
10000
STH THROTTLE; FULL LOAD
3 FEET FROM EXHAUST OUTLET
100 FEET FROM.SIDE.OF.LOCOMOTIVE,
, OF LQCQMOI]
IS OPERATING
FIGURE 2
F-6
-------
GP38-2
ROOTS BLOWN - 2,000 HP LOCOMOTIVE
EQUIPPED WITH PRODUCTION SPARK ARRESTER EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
45 — W —
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
1(0 - 35J - 710 - UOO - MOO
MOO i£.
o
CM
LU
CC.
00
I
UJ
1
o
a
CD
UJ
I
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
_- ^7 __
= E. /£E. IE.30 of
E/ =»
a
HEMUSEIQN ElCTORiOR
750
-<>-
DIS
:ANCE
-5s
z: X 4
$A
1
100
-i r
500
—1—r
1COO
-t-t—
2000
4000
—t-
8000
i > i r-
1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
51
10000
STK THROTTLE; FULL LOAD
°—o 3 FEET FROM EXHAUST OUTLET
100 EELFRQSD OF
FIGURE 3
F-7
-------
SD40-2 LOCOMOTIVE
45 —
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
tW — 3J3 — 710 1«0 — ?MO
— na»
-------
GP39-2 LOCOMOTIVE
45 — 90 —
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
— JSi 7)0 — UOO — 2MO
— MOO — HMO
«=C
o_
o
CM
PQ
(=)
LU
O
CO
CQ
LU
90
80
70
60
50
30
100
1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
10000
IDLE
3 FEEJ FROM EXHAUST OUTLET
100 FEET FROM.SIDE OF LOCOMOTIVE,'
IDE
NG FANS OP
FIGURE 5
F-9
-------
o
CM
LU
or
PQ
<=*
o
CO
<=c
PQ
UJ
90
80
70
60
50
30
GP38-2 LOCOMOTIVE
PRODUCTION SPARK ARRESTER EXHAUST MANIFOLDS
OCTAVE PASS BANDS IN HERTZ
— <0 — 190 — 3ii — 710 — 1400 — J»00 — MOO
— 11MO
s .
100
1000
FREQUENCY IN HERTZ
IDLE
3 FEET FROM EXHAUST OUTLET
100 FEET
NO CO
FIGURE 6
F-IO
-------
Appendix G
MUFFLER DESIGN FOR LOCOMOTIVES
-------
3. MUFFLER DESIGN FOR LOCOMOTIVES
This section outlines the results of a study undertaken to
design mufflers for several types of diesel-electric locomotives.
The design process takes into account
• noise control requirements,
• maximum allowed backpressures,
• chemically contaminated exhaust flow, and
• maximum available space.
Conceptual designs are presented for four locomotives which
represent all of the types in service. The models analyzed are
• EMD GP-35 (turbocharged),
• EMD GP-40 (turbocharged),
• EMD GP-38 (Roots-blown),
• GE U-serles (turbocharged).
Design Goals and Techniques
The aim of the project was to design mufflers which would
reduce locomotive exhaust noise levels by 10 dBA, yet fit within
the presently available space. Muffler-induced backpressure was
constrained to be within 5-in. H 0 for turbocharged engines and
21-in. H20 for nonturbocharged engines. In addition, sound
absorptive treatments, such as steel wool packing or porous
plates, were excluded from consideration because it is not known
how they would be affected by dirty exhaust gases.
Given these constraints, it was determined that best perform-
ance could probably be achieved using mufflers of the reactive
type. Reactive mufflers obtain their effectiveness from abrupt
changes in the cross-sectional area of the exhaust pipe, which
-------
tend to reflect sound back toward the source. Unfortunately,
these discontinuities also tend to generate areas of flow separa-
tion, which increase the flow resistance through the muffler and,
hence, the backpressure.
A compromise between attenuation performance and backpressure
was therefore obtained by smoothing the sharp corners at the
transition regions. This smoothing tended to decrease attenuation
and backpressure, bringing the latter, within allowable limits
while still providing 10-dBA or more noise reduction. In addi-
tion, the exit pipe was shaped into a Venturi tube, a configura-
tion which Improves attenuation via a reduction in pipe cross-
sectional area. A schematic of the resulting design, designated
Type A, is shown in figure 3-1- Figure 3-2 shows two alternate
configurations that were also studied. Types B and C lack the
Venturi tube; Type C, however, contains an internal baffle. A
fourth alternative studied was to increase the volume of the ex-
haust manifold; this design is discussed below in the case of
the Roots-blown locomotive.
The effectiveness of a muffler in reducing noise depends on
how well the muffler's insertion loss spectrum (which^represents
noise reduction as a function of frequency) is matched to the
noise spectrum of the source. If the muffler's effectiveness is
concentrated in frequencies where little noise is being generated,
little benefit will result. Part of the design process there-
fore consists of varying the muffler's shape and volume to ob-
tain optimum noise reduction in the frequencies where the most
noise is being generated. In this study, the exhaust noise
spectrum shown in figure 3-3 was -used as a reference for muffler
design. The spectrum shown is that of a 12-cylinder, 2000-hp
engine on an Alco 250 locomotive. Spectra for other engines may
have higher or lower overall levels, and some of the details of
the spectral shape may vary from unit to unit, but the overall
shape will be fairly constant for most engines.
G-2
-------
Intake
Pipe
Tailpipe
Flow
Venturl Tube
FIGURE 3-1. SCHEMATIC VIEW OF TYPE A MUFFLER.
Type B
Type C
FIGURE 3-2. SCHEMATIC VIEW OF TYPES B AND C MUFFLERS,
G-3
-------
UJ
120
Ul
cr^.
co o
co-9
ui :i
£N
100
u
00
uj 80
1
o
ro
FIGURE 3-3.
i—r
i—r
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 32,000
OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY(Hz)
TYPICAL LOCOMOTIVE EXH'AUST NOISE SPECTRUM MEASURED
AT 2.5 FT FROM OUTLET.
The muffler design procedure was to select, from among the
four described, a general muffler type having dimensions somewhat
smaller than the known volume available inside the locomotives.
The specific dimensions and the details of inlet and outlet de-
sign were then systematically varied, and backpressure and over-
all attenuation were computed for each trial configuration. This
process was continued until a configuration was found that satis-
fied both noise reduction and backpressure constraints. Perform-
ance was explicitly computed at throttle 8 only; performance at
idle is discussed later.
Backpressure and attenuation performance were computed using
a proprietary BBN computer model. To demonstrate the'validity of
this model, we predicted the attenuation performance of the EMD-
designed Universal Silencer muffler and compared its actual per-
formance, as obtained from EMD measurements. The EMD data for
exhaust noise levels with, and without the Universal Silencer
G-4'i
-------
muffler are shown In figure 3-**. Subtracting the two curves
gives the muffler insertion loss, as shown, by the dashed line
in figure 3-5- The BBN-predicted insertion loss is shown by the
solid curve in figure 3-5. The correspondence between the pre-
diction and the measurement is good except in the 200-Hz and
250-Hz bands. These discrepancies are probably caused by some
approximations that were made in entering the dimensions of the
muffler into the computer. It is clear, however, that the pro-
gram provides a reasonable indication of a muffler's performance.
Results
We now describe the final muffler designs and their predicted
performance for the four locomotives listed at the beginning of
this section.
•
EMD GP-35. The space available on an EMD GP-35 equipped with
standard dynamic brakes is a volume 68 in. long (parallel to the
axis of the locomotive) by 48 in. wide by 21 in. high. The di-
mensions of the turbocharger outlet are 7 in. by 30 in. (Source:
Measurement by M. Rudd at Morrison-Knudsen Co., Inc., Boise,
Idaho, 26 September 197^.) The muffler designed to fit this space
(figure 3-6) is a Type A muffler with an inlet cross section
of 7 in. by 30 in., a smoothed transition region into an expan-
sion chamber having a cross section of 68 in. by U8 in., and a
Venturi-tube outlet with a minimum cross section of b.b in. by
30 in. The detailed dimensions are given in Appendix A. The
GP-35 muffler is estimated to provide 10 dB of exhaust noise
attenuation while imposing an additional 4.5-in. H20 of back-
pressure.
EMD GP-^0. The space presently available in a GP-40 with stan-
dard dynamic brakes* is a volume above the turbocharger of
•This feature was present on 71* percent of the 1202 GP-^Os pro-
duced; see EMD statement of 1 November 197*1.
G-S
-------
I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
100 1000 10000
—ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (HZ)
Production Model
With Universal Silencer Exhaust Muffler Measurements at 3 ft
from Exhaust Outlet, Locomotive Stationary Under Rated Engine
Speed and Load Conditions.
FIGURE 3-4.
MEASUREMENTS OF EXHAUST NOISE OF AN EMD SD45-2, WITH
AND WITHOUT UNIVERSAL SILENCER E.XHAUST MUFFLER
(Source: EMD, 1973).
-------
20
10
CD
CO
CO
o
fe
IJLl
CO
z
-10
T I I I I J I I \
MEASURED INSERTION LOSS FOR UNIVERSAL SILENCER
BBN PREDICTED INSERTION LOSS FOR UNIVERSAL SILENCER
i i I I i ». t i I i i » I I I 1 I I I I I I I I
16
31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY tHz)
Measured Insertion Loss- for Universal Silencer
BBN Predicted Insertion Loss for Universal Silencer.
lepoo
FIGURE 3-5. COMPARISON OF MEASURED ATTENUATION FOR UNIVERSAL SILENCER
MUFFLER WITH BBN PREDICTION.
-------
9
oo
—7"-*
^
7
•68"
VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO ENGINE AXIS
'
f T
8"
_L
21"
-i_
-48"
VIEW ALONG AXIS OF ENGINE
•AVAILABLE SPACE
•BBN MUFFLER DESIGN
FIGURE 3-6. AVAILABLE SPACE (SOLID LINE) AND MUFFLER PROFILE (DASHED LINE)
FOR GP-35.
-------
approximately 65 in. by *J6 in. by 20 in. (Source: EMD presenta-
tion to AAR, 8 August 1973.) The muffler designed to fit this
space is shown in figure 3-7. It is a Type A muffler having an
inlet cross section of 7 in. by 30 In., an expansion chamber
with a cross section of 35 in. by 65 in., and a Venturi-tube
outlet with a minimum cross section of 5.3 in. The detailed
dimensions are given in Appendix A. The GP-40 muffler is
estimated to provide 12 dBA of exhaust noise reduction, while
imposing an additional 3-in. H20 of backpressure.
Figure 3-7 also shows the profile of the EMD-designed Univer-
sal Silencer muffler. We see that this muffler is higher than
the allowable volume, and the stack outlet is displaced from its
original position. The Universal Silencer design therefore re-
quires numerous modifications to the turbocharger removal hatch
(AAR, R013). These modifications are avoided in .the BBN design.
*
EMD GP-38. The above engines were turbocharged, so that the
exhaust stream was collected into a single pipe to which a single
muffler could be applied. This is not the case with the GP-38,
which is Roots-blown; the exhaust manifold consists of four in-
line cylindrical collectors, each receiving gas from four cyl-
inders. The collectors are connected to form two groups of two;
each group then has one exhaust pipe of approximately 5-in. by
15-in. cross section exiting through.the roof. To install a
single muffler, as in the above cases, would entail grouping the
four collectors into a single manifold/exhaust line and placing a
muffler on the exhaust line. Figure 3-8 is a sketch of such an
arrangement. (Source: EMt> presentation to AAR, 8 August 1973.)
In general, little room is available for a muffler, especially
in those engines having three cooling fans; the third fan gener-
ally takes up the space shown for the muffler in figure 3-7.
An alternate approach is to retain the existing exhaust
manifold design, but to enlarge the collectors so as to provide
additional attenuation. The existing collectors are approximately
G-9
-------
£
o
REMOUAL HATCH DESIGNED
TO ACOOMOOATE MUFFLER
ORIONALTOPOF UXXIMOTIVE-—
VIEW ALONG ENGINE AXIS
TURBOCHARGER OUTLET
EMODESKN
BBN DESIGN
EXISTING LOCOMOTIVE
STRUCTURE
rti
VIEW PERPENDICULAR TO ENGINE AXIS
FIGURE 3-7. AVAILABLE SPACE AND MUFFLER DESIGNS FOR EMP GP-40
-------
ranr
FIGURE 3-8.
EMD CONCEPT FOR INSTALLING EXHAUST MUFFLER
ON A ROOTS-BLOWN LOCOMOTIVE.
G-ll
-------
15 in. in diameter; there are roughly an additional 12 in. of
•space available between the tops of the collectors and the bottom
of the resistor grid fan. (Sources: Drawings in END presentation
to AAR, 8 August 1973.) The BBN-designed manifold replaces each
pair of 15-in. diameter collectors with a single expansion cham-
ber having an elliptical cross section, the minor (vertical) axis
of which is 26 in. and the major (horizontal) axis, 30 in. A
sketch of the two arrangements is shown in figure 3-9. The new
manifold is estimated to give 5-dB attenuation more than the old
one, with an additional backpressure penalty of about 0.5-in. H,0.
Detailed dimension arid performance estimates are given in Appendix
A.
This design preserves all existing components except the
manifold cylinders themselves. If further attenuation is re-
quired, a still larger manifold could be installed by taking ad-
vantage of the existing clearance between the bottom of the
existing manifold and the top of the engine.
GE U-Series. The GE locomotives do not have fans or other
equipment above the engine; this space is therefore available for
muffler installation. On all the locomotives, the vertica-1 space
between the top of the engine and the maximum height limit is
20 in.; the length of this space varies from model to model. For
our computations, we have used an available volume 16 in. high by
36 in. wide by 160 in. long; the length corresponds to the U25,
U33, and U36 models. (Source: GE presentation to AAR, 8 August
1973.) The available space and the muffler designed to fit it
are shown in the plan in figure 3-10. The muffler is a Type C,
having an expansion chamber with a cross section of 16 in. by
36 in., which is separated into two segments by a plane baffle
having an open area of 300 In. The detailed dimensions and in-
sertion loss are given in Appendix A. This muffler design will
give approximately 10 dBA of exhaust noise reduction with a back-
pressure penalty of 1.5-in. H20. It should be noted that this
G-12
-------
Existing
Manifold
i W « e(.») ' *) >) '-> ^ J
l8«l©Ca)© ©©©pit
U It —^rrpJU'
Suggested
Manifold
FIGURE 3-9. MANIFOLD MUFFLER DESIGN FOR GM GP-38
G-13
-------
•160"-
TP
36" I FLOW
I
I'D
X
I_ 1
"M"
l60x36xl6 RECTANGULAR SOLID
SPACE AVAILABLE (SEE TEXT)
— SCHEMATIC BBN MUFFLER DESIGN (DETAILS OF INLET AND
OUTLET DESIGN OMITTED)
FIGURE 3-10. PLAN VIEW OF AVAILABLE SPACE AND MUFFLER
OUTLINE FOR GE U25, U33, AND U36 LOCOMOTIVES
G-14
-------
muffler would protrude through the roof and thus would require
some car body modifications.
Summary
Table 3-1 summarizes the attenuation and backpressure per-
formance of the four muffler designs described above. With the
exception of the GP-38, all the designs met their goals. The GP-
38 manifold muffler provided only 5-d"BA attenuation, but the de-
sign did not take advantage of all the available space.
TABLE 3-1
ATTENUATION AND BACKPRESSURE PERFORMANCE
OF CONCEPTUAL MUFFLER DESIGNS
Locomotive
EMD GP-35
EMD GP-40
EMD GP-38
GE U-25,
33, 36
Type
TC
TC
RB
TC
Reduction in
A-Weighted
Exhaust Noise
Level-dB
10
12
5
10
Increas-e in
Backpressure -
in. H20
4.5
3.0
0.5
1.5
The attenuations shown apply at full throttle. Attenuation
at idle was not computed with the model, but was estimated by hand
calculations. The estimate Indicated that a muffler which pro-
vides 20-dBA attenuation at full throttle will provide 5- to
6-dBA attenuation at idle.
This development shows that it is possible to design effec-
tive locomotive mufflers to meet present volume and backpressure
constraints. The preceding designs are still conceptual. They
would need to be developed further, refined, and tested before
G-15
-------
they could be Implemented on a large scale, but that process
does not appear to present any Insuperable problems.
G-16
-------
Appendix H
DETAILED MUFFLER DESIGNS AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES
-------
APPENDIX H
DETAILED MUFFLER DESIGNS AND PERFORMANCE ESTIMATES
This appendix contains the detailed muffler designs dis-
cussed in Sec. 3« Each muffler is described in terms of its
physical dimensions and its estimated attenuation and back-
pressure performance. The dimensions of each muffler are des-
cribed in terms of successive "elements", each element being a
cross section of the muffler having a given length and specified
inlet and outlet areas. The computer-produced tables describe
the sections as "approximately circular", although, in fact,
they are rectangular; for acoustic purposes, the two are equiva-
lent if the cross-sectional area is the same.
The additional backpressure for each muffler is shown at
the bottom of the table of dimensions. Attenuation performance
is shown in a second table, which displays the original and
modified A-weighted noise levels in each one-third octave band,
as well as the overall A-weighted levels with and without the
muffler.
The tables relating to the manifold muffler designed for
the GP-38 (Tables A-5 through A-8) must be read somewhat
differently from the tables for the turbocharged locomotives.
In the case of the Roots-blown engines, the existing manifold
provides some attenuation already. To estimate the effective-
ness of the suggested larger manifold, the backpressures and
noise attenuation of both manifolds must be estimated. The
noise benefit of the new manifold is then the difference in
attenuation between the new and the old manifolds, and similarly
for backpressure.
H-l
-------
Because the absolute A-welghted noise level for the exhaust
without any manifold is not known, the figure of 11*1.1 dBA was
taken as an arbitrary reference. The absolute A-weighted levels
shown in Tables A-6 and A-8 are therefore not correct; the
differences in these levels between the two manifold designs,
however, are reliably estimated.
H-2
-------
TABLE A-l
DIMENSIONS AND PREDICTED BACKPRESSURE OF. MUFFLER
FOR EMD GP-35
SjSTZB »AIABZTZIS
Totvn:' Trioeirr . 35500. ct co. rt./KXi.
TZIsrECAZUrE • 158. OEft. T
till. SI1IZC rKSS. asOf • 2767,97 XI. OF V«T»»
RXI. STATIC mss. Daor • .2767.97 XI. or «»T!I
BAXitivr. RACK tvKtzt • i.aeo
mi CCS31-I3KS: rizi mio
mixr »srtjc?io» catrr. « .700
JOBIP nociir. ajr • uii.rc m
tR~ fOiiovxio tiziiEiTs tt osio x» T»S CASZ.
fltHIHT VOHBZI 1 IS H »>»»OXIBHTElt CltCUUl, IXOXO TIAISXTXOI.
iE»8tK • 1.23 XI.
un or :KIII • 2io.cs so. x>.
am cr sine? - asa. rz so. r».
•ax. lien aesBii x* DUCT • O.K»
V08BZ1 2 IS A» A»F*OXX»iTIl)t CXtCVlAI. 1X010 XIAKSXXXOI.
i.ea XK.
cr xaizx • 292. *z so. ».
AICA or OUTtIT • 3f0.el SQ. I».
•AZ. 8ACI BDKBZ1 10 DUCT • f.13T
BVUftZI 3 IS A* AIllOXXRATtlT Cl»CBtAl, HOIS llAfSXtXOB.
USA Or XCLtt « 30D.C3 30. I*. .
AltA Or OOTIK? • 360.82 80. X>.
•AS. BACR UttntZk I» DOCT • 0.11S
sttntBt Bonni « is A» trrioxz.iAt!it CIECBUI, txaxo TIABIXTXOI.
1ZBCTK • 1.» XI.
AirA or :rt» • 360.03 so. H.
AttA Cr OOIIKI • (00.12 SO, X>.
•AX. BACH 8UMBZ1 XI OOCI • 0.0»«
SiCRtST K03II* $ x< »• ArVIOXXRATHX CXICBIAI. 1X8X0 TIAISXSXai.
itian • «.ei if,
AirA cr jmn « cr0.cz so. z>.
iiEi or oantt • 292«.».so. :s.
, IIX. BACH 5VCBZ1 XI ODCT • 0.257
XURIIT IDKIZB I IS A »ICTA»«01>» IUBZ.
RII8KT • •S.SO X.1.
»IBIH • et.so z;.
AU.tIZ VAZtS A» 1X5X0.
•AS. SACK 70.1BZI IS 30Ct • 0.»1J
t J03SII .7 XS A* ArrBOXXRiTZlT CXICOIAI. HIGIB TIAISITIOI.
izi9T* • e.ai xi.
AICA or XSLIX « • 2*2».:: so. xi.
AltA Or OUTUt • »ia.!2 S3. XI.
•AX. BACK lUftUII XI OOCT • f.372
H-3
-------
TABLE A-l. (Cont.)
mum jraasz« i is it mioxxnmiT ciicuui. XIGIO TIAISITIOK.
ttlOlK • 1.32 XH.
mi cr istiT • aia.i; so, n.
mi cr aunt? » 3u.i jiruoxit)A:itx cucoixi. RIGID HAKSITXO*.
IIK9TH « 1.S8 I».
mi or :siir . 1*1.3; so. IE.
Jill Cr CDTli: . 132.79 SQ, ».
•IX. KICK SUKBia III DOCI • B.J61
tltHtVT BOKBEH 11 IS 1» 1PPIOXI»ATILT CI»CffL»l. ZIGID IlllSIIIOK.
itiGTH • i.ae in.
itti or rriii . 132. ?r so. xv.
lltl CT OVTltT m 14U.OZ SO. XI.
H». RICH SU.MlZk II OUCI • 0.261
Btintir posjin i:'is is irrsoxiniicit CI»CBLA». IIGIP idisnioi.
11»61« • 1.2Z XI.
IIEI or xctzi • 100. ez so. xi.
nzi cr ounzT • i6i.ez so. xi.
•IX. HICH EUriBM IK OOCI « 0.239
ucnsn Kor.sM 13 xs A> imoxiKitzLi cxscoiii, IIGIS xmmiov.
itiaix • 2.C0 ii.
jiizi or urn . ie». ft so. ii.
Aid Or OUTLET . 210. ZB SO. XI.
•AX. HICK SVKtti II DOCI • 8.225
SUKZIT I0.1IEH 1U IS 1 «tCI)HaUi»« IC8Z.
ICIOIK • t.33 IK. A
•SIGHT » 7.33 IB.
VXOIK • te.se is.
ill ZH: kins 11; EIGIO.
•AX. BACK S3I1BZS IE DUCT • C.Ik*
D sin TIC mssuiz eior • •.$•' xi. or «itz»
H-4
-------
TABLE A-2
PREDICTED ATTENUATION PERFORMANCE OF MUFFLER
FOR EMD GP-35
SPL
HUFF
25.
32.
«0.
50.
63.
80.
103.
128.
160.
200.
250.
320.
000.
500.
630.
800.
1000.
1250.
1600.
2000. .
2503.
3202.
4000.
5000.
6390.
6003.
10002.
71. D
70.0
70.0
89.0
79.0
87.5
101.0
99.5
94.0
96.0
101.5
103.0
103.0
1F0.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
100. 0
12JU.0
10U.0
101.0
98.0
9U.5
92.0
88.0
82.0
' 73.3
73.9
77.7
103.0.
82.9
64.0
92.2
86.4
77.5
77.1
81.5
84.4
91.4
86.3
87.1
90.6
87.1
89.4
82.0
84.1
82.2
77.8
74.3
71,8
70.2
65.8
61.2
XL
.2.0
-3.9
.7.7
.14.0
.3.9
3.5
8.6
13.1
16.5
18.9
20.0
18.6
11.6
13.7
15.9
12.a
15.9
13.6
22.0
19.9
21.8
23.2
23.7
22.7
21.8
22.2
20.8
HUFF(OVEFAL) s 104,6 DBA
SPL (OVEPAL) s 114.1 DBA
i sotwn PRESSURE LEVEL CDPA) WITH MUFFLER
SPL I " " » " WITH HO MUFFLER
1L I MUFFLER INSERTION LOSS CDB)
HUFFCOVF.FAt-) I OVERALL DBA WITH «UFFLER
SPL (OVERAL) | OVERALL DBA WITH NO MUFFLER
*LL SOUND PPESSURE LEVELS MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 2,5 FT
FFOM THE LOCOf.OTIVK EXHAUST STACK,
H-5
-------
TABLE A-3
DIMENSIONS AND PREDICTED BACKPRESSURE OF MUFFLER
FOR EMD GP-40
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
VOLUME VCLOCITY • 29000.0* CO. FT./MIN.
lEMPERATI'FE • 850. DEC. T
fAX. STATIC PRESS. DROP • 2767.97 IN. OF WATER
KIN. STATIC PPtSS. OPOP • -2767.97 1*1. OP BATtR
• HAX1MU1 K*CH NUMBER • 1.V00
EXIT CONDITIONS! FREE FIEtD
CKGINK RCILtCltOK COtrF, • ,Mfl
SOUND VELOCITY, J2F • 108l.ee FPS
THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS APE VSED I!> THIS CASE,
ELEMENT *0«RER 1 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
ttNCTH • 1.00 IN.
AREA OF INLET • 21*.e« S3. IN.
APCA OF OUTLET • 2)2.50 SO. IN.
MAX, MACK NUMBER IK DUCT • •,1«1
ELEMENT DUMBER 2 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 1,00 IS.
APEA Or IMET • 232.Se SO. IN.
AREA or OUTLET • 2*0.00 so. IN.
MAX. KACH NUK4ER IN DUCT • 0.169
CLEMENT N'lXRER 3 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
IEKCTK • l.*0 IN.
APEA OP IMET • 260.00 SO, IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • ' 30.S.00 SO, IN.
MAX. "ACM NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.1S1
CbfCNT NUMBER 4 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RICID TRANSITION.
tCNCTH • 0,01 IN.
AREA Or INtCT », IIS.00 SO. .IN.
AREA or OUTLET • aais.p* so. IN. . •
Ml. MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.102
CLCME«T NUMBER S IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE.
LENGTH • JS.te IN,
HEIGHT • )S.'0 IN.
WIDTH • 65.CB IN,
ALL THE bALLS ARE HIGID.
MX. MACH HU.-BCR IN DUCT • 0,«P
ELEMENT NUMBER • IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 9,01 IN.
AREA OF INLET • 2275.e* SO. IN.
AREA or OUTLFT « Jjs.ec so. IN.
MX. MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.124
H-6
-------
TABLE A-3. (Cont.)
CLEMENT NUMBED 7 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 0.75 IN.
AREA OF INLCT • 115.0* SO, IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • • 19*.SB (0. IN.
MM, HACK NUKBER IN DUCT • 0.19S
CLEMMT NUWHCR I 15 AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR. RIGID TRANSITION.
LtNCTH • 0.75 It.
AREA Or INLET • 1*9.50 SO. IN,
AREA OF OUTLFT • 159.00 SO. IN,
MAX. HACK NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.247
ELEMENT NUMBER 9 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE.
LENGTH • 1,00 1*,
HEIGHT • ».<•« IN,
WIDTH • 76.5e IN. • '
ALL THE KALIS ARE KICID.
MM. MUCH NUMBER IN DUCT • 6*947
•
CLEMENT NUKRCR IB IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR. RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 1.58 IW.
AREA Or INLET • IS9.ee SO. IN.
AREA or OUTLET • ti*.00 so, IN,
MAX. r*CH NUKBER IK DUCT • 1,947
ELEMENT NUMBER 11 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH • l.fC IN.
AptA Or INICT • 119,00 SO, IN.
AREA Or OUTLET • 970,00 SO. IN,
MAI, NACH NUMBER IN CUCT • 0,907
CLEMENT NUMBER 19 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE.
LENGTH * S.S0 IV.
HEIGHT • 9.tf« IS.
WIDTH • )ttf* IN.
ALL THE WALLS ARC KICID.
MAX, KACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.145
CALCULATED STATIC PRESSURE DROP • l.U t«. OP HATER
H-7
-------
TABLE A-4
PREDICTED ATTENUATION PERFORMANCE OF MUFFLER
FOR EMD GP-40
SPL
25.
32.
«0.
50,
63.
80.
103.
128.
160.
200.
250.
320.
400.
500.
630.
800.
1000.
1250.
1600.
2000.
2500.
3200.
K000,
5000.
6300.
•000.
10000.
71.0
70.8
70.0
89.0
79,0
87,5
101.0
99.5
90.0
96.0
101.5
123.0
103.0
100.0
103,0
103,0
103.3
103.0
10U.0
101*. 0
155U.B
101.0
98,0
9U.5
92,0
88.0
82.0
HUFF
69.4
70.3
7tt,0
«9.3
60.2
• 1.5
69.9
8B.5
75'. 9
'5.7
60.2
82.6
418.1
60,9
93.5
90. S
ee.fj
86.1
85.8
Si).7
83.1
81.5
78.3
111.9
73.8
70.9
66,6
XL
1.6
.0.3
.(1,0
.10,3
-1.2
6,0
11.1
15.0
18,1
20,3
21.3
29.2
1tt,9
9.1
9.5
12.2
15.0
16.9
18.2
19.3
23.9
19,5
19.7
19.6
18.2
17,1
18,*
MUFr(OVEPAL)
SPL (OVERAL)
s 102', 5 DBA
* 114.1 DBA
KUFF 1 SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (DBA) WITH MUFFLER
SPL I » " " " WITH NO MUFFLER
1L I MUFFLER INSERTION LOSS (DB)
KUFF(OVEPAL) I OVERALL DBA WITH MUFFLER
SPL (OVERAL) I OVERALL DBA WITH NO MUFFLER
ALL SOUND PRESSURE'LEVELS MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 2.5 FT
FROM THE LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST STACK,
H-8
-------
TABLE A-5
DIMENSIONS* AND PREDICTED BACKPRESSURE OF EXISTING
MANIFOLD ON EMD GP-38
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
VOLUME VELOCITY • 9500,00 cu, rt.
TEMPERATURE • 150. DEC. F
MAX, STATIC PRESS, DROP • 2767.97 IN, OF HATER
HIM, STATIC PRESS. DROP • •2767.97 IN. OF WATER
MAXIMUM HACK NUMBER • 1,000
EXIT CONDITIONS! Tf.ll FIELD
CKCINE REFLECTION COtrr. • ,0»0
• SOUND VELOCITY, 32F • jen.ee rPs
THE FOLLOWING CLEMENTS ARC USED IN THIS CASE. •
CLEMENT NUMBER \ IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE,
LENGTH • 11.00 IN,
HEIGHT • 10.00 IN.
WIDTH • i0.ee IN,
ALL THE NAILS APE RIGID,
MAX, KACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.121
•
CLEMENT NUMBER 2 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
' LENGTH • 0,01 IN.
AREA OF INLET • . 100.«0 SO, IN,
AREA OF OUTLET • 641,OP SO. IN.
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.121
CLEMENT NUMBER J IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH * 9,00 IN,
AREA OF INLET • 64l.ee SO, IN,
AREA OF OUTLET • 1296,00 SO. IN,
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0,020
CLEMENT NUMBER 4 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH • 9,00 IN,
AREA OF INLET • 1296.06 SO, IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • 641.00 SO, IN,
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0,020
CLEMENT NUMBER S IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH • 0,01 IN,
AREA OF INLET • 641,00 SO, IN,
AREA OF OUTLET * 1»,«0 SO, IN,
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.122
CLEMENT NUMBER 6 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE,
LENGTH .« 16,00 IN.
HEIGHT • 7.08 IN,
WIDTH • 15,08 IN.
ALL THE WALLS ARE RIGID,
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0,122
CALCULATED STATIC PRESSURE DROP • 1,64 IN, OF HATER
'Dimensions correspond to an acoustically equivalent analog of
the manifold rather than the actual unit.
H-9
-------
TABLE A-6
PREDICTED ATTENUATION PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING
MANIFOLD ON EMD GP-38
SPL
25.
32,
40.
50,
.63,
80.
100,
128,
160.
200.
250,
320,
400,
500,
630.
•00.
1000,
1250.
1600.
2000,
2500,
3200.
4000.
5000.
6300.
8000.
40000.
71,0
70,0
70.0
89.0
79.0
87,5
101,0
99.5
94.0
96.0
101.5
103.0
103.0
100,0
103,0
103.0
103,0
103.0
104,0
104,0
104.0
101,0
98.0
94.5
92,0
88.0
82,0
HUFF
76.4
79.9
74.3
65.9
70.5
74.8
85.0
81.3
75.4
80.9
90,3
83,0
84.8
95,4
92.5
89,3
91.2
86.1
87.7
87.0
85.5
82.5
78.1
T4.0
71.8
68.4
63,5
XL
-5,4
•9,9
•4.3
3.1
8,5
12.7
16.0
18.2
18,6
15,1
11.2
20,0
18,2
4.6
10.5
13.7
11,8
16,9
16.3
17.0
18.5
18.5
19,9
20.5
20.2
19.6
18.5
HtiFF I OVERALL DBA WITH MUFFLER
SPL (OVERAL) I OVERALL DBA WITH NO MUFFLER
ALL SOUND PPESSUPE LEVELS MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 2,5 FT
FROM THE LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST STACK,
H-10
-------
TABLE A-7
DIMENSIONS* AND PREDICTED BACKPRESSURE OF SUGGESTED
MANIFOLD MUFFLER FOR EMD GP-38
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
VOLUME VELOCITY • isea.ee cu. FT./MIN,
TEMPERATURE • I5B. DEC, F
MAX. STATIC PRESS, DROP • 2767.97 IN. OF WATER,
H1N, STATIC PRESS, DROP • -2767.97 IN. OF WATER
MAXIMUM HACK M1UBER • I,000
EXIT CONDITIONS! FREE FIELD
tWCINt REFLECTION COCFF, • ,6«e
SOUND VEtOCITt, 12F • 100B.00 FPS
THE rOUOHIHG ELEMENTS APE USED IN THIS CASE,
ELEMENT "UCBER 1 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE.
LENGTH • lt.ee IN.
HEIGHT • l*,e* IN,
MOTH • ia,ee IN. .
Alt THE fcALLS APC RIGID,
KAX, HACK NUMBER IN DUCT • •.131
CLEMENT NUMBER 2 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
tENCTM • 0.01 IN,
AREA OF IKIET • 100,00 SO. IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • »Jfc.ee SO. IN,
MAX, MACK NUMBER IN DUCT • »,12»
ELEMENT KUfBER ) IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH * «.«B IN.
UREA OF INLET • 996.00 SO. IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • 2tSS.ee 80, IN,
KM, MACK NUMBER IN PUCT • 0,114
CLEMENT DUMBER 4 IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION,
LENGTH • f.et IN,
AREA OF IKLET • 2656,88 SO, IN,
AREA OF OUTLET • 9)«.«0 SO. IN.
MAX. MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • «t»H
KUMEKT NUMBER S IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • • 0.01 IN.
AREA OF INLET • »J«,00 SO. IN.
AREA OF OUTLET • 105,00 SO, IN,
MAX. MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0.122
ELEMENT NUMBER » IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE,
LENGTH • IS.00 IN.
HEIGHT • 7,00 IN,
WIDTH • IS.ee IN.
MI. THE KALIS ARE RIGID.
MAX, MACH NUMBER IN DUCT • 0,122
CALCULATED STATIC PRESSURE DROP • •,•• IN, or WATER
'Dimensions correspond to an acoustically equivalent analog of
the manifold muffler rather than the unit as installed.
H-U
-------
TABLE A-8
PREDICTED ATTENUATION PERFORMANCE OF SUGGESTED
MANIFOLD MUFFLER FOR EMD GP-38
SPL
25,
32,
40,
50.
63.
80.
100.
128,
160.
200.
250,
320,
400.
900,
630.
800.
1000.
1250,
1600,
2000.
2500.
3200.
4000,
5000,
6300,
8000.
10000.
71.0
70.0
70.0
89.0
79,0
87,5
101,0
99,5
94,0
96,0
101,5
103,0
103,0
100,0
103,0
103,0
103.0
103.0
104.0
104.0
104,0
101,0
98.0
94.5
92,0
88.0
82.0
OVERAL
MUFF
77.3
67,3
61,3
75.5
61,4
66,4
77,2
74,0
68,7
75,0
85,3
80,7
87,2
87,3
85.1
84.8
85.2
86.5
85.4
83,5
82.7
79.3
75.0
71.5
68,9
65.2
60.5
96.1 DBA
•6.3
2.7
8.7
13.5
17,6
21.1
23.8
25.5
25.3
21.0
16.2
22.3
15.8
12.7
17.9
18.2
17.8
16,5
18,6
20.5
21.3
21.7
23.0
23.0
23.1
22.8
21,5
•miFF(OVEPAL) a 96,1 DBA
SPL (OVERAL) a 114.1 DBA
HUFF I SOtWD PRESSURE LEVEL (DBA) WWH MUFFLER
•W- 'I " " " " WITH HO KUFFLER
IL I MUFFLER INSERTION LOSS (DB)
HUFF(OVERAt) | OVERALL DBA KITH VUFFLER
SPL (OVERAL) | OVERALL DBA WITH NO MUFFLER
ALL SOUND PRESSURE LKVFLS MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 2.S FT
FPOM THE LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST STACK,. *
H-12
-------
TABLE A-9
DIMENSIONS AND PREDICTED BACKPRESSURE OF MUFFLER
FOR GE U25, U33, and U36
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
aSMB.ee CO. fT./MIN.
ise, DEC. r
MAX, STATIC PRESS, DROP • 1147, «7 IN, OF KATER
"If. STATIC PPESS. DPOP • •>?«?. «T IN. Of WATER
MAXI*U« MACM Nu.MKtp • t.tee
E.XIT COKOITIO.ISI run riEto
EKCINC utr itc: i ON coErr, • .«««
SOU»D vrtocm, ar • ieei.ee rp*
T«e rouOkiMC CLCHCKTS ARC USED IN THIS CASE.
'"ttKCttl".*" ' " *" "'l>*0'tI"*TCI>r "RCtftAR, RIGID tRAMItlOII.
AREA Of IMLCT • !*».'•* SO? IN,
•RCA OF OUTiET • }!•.«« SO, IH.
MM* HACK ttUKitR IN ODCT •
CtCMEMT »n«ER I IS AN APPROXIDATCl* CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
UN6TH • 4,ee IM,
AREA or IMIET • ais.ee so, IN,
am or OUTLET • JM.ee so, IN,
MAX. MACN NU««R IN DUCT • t.Ut
KU»ENT ^flfSKR t IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSttlO*.
LENGTH • 9,91 IN,
AREA or met • »••.«« so. IN.
AREA Or OUTLET • S?S,»t SO. IN.
MAX. HACK KURtER IN DUCT • f.lt)
*
CLEMENT NOKSE* 4 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE.
lENGTM • 4*. »• IN.
•EICMT t |«,0« IN.
MIDTH • >b,e« IN. •
Alt THE KALLS ARE RIGID.
HACK NMHMR IN DtfCT •
NOM»ER S IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • e.ei M.
AREA Or INLET • >?•.•• SO, IN.
AP.EA Or OUTLET • J0».f« SO. IN.
MAX* HACK KUMSER IN DUCT • 0.1 II
ELEMENT NOFBER S IS AN APPROXIMATELY CtPCULAK, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • e.Hl IN,
AREA Or IKLET • 90S.SS SQ. IN.
ARCA Or OUTLET • tit. 04 SO, IN.
MAX, HACK DUMBER IN DUCT • • 0,1 JJ
H-13
-------
TABLE A-9. (Cont.)
CLEMENT kUKBEK 1 IS A RECTANGULAR TUBE,
ttNGTH « in.00 IN.
HEIGHT • 16.00 IN.
• WIDTH • 16.00 IN.
All. THC HALLS APE RIGID,
MX. HACH MUKBCR IN DUCT • • ,»*!
CLEMENT NUMBER I 18 AN APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 0,ffl IN.
ARCA OF IKLCT • »«.P0 SO. IN.
AREA or OUTLET • 100.00 so. IN.
MAX. KACH NUMBER IK DUCT • 0.11 J
CLE'CNT HUKBER * IS AN APPROXIMATELY CIPCULAR, P.ICID TRANSITION.
LCNCTH • 4,fe IN,
AREA Or INI.CT r t00,0P SO, IN,
Mtr.A or ouTtrT • asa.ee so. IK,
MAX. KACH Nunrc* IN DUCT • 0.119
CLEMENT NWBEP 10 IS AM APPROXIMATELY CIRCULAR, RIGID TRANSITION.
LENGTH • 4.K* IN.
APEA Or INLET • • 2S*.Ce SO. IN.
APtA OF OUTLET • >00.P0 SO, IN.
MAX. KACH KUHPC* IN DUCT • 0«l»ff .
* •
CLEMENT NUMBER 11 IS A PCCTANCULAK TUBE.
LENGTH « JB.Oit IN,
HEIGHT • 11,10 IN,
H1DIH • 11.ft IN,
ALL THE WILLS APE PlClO.
MAX, HACH'NUnBtR IN DUCT • 0.1»«
CALCULATED STATIC PRESSURE CROP • 1.41 IN, or NATCR
H-14
-------
TABLE A-10
PREDICTED ATTENUATION PERFORMANCE OF MUFFLER
FOR GE U25, U33, and U36
SPL
MUFF
25.
32.
40.
50.
63.
80.
100,
128.
160.
200.
250.
320.
400.
500.
*30.
800.
100*.
1250.
1600.
.2000;
2500.
3200.
4000,
5000.
'6300.
8000.
10000.
71.0
70.0
70,0
89.0
79.0
87.5
101.0
99.5
94.0
96,0
10.1,5
103.0
103.0
100.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
103.0
104.0
104,0
104,0
101,0
98.19
94,5
92.0
88,0
82,0
82,3
71.1
65,5
81.6
71.7
84.3
91.7
87,3
87,4
84.5
100.5
98.2
91.2
90.2
89.7
87.7
83.9
81,3
80.6
79,0
77,3
73.1
70,2
66,7
65,7
65.4
62,5
XL
•11.3
•1.1
4.5
7.4
7.3
3.2
.9.3
12.2
6.6
11,5
1.0
4.8
11.8
9.8
13.3
15.3
19.1
21.7
23.4
25.0
26.7
27.9
27.8
27.8
26.3
22.6
19.5
HUFF(OVEPAL) « 104,1 DBA
SPL (OVERAL) * 114.1 DBA
MUFF t SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL (DBA) WITH MUFFLER
SPL I • " " " WITH NO MUFFLER
IL I MUFFLER INSERTION LOSS (DB)
MUFFCOVERAt) | OVERALL DBA WITH MUFFLER
SPL (OVERAL) I OVERALL DBA WITH NO MUFFLER
ALL SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS MEASURED AT A DISTANCE OF 2.5 FT
FROM THE LOCOMOTIVE EXHAUST STACK.
H-15
-------
Appendix I
SPACE AVAILABILITY FOR MUFFLERS INSIDE LOCOMOTIVES
-------
NOISE LEVELS AND SPACE AVAILABILITY
In this section, we summarize additional locomotive noise
level data acquired during the course of fhis program and discuss
space availability for the installation of mufflers on a range of
locomotives. This information is based, in large part, on a num-
ber of field studies that are discussed in detail in Appendices
B, C, and D.
Additional Noise Levels
Table 4-1 provides idle and throttle 8 data on noise from 12
locomotives. Several measurements were taken-at sites that were
usually .nonideal because of the unavoidable presence of reflect-
ing surfaces such as cars, other locomotives, and buildings.
However, the data are still of value in that they represent upper
bounds to clear-site locomotive levels.
Space Availability
The principal factors to consider when determining the space
available for locomotive mufflers are: (1) clearance space
around and within the locomotive, (2) backpressure generated if
exhaust is ducted to remote locations, and (3) visibility.
External clearance profiles have been established by the AAR
for various levels of service interchangeability of locomotives
and cars among various railroads and routes (Railway Equipment and
Publication Co. 1973). The tightest clearance profile which
allows for unrestricted interchange service Is shown in figure 4-L
The dimension of greatest interest is the overall height of 15 ft
1 in. because of the above-hood location appropriate to many loco-
motives. A less stringent standard height of 15 ft 6 in. is suit-
able for use on 95 percent of total mileage in eastern railroads.
! H
-------
TABLE 4-1.
SUMMARY OF STATIONARY LOCOMOTIVE NOISE LEVELS
Locomotive
Hfr/Modcl
OM/OP-9
OM/OP-38-2
OM/OP-9
MLW/M-420'
OE/U36C
Road No. 3322
Rated 3600 hp
OE/U36C
Road No. 3322
Rated 3600 hp.
Actual 3564 hp
OE/U34CH
Road No. 3358
Rated 3435 hp,
Actual 3*197 hp
OM/SD45-2
Road No. 3680
Rated 3600 hp,
Actual 3840 hp
OE/U25B
bad No. 2502
Rated 2500 hp,
Actual 2375 hp
Alco/0424
Road No. '2406
Rated 2400 hp,
Actual 1760-2297 hp
(•urging)
PE/U33C
toad No. 3314
Rated 3300 hp.
Actual 3278 hp
OM/OP-9
Road No. 1262
Rated 1750 hp,
Actual 1878 hp
OM/OP-35
Road No. 2556
Rated 2500 hp,
Actual 2424 hp
Lota
Device
Load Cell
Self Load
Load Cell
Load Cell
Self Load
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Noise Level at 100 Ft .
Ambient
-
-
-
-
57 dBA
55 dBA
57 dBA
60 dBA
64 dBA
65 dBA
60 dBA
61 dBA
59 dBA
Idle
67' dBA
66.5 dBA'
69 dBA1
65 dBA1
68 dBA
68 dBA
70 dBA'
66 dBA
70 dBA
72 dBA
69 dBA
68 dBA
69 dBA
Throttle 8
89 dBA1
92 dBA1
89 dBA1
87 dBA1
87 dBA
90 dBA
87 dBA
91 dBA
92 dBA
89 dBA*
90 dBA
92 dBA
86 dBA
Source
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix D
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
'Nonldeai test site, usually becauae of sound-reflecting objects within 100 ft
of locomotive or microphone.
'The Montreal Locomotive Works M-420 model 1* very similar to the Alco C-420
•erlea.
'At 450 rpm. This locomotive can have three. Idling conditions depending on the
electrical requirements (heating, lights, etc.) of the passenger cars.
*Thls test considered not representative since the engine was not developing
full power.
' 1-2
-------
8 'g
5 S:?
g s'S
W K,«
M S3
•IO'-B'-
•io'-o*-
•7'-0"-
LIGHT CAR CONDITIONS
CARS Mar BE CONSTRUCTED TO AN EXTREME WO™ CF IO'-»"
AND TO THE OTHER LIMITS OF THIS OlAftRAM WHEN TRUCK
CENTERS 00 NOT EXCEED 4l'-3"ANO WHEN, WITH TRUCK
CENTERS OF 4i'-3", THE SWINOf'iT AT ENDS CF CAR DOtS
NOT EXCEED THE SwiNOOUT AT CC'i'LR OF CAR ON A U*
CURVE; A CAR TO THESE DIMENSIONS IS DEFINED AS THE
BASE CAR.
WHEN TRUCK CENTfRS EXCEED 4l'-3',
CAR WIDTH FOR ENTIRE CLEARANCE OUTLINE SHALL BE
REDUCED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE INCREASED SWINGOUT AT
CENTER AND/OR ENDS OF CAR ON A 13* CURVE SO THAT THE
WIDTH OF CAR SHALL NOT PROJECT BEYOND THE
CENTER OF TRACK MORE THAN THE BASE CAR.
MAXIMUM CAR WIDTHS FOR VARIOUS TRUCK CENTERS, AT CENTER
OF CAR, ARE SHOWN ON PLATE 6-1. MAXIMUM CAR WIDTH AT
LOCATIONS OTHER THAN CENTER OF CAR ARE SHOWN ON PLATE 0.
W. nillLT PRIOR TO 1948 WtTit DOOR FIXTURES. HANDHOLDS, ETC.,
mojEcmr, Btvorio lo-ir ixTRtMn WIDTH, BUT HOT I.IYONO lo'io"
WILL PE COHMDtRLU A3 IttETKIG THE RLQU1RCKUIT& CF CAR SCRV1CE
RULE !0-2(e).
CARS WITH RAIL LOADS IN EXCESS OF 69.7SOLBS. PER AXLE
CANNOT DE OPERATED IN UNRESTRICTED INTERCHANGE. HOWEVER,
THEY MAV BE PERMITTED UNDER CONTRCxLEO CONDITIONS
WHERE SPECIAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REACHED BETWEEN
PARTICIPATING RAILROADS TO SO CANDLE,
THE 2-1/2" ABOVE-TOP OF RAiL I? ABSOLUTE MINIMUM
UNDER ANY AND ALL CONDITIONS OF LADING, OPERATION.
AND MAINTENANCE.
All NEW OR REBUILT CARS SHOULD BE so DESIGNED THAT NO
fART OF CAR SMALL BE LESS THAN Z-3/4" ABOVE THE TOP OF
• THE RUNNINO RAIL UNDER ALL ALLOWABLE WEAR AND SPUING
DEFLECTION CONDITIONS. THOSE ROADS USING MULTIPLE WEAR
WHEELS MAY FIND IT NECESSARY, IN MAINTAINING THE 2-9/4*
MINIMUM CLEARANCE. TO COMPENSATE FOR WHEELS WORN
CLOSE TO THE CONDEMNING LIMIT BY REPLACING WHEEL. AND
AXLE SET*, BEARINGS OK WEDGES, ,
FIGURE 4-1.
RAILROAD CLEARANCE
Clearances (1973).
DIAGRAM. SOURCE: Railway Time
1-3
-------
Western railroads often use higher equipment. For example, the
Burlington Northern operates GP-38 and GP-40 locomotives that are
6 ft from top-of-rail (Burlington Northern Railroad Co.). Since
the 15-ft 6-in. clearance height applies so widely, it is the one
we shall use in evaluating the above-hood space.
Backpressure requirements are usually sufficiently stringent
to preclude remote location of mufflers at the ends, or possibly
the sides, of locomotives. Backpressure accrues from flow through
the ducting from the top of the engine to remote locations. Ac-
cordingly, we consider applying mufflers only above the engine,
either above or below the locomotive hood.
It is generally stated that switchers need their low hoods
for visibility and that mufflers would interfere with this vis-
ibility. Yet visibility does not seem to be an essential factor,
as is shown by the frequent use of high-hooded GP-7-and GP-9 lo-
comotives as switchers. Also, the volume of the muffler can be
distributed over the length and breadth of the hood, so that the
vertical dimension need not be large. For example, a muffler
having the same volume as the Maxim MSA-1 for a 12-cylinder EMD
645E engine (42.4 ft3) could be built to have dimensions of 5 ft
in width, 10 ft in length, and less than a foot in height. Such
a muffler would easily fit over the hood of an EMD SW1500 switch-
er with minimum visibility interference.
One of the very real problems of evaluating space availabil-
ity is the large number of locomotive types. Before considering
many of these types in detail, let us consider some of the gener-
al geometries of road- and switcher-type units.
The most common road locomotive is the high-hood type, with.
a cab that protrudes on each side for purposes of fore-and-aft
visibility. An example of this type of locomotive is the General
Motors GP-9, shown in figure 4-2 (Pinkepank, 1973). These locomo-
tives have only limited space above the hood for the installation
of mufflers.
1-4
-------
L/l
Reprinted with permission from the Second Diesel Spotter's
Guide, Jerry A. Pinkepank, © 1973 by Kalmback Publishing Company,
Milwaukee, WI. Photo by Louis A. Marre.
FIGURE 4-2. GENERAL MOTORS GP-9 LOCOMOTIVE.
-------
A second type of road locomotive structure is represented by
the General Motors F9A locomotive illustrated in figure 4-3. Al-
though this locomotive is more streamlined than the GP type, it
does not have rearward visibility and cannot easily be run back-
wards. Accordingly, it has not been popular and has been out of
production for about 15 years, although about 1500 of these loco-
motives are still in service. The F-type locomotives also have
limited above-load space for muffler applications.
Switcher locomotives are quite another matter. The General
Motors Sw.1000 switcher, illustrated in figure 4-4, shows that
there is nearly 3 ft of vertical space above the hood (Burlington
Northern Railroad Co.). There is also a substantial amount of
space rearward and laterally.
A detailed evaluation of space availability Is given in
Table 4-2. This table applies to locomotives in service at the
beginning of 1974; the population data were obtained from Osthoff
(1974). Note that switchers* have from 2^ to 4 ft of height
above the hood, which is adequate for the installation of muf-
flers. Certain road locomotives such as the GP-9 have as much as
2 ft of space above the hood for which a muffler could be de-
signed. Also, some of these locomotives have below-hood space
for an expanded exhaust manifold that would reduce noise emis-
sions.
The preceding discussion of available space is based largely
on inspection of the interior plans of a large number of locomo-
tive models and, in some cases, on visual inspections of the lo-
comotives themselves. In all cases, Judgments of space available
were based on the locomotive configuration as delivered by the
manufacturer. It is possible that some locomotive users have
modified the internal arrangements of their units in ways that
*GM designation NW and SW; Alco designation S and RS.
1-6
-------
Reprinted with permission from the Second Diesel Spotter's
Guide, Jerry A. Pir.!o3pank, ©1973 by Kalmback Publishing Company,
Milwaukee, WI. Photo"by Louis A. Marre.
FIGURE 4-3. GENERAL MOTORS F9A LOCOMOTIVE.
-------
FI6URE 4.4. EMD SW. 1000 - 1000 hp LOCOMOTIVE.
would hamper muffler installation, such as by rerouting cables or
piping. Such components would have to be moved to permit muffler
installation. The number of locomotives in which this may be a
problem is unknown; it could only be determined by a detailed
unit-by-unit survey.
1-8
-------
TABLE 4.2
LOCOMOTIVE SPACE AVAILABILITY AND POPULATION
Model
END NW2
NW3
NW5
SW1
SW8
SW600
SW900
SW7
SW9
SW1000
SW1200
W1500
F3
F7
OP7
SD7
P9
QP9
SD9
OP18
GP28
QP38
SD38
GP20
SD21
Space for Muffler
Length/Width/Height
(Dimensions In Inches)
Under Hood
*
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Enlarge exhaust
manifold to
27 in. diam.
Above Hood •
-/72/42»(±6)
-/72/422(±6)
-/72/462(i6)
-/72/422(±6)
-/72/422(±6)
-/72/4o2(±6)
-/72/422(±6)
-/72/422(±6)
-/72/352(±l/2)
-/72/362{±6)
-/8Vl8'(±6)
-/84/i72(±l/2)
-/8«iyi92(tl/2)
-8J»/19*(±l/2)
-/8Vl72(tl/2)
-/8»J/2l»2( + l/2)
-/8V182(±6)
-/84/2l2(±6)
Insufficient3
Insufficient'
-/84/l82(t6)
-/8V -'
No. in
Service*
as of
1/1/74
684
2626
685
36H5
388U
400
1886
200
295
1-9
-------
TABLE 4.2 '
LOCOMOTIVE SPACE AVAILABILITY AND POPULATION (Cont.)
EMD GP30
SD30
GP35
SD35
OP39
GPl»0
SD40
F15
SD45
QE U25
U28
U23
U30
U33
U36
U18
U50
Alco S1.S3,
S6.S2.S4
RS1.RSD1
T6
RS2.RSG-2
. PA1.PB1
RS3.RSD5
FA/B-2
RS11.12
CH20
DL109
PA1
37/72/36*
36/72/32*
>
48/72/32*
18/72/32*
48/72/36*
163/35/16"
163/35/16"
130/35/16"
163/35/16"
163/35/16"
180/35/16"
97/35/16"
163/35/16"
lHk/H2/2H*
11V12/21*
Insufficient'
Insufficient3
Insufficient1
-/84/l82(±l/2)
Insufficient
Insufficient3
Insufficient3
-/-/48
-/-/30
-A/30
•
1196
1583
92
2702
1652
552
201
28?
677
522
63
65
60
80
579
111)
362
156
MO
-------
TABLE 4.2
LOCOMOTIVE SPACE AVAILABILITY AND POPULATION (Cont.)
RSD15
Cl|2l» •
CH25
C628
C630
0*130
1W42/246
1W42/21I6
192/M2/186
192/42/186
1W42/186
• . 107
84
131
81
Source: Osthoff (1974).
2Estimated from diagrams in Burlington Northern (undated).
Numbers in parentheses designate estimation tolerance.
'"Insufficient" is used when space above hood appears to be
12 in. or less.
"Strictly speaking, this much space is not available under the
hood. The center section of the hood would have to be raised
to accommodate a muffler.
5Estimated from diagrams in Burlington Northern (undated) and
General Motors Corp. (1974). Extended range dynamic brakes
are discussed where appropriate.
'Obtained from drawings supplied to BBN by Montreal Locomotive
Works, Montreal, Canada.
HI
-------
Appendix J
LOCOMOTIVE NOISE MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH HARCO
MANUFACTURING COMPANY AND ADDITIONAL MEASUREMENTS
-------
APPENDIX *
MEETING WITH HARCO AND LOCOMOTIVE NOISE MEASUREMENTS
On Tuesday, 21 January 1975$ several EPA personnel* and Dr.
Erich Bender of BBN met with Mr. Frank N. Harris, Manager of
Harco Manufacturing Co., to discuss Harco's activities in locomo-
tive silencing. We also measured the noise of several Union
Pacific locomotives under various conditions. In this appendix,
we (1) discuss the noise measurements of a GP-9 locomotive in
three exhaust-silencing configurations, (2) present noise data on
a GP-38-2 locomotive, and (3) identify some salient aspects of
Harco's productive capacity.
Noise Measurements - 6P-9
•
During the afternoon of 21 January 1975» noise measurements
were made on a Union Pacific GP-9 locomotive (#246) in the Union
Pacific yard on Swan Island, Portland.
Test Site. Figure C-l is a sketch of the test site. The
locomotive was connected electrically to a General Electric load
cell, and the microphone was located 100 ft'from the track cen-
terline between two parallel rows of truck trailers, spaced about
82 ft apart. The large end wall of a locomotive shop was located
approximately 50 ft from the locomotive, as indicated. The day
was clear, the temperature about 50° F, and the wind very light.
Because of the shop wall and trailers, this site is not suitable
for certification-type tests but Is appropriate for comparative
tests of mufflers.
*Dr. Alvin Meyer, Mr. Henry Thomas, Dr. William Roper, Mr.
Jeffrey Cerar.
II
-------
BUILDING
\X\\\\\\\K\\\\\\\V;
TRUCK
TRAILERS
100'I
LOCOMOTIVE
S/4///////\
jj^^^^^^^jjg^^^fl
TRUCK
TRAILERS
K-30'-*
1 MICROPHONE
42'—J
FIGURE C-l. TEST SITE.
Instrumentation. For all measurements on this locomotive,
A- and C-scale levels were read directly from a P&K Model 2203
Sound Level Meter equipped with a B&K Model 41^5 1-in. microphone
and recorded (linear scale) for subsequent analysis of a Kudelski
Model Nagra III tape recorder. Before and after the sequence of
measurements, the system was calibrated with a B&K 4220 piston-
phone.
Mufflers. The performance of two different muffler types
was investigated. The first mufflers, called "snubbers," are
sketched in figure C-2. They are designed to fit between the car
body and the engine. The exhaust gas flows through a perforated
sheet metal liner into a cylinder and back through the perfor-
ated metal before exiting. The second, called "cross-mounted
J-2
-------
Jl i
DEFLECTOR
N/
1 V
\
\
i
K
,
\ X
\
\
\
•
1
i
^~* —
. X
f
,
l"
/'
[
:
s \
/
i
*"
-s — ^
FIGURE C-2. SNUBBER-TYPE MUFFLER.
J-3
-------
mufflers," are designed to fit above the car body but within the
clearance envelope. Figure C-3 is a sketch of the outside of the
cross-mounted mufflers. Their operation is similar to that of
snubbers in that all of the flow is forced through a perforated
inner lining.
It should be recognized that the snubber type of muffler in
which exhaust gases are forced through perforated material is
generally not used in other engine silencing applications. The
reason is that substantial backpressures are generated. Muffling
is done more efficiently by allowing the bulk of the exhaust gas
to flow through a perforated tube, which attenuates sound because
only little flow passes through the perforations (see sketch
below).
MUFFLER SHELL
PEFORATED
'TUBE
FLOW
Cost Estimates. Although costs have not been estimated by a
detailed manufacturing analysis, Mr. Harris offered the following
estimates:
snubbers: less than $500 for a set of 2 required for a
single locomotive
J-4
-------
175/16"
72"
x
c
8 HOLES 1/2
FIGURE C-3. CROSS-MOUNTED MUFFLER,
J-5
-------
• cross-mounted: about $750 per locomotive, or about $1000
per locomotive when integrated with spark
arresters.
Life Factors. Since Harco's locomotive mufflers are still
developmental, data are not presently available on their durabil-
ity. However, several observations were made on spark arresters,
which attach to a locomotive stack in much the same way as a muf-
fler. First, the primary source of failure appears to be fatigue
of flat sections, which resonate. The cure is to raise the reso-
nant frequency by means of stiffeners or by curving each sheet
metal element. Corrosion occurs on the outside and only if
painting is not performed with sufficient frequency. The inter-
ior tends to be protected by an oily coating generated by the
engine. Harco personnel expect their spark arresters to last a
minimum of 5 years.
Noise Data. Noise levels for the locomotive equipped with
mufflers were measured at all throttle settings; only throttle 1
and 8 settings were tested with the unmuffled locomotive.
A and C scale levels for all noise measurements are shown in
'figure C-4. The following observations may be made:
1. The snubbers provide virtually no noise reduction com-
pared with the unmuffled locomotive. In fact, the A-weighted
level at throttle 8 is actually higher without the snubbers than
with them. The reason may be that one set of doors on the loco-
motive was inadvertently left open while the snubbers were being
measured. These doors were closed during tests with cross-
mounted mufflers and with no mufflers.
2. The A-weighted level increases more rapidly than the
C-weighted level with increasing throttle setting. The reason is
that as the engine operates at increasingly higher speeds, the
noise and vibration shift to higher frequencies where less atten-
uation is provided by the A-weighting network.
J-6
-------
CD
UJ
o
i
o
UJ
I
w
90
C
80
70
<
X
V— C-V\
^ NOI
/
£J
NO
C-WEIG
SNUBBI
/ /
EIGHTED
MUFFLER
*
*
YEIGHTE
MUFFLEI
HTED W
ERSA
\,'
^s
A-V
SNl
...-«£!
[>
RS
TH
C-WEIG
CROSS-
/
VEIGHTEI
JBBERS-
-A-WI
CROS
1
1
'
-ITED wr
\^OUNTEl
• .
A-V
NOI
DWITH
*
•
LIGHTED
iS-MOUNI
>WEIGH
MO MUFF
FH
) MUFFLE
fEIGHTEC
MUFFLER
^ • ^^
W?TH
FED MUFI
TED^..
LERS /
/
f
:R .x
)~~/
y
rLER
3456
THROTTLE .SETTING
8
FIGURE C-4
PERFORMANCE OF HARCO MUFFLERS AS A FUNCTION OF
THROTTLE SETTING.
J-7
-------
3. The cross-mounted mufflers 'enable the locomotive to meet
the proposed 87-dBA throttle 8 standard, but exceed by 0.3 dBA
the 67-dBA throttle 1 standard.
\
Extraneous Factors. Two extraneous factors may have caused
the measured noise level to be higher than the level that would
have been measured under ideal conditions. They are (1) the
pressure of a reflecting shop wall and (2) reflections from two
rows of parked truck trailers. Estimates of the effect of each
follow.
Reflecting Shop Wall:. The level of the sound reflected from
the shop wall may be estimated with the assistance of the follow-
ing sketch.
MICROPHONE
BUILDING
50' - H
SOURCE
The sound reflected from the wall may be thought of in terms of
an "image source," Identical to the actual locomotive but located
50 ft behind the wall location, with the wall removed. This
sound propagates over the top of the locomotive and is diffracted
down toward the microphone. Attenuation of the reflected sound
comprises two parts: spreading and diffraction. Because the re-
flected sound travels 200 ft (compared with 100 ft in the direct
path) to the microphone, the spreading accounts for a 20 log
(200/100) = 6-dB reduction in level.
J-8
-------
Computing the shielding provided by the locomotive is more
detailed. First, we compute the number N given by
where A is the distance from the top of the locomotive to the
microphone (/lOO* + 11* = 100.65); B is the distance from the top
of the locomotive to the top of its image (100 ft), d is the
straight-line distance from the top of the image to the micro-
phone (/200Z + llz a 200.3025), and X is the wavelength of sound
at frequencies of interest.
Using the above parameter values and noting that A = 1100/f ,
we find
N *= 0.55 * 10"s f . (c-l)
By using Eq. C-l and Figure 7-8 of Beranek (1971), we derive
the attenuation curve labeled "locomotive shielding" in
figure C-5. Note that shielding is more effective at high
frequencies than at low frequencies.
To obtain the actual sound spectrum produced at the micro-
phone by the image source, we proceed in two steps.
1. Apply the locomotive shielding curve to the A-welghted
octave-band locomotive spectrum shown in figure C-5,* compute the
spectrum of reflected sound, add the octave-band levels of each
spectrum to obtain the overall A-weighted levels,, then take the
difference between the two levels to find the overall attenuation
from shielding. The result is approximately 10 dBA.
•This spectrum is an average of the spectra corresponding to the
three silencing configurations listed previously, with the loco-
motive operating in throttle setting 8.
U-9
-------
90
80
UJ
3
UJ
w "s
QL (VI
o
UJ
~ 50
40
30
i i
i r
/
I
i T
ESTIMATED OCTAVE BAND
SPECTRUM WITH SHIELDING
MEASURED 1/3 OCTAVE BAND
SPECTRUM
LOCOMOTIVE SHIELDING
(RIGHT HAND SCALE)
-OCTAVE BAND
V SPECTRUM WITHOUT
\
SHIE
\
\
\\
\ \
.DING
\
\
zo
CD
•o
O
z
o
_t
UJ
I
CO
UJ
o
o
o
3
16 31.5 69 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE C-5. COMPUTATION OF THE EFFECT OF LOCOMOTIVE SHIELDING ON REFLECTED
SOUND LEVELS (EXPLANATION IN TEXT).
-------
.2. Add the 6-dBA spreading loss to the 10-dBA shielding
loss. The result is that the sound reflected from the shop wall,
as measured at the microphone, is 16 dBA less than the sound prop-
agating directly to the microphone. This wall reflection thus
adds approximately 0.1 dBA to the direct level. Or, if the wall
were not present, the level at the microphone would be 0.1 dBA
less than measured. The presence of the wall therefore produces
a negligible contribution to the measured noise level.
Parallel Rows of Truck Trailers; Sound from the locomotive
is reflected or scattered from each of the trailers in parallel
rows running perpendicular to the track. This scattered sound
adds to the sound propagating directly from the locomotive to the
microphone, causing a higher level to be read than if the trucks
were absent.
At very low frequencies the sound is scattered- nearly uni-
formly in all directions. (See following sketch.) However, at
high frequencies the sound is reflected specularly, much like
INCIDENT
INCIDENT
TRUCK
TRAILER
SCATTERED
REFLECTED
J-ll
-------
light from a mirror. The transition frequency ft occurs approx-
imately at ft = c/Tfi = 1100/ir«8 * 45 Hz. Since most of the A-
weighted acoustic energy is in frequency bands at least a decade
above f. , it is reasonable to consider a specular reflection
T/
model.
The problem now is to estimate the spreading attenuation
from the increased distance of sound travel and the portion of
the locomotive "seen" from the microphone, imagining the trailer
ends to be mirrors. The expression for this attenuation A is
given by
10 log 10°2 * + 10 log
1002 ^visible
where d is the perpendicular distance from the line, connecting
the microphone and locomotive center to the trailer ends and a
refers to the locomotive area. Since the bottoms of the trailers
are approximately 4 ft off the ground, are 8 ft wide, arid are
Separated by approximately 5 ft, and the locomotive is 15 ft
high:
a
total 15 8+5
~~
For the left row of trailers, d = 30 ft and A = 4.8 dB. For the
right row of trailers, d = 42 ft and A = 5.8 dB. Together, the
scattered sound level is only about 2.2 dBA lower than the di-
rect level. Thus the measured level can be approximately 2 dBA
higher than the level that would exist in the absence of the
trailers.
J-12
-------
Noise Measurements - GP-38-2
Noise levels of a GP-38-2 locomotive were measured under
self-load conditions outside a large shop, as indicated in the
following sketch.
BUILDING
/
/
/
/
/
MICROPHONE^-
•75-
100
LOCOMOTIVE
Because of reflections from the sides of the shop, the mea-
sured noise level is expected to be higher than that which would
be measured in free-field conditions. Attenuation A of the re-
flected wave is estimated from
10 log
100
(2d)2
100
where d » 75 ft and A « 5.1 as. Therefore, the measured level is
about 1.2 dB higher than the free-field level. The measured and
corresponding estimated values of free-field levels are shown in
Table C-l.
J-13
-------
TABLE C-l
VALUES OF FREE-FIELD LEVELS
Measured Level
dBA
Estimated Free Field
Level - dBA
Idle
66.5
65.3
Throttle 8
92
90.8
Marco's Productive Capacity
The Harco Manufacturing Co. is a rather small organization
with approximately 15 to 25 personnel and about $1 million in
sales. However, Mr. Harris claims to have the capacity to de-
liver up to 6000 muffler units/year (enough for 3000 locomotives)
by entering into a licensing or subcontracting arrangement with
the Portland Wire and Door Co. This muffler production would be
sufficient to equip more than 20 percent of the present locomo-
tive fleet in a 2-year period.
J-14
-------
TABLE 4-1.
SUMMARY OF STATIONARY LOCOMOTIVE NOISE LEVELS
Locomotive
Mfr/Model
OH/OP-9
OM/GP-3B-2
OM/cr-9
MLW/M-420'
CE/U36C
Road No. 3322
Rated 3600 hp
OE/U36C
Road No. 3322
Rated 3600 hp.
Actual 3561 »P
OE/U34CH
Road No. 3358
Rated 3)135 hp,
Actual 3097 hp
OM/SD45-2
Road No. 3680
Rated 3600 hp.
Actual 3840 hp
OE/U25B
Road No. 2502
Rated 2500 hp,
Actual 2375 hp
Alco/C424
Road No. '2406
Rated 2400 hp,
Actual 1760-2297 hp
(•urging)
OE/U33C
Road No. 3314
Rated 3300 hp.
Actual 3278 hp
OM/OP-9
Road No. 1262
Rated 1750 hp,
Actual 1878 hp
OM/OP-35
Road No. -2556
Rated 2500 hp.
Actual 2424 hp
Load
Device
Load Cell
Self Load
Load Cell
Load Cell
Self Load
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Load Cell
Noise Level at 100 Ft
Ambient
-
-
-
-
57 dBA
55 dBA
57 dBA
60 dBA
64 dBA
65 dBA
60 dBA
61 dBA
59 dBA
Idle
67' d3A
66.5 dBA1
69 dBA1
65 dBA1
68 dBA
68 dBA
70 dBA'
66 dBA
70 dBA
72 dBA
69 dBA
68 dBA
69 dBA
Throttle 8
89 dBA1
92 dBA1
89 dBA1
87 dBA1
87 dBA
90 dBA
87 dBA
91 dBA
92 dBA
89 dBA*
90 dBA
92 dBA
86 dBA
Source
Appendix R
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix D
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
State of
New Jersey
.
'Nonldeal test alte, usually because of sound-reflecting objects within 100 ft
of locomotive or microphone.
'The Montreal Locomotive Works H-420 model Is very similar to the Aleo C-4JO
serlts.
'At 450 rpm. This locomotive can have three Idling conditions depending on the
electrical requirements (heating, lights, etc.) of the passenger cars.
'This test considered not representative since the engine was not developing
full power.
J-15
-------
Appendix K
EXHAUST NOISE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE GP-9 LOCOMOTIVE
-------
APPENDIX K
EXHAUST NOISE MEASUREMENTS FOR THE GP-9 LOCOMOTIVE
The exhaust noise signature of a GP-9 locomotive was mea-
sured during a visit to the B&M service plant at North Billerica,
Mass, on November 26, 1971*.
Sound pressure levels were obtained 2.5 ft away from one (of
two) exhaust stack outlets and 100 ft away from the side of the
locomotive.
The data acquisition equipment consisted of the following:
• B&K-4220 pistonphone, Serial No. 221359
• microphone wind screen
• GR-4134 1/2 in. microphone, Serial No. 103016
• GR-1560 P42 preamplifier Serial No. 492
• BBN power supply for the P42
• GR-1551B sound level meter, Serial No. 289
• Nagra IIIB Kudelski Tape Recorder, Serial No. 621789.
Figure B-l is a rough sketch of the structures in the vicin-
ity of the locomotive. It. was not possible to move the locomo-
tive away from all reflecting surfaces to achieve ideal hemi-
spherical space conditions. However, most of these surfaces were
far anough away so that any resulting discrepancies are expected
to be minimal. There were about 4 in. of snow on the ground sur-
rounding the locomotive.
A sketch of the microphone positions for the 2.5-ft measure-
ments is shown in figure B-2. The overall levels in both the lin-
ear and A-scale were monitored in all three positions indicated
in figure B-2, and no significant differences were observed.
K-l
-------
STATIONARY
CAR
MICROPHONE
SERVICE
PLANT
• | l s'
1 ' i
. i^n1 .
PT
100' r
I/
( o o | R
c x n
V^ s~
GP-9"ON"
^GP-9"0
* I— I
a o rh
— i — i—
STATIONARY
CARS
FIGURE B-l. LOCATION OF GP-9 LOCOMOTIVE DURING FARFIELD
(100 FT) MEASUREMENTS OF EXHAUST NOISE.
K-2
-------
TOP VIEW OF LOCOMOTION
M
^MiMl^H^^ ^•MBMB
h-25'—|H5%| I
C
-*
• DESIGNATES PRIMARY MICROPHONE
POSITION
C DESIGNATES MICROPHONE POSITION
* FOR SIDE-TO-SIDE CHECK MEASUREMENTS
_L
10"
C
*
M
C
*
r\
VIEW ALONG LOCOMOTIVE AXIS
FIGURE B-2. MICROPHONE POSITION FOR NEARFIELD MEASUREMENT
OF EXHAUST NOISE.
K-3
-------
Figures B-3 through B-5 contain the 1/3-octave band spectra
at idle, throttle 8 with no load, and throttle 8 with full load,
respectively, corresponding to the 100-ft position. Figures B-6
through B-8 contain the same information for the 2.5-ft position
recorded at position B (figure B-2).
The relatively short distance of 2.5 ft from the stack out-
let ensures that the recorded sound pressure level L (2.5 ft)
O
corresponds solely to exhaust noise. ' To estimate Lg (100 ft),
that is, the contribution of the exhaust to the noise level at
100 ft, we assume spherical spreading and then use
AL «= L (2.5 ft) - L (100 ft) = 20 log [Pi-4r-l - 32 dB .
s s \. t. • j i\> \
Strictly speaking, the value of AL should be decreased by
3 dB because the far field will also contain the contribution of
the second stack. At the same time, AL should be increased by a
similar amount because of partial shadowing; therefore, the two
effects cancel each other partially, and the assumed AL = 32 dB
is expected to offer a good estimate of L_ (100 ft).
s
The estimated spectrum L_ (100 ft) is compared to the actu-
S
ally measured noise spectrum in figure B-9. Both traces corre-
spond to a throttle 8 with full load'setting and follow each
other fairly well, a positive indication that the farfield noise
is primarily due to exhaust. The trend is also quite similar at
throttle 8 with no load and at idle.
K-4
-------
en
GP-9
IDLE
TOO FT. FROM SIDE
OVERALL LEVEL:
80.5 dB LINEAR
67.0 dBA
16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE B-3. 6P-9, IDLE, AT 100 FT.
-------
100
u
3
90
UJ
40
GP-9
THROTTLE 8s NO LOAD
100 FT FROM SIDE
OVERALL LEVEL'92.5 dB LINEAR
83.0 dBA
63 125 250 500 1OOO 2000 4000 80OO 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE B-4. GP-9, THROTTLE 8, NO LOAD, AT 100 FT.
-------
GP-9
THROTTLE 8-.FULL LOAD
100 FT FROM SIDE
OVERALL LEVEL:
99 dB LINEAR
89dBA
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE B-5. GP-9, THROTTLE 8, FULL LOAD, AT 100 FT.
-------
s
UJ
a:
V)
2s
i
(O
CD
o
a:
o
IIV
100
^ 90
o
.O
4.
8 80
0
2 70
60
50
1 1
. r
j
r
i
^_L 1
I
••M
1
Lr
r
i —
i
i
l
i
i
i
«-«i
J
* «
16 31.5
1 1
L
<— i r
• !--•
-J
.
1 1
LIN
^1
l
.
r
dBA
i i
EAR
T-J
r-J
i
...^
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
GP-9
IDLE
2.5 FT. FROM EXHAUST
OVERALL LEVEL:
106 dB LINEAR
90 dBA
_..i
--— i
f— i
H
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 800O
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
L.
i i
i^M
16,000 31,500
FIGURE B-6. GP-9, IDLE, AT 2.5 FT.
-------
s
120
110
UJ
i
8
£
O
=3
(O
~KX>
5
X 90
m
CD
2 80
O
O
UJ
o
70
60
J I
I
I
i i
i i
i i
6P-9
THROTTLE 8'NO LOAD
2.5 FT FROM EXHAUST
OVERALL LEVEL022.5dB LINEAR
110 dBA
j i
Ll
rrn
i i
16 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 80OO
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
16pOO 31,500
FIGURE B-7. GP-9, THROTTLE 8, NO LOAD, AT 2.5 FT.
-------
130
6P-9
THROTTLE 8'FULL LOAD
25 FT FROM EXHAUST
OVERALL LEVEL 020 dB LINEAR
120 dBA
250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE B-8. GP-9, THROTTLE 8, FULL LOAD, AT 2.5 FT.
-------
31.5
63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16,000 31,500
ONE-THIRD OCTAVE BAND CENTER FREQUENCY (Hz)
FIGURE B-9. COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED AND ACTUALLY MEASURED NOISE SPECTRA.
-------
Appendix L
TRIP TO MONTREAL LOCOMOTIVE WORKS AND MEASUREMENTS OF
M-420 LOCOMOTIVE
-------
APPENDIX L
TRIP TO MONTREAL LOCOMOTIVE WORKS
On October 2, 1974, BBN personnel traveled to Montreal,
Canada to visit the Montreal Locomotive Works (MLW) , formerly a
division of Alco Products but presently owned (52 percent of its
stock) by Studebaker-Worthington. Though MLW owns all Alco
Products' engineering designs, the firm presently manufactures
locomotives of its own design, primarily for customers outside of
the United States. The purpose of the visit was to measure the
noise from an M-420 diesel electric locomotive and also to gather
Information on Alco locomotives no longer manufactured but still
operating in the U.S.
M-420 Noise Measurements
Although completely an MLW design, the M-420 diesel electric
locomotive is similar to the old Alco Century Series C-420 in
that the same Alco 251 series 2000-hp turbocharged 12-cylinder
diesel engine is used as the power plant (MLW manufacturers en-
gines under license from Alco Engines Division of White Indus-
trial Power Inc., the surviving corporate identity of the origi-
nal Alco Products Corporation). However, the M-420 and C-420 use
different trucks, and the operator's compartment and the front
(short) hood are slightly different (see figure D^l.)
Although the C-420 and the M-420 are slightly different in
appearance, the stationary noise from the M-420 should be repre-
sentative of the C-420 because the two locomotives used the same
power plant.
With the aid of Richard Cooper of MLW, measurements of the
noise from the M-420 locomotive were made in the yard behind the
MLW plant on October 3, 1974 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and
11:00 a.m. EDT.
L-l
-------
FIGURE D-l. M-420 DIESEL ELECTRIC LOCOMOTIVE.
L-2
-------
The following measurements were performed:
1. The overall A-weighted sound pressure level was measured
at 100 ft from the locomotive at idle and at throttle 8 under full
load.
2. The unweighted sound pressure level was recorded at 100
ft from the locomotive at throttle 8 under full load.
3. The unweighted sound pressure level was recorded at 2.5
ft from the exhaust stack, as shown in figure D-2, with the loco-
motive at idle and at throttle 8 under full load.
Because of the short cables from the resistor bank used to
load the locomotive, the M-420 could not be moved to a location
completely free from all reflecting surfaces. Figure D-3 shows
the location of the locomotive, the measurement position, and the
significant reflecting-surfaces (buildings etc.). The overall
A-weighted sound pressure levels are shown in Table D-l. These
measurements were made with a B&K #41^5 1-in. microphone (Ser.
No. 259175) with foam wind screen connected to a B&K No. 2203
Sound Level Meter (SLM) (Ser. No. 151612).
TABLE D-l
M-420 NOISE LEVELS AT 100 FT
Position 1
Position 2
Throttle 8
Idle
85 - 8? dBA
64 - 65 dBA
87 - 92 dBA
63-5 - 6H.5 dBA
The sound level meter was in the "fast" A-weighted setting.
The 3- to 5-dBA increase in noise measured at Position 2 was
probably due to reflections from the corrugated metal building
shown in figure D-3. Because Position 1 is more removed from all
L-3
-------
t
FORWARD TO
OPERATOR'S
CAB
1
2.5'
PLAN VIEW
MICROPHONE
L'
IS'
NX.
LOCOMOTIVE
VIEW LOOKING
FORWARD
FIGURE 0-2. NEARFIELD MICROPHONE LOCATION.
L4
-------
t/l
CORRUGATED METAL BUILDING
~30' HIGH
~69'
CONCRETE
BLOCK
BLDG
-35' HIGH
| LOCOMOTIVE |
• ' *»»43 H
< POSITION*!
POSITION #2
FIGURE D-3. M-420 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS.
-------
reflecting surfaces, the levels measured there are more represen-
tative of the noise produced by the locomotive.
With the same microphone windscreen and SLM, recordings of
the noise were made by connecting the output of the SLM to a
Kudelski Nagra III (Ser. No. B-61-110?) single-track tape recor-
der. The SLM was in the fast linear setting. The recordings
were later reduced in the BBN laboratory in Cambridge, Mass.
under a Federal Scientific UA-500 Ubiquitous Spectrum Analyzer.
The data are displayed in figures D-4 through D-7.
We had hoped to'use the narrowband analysis of figure D-6 to
compare exhaust and cooling fan noise levels by comparing the
peak levels at the appropriate frequencies; i.e., firing fre-
quency and blade passage frequency. The necessary data to calcu-
late the firing and blade passage frequency are given in Table
D-2 (courtesy of Bud Parker of MLW).
TABLE D-2
M-420 ENGINE AND COOLING FAN DATA
Engine RPM at throttle 8
Engine RPM at Idle
Number of cylinders
Number of fan blades
Fan speed
• top speed
• intermediate speed
Fan diameter
1050
12
6
strokes/cycle)
1.31:1 speed increase over
engine
" 10 percent slip in clutch
or less
1.31:1 speed Increase over
engine
RPM 50 percent to 60 percent
slip in clutch
66 in.
L-6
-------
s
lOHz BANDWIDTH
1, -pS
LOCOMOTIVE,
EXHAUST STACK
FULL POWER,THROTTLE 8
1050 RPM
X*A^vv
1000
200O
3000
40OO
5000
Hz
FIGURE D-4. FULL POWER, THROTTLE 8, 1050 RPM.
-------
X EXHAUST STACK
1000
2000
30OO
4OOO
5000
Hz
FIGURE 0-5. IDLE, 400 RPN.
-------
FULL POWER .THROTTLE 8
2.51 FROM EXHAUST STACK
1 Hz BANDWIDTH
70
200
300
400
500
Hz
FIGURE D-6. FULL POWER, THROTTLE 8, 2.5 FT FROM EXHAUST STACK.
-------
10 Hz BANDU iDTH
MICROPHONE
1
0
LOCOMOTIVE
FULL POWER,THROTTLE 8
100' FR"OM LOCOMOTIVE
6* ABOVE GROUND
1000
2000
30OO
40OO
50OO
Hz
FIGURE D-7. FULL POWER, THROTTLE 8, 100 FT FROM LOCOMOTIVE.
-------
The figures computed from these data are shown In Table
D-3.
TABLE D-3
FIRING AND BLADE PASSAGE FREQUENCY DATA
Firing frequency = 105 Hz
Top-speed Blade Passage
frequency = 124 Hz
Intermediate-speed Blade
Passage frequency = 55 — 69 Hz
Unfortunately, there are two possible fan speeds, depending
on the heat load on the engine. An electromagnetic clutch be-
tween the engine and the fan produces some uncertainty in the
speed reduction through that clutch. The resulting uncertainty
in the blade passage frequency and the profusion of lines in figure
D-6 make it difficult to trace the fan noise lines in the spec-
trum without an elaborate and careful analysis in which each line
in the figure is identified.
Information on Alco Locomotives
With the help of Hugh Paton, Vice President of Engineering
at MLW, we reached Robert Bergner, formerly employed by Alco
Products in Schenectady, New York, and presently employed by MLW
in Montreal. Mr. Bergner was very familiar with all of the loco-
motives that are of interest to us. A summary of his comments
follows.
*
1. For all Alco low-hood switchers or road switchers, there
Is room for a muffler above the hood directly above the engine.*
*0n the S-l, S-2, S-3, S-4, and T-6 switchers, this area is
approximately 2 ft high by 6 ft wide by 22 ft long.
L-ll
-------
Visibility problems can be minimized by mounting the muffler as
far aft on the hood (near the radiator) as possible without inter-
fering with the cooling fan air flow. The locomotives that fit
in this category are all the Alco switchers, the T-6, RS-1, RS-2,
RS-3, RSC-2, RSD-4, and RSD-5-
2. The muffler above the hood would present some additional
maintenance problems, since piston and cylinder liner removal is
presently done through a trap door in the top of the hood on all
in-line 6-cylinder engines. As a result, the muffler would have
to be removed before this major maintenance could be performed on
any Alco switcher and the T-6, RS-1, and RSD-1 locomotives.
3. For all high-hood Alco road switchers without dynamic
brakes, there is considerable space under the hood between the
engine and the roof of the hood.* Figure D-8 shows this space on
the M-^20 locomotive, looking aft from the generator to the tur-
bocharger. If these locomotives have the dynamic brake option,
however, this space is used for the dynamic brake resistor assem-
bly. As a result, muffler placement will be difficult on the
RS-11, RSD-12, RSD-15, C-420, C-424, C-425, and C-430 locomotive
with the dynamic brake option.
4. For the larger Century Series locomotives, the C-628,
C-630, and C-636, the dynamic brakes are in a compartment separ-
ate from the engine and, as a result, the space above the engine
is always available for a muffler.
*0n the C-^20 locomotive there is, conservatively, a space
approximately 12 ft long, 1 ft high, and about 3 ft wide above
the engine. It may not be possible to utilize the 3-ft width
over the full height of the space; i.e., the muffler may have to
be V-shaped so as not to interfere with cylinder liner or piston
removal.
Approximately 148 C-H20, C-424, C-^25, and C-^30 locomotives out
of 27^ were built with the dynamic brake options.
L-12
-------
FIGURE D-8. SPACE IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT OF THE M-420 SU1TAB
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A MUF.FLER.
L-13
-------
Appendix M
THE USE OF MUFFLERS ON LARGE DIESEL ENGINES IN NONRAILROAD
APPLICATIONS: RESULTS OF A BBN SURVEY
-------
The Use of Mufflers on Large Diesel Engines In Nonrallroad
Applications: Results of a BBN Survey
Previous work made clear to us at BBN that little is known
about the possible effects of mufflers on locomotive diesel en-
gine performance. This lack of information, we suspected, re-
sulted from the rarity of mufflers on locomotives. We reasoned
that we might obtain such information from industries, other than
railroads, which use large diesel engines and in which mufflers
are more common. Accordingly, we conducted an informal survey of
users, suppliers, and rebuilders on the influence of mufflers on
engine operations. We did not discuss the acoustic performance
of mufflers, since this subject is well documented in the case of
nonrailroad diesel installations.
M-l
-------
Our conclusions are:
Mufflers are used in marine and stationary power plant
application in conformance with the backpressure recom-
mendations of the engine manufacturers. There is no evi-
dence that use of mufflers in such applications causes
decreased engine life or reduced performance.
No information publicly available provides a technical
rationale for the exhaust backpressure limitations
(5-in. HpO for turbocharged engines) which EMD specifies.
The technology exists to produce turbochargers to with-
stand temperatures up to 1500°F, but units in present
production withstand temperatures up to 1200°F only.
No nonproprietary test data on the effects of high back-
pressure mufflers on emissions, engine reliability, or
efficiency are available at this time.
The survey was conducted primarily by telephone, with appro-
priate letter follow-ups. There were two groups of interviews.
The first group, 10 interviews, was with people involved with
marine applications of diesel engines. These people were asked
what effects muffler-induced exhaust backpressure had on effi-
ciency, power, emissions, reliability, and noise, and what sizes
of mufflers were used on their engines. The second group of in-
terviews was with four persons responsible for manufacturing ex-
haust system manifolds and turbochargers. These people were
asked to provide information on the state of the art of materials
M-2
-------
and the reliability of components to be used at temperatures
above those now common diesel electric locomotives. Summaries of
those interviews which yielded useful information follow.
INTERVIEW SUMMARIES:
George Ponton
Hyattsville, Maryland
Former engineer with
Nashville Bridge Co.
Nashville, Tenn.
Nashville Bridge designs and builds diesel-powered tow boats.
Mr. Ponton reported that tow boats are gneerally equipped with
spark arresters and sometimes with mufflers. (Sparks are con-
sidered at least as much as problem on boats as around rail-
roads). Mr. Ponton said that when mufflers are used, they are
sized to avoid backpressures in excess of those specified by the
engine manufacturer. No independent muffler design is attempted
by the boat builder. He mentioned Maxim Silencer Company and
Burgess Manning Company as two major suppliers of mufflers for
large diesel engines.
James Gunlauch, Vice President
Canal Barge Line
New Orleans, La.
Canal Barge Line operates diesel tow boats. Mr. Gunlauch
said that operators typically do not measure exhaust backpressure
on their boats; they assume that the designer has designed the
exhaust system properly.
The total amount of fuel used by a tow boat is known, but
the power delivered by the engines is typically not measured.
Therefore, the effect on engine efficiency of different mufflers
is not known. Canal Barge has not attempted to correlate muffler
use with engine failures and has made no measurements of engine
emissions.
M-3<
-------
R.B. Gladstone, Manager-Government Sales
General Motors - Electromotive Division
La Grange, 111.
Mr. Gladstone sent us copj.es of pertinent pages of EMD's
Marine Applications Book; figure 8-1 shows a page describing muf-
flers specified for EMD 6^5 series diesel engines.
Mr. Gladstone reaffirmed the previously stated limitations
on engine backpressure and said that use of higher backpressure
could void the engine warranty. He did not know about effects of-
mufflers on emissions or efficiency.
Robert Fortenbury, Salesman
Sample Brothers
New Orleans, La.
Sample Brothers markets industrial mufflers. Mr. Fortenbury
said that mufflers used on EMD 6*15 E-5 engines typically have a
28-in. inlet diameter and provide 5-'to 6-in. E^O of total back-
pressure at the exit of the turbocharger.
Gerrit Van Dissel, Naval Architect
Potter & McArthur Inc.
Watertown, Mass.
Mr. Van Dissel has designed numerous boats using EMD diesels
fitted with mufflers and spark arresters. He considers these
standard items and is not aware of any detrimental effects on
performance.
C.M. Bennett
Precision National Corp.
Mt. Vernon, 111.
Precision National is a major engine rebullder. Mr. Bennett
said that since his firm does not measure engine operating para-
meters on boats, he does not know the effects of muffler back-
pressure. He has not seen any engine failures which could be
traced to high exhaust backpressure.
M-4
-------
EXHAUST MUFFLERS
645E2, G45F5. G45EG AND 645E7 ENGINES
SPARK ARRESTER MUFfLER
:1~--U B
G •
\
Flow.
''-^-Cleanouts
n ', Spark Box Connection
Drai" (Vert. Mtg.)
Spark Box
(lloriz. >ltg.)
I
\
Muffler
Bade
taate
Enlc
Std. Extra
Std. Extra
Etd. Extra
Std. Extra
K'ngtrc
Model
8-Cyl. R-B
12-Cyl. R-B
16-Cyl. R-B
8-Cyl. Turbo.
12-Cyt. Turbo.
16-Cyl. Tur!>o.
20-Cyl. Turbo.
Dimensions - Inches
A
5'9
6'7
7'3
•j'O
»
30
3*
40
50
±1 °
12J19
Ul21
16'23-l/2
20!27-l/2
e
17 B.C.
18-3/4 B.C.
2l-l/Vi B.C.
25 B.C.
IO'Bj6n;24'32 29-1/2 B.C.
11'-' '64 26134- 1/4! 31-3/4 B.C.
12', 68 28'36-l/2JJla.-23 Holes
C
22-S/8
41
43
49
54
*3-3/S
63
we.
Lbj,
490
770
1020
1660
2910
WO
44»0
Pressure Diop ]
Inches HjO
900 RPJ1
10.5
12.4
U.6
2.7
T..4
2.9
3.0
Dalle muffler Is.U.S.C.C. approved for the Roots-blovcr engines.
Std. Extra muffler It U.S.C.G. approved for lh« tutbocharged engines.
R-B Roots-Llowcr engine
Turbo. Turbocharged engine
STRAIGHT THROUGH MUFFLER
B D C
Flow
Huffier
Bn»U
Baalc
Jailc
Bane
Engine
Model
8-Cyl. Turbo.
12-Cyl. Turbo.
16-Cyl. Turbo,
20-Cyl, Turbo.
Dimensions • IncKei
A
96
113
115
US
B
26
36
42
42
C
16
20
22
n
0
23-1/2
27-1/2
29-1/2
29-1/2
E
21-1/4 B.C.
25 B.C.
27-1/4 B.C.
27-1/4 B.C.
F
1-1/8 Din. -16 Holes
1-1/4 Pin. -20 Holes
1O/B Ola. -20 Holes
1-3/8 01*. -20 Holes
«t.
U,s.
560
1100
1380
1380
Pressure Drop
Inches HjO
900 Rl'M
.4
.3
.4
.4
Turbo. Turbocharged engine
WJTE: All nufricri nay be Mounted in «ither a vertical or horizontal position.
All fiancee are 125* An. Sid. - conrMilcn Clnn&cs to be furnished by shipbuilder.
FIGURE 8-1.
SAMPLE PAGE FROM EMD MARINE APPLICATIONS DATA BOOK,
SHOWING MUFFLERS RECOMMENDED FOR 645E SERIES DIESEL
ENGINES.
M-5
-------
Robert Gant
Preco Equipment Company
Houston, Texas
Preco is a rebuilder of diesel engines. Mr. Gant did not
know of any data taken on tow boats relevant to engine perfor-
mance as affected by mufflers.
INTERVIEW SUMMARIES: •TURBOCHARGER MANUFACTURERS
Howard Bach, Manager-Turbocharger Marketing
Elliot Company, a Division of Carrier Corp.
Jeannette, Pa.
Elliott Company supplies turbochargers to General Electric
and to De Laval. Mr. Bach was asked to discuss presently allow-
able operating temperatures for turbochargers, future trends in
turbocharger temperatures, and the costs of manufacturing and
servicing turbochargers for higher temperatures. He indicated
that the costs of components and servicing for turbochargers de-
signed to operate at 1200°F turbine inlet temperature and 10-in.
H20 backpressure are the same as the costs for a unit designed to
operate at 900°F. (Absolute manufacturing costs are not avail-
able.) Elliott is testing prototype turbine and nozzle ring com-
ponents at 1350°F with limited success. The cost of these com-
ponents is estimated to be 3 to 4 times as high as for the pres-
ent production components. Table 8-7 summarizes the cost infor-
mation provided by Mr. Bach.
The backpressure limitation of 10-in. E^O seems to be set by
a lack of experience at higher backpressures. When questioned
about the factors which limit the backpressure recommendations,
Mr. Bach indicated that lower pressure difference causes bearing
seals to leak, for example, when a locomotive is at high alti-
tudes. There is apparently no experimental substantiation for
the 10-in. H00 level which they recommend.
M-6
-------
TABLE 8-7
RELATIVE COMPONENT AND SERVICING COSTS FOR TURBOCHARGERS AS A
FUNCTION OF DESIGN TEMPERATURE
Inlet Temperature to
Turbocharger
Relative Turbine
Cost
Relative Housing
Cost2
Relative Servicing
Interval for Turbine
and Bearings
Relative Service Life
of Housing
Relative Cost of
Servicing
Turbocharger Ou*1et
Pressure Above
Atnos eric
Relative Turbine
Cost
Relative Housing Cost
Relative Servicing
Interval for Turbine
and Bearings
Relative Service Life
of Housing
Relative Cost of
Servicing
1. Source: H.
2. Present hous
SOO°F
i
i
i
i
i
0"H20
1
1
1
1
1
Bach,
5ing r<
1000aF
Production
(1)
(1)
CD
(HA)
(NA)
5"H20
(!)
• (1)
(1)
(1)
(NA)
;IOO°F
Production
(1)
CD
(1)
(NA)
0.'A)
10"H20
(1)
(1)
(1)
CD
(HA)
12DO°F
Production
(1)
(1)
(D
(NA)
(MA)
15"H20
OJA)
CIA)
CNA)
CNAI
(NA)
UOO°F '1350°F UOO°F 1500°F
Prototype Prototype
(3-f) (3-1) (NA) (NA)
(NA) (NA) (NA) (HA)
(HA) (NA) (NA) (NA)
(NA) (NA) (NA) (NA)
CJA) (NA) (.\'A) (NA)
20"H20
.'(HA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
(NA)
Elliot Company.
^placement
rate Is
approxim;
ately 15% per year.
-------
Appendix N
AMTRAK EXPERIENCE WITH MUFFLED LOCOMOTIVES
-------
AMTRAK Experience with Muffled Locomotives
In 1973, the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
took delivery of forty EMD SDP-40F locomotives fitted with Uni-
versal Silencer exhaust mufflers. These units have been opera-
ting in the Western District at an average rate of approximately
200,000 miles per year. We talked to Mr. Deane Ellsworth, mana-
ger of the Mechanical Systems Department of AMTRAK, about service
experience with these mufflers.
The locomotive price differential due to the muffler was
$500 to $600, exclusive of carbody modifications. The muffler's
space requirements dictate an overall engine height of 15 ft 9
in.; this height makes the locomotives unusable in the Baltimore
Harbor Tunnel or Union Station, Washington, D.C. Wyle Labora-
tories has made noise level measurements for EMD, which now
retains those data.* Mr. Ellsworth's recollection was that typi-
cal levels were 66.5 dBA art' idle and 88 to 89 dBA at full throt-
tle.
To date, AMTRAK has experienced no service problems which
could be related to mufflers. There have been no locomotive road
failures. There have been no muffler-induced engine maintenance
problems; as yet, however, AMTRAK has not had to remove the
turbochargers, so the muffler's effect on engine accessibility
has not been evaluated. No increase in fuel consumption levels
have been noted; on the other hand, it would be difficult to mea-
sure changes as small as 1 percent. There have been no turbo-
charger failures-or replacements to date, so the effect of back-
pressure on turbocharger life cannot be evaluated.
•An earlier telephone conversation with Mr. R. Pribramsky of EMD
Indicated that any data which they would make available would
be given directly to EPA at. the Agency's request.
N-l
-------
Appendix O
REFRIGERATOR CARS
-------
Noise From Refrigerators and Auxiliary Engines
BBN has reviewed the data on noise levels produced by refrig-
eration units on cold-storage cars and by auxiliary engines on
passenger locomotives. The work summarized data available in
reports and other sources; no original measurements were made.
Refrigerator Cars. There are 26,000 refrigerator cars in
the United States, half of which are owned by one company (Paci-
fic Fruit Express Company of San Francisco). The refrigeration
units on the cars are powered by 2- or 3-cylinder Detroit Diesel
engines running at 800 or 1200 rpm. These engines run continu-
ously to cool the cargo.
Our primary source of noise data for refrigerator cars is
Wyle Laboratories Report WCR-73-5 (1973). Table 8-8 lists noise
levels of four cars at a 50-ft distance. Note that, assuming
6-dB attenuation per doubling of distance, only the 3-cylinder
units violate the 6?-dB standard at 100 ft for a single car and
then only on one side. However, refrigerator cars are usually
made up into trains of 100 cars or more; at that size, the noise
level of the train will exceed the 67-dB-at-100-ft standard. In
addition, note that several of the measurements in Table 8-8 were
actually made in the near field and were extrapolated to 50 ft.
In these cases, further extrapolation to 100 ft may result in
inaccuracies.
The data for the second car in Table 8-8 indicate that as
much as 6 to 7 dB of noise reduction could be achieved by muff-
ling the engine.
An additional noise measurement was obtained from Rickley,
Quinn and Sussan (197^), who reported a level of 84.5 dBA at a
distance of 50 ft from the engine side of a Boston $ Maine re-
frigerator car. The model of diesel engine and the compressor
manufacturer were not noted.
-------
TABLE 8-8
MEASURED NOISE LEVELS OF FOUR CARS, 50-FT DISTANCE*
Engine Model
and
Rated Power
Detroit Diesel
2-71 80 hp
Detroit Diesel
3-17 120 hp
Detroit Diesel
3-53 100 hp
Compressor
Manufacturer
Trane
Carrier
Trane
Trane
Typical Noise Levels Emitted by
Mechanical Refrigerator Cars
Operating Mode
Low Throttle: 800 rpm
High Throttle: 1200 rpm
Low Throttle: 800 rpm
High Throttle: 1200 rpm
Diesel off - motor com-
pressor driven by 220V
auxiliary electrical
power. High Setting
High Throttle: 1200 rpm
High Throttle: 1200 rpm
A-Weighted
in dB (re 2C
Engine Side
69-5
76.5
75. 5f
61*
8Qt
.80.51"
Noise Level
IpN/m) at 50 ft
Condenser Side
66 I
70. 5T
65 (66. 5f)
71
64 (63f)
73. 5f
71. 5f
s
'Source: Wyle Labs (1973).
Calculated via nearfield measurement procedure and analytical technique.
-------
Auxiliary Diesel Engines. Passenger locomotives and cars
are frequently equipped with (1) diesel engines to drive an alter-
nator supplying electric power to the train, and (2) steam gener-
ators (on the locomotive) to supply heat for the train. AMTRAK
is purchasing new locomotives with auxiliary diesel engines on
board; some of their club cars already have them.
Data on noise levels from auxiliary engines were provided by
the Illinois Railroad Association in its submission to Docket No.
ONAC 7201002; the IRA cited noise levels of two auxiliary engines
as measured by the Chicago & Northwestern Railway. These engines
were Cummins V-block diesels running at 1800 rpm so as to gener-
ate 60-Hz electricity. Noise measurements were taken with no
load on the engines; they would have been higher if a load had
been applied. The measured levels were 58 and 55 dBA at 100 ft
from the locomotive.
O-3
-------
Appendix P
APPLICABILITY OF TRACK AND RAIL SAFETY STANDARDS TO NOISE
-------
APPLICABILITY OF TRACK AND RAIL SAFETY STANDARDS TO NOISE
Introduction
In this section, we comment on the DOT FRA Track Safety
Standards* and Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards, insofar as
their enforcement affects noise.
Track Standards
Track standards limit train speed by assigning each track to
a class, which is determined by the quality of track maintenance.
Table 7-1 provides the maximum allowable operating speed (in mph)
for each class.
TABLE 7-1
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OPERATING SPEED
Class
1
2
3
4
5
6
Maximum Allowable Speed (mph)
Freight Trains
10
25
MO
60
80
110
Passenger Trains
15
30
60
80
90
110
Section 213.9 states "If a segment of track does not meet all of
the requirements for its intended class, it is reclassified to
*CFR Title 49, Part 213, Sec. 213.1 - 213.241, with Appendix B
(Fed. Register, Vol. 39, No. 67, April 5, 1974).
fCFR Title 49, Part 215.
P-l
-------
the next lowest class of track for which it does meet all of the
/
requirements of this part." This provision, together with a
schedule of fines for violations, puts teeth into the standard.
A railroad can indeed operate on poorly maintained track - but
only at inefficiently low speeds. Therefore.it is in the rail-
roads' interest to maintain track where high-speed operation is
needed.
In this section, we evaluate the impact of various sections
of Part 213 on the noise generated by trains. Each section is
quoted, then followed by an explanation of its effect on noise.
§213.53 Gage
(a) Gage is measured between the heads of the rails at
right angles to the rails in a plane five-eighths of an inch
below the top of the rail head.
(b) Gage must be within the limits prescribed in Table 7-2.
TABLE 7-2
GAGE LIMITS
Class of
Track
1
2 and 3
4
5
6
Tracic Gage of Tangent
Track Must Be —
At
Least
4 ft 8 in.
H ft 8 in.
4 ft 8 in.
H ft 8 in.
U ft 8 in.
But Not
More Than
i\ ft 9* in.
4 ft 9h in.
4 ft 9\ in.
4 ft 9 in.
4 ft 8^ in.
The Gage of Curved
Track Must Be -
At
Least
4 ft 8 in.
H ft 8 in.
4 ft 8 in.
4 ft 8 in.
U ft 8 in.
But Not
More Than
4 ft 9* in.
4 ft 9* in.
4 ft 9*5 in.
4 ft 9% in.
4 ft 9 in.
P-2
-------
§213.55 Alignment
Alignment may not deviate from uniformity more than the
amount prescribed in Table 7-3.
TABLE 7-3
ALIGNMENT DEVIATION LIMITS
Class of Track
Tangent Track
The Deviation of the
Mid-Offset From
62-ft Line1 May
Not Be More Than
Curved Track
The Deviation of the
M1d-0rd1nate From
62-ft Chord2 May
Not Be More Than
1
2
3
5 in.
3 in.
!<; in.
in.
in,
in,
5 in.
3 in.
in.
in,
} in,
I in,
*The ends of the line must be at points on the gage side of
the line rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of the
railhead. Either rail may be used as the line rail, how-
ever, the same rail must be used for the full length of
that tangential segment of track.
2The ends of the chord must be at points on the gage side of
the outer rail, five-eighths of an inch below the top of
the railhead.
Effect
Variations In gage may result in lateral motion of the
train, with possible impact of wheel flanges against rail heads
and car sway with attendant rattle, etc. These types of noise
mechanisms have not been investigated quantitatively, however,
and can only be mentioned in qualitative terms.
P-3
-------
§213.109 Crossties
(a) Crossties may be made of any material to which rails
can be securely fastened. The material must be capable of hold-
ing the rails to gage within the limits prescribed in §213.53(b)
and distributing the load from the rails to the ballast section.
(b) A timber crosstie is considered to be defective when it
is:
(1) Broken through;
(2) Split or otherwise impaired to the extent it will
not hold spikes or will allow the ballast to work
through;
(3) So deteriorated that the tie plate or base of rail
can move .laterally more than one-half inch relative
to the crosstie;
(4) Cut by the tie plate through more than 40 percent
of its thickness; or
(5) Not spiked as required by §213.127-
(c) If timber ties are used, the minimum number of nonde-
fective ties under a rail joint and their relative positions
under the Joint are described in Table 7-4. The letters in the
chart correspond to letters underneath the ties for each type of
Joint depicted.
§213.121 Rail joints
(b) If a Joint bar on classes 3 through 6 track is cracked,
broken, or because of wear allows vertical movement of either
rail when all bolts are tight, it must be replaced.
P-4
-------
TABLE 7-4
NONDEFECTIVE TIES CHART
SUPPORTED JOINT
• • o •
> \
ENDED JOIMT
\ l« • o .| (
ty>
yjj
Clan et track
Minimum number o( nondefecttr* Required position of nondefectlr* tie*
tie* under (Joint ' •
Supported Joint Suspended Joint
1 X.Y.orZ Xar Y.
, 1 Y!... X or Y.
, j. X and Y. or X tod Y.
YtndZ.
Effect
These two sections require (1) increasingly firm tie support
for Joints with higher track classes and (2) the prevention of
relative vertical motion of two rails at a joint. The effect of
a poorly supported Joint is to allow the rail to deflect more
than usual under load. If the Joint bar connecting abetting
rails were extremely tight and well fitted, as is the case for
classes 3 through 6 track, this deflection would not have serious
noise consequences. However, the track standards allow for poor
support at Joints and relative vertical motion of the rails for
class 1 and 2 track. Under these conditions, noise is expected
to be significant.
Rail Joints are one of the major sources of railroad track
noise. They account for the familiar "clickety-clack" one hears
as wheels pass over the Joint. Accordingly, the noise from this
type of mechanism is one of the important sources of community
noise from rail lines. The noise level from impact at rail
P-5
-------
joints is proportional to 20 log V, where V is the train veloc-
ity. • Accordingly, a train traveling at 50 mph over class 2
track would generate approximately 6 dB more noise than if it
were traveling at the legal limit of 25 mph.
§213.113 Defective rails
(b) If a rail in classes 3 through 6 track or class 2 track
on which passenger trains operate evidences any of the conditions
listed in Table 7-5, the remedial action prescribed in the table
must be taken.
TABLE 7-5
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Condition
If a Person Designated
Under S213.7 Deter-
mines That Condition
Requires Rail To
Be Replaced
If a Person Designated
Under §213.7 Deter-
mines That Condition
Does Not Require
Rail To Be Replaced
Shelly spots
Head checks
Engine burn
(but not fracture)
Mill defect
Flaking
Silvered
Corrugated
Corroded
Limit speed to 20 'mph
and schedule the rail
for replacement.
Inspect the rail at
Intervals of not more
than every 6 months.
Inspect the rail for
Internal defects at
Intervals of not more
than every 12 months.
Inspect the rail at
Intervals of not more
than every 6 months.
(c) As used in this section.
(12) "Shelly spots" means a condition where a thin
(usually three-eights inch in depth or less)
•Source: Remington, Rudd, and Ve"r (1975).
P-6
-------
shell-like piece of surface metal becomes separ-
ated from the parent metal in the railhead, gener-
ally at the gage corner. It may be evidenced by a
black spot appearing on the railhead over the zone
of separation or a piece of metal breaking out
completely, leaving a shallow cavity in the rail-
head. In the case of a small shell, there may be
no surface evidence, the existence of the shell
being apparent only after the rail is broken or
sectioned.
(13) "Head checks" mean hair-fine cracks which appear
in the gage corner of the railhead, at any angle
with the length of the rail. When not readily
visible, the presence of the checks may often be
detected by the raspy feeling of their sharp edges.
"Flaking" means small shallow flakes of surface
metal generally not more than one-quarter inch in
length or width that break out of the gage corner
of the railhead.
Effect
This sample of Sec. 213.113 Illustrates that train speed is
limited on defective rail, if an Inspector decides the rail must
be replaced. Defects such as shelly spots on the rail running
surface will generate noise in much the same way as Joints.
§213.115 Rail end mismatch
Any mismatch of rails at Joints may not be more than that
prescribed by Table 7-6.
P-7
-------
TABLE 7-6
LIMITATIONS OF RAIL MISMATCH
Class of
Track
1
2
3
4,5
6
Any Mismatch of Rails at Joints May Not
Be More Than The Following*
On the Tread of
the Rail Ends
(Inch)
1/4
1/4
3/16
1/8
1/8
On the Gage Side of
the Rail Ends
(Inch)
1/4
3/16
3/16
1/8
1/8
Effect
Noise from joints is a function of train speed, as men-
tioned above, and of mismatch in rail heights. Mismatch on the
gage side of the rail ends is not expected to be significant but
mismatch on the tread side of the rail ends (i.e., the running
surface) is important. For this type of mismatch, noise in-
creases as 10 log (h), where h is the amount of height differ-
ence. * Accordingly, at a given train speed, noise will be 3 dB
more for track with 1/4-in. mismatch (Class 1,2) than for track
with 1/8-in. mismatch (Class 4,5,6).
§213.117 Rail end batter
(a) Rail end batter is the depth of depression at one-half
inch from the rail end. It is measured by placing an 18-inch
•Source: Remington, Rudd, and Ve"r (1975).
P-8
-------
straightedge on the tread on the rail end, without bridging the
Joint, and measuring the distance between the bottom of the
straightedge and the top of the rail at one-half inch from the
rail end.
(b) Rail end batter may not be more than that prescribed by
Table 7-7.
TABLE 7-7
RAIL END BATTER LIMITATIONS
Class of
Truck
1
2
3
5
6
Rail End Batter May Not
Be More Than (Inch)
1/2
3/8
3/8
1/8
1/8
Effect
Qualitatively, rail end batter has much the same effect as
Joint mismatch. As illustrated in figure -1, even if the Joint
ends are aligned, the wheel leaves one rail and contacts the next
at an angle which causes the wheel to be pushed suddenly upward
and the rail down. The result is an impact noise, the level of
which Increases with increasing batter.
P-9
-------
FIGURE 7-1. SCHEMATIC SHOWING MECHANISM OF RAIL-END BATTER.
§213.137 Frogs*
(c) If the tread portion of a frog casting is worn down
more than three-eighths inch below the original contour, operat-
ing speed over that frong may not be more than 10 miles per hour.
Effect
As with rail end batter, degradation of frog tread Increases
noise.
Wheel Standards (Part 215)
Part 215 requires that each railroad freight car which has a
component described as defective in this part must be (a) re-
paired or (b) removed from service (§215.7). Furthermore, "any
railroad that operates a railroad freight car in violation of any
requirement prescribed in this part is liable to a civil penalty
•A "frog" is the X-shaped member that is used where one rail
crosses another, as in a turn-out.
P-10'
-------
of at least. $250 but not more than $2500 for each violation^.
Each day of each violation constitutes a separate offense"
(§215.19).
§215.43 Defective Wheels
A wheel Is defective If It has any of the following condi-
tions:
(g) Contiguous (adjoining) pieces of metal shelled out of
the circumference of the tread.
(h) A slid-flat spot more than 2*s inches in length or two
adjoining flat spots each more than 2 inches in length.
Effect
Wheel flats and shelled spots cause an impulsive noise each
time the defective area contacts the rail. This noise can often
be detected aurally as a "clunking" sound in a passing train.
Furthermore, the noise level Increases with increasing flat spot
dimension. Accordingly, compliance with §215.*»3 will decrease
community noise.
P-ll
-------
Appendix Q
RAIL CAR NOISE LEVEL DATA
-------
Table 1. Example of Observed Rail Car Noise Level Variations
Due to Sound Level Meter Detector Time Constant and
Statistical Variations over Train Length for a Fifty-
Car Freight Train Traveling at 34 MPH on Welded Rails
(less locomotive noise).
Actual
Time
(sec)
Computed Percentile L9g
II II T
iAJ/\ /\
90
H II T
L50
N It £
n " L
" " L ,
• X
Maximum Level (dBA)
"Max." Meter Reading
50
45
25
5
.5
.05
51
51
"Impulse"
35 ms
(dBA)
75.5
77.0
•79.0
81.0
82.5
85.0
85.0
85.0
"Fast"
125 ms
(dBA)
75.5
77.0
,
79.0
81.0
82.5
85.0
85.0
84.0
"Slow"
1000 ms
(dBA)
76.0
77.5
79.0
80.5
81.0
81.0
81.0
81.0
Q-l
-------
Fig. 1. Maximum Rail Car Noise Level Measured at 100 feet by Wyle and DOT/TSC
Freight :- Wylejj;
Freight - DOT -•
EPA Rail Car Limit
Turbotrain - DOT
Metroliner - DOT
. . I ~~~! UJ7~~~ . ~: ~Z^~<:^~ '. ~"~
!~1
-=:- A A
30 40
Train Speed, mph
50
60
80
100
-------
Fig. 2. Average Freight Rail Car Noise Level Measured at 100 feet by Wyle and BBN
—Jointed Track— - Wyl
EPA Rail Car Limit
30 . 40
Train Speed, mpn
-------
Fig. 3. Maximum and Average Rail Car Noise Level Measured at 100 feet by Kamperman Associates
I..jI.:^iL].L__!i: TTI "i rrrn
-}- -P a s s e nger~---Maximum n
Passenger" - Average ~
EPA Rail Car Limi
F rei ght ~^_-_ Maxi munr—
F rej. ght, _;^_ Ave r age
"
30 40
Train Speed, mph
60
80
roc
-------
.005 -1 -5 1 2.5 5
0.01 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 2 5 10
Percent of Time the Rail Car Noise Level Exceeded
10 25 45 50 (Time in seconds)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 98 99 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.99
-------
Appendix R
ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY PROPOSED RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION STANDARDS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. COMMENTS DIRECTED TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS
OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS 2
Section 201.1 - Definitions 2
Section 201.10 - Applicability 2
a. Warning Devices 4
b. Fixed Facilities /Retarders 8
c. Special Purpose Equipment 13
d. Track and Right of Way 15
e. Refrigerator Cars/Auxiliary
Engines 16
Section 201.11 - Standards for Locomotive
Operation Under Stationary Conditions 20
a. Locomotive at Idle 20
b. Locomotive at any Throttle
Setting Except Idle 24
Section 201.12 - Standard for Locomotive
Operation Under Moving Conditions 26
Section 201.13 - Standard for Rail Car
Operations 27
Sections 201.11, .12, .13 - 270 Day
Standard 28
C. COMMENT ON ADDITIONAL ISSUES 29
1. Meeting the Standard with Newly
Manufactured Locomotives 29
R-l
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
2. Meeting the Standards with Existing
Locomotives (Retrofit) 29
a. Economic Considerations 29
(1) Economic Impact in General 29
(2) Economic Impact on Bankrupt/
Marginal Railroads 35
b. Technical Considerations 36
3. Health and Welfare 40
4. Legal Considerations 42
5. Measurement Methodology and 45
Compliance Regulations
6. Special Local Conditions 48
7. Property Line Standards 50
8. Background Document Data and
Information 51
9. Statements of Support 53
D. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS FROM THE SPECIAL
CONSULTATION MEETING ON THE PROPOSED
INTERSTATE RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
STANDARDS 54
INDEX OF WRITTEN DOCKET SUBMISSIONS i
INDEX OF SPECIAL CONSULTATION MEETING
PARTICIPANTS iii
R-2
-------
A. INTRODUCTION
On July 3, 1974, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Inter-
State Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations was published in the
Federal Register. In the same publication, notice was also given of
the availability of the Background Document and Environmental Expla-
nation for the Proposed Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission
Regulations. Public comment was solicited with respect to both the
proposed regulations and the data presented in the Background
Document, with the period extending from July 3, 1974, to August 17,
1974. On August 14, 1974, a special consultation meeting was held on
the proposed regulations.
The public comments received relative to the proposed regulation
and the Background Document as well as the transcript of the special
consultation meeting make up the total body of public comment received.
The contents of all docket submissions have been reviewed and
analyzed by the staff of the Environmental Protection Agency. These
analyses follow.
A synopsis of the issues raised in the transcript of the special
consultation meeting has been included as a separate section of this
document. All of the issues raised in that meeting have been addressed
in the analyses which precedes such synopsis.
All public comment associated with this regulation is maintained
at the EPA Headquarters, 401 M. Street, S.W., Washington, D. C.
i
20460, and are available for public inspection during normal working
hours (Monday through Friday, 8 am to 4:30 pm).
R-3
-------
B. COMMENTS ^ DIRECTED TO SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS
Section 201.1 - Definitions;
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Department of Transportation both indicated that syice the term
"retarder" is not used in the regulation its definition should be elimi-
nated from Section 201.1. In addition the DOT raised the same point con-
cerning the term "sound pressure level."
Both definitions have been removed from Section 201.1.
Section 201.10 - Applicability;
There were a considerable number of different questions and issues
received which dealt with the applicability of the regulation to var-
ious types of railroad facilities and equipment. The Association of
American Railroads raised questions of a largely legal nature dealing
with matters involving the interpretation of the Act and with the EPA's
duties and authority. The Agency has addressed these legal questions
in a later section of this analysis. Other questions dealt with matters
peculiar to the particular railroad facilities or equipment at issue, and
are discussed in detail below. However, a significant number of
comments, in particular those of the Association of American Rail-
roads, US Department of Transportation, Illinois Railroad Association,
and the Fruit Growers Express Company, also brought into issue the
general question of why the EPA decided, apart from considerations
of available technology and cost of compliance, not -to regulate all
railroad facilities and equipment, and chose rather to regulate only
certain equipment at this time.
R-4
-------
This decision by the EPA was based on its view that the uniform
Federal regulation of the noise produced by certain railroad facilities
and equipment is not necessary at this time since such noise sources
can best be controlled by measures which do not now require national
uniformity of treatment in order to facilitate interstate commerce as
specified in Section 2(a)(3) of the Act.
The EPA has studied the operations of the rail carriers engaged
in interstate commerce by rail and has seen that such operations are
imbedded into every corner of the nation at thousands of locations and
along hundreds of thousands of miles of right-of-way. The nature and
magnitude of the noises produced by the many types of facilities and
equipment utilized in these operations differ greatly and their impact
on the environment varies widely depending on whether they occur,
for example, in a desert or adjacent to a residential area. The Agency
concludes that the control of certain of these noise sources, such as
fixed facilities, or equipment used infrequently or primarily in one
location, is best handled by the State and local authorities, rather
than the Federal government. State and local authorities are believed
in this case to be better able than the Federal government to consider
local circumstances in applying such measures as the addition of noise
barriers or sound insulation to particular facilities, or the positioning
of noisy equipment within these facilities as far as possible from
noise-sensitive areas. Further, and more importantly, the EPA did not
find during its analysis, and has not received from rail carriers, any
information identifying situations where the lack of uniform State and
R-5
-------
local laws with respect to these facilities and equipment has imposed
any significant burden on interstate commerce.
. In view therefore of the absence of evidence calling for the
national regulation of all railroad facilities and equipment in order
to facilitate interstate commerce, the EPA believes that its limited
regulatory action as proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
to consider railroad operations, facilities, and equipment on an indi-
vidual basis in deciding the need for their uniform Federal regulation
is appropriate.
a. Horns, bells, whistles, and other acoustic warning devices.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation, the
South Carolina Department of Health and -Environmental Control, and
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, all indicated that
complaints from citizens about railroad warning device noise were not
only large in number but comprised the major source of all complaints
about railroad noise, and therefore contended that such warning devices
should be regulated.
The Agency in analyzing the problem of acoustic warning device
noise recognized a unique characteristic of such noise as opposed to
other railroad noises. That is, it is a form of noise that is purpose-
fully created and intended to be heard for safety reasons, instead of
being an unwanted by-product of some other activity. As such, the
EPA found that these warning devices and their use are regulated at
R-6
-------
both the Federal and State levels. Federal regulations ensure that
such devices on locomotives are suitably located and in good working
order, (Safety Appliance Act, 45 USCA; 49 CFR, 121, 234, 428, 429).
State regulations are oriented toward specifying the conditions of use
of these devices. A recent study of the 48 contiguous States (see
Appendix B of Background Document) shows that 43 of these States have
such regulations. In addition, studies considered by the EPA also
included in Appendix B of the Background Document show that such
warning devices do not appear to be unrelated to highway and pedestrian
safety, especially in emergency situations. The reduction or elimina-
tion of such warning devices through the authority of the Noise Control
Act does not therefore appear to be a reasonable consideration as
suggested by B. Leath, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, and Citizens Against Noise.
The EPA does recognize that a noise problem exists as to the use
and extent of railroad warning devices, and that regulatory action may
be appropriate for controlling same. However, the Agency believes
that the requisite regulation can best be considered and implemented
by State and local authorities who are better able to evaluate the par-
ticular local circumstances with respect to the nature and extent of
the noise problem and the requisite safety considerations involved. Any
comprehensive Federal regulation in this area could be overly diverse
and cumbersome. The EPA encourages in this regard the interaction
between local and State governments and the railroads directly con-
cerned in solving the particular local noise problems associated with
R-7
-------
the use of such warning devices. Such interaction has taken place,
examples of which are included in the Background Document, and has
apparently produced both safe and cost effective solutions to these
local noise problems. However, if local authorities, after having first
sought solutions with the railroads involved, have still not been able
to resolve their problems, they are encouraged to then direct their
concerns to the EPA for possible further Federal action.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Con-
trol and the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality expressed
the opinions that acoustic warning devices are not needed around rail-
road yards, and are overused by the railroads, respectively.
The EPA has determined that the use of such warning devices in
and around railroad yards is not entirely out of place due to the often
heavy intermingling of workers and mobile equipment with locomotives
and rail cars. Such use may of course be beyond the extent necessary
to ensure safety, not only in railroad yards but wherever else railroad
horns, bells, and whistles are used. The term "overused" however,
is relative to the particular circumstances surrounding such use:
whether, for example, a railroad yard or rail-highway intersection is
situated in a residential as opposed to an industrialized area. These
situations are instances where the EPA's recommendation for railroad
and community interaction is at this time the most appropriate means
of achieving effective warning device noise abatement.
R-8
-------
R. Leath stated that railroad acoustic warning signals are ineffec-
tive due to the often loud ambient noise levels that exist in motor vehicle
interiors due to radios and other noise sources.
Acoustical analysis available to the Agency indicates that the
effectiveness of acoustic warning signals as used on police and
emergency vehicles as well as urban buses and trucks is a function
of frequency or tonal characteristics as well as amplitude or loudness.
That is, recognition is achieved by a particular fixed or variable fre-
quency of a reasonable loudness that impinges itself upon whatever
ambient noise may exist. This view is in accord with the study refer-
enced above which indicates that railroad warning signals do not appear
to be unrelated to safety, especially in emergency situations.
R. Leath also indicated that roadway drop gates equipped with
flasher units provide visual warning that is adequate without acoustic
signals.
EPA encourages alternate solutions to the routine use of acoustic
warning devices at rail and road crossings. For example, the elim-
ination of public grade level railroad crossings would do away with
the source of the problem, the intersection of rail tracks and public
thoroughfares. Such a program on a national basis of elevating or
depressing either the railroad line or the public thoroughfare at each
crossing, solely for the purpose of the abatement of acoustic warning
signal noise, is not considered appropriate. However, it should be
seriously considered in future public thoroughfare or railroad line
construction programs for both safety and environmental noise reasons.
R-9
-------
Warning gates too, as suggested, would appear to be an effective
safety alternative to acoustic warning signals. Specifying their use on
a national basis, however, would be prohibitively expensive considering
that costs range from $45, 000 to $90, 000 per unit, and that with the
extensive use of grade level crossings in the United States, for example
Illinois having 15,000 railroad crossings without drop gates, the cost
would be $675 million or more in that State alone.
b. Repair and maintenance shops, terminals, marshaling yards,
humping yards, and specifically, railcar retarders.
The Association of American Railroads commented that the EPA
should prescribe noise standards for area-type sources such as yards
and terminals.
The facilities and equipment found within railroad yard and
terminal areas, with the exception of locomotives, rail cars, and some
mobile special purpose equipment, are permanent installations which
are normally subject to the environmental noise regulations of only one
jurisdiction.
The Agency has determined that such fixed facility railroad yard and
terminal noise is best controlled at this time at the local level, employ-
ing measures which do not in themselves affect the movement of trains
and therefore do not require national uniformity of treatment. Signif-
icantly, the Agency has received no indication that existing State or local
ordinances which regulate noise emissions from such fixed facilities,
have in fact created any substantial burden on interstate commerce.
R-10
-------
Local jurisdictions are familiar with the particular complexities of
their their community /railroad yard noise situation, and as such, are in
a position to exhibit greater sensitivity in prescribing practical and
cost effective solutions to the local noise problem. Indeed, although
the AAR has encouraged the establishment of Federal area noise stand-
ards for yards and terminals, it specifically pointed out in its remarks
that such facilities do vary in size, shape, and special characteristics,
and that the noises produced there are diverse. The EPA recognizes
that the communities which neighbor these yards and terminals are
equally diverse, varying in land zoning and population density and
distribution. As such, a Federal regulation which successfully produces
substantial population health and welfare benefit at one locality may
produce little or no such benefit at another locality. For example,
the regulation of a railroad yard facility which is enveloped by a resi-
dential community would not achieve similar population health and
welfare benefit when equally applied to a similar railroad yard facility
which exists within a large industrial park complex. This observed
differential is directly attributable to the different land zoning and
population density and distribution characteristics of the two commun-
ities.
Acknowledging both the single jurisdictional nature and the
diversity which characterize railroad yards and terminals and their
neighboring communities, and citing the virtual absence of evidence that
nonuniform State and local regulation of railroad yard and terminal
facilities in fact substantially burdens interstate commerce, the Agency
R-ll
-------
at this time does not propose to establish standards for the regulation
of railroad yard and terminal fixed facility noise.
The Department of Transportation commented that the EPA should
regulate retarder noise emissions. They indicated that active retarders
should be regulated by October 1976 since established barrier technol-
ogy makes it possible to meet that schedule. DOT further stated that
a plan to convert to retractable inert retarders should be implemented
by 1979.
The EPA recognizes that rail car retarding operations may produce
individual peak noise levels of up to 120 dB(A) at 100 feet, and may
be a problem noise source to the surrounding community. However,
as with other fixed facilities, retarders are subject to only one juris-
diction, and as such can best be regulated at the local level by means
which do not in themselves affect the movement of trains and therefore
do not require national uniformity of treatment.
The Agency's study of railroad yard noise (inclusive of retarder
noise) indicates that concern for noise from railroad yards is apparently
limited to certain locales, and is not a national concern. This is due
in large part to the location of a number of yards in non-urban areas
and the relatively few existing retarder systems, approximately 120
today. This local nature of the retarder noise problem further reduces
the desirability of a Federally preemptive regulation.
DOT's comment in support of a Federally preemptive retarder noise
regulation which would utilize barrier technology does not consider
the local characteristics of each community which is impacted by retar-
der noise. For example, in a situation where a retarder yard is
R-12
-------
bordered on one side by a residential area and on all other sides
by an unpopulated wooded area, a barrier could be beneficial to public
health and welfare on that side of the retarder which faces the residen-
tial area. Under such circumstances a community would receive insuf-
ficient health and welfare benefits to justify the costs incurred by
a Federally preemptive regulation which mandates the installation of
barrier walls on both sides of retarders. At the currently estimated
materials cost of $70 to $100 per linear foot for barriers, barrier
costs would run from $50 thousand to $100 thousand per railroad yard
and from $9.6 to $19.1 million for the entire railroad industry. Main-
tenance and replacement costs, yard down time, and track modification
costs have not been fully identified. Expenditures should be assured
of producing maximum benefits, and this may best be done through
local regulation. Available space for installation of barriers, and
safety hazards, which might accrue thereto, have not been identified,
and are peculiar to the particular characteristics of the individual
railroad yards, and as such may be best accounted for through local
regulation.
A Federal regulation for conversion of inert retarders to retract-
able inert retarders would be subject to considerations similar to those
discussed for the erection of barriers around active retarders, except
that probable yard down time and installation and materials costs would
be considerably greater for conversion to inert retractable retarders
than for the erection of barriers. The EPA estimates that conversion
to retractable inert retarders would cost $7.5 thousand for each re-
tarder, not including labor, yard down time, or maintenance costs.
R-13>
-------
Applying a gross estimate of 20 thousand such retarders nationally,
estimated national conversion costs to the retractable mode, exclusive
of labor, yard downtime, and operational costs, would be $150 million.
Although the EPA does not currently propose to regulate retarder
noise, it does recommend that local jurisdictions establish regulations
which require railroads to utilize barrier technology where needed,
and where both practical and feasible. Further consideration may be
given by the EPA to possibly providing future regulations to require
that new retarder installations be equipped with retractable inert re-
tarders, computer control systems, retarder beam lubrication
systems, or other available technical developments which result in
significant noise reduction from retarders as the need for such
regulations is demonstrated relative to the costs involved and the
availability of of technology.
DOT also commented that the EPA should promulgate a regulation
which protects railroad workmen as well as the community from retar-
der noise.
For reasons outlined above, the EPA does not presently propose to
regulate retarder noise from either the community health and welfare
or the occupational health and safety point of view. The latter consid-
eration is specifically under the purview of the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)and is properly addressed by that Agency.
Currently, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is proposing
a regulation which would limit noise levels within railroad workmen's
sleeping quarters. This proposal is in response to a petition from the
Congress of Railway Unions (CRU) that the FRA institute rulemaking
R-14
-------
procedures to prohibit railroads from having or providing employee
sleeping quarters less than one mile from its property or yards where
switching or humping operations are performed. The FRA's proposed
regulation does not regulate the distance of sleeping quarters from
the railroad yard; however, it does specify acceptable interior noise
levels for sleeping quarters.
c. Special purpose equipment.
The Association of American Railroads commented that the
EPA should promptly establish noise limits applicable to the noise
from special purpose equipment.
Examples of special purpose equipment which may be located
on or operated from rail cars include: ballast cribbing machines,
ballast regulators, conditioners and scarifiers, bolt machines, brush
cutters, compactors, concrete mixers, cranes and derricks, earth
boring machines, electric welding machines, grinders, grouters,
pile drivers, rail heaters, rail layers, sandblasters, snow plows,
spike drivers, sprayers and other numerous types of maintenance-
of-way equipment.
The Agency realizes that special purpose equipment such as
that used for maintenance-of-way activities is essentially construction
equipment, and as such may emit loud intermittent noise. Railroads
may avoid noise problems by keeping routine maintenance activities
to reasonable times, and local jurisdictions may easily regulate oper-
ation times for such equipment as long as exceptions are allowed for
emergency use. For example, a community may wish to regulate the
hours allowed for routine operation of spike driving equipment, but
R-15
-------
exception must be made for the operation of such equipment in the
aftermath of a derailment, so that interstate commerce would not
-be unduly impeded. -
The small numbers of such equipment* their infrequency of
use, and the relative ease with which viable local regulations may
be instituted, all tend to make a Federally preemptive regulation overly
expensive relative to the benefits received.
Comments received by the Agency did not indicate that any
cases currently exist where nonuniform local or State regulation of
special purpose equipment has unduly burdened those railroads so regu-
lated, and at this time the Agency does not believe that special purpose
equipment requires national uniformity of treatment. However, the
rail cars themselves on which such special purpose equipment is located
are included under the standards for rail car operations. The Agency
continues to solicit notice of specific cases where nonuniform local
or State regulation of special purpose equipment has created a burden
on interstate commerce. If in the future it appears that national uni-
formity of treatment of such equipment is appropriate, noise emis-
sion standards may be proposed.
R-16
-------
d. Track and Right of Way.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and the ADM Company raised questions
dealing with the absence of track and right-of-way standards in the
proposed regulation. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency stated that in view of the
fact that the EPA had preempted State and local authorities from re-
gulating track and right-of-way in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
it was in conflict with its mandate to issue noise emission standards
reflecting "best available technology" since the regulation itself did
not contain any track standard. The ADM Company was concerned
that since a track standard was not included in the regulation, quiet
railcars might be penalized for wheel/rail noise caused by faulty track.
The EPA fully recognizes the need for track and right-of-way
standards in any regulatory strategy that attempts to quiet the move-
ment of rail cars.
The standard promulgated for rail cars applies to the total noise
produced by the operation of trains on tracks. As such it is preemptive
with respect to both rail cars and track. It reflects the noise level
achievable by application of best maintenance standards to rail cars.
Further reductions in noise levels are achievable through various track
repairs and modifications. However, the EPA has not fully identified
the available technology or the applicable costs associated with such
practices. In the future, the EPA may propose standards which would
require their application.
R-17
-------
e. Rail cars equipped with auxiliary power equipment, and mass
transit systems.
The Department of Transportation and Fruit Growers Express Co.
recommended the inclusion of noise standards for mechanically
powered refrigerator cars in the regulation. In addition, the National
Railroad Passenger Corportation (AMTRAK) called for separate regu-
lations dealing with passenger related cars equipped with auxiliary
power equipment.
The initial decision' by the Agency was to regulate noise from all
sources produced by rail cars while in motion only, and to leave to
State and local authorities the regulation of whatever noise is produced
from rail cars while stationary. This decision was made because these
noises are a problem only when such cars are parked near noise
sensitive areas (such noises being indistinguishable from other rail--
road car noises while the cars are in motion), and because it was
felt that such localized problems could best be controlled by measures
such as the relocation of such cars to less noise-sensitive areas.
The Agency was and continues to be cognizant of the extent of
the problem that can be caused in specific instances by the continuous
operation of thediesel or gasoline engines which operate on such cars.
Noise levels as high as 75 dB(A) at 15 meters (50 feet) are possible
from refrigerator cars parked with their cooling systems running
in marshalling yards and humping yards. Noise from refrigeration
cars becomes a more appreciable problem due to the fact that operating
refrigerator cars are often parked coupled together in large numbers.
R-18
-------
A dditional data acquired by and supplied to the Agency has shown that
the problem exists not only with refrigerator cars but also with various
passenger-related cars such as dining cars, lounge cars, cafe-type
cars, and others equipped with self contained power units; and that
the abatement of such noise appears able to be and in certain instances
is now being accomplished through the use of existing muffler designs.
In this regard, and in response to the point raised by Fruit Growers
Express Co., the statements on p. 4-28 and 4-37 of the original Back-
ground Document have been corrected to reflect the use (although of
undetermined adequacy) of mufflers on the auxiliary engines used in
refrigerator cars.
The Agency therefore may consider the possible promulgation of
a regulation dealing with the noise produced by mechanically refriger-
ated freight cars and passenger cars equipped with auxiliary power
equipment so as to reduce the impact of such noise when these cars
are parked near noise sensitive areas.
It should be noted that in the regulation being promulgated herein,
the standard for rail car operations refers to the total noise gen-
erated, and that the setting of emission standards on any element of
that noise is preempted, whether the rail car is in motion or sta-
tionary. This Federal regulatory action does not, however, interfere
with the ability of State and local governments to enact or enforce
noise emission regulations on railroad yards that require
railroads to erect noise barriers. Nor does this regulation
IR-19
-------
interfere with the ability of State and local governments to enact or
enforce noise emission regulations which require the relocation of
parked rail cars that generate noise so long as such regulation is
reviewed and approved by EPA pursuant to Section 17(c)(2) of the Act.
Fruit Growers Express Co. asked for an extension of the period of
time prior to promulgation of the final regulation so that refrigerator
car noise emissions could be studied in relation to wheel/rail noise.
Studies and data considered by the EPA show that such noise can
range from 72 dB(A) (Thermo King Corporation, a major manufacturer
of refrigeration equipment, 1975) to 75 dB(A) (Wyle Laboratories, an
acoustical consulting firm, 1973), and that it is indistinguishable from
overall train noise while the train is moving. As such, and in the
absence of a showing that the existing data is questionable, no extension
has been granted.
The Department of Transportation expressed concern for the fact
that very few refrigerator cars are owned by the railroads, and that,
consequently, refrigerator car owners' ability to pay for mufflers
should be considered quite apart from the economic position of the
railroads.
As indicated above, this regulation does not require the abatement
of refrigerator car auxiliary equipment noise, and accordingly there
is no related cost of compliance incurred. Consideration as to the
costs to be incurred by the'actual owners of such rail cars as may be
affected by any future regulatory action would be fully and adequately
R-20
-------
addressed during the course of the regulatory process that would be
conducted relative to such regulation.
Citizens Against Noise suggested that the regulation be made appli-
cable to the operation of and equipment utilized by intraurban mass
transit systems.
The Agency has not intended and does not intend that intraurban
mass transit systems be covered by the regulation being promulgated
herein. It is the Agency's judgment that such systems are specifically
excluded from regulation under Section 17 of the "Noise Control Act
of 1972 by the definition of'carrier cited in the Act which excludes
"... street, suburban, and interurban electric railways unless oper-
ated as a part of a general railroad system of transportation." In
addition such systems operate principally within one jurisdiction or
in some cases throughout a small number of contiguous metropolitan
jurisdictions under the purview of a single transit authority, and as
such do not appear to require uniform Federal regulation in order
to facilitate interstate commerce. However, the exclusion of such
systems does not also exclude the operations and equipment associated
with commuter rail services provided by a number of interstate rail
carriers.
R-21
-------
Section 201.11 - Standards for Locomotive Operations Under
Stationary Conditions.
a. Locomotive at Idle
Both General Motors and the AAR commented on the proposed
idle standard. While the AAR comment was general and they stated
only that a muffler that meets the proposed full throttle standard is not
likely to meet the idle requirement too, General Motors' comment was
quite specific and was backed by data. Within the text of the General
Motors document entitled "Additional Comments of General Motors
Corporation With Respect to the Proposed Railroad Noise Emission
Standards," General Motors offers a graphical analysis of idle noise
level emissions as measured for SD40-2, GP39-2, and GP38-2 loco-
motives. The graphs compare A-weighted octave band sound levels
measured at three feet from the exhaust outlet and 100 feet from the
side of the locomotive during full power. Radiator cooling fans were
not operating during the time of the testing in order to eliminate their
influence. Quoting General Motors:
Inspection of these plots shows that a good
correlation for all three locomotives can be made be-
tween the full power exhaust noise inspection at three feet
and the overall locomotive noise inspection measured at
100 feet, when a 30 dB attenuation factor for hemispher-
ical sound spreading is used to correct for the increased
distance. For most points, the measured octave band
level at 100 feet, is less than that predicted using the
30 dB attenuation factor indicating excess attenuation not
accounted for. When the measured octave band level is
greater than that predicted, structurally radiated locomo-
tive noise is contributing to the overall locomotive noise.
In the General Motors document entitled "Comment of General
Motors Corporation with Respect to Proposed Railroad Noise Emission
Standards," General Motors states "that our tests have shown that
R-22
-------
a muffler capable of reducing number 8 throttle position, full power
locomotive noise by 5 dB (A) at 30 meters, reduces the idle locomotive
noise only 0.5 dB(A ) at 30 meters." This statement is not backed with
specific data as was the case in General Motors Additional Comments.
Based on the above. General Motors summarized that a standard
of 67 dB(A)at 30meters during idle is not considered feasible by muf-
fler technology alone, that engine exhaust is not the dominant source
mechanism when the locomotive is in idle, and that structurally radiated
sounds are dominant:
It is GM's opinion that extensive car body treatment
such as the addition of sound absorbing and damping
materials, the addition of access door seals, the
replacement of access doors and panels with acoustical
shielding, or any combination of these methods, would
be necessary in an attempt to achieve a standard
67 dB(A) at 30 meters under idle conditions. Such car
body treatment violates the basic design concept of the
narrow multi-door hood-type locomotive which number
approximately 90% of the locomotives in use, in that
it would greatly restrict the ease of maintenance and
compliance.
GM estimated that car body modification alone would cost as much
or more than a muffler retrofit program.
The General Motors data indicates that certain idling locomotives
emit noise levels dominated by structural radiation which may be as
high as 69 dB(A) at 100 feet. EPA data further indicates that some
locomotives may emit idle noise levels in excess of 69 dB(A) which are
also dominated by structurally radiated noise. Locomotives with such
high levels of structurally radiated noise cannot be brought into com-
pliance with the proposed level of 67 dB(A) through, for example, muf-
fler application alone. Accordingly, the Agency has amended the loco-
R-23
-------
motive idle noise standard, increasing the allowable noise emission
level from the proposed 67 dB(A) to 70 dB(A) at 100 feet.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (A.MTRAK)
commented that diesel electric locomotives equipped with auxiliary
power generators or twin traction engines, and gas turbine locomotives,
may not be able to meet the idle standard, and that special standards
should be promulgated for such equipment.
In proposing this regulation the Agency intended to provide Federal
preemption for all locomotive noise sources excepting acoustical
warning devices, thus providing national uniformity of treatment for
these mobile noise sources. Accordingly, State and local regulation
of noise emissions from such locomotives equipped with auxiliary gen-
erators used to power electrical units on passenger cars, including
the noise from such auxiliary generators per se, should be Federally
preempted.
Thus the Agency has determined that Federally preemptive regula-
tion of noise from auxiliary power units is appropriate. However, the
noise from such sources was not specifically addressed by the Agency
during rule making, and the standard as proposed considered only idle
setting noise emissions from the primary propulsion engines of the
stationary locomotives.
Because passenger locomotives do spend considerable time in a
stationary disposition with auxiliary power units operating at the same
time that the primary diesel engines are idling, the Agency forsees
circumstances where the auxiliary unit noise may dominate other noise
emissions from the idling locomotive, and thus be appropriate for
regulatory action. After further consideration of this matter the Agency
R-24
-------
may address noise standards for such auxiliary units in a separate rule
making. However, because the intent of the Act was to provide national
uniformity of treatment where non-uniform State and local ordinance
could likely impose a burden on interstate commerce, and because the
locomotive as a whole is subect to this regulation, the Agency believes
that its regulatory action relative to locomotive noise emissions is
also preemptive with respect to State and local ordinances relative to
noise emissions from the auxiliary power units which are an integral
part of many such locomotives.
The Agency has received no data which would indicate that twin-
engined diesel-electric locomotives are in fact incapable of compliance
with the idle standard. Since the Agency has no data which would
demonstrate that twin diesel engines are inherently louder than larger
single diesel engines, and since twin engined locomotives utilize the
same basic diesel-electric technology as the more common single
engined locomotives, separate standards for twin-engined
diesel-electric locomotives are not included in this regulation.
The standards as promulgated are therefore applicable to these loco-
motives.
While the Agency has sufficient data to confidently assess the ability
of gas turbine-powered locomotives to meet the moving condition
standard, the Agency has not been able to acquire sufficient data on
the idle setting or stationary runup noise levels of gas turbine
locomotives. Due to the virtual unavailability of such stationary noise
R-25
-------
data, the regulation as proposed has been revised, and the idle setting
and stationary runup noise standards are no longer applicable to gas
turbine locomotives. However, this regulation is preemptive with
respect to State and local regulation of all turbine locomotive noise,
excepting that from acoustical warning devices, including regulation
when such locomotives are stationary at idle. After the Agency has
compiled a sufficient database, idle settings and stationary runup noise
standards for gas turbine locomotives may be established as a revision
to these regulations.
b. Locomotive at any Throttle Setting Except Idle.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) questioned the
acoustical acceptability of the typical load- cell test sites and the valid-
ity of self loading due to the unaccounted for influence of noise emis-
sions from the dynamic brake grid fans. Also cited was the possible
obstruction of routine railroad operations due to local enforcement
of the stationary standards.
DOT indicated that areas near railroad load cells are not far enough
from reflective surfaces to be effective test sites. They also indicated
that if load cells are to be used for enforcement, the EPA should
prescribe correction factors to account for the acoustical variability
of actual load cell test sites.
In answering the above claim that load cells are unsuitable for
locomotive noise measurement because they are situated too close to
reflective areas, the EPA cites the fact that a number of load cells
are portable and are readily available on a rental basis. These portable
R-26
-------
cells may be transported to an acoustically acceptable site for
locomotive noise testing. At such sites, accurate and meaningful noise
measurements may be obtained without the use of site correction
factors.
Additional DOT response indicated that the self loading test is not
valid because the cooling fans on the dynamic brake grids operate
during self-loading, while in actual operations, grid fans are never
operated. They state that the inherently high level of noise attributable
to cooling fan operation (both engine and dynamic brake grid fans)
during self load would interfere with the accurate and meaningful meas-
urement of exhaust noise.
The EPA has considered the above comment and believes that objec-
tions to the self loading test are valid. Therefore, considering the
difficulties involved in obtaining accurate measurements due to the
interference of dynamic brake grid fan noise, and citing the availability
of portable rented load cells, the Agency has decided to delete the
self loading test as a recommended stationary testing procedure, while
simultaneously endorsing the use of portable load cells.
DOT indicated concern that enforcement of stationary standards
could result in significant obstruction of routine railroad operation
and hence interfere with the flow of interstate commerce. That is, any
enforcement official could order any one or any number of locomotives
to be moved to a load cell or self load area for testing, regardless
of the maintenance work schedule at the load cell or the need for the
subject locomotives to be engaged in interstate commerce.
R-27
-------
Such potential difficulties have been considered by EPA, and the
Agency believes that their effects may be minimized through proper
structuring of the DOT compliance regulations which may specify
responsible enforcement procedures.
Section 201.12 - Standard for Locomotive Operation Under Moving
Conditions;
The U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) favors a moving
locomotive standard as a substitute for a stationary standard, but
stated that EPA's definition of wayside surface conditions should be
improved.
The EPA strongly believes that a stationary as well as a moving
locomotive standard is necessary in order to account for the varying
nature of locomotive noise. Utilization of both stationary and moving
standards also facilitates adequate and accurate enforcement. The
additional measurement criteria which are being incorporated by the
EPA as part of the final regulation will specify wayside surface con-
ditions in greater detail.
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) indicated
that the moving locomotive standard should be speed related as is
the case with the rail car standard. They further stated that gear
noise, traction motor noise, and noise from locomotive appurtenances
are speed related.
EPA data indicates that while diesel-electric locomotive noise does
not appear to be speed related, electric freight, electric high speed
R-28
-------
passenger, and turbine high speed passenger noise levels do exhibit
some speed-related correlations. However, the high speed noise
emission levels exhibited by these locomotives appear to fall within
the EPA's 90 dB(A) standard, and should pose no special compliance
problem.
Section 201.13 - Standard for Rail Car Operations;
DOT indicated that it is appropriate to limit any car regulation to
at least two degree or wider turns as with the locomotive standard.
The EPA concurs with that statement and has made the appropriate
changes in the Rail Car Standard.
A private car owner, the ADM Company, was concerned that the
EPA Rail Car Noise Standards would require greater maintenance than
that prescribed by the FRA (1974) Railroad Freight Car Safety
Standards already in effect.
The EPA Rail Car Noise Emission Standards are based on those
noise levels achievable through best practice maintenance. As such,
the data used to determine the noise level standards was obtained from
noise measurements of typical rail cars which were subject to main-
tenance requirements no more restrictive than those currently pre-
scribed by the FRA Railroad Freight Car Safety Standards.
Since the data which were used to determine the Rail Car Noise
Emission Standards were based on current maintenance requirements,
compliance with the noise regulations is not anticipated to cause any
additional maintenance burden.
R-29
-------
Shell Oil Company, a private car owner, stated that the Federal
standards on rail car noise should not apply to privately owned cars
because private owners do not have the ability to service cars engaged
in interstate commerce.
The Agency replies that while ultimate responsibility and liability
for rail car maintenance lies with rail car owners, immediate respon-
sibility and liability is assumed by the rail carrier who is moving the
car in interstate commerce, and who does possess the ability to service
rail cars.
Section 201.11, 201.12, 201.13 - 365 Day Standard;
The U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) stated that the 365
day standards provide a disincentive to rebuild old locomotives into
compliance or to specify newlocomotivesbe delivered with the mufflers
needed to achieve compliance.
Since the Agency has elected to delete the retrofit requirement
due to disparities in current cost and technological data, only the sec-
ond part of the above comment requires consideration. The Agency
intends the 365 day standard to be a "best maintenance practice" stan-
dard which precludes further deterioration of locomotive noise levels,
while allowing adequate time for application of the available technology
prior to the effective date of the more restrictive newly manufactured
locomotive standards.
R-30
-------
C. COMMENT ON ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Meeting the Standards with Newly Manufactured Locomotives
The Association of American Railroads and General Motors
Corporation both indicated their support of newly manufactured locp-
motive regulations, and Donaldson Company, Incorporated, stated that
the technical and production capability does exist for new locomotive
muffler applications. Having received no appreciable comment in oppo-
sition to the regulation of newly manufactured locomotives, the Agency
has promulgated best technology noise emission standards applicable
to locomotives whose manufacture is completed four years from the
date of promulgation of the regulation.
2. Meeting the Standard with Existing Locomotives (Retrofit)
a. Economic Considerations
(1) Impact in General
Economic Comments of the Association of American Railroads
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) commented that the
EPA vastly underestimated retrofit/muffler introduction costs, with
costs actually running between $6,390 and $12,890 per locomotive.
(a) The AAR indicated that the EPA did not properly
account for:
(1) Increased annual fuel consumption of 40, 000, 000
gallons, or 1% of present consumption, at an additional cost of
$11, 600,000 per annum.
(2) Increased maintenance expenses.
R-31
-------
(3) Capital cost of new facilities for retrofit.
(4) Cost of repair to internal parts of locomotives
damaged by a poorly working muffler (the direct result of increased
backpressure).
(5) Replacement cost of mufflers.
(6) A $14.18/hour labor charge, instead of the EPA
figure of $5. 80/hour.
(b) EPA underestimated the number of locomotives involved
in the retrofit (by 13% error).
(c) EPA underestimated the value of a "locomotive day."
(d) EPA did not take into account the "bottleneck" effect of
stoppage at any point in the total operation of the railroad system due
to locomotive downtime.
(e) EPA's cost ignores the very important matter of the
probable forced retirement of some 1, 000 older Alco and Fairbanks
Morse locomotives due to retrofit.
(1) The railroads and locomotive manufacturers are cur-
rently working at capacity. Any forced retirements would accentuate
the locomotive shortage.
(2) Replacement costs would run from $250, 000, 000 to
$400, 000, 000.
(f) The EPA rationale for using net revenue (in estimation
of the financial burden of retrofit in the Background Document) is not
explained. Net revenue is irrelevant there; ordinary net income (ONI)
should have been used. If O. N. I. had been used, ratios would have
been five times as great as those shown in the Background Document.
R-32
-------
EPA Responses to Specific AAR Comments
(a)(l) The EPA acknowledges that muffling of locomotives could con-
ceivably cause increased fuel consumption of up to 1% annually, as
estimated by the AAR. This percentage is based on an AAR estimate
where the mufflers are assumed to create additional backpressure
which equals the maximum allowable backpressure specified by loco-
motive manufacturers' warranties - 5 in. H2O for EMD turbocharged
locomotives and 21 in. H20 for EMD Rootes blown locomotives. Since
increasing backpressure generally creates a proportionate fuel
increase, such worst case backpressure assumptions may be similarly
expected to project an estimate of worst case increased fuel
consumption.
The Agency believes that the 1% figure is considerably high, since
for many locomotives, mufflers may be designed to produce a back-
pressure which is substantially below the locomotive manufacturers'
warranty specifications; hence, fuel consumption increases for those
locomotives should be considerably less than the AAR's projected 1%
figure.
(a)(2) A concern over increased maintenance expense also
presupposes a considerable backpressure increase due to muffler
introduction, with increased backpressure causing additional
maintenance requirements for internal locomotive parts.
A recent report on computerized muffler design, prepared by
B. H Baranek and Newman for the EPA, as well as several instances
where test mufflers have been fitted to locomotives, give indication
that sophisticated muffler design may restrict backpressure increases
R-33
-------
to substantially less than manufacturers' warranty specifications upon
application to most existing locomotives. This would result in
significantly less wear of internal locomotive parts. However, further
testing of physical prototype muffler applications would be necessary
for a more definitive resolution to this problem.
Maintenance requirement increases are also related to muffler
failure rates. Mufflers could be made out of anti-corrosive, heat-
resistant alloys for a long service life. Also, an important considera-
tion is the fact that mufflers would be within the carbodies of the loco-
motives and would not be exposed to the elements, thus extending their
expected useful life. Large industrial mufflers have been designed for
a useful life of over 20 years and it is expected that locomotive mufflers
may be designed for a similarly long life span.
(a)(3) Studies completed by the EPA indicate that the railroad
industry currently has approximately 9 percent excess shop capacity.
Further information concerning this subject may be found in the
Background Document.
(a)(4) Adequate testing of locomotive muffler applications prior to
a widespread retrofit program would preclude widespread defective
muffler performance, and accordingly, damage of internal locomotive
parts due to a poorly working muffler would be a very infrequent
occurrence.
(a)(5) As previously mentioned in discussion (a)(2), concerning in-
creased maintenance expense, locomotive mufflers may be designed
R-34
-------
for a long useful service life and they are protected from the elements
by enclosure within the locomotive carbody. Accordingly, they should
require minimal and infrequent replacement.
(a)(6) The Agency has conducted further study of the labor rate,
and has adjusted its estimated figure from $5. 80 to $7.92 per hour.
Further information concerning this subject may be found in the Back-
ground Document.
(b) The EPA acknowledges this incorrect estimate and has in-
cluded a 13. 7% increment in its current retrofit cost analysis.
(c) The Agency has reviewed its estimate of the value of a
"locomotive day" and has arrived at a revised estimated value of $560,
as opposed to the EPA's original estimate of $1257. Further informa-
tion concerning this subject may be found in the Background Document.
(d) The Agency believes that enforcement regulations will be
promulgated which will be sensitive to locomotive scheduling and there-
fore will avoid any major cumulative disruption of rail services.
(e) EPA data indicates that the some 1, 000 older Alco and Fair-
banks Morse locomotives in question are currently being retired at a
rapid rate, indicating that virtually the entire population of such loco-
motives would be retired prior to the proposed 4-year effective date of
the retrofit requirement. However, this is no longer a relevant con-
cern due to the fact that retrofit has been deleted from the regulation
as promulgated.
(f) The EPA elected to use net revenue as opposed to ordinary
net income in the Background Document's estimate of the financial bur-
den of retrofit because the Agency believes that net revenue is a better
measure of the firm's ability to meet short run operating expenses
of the type incurred in a locomotive retrofit program.
R-35
-------
Other Economic Comment
The DOT estimated $153 million for retrofit as opposed to original
EPA estimates of $80 million to $100 million dollars, and Donaldson
Company, Incorporated, indicated that muffler and accompanying
hardware costs will be 2 or 3 times higher than estimated in the
Background Document, with costs depending heavily on the amount
of auxiliary hardware required to overcome space and backpressure
limitations.
Retrofit largely involves the phased addition of mufflers to the
existing locomotive fleet. Several docket entries contained economic
and technological data which conflict significantly with
the EPA data which appears in the Background Document. The prin-
cipal areas of conflict involve disparities in determination of the "best
available technology" as it exists today and the resultant costs of its
application. There exists a further complicating factor in that the
available space configurations existant within many locomotives have
been altered over the years due to the addition and modification of
various locomotive components such as dynamic braking systems and
spark arresters. As a result of this practice there exist today
numerous and diverse locomotive configurations, each possessing its
own specific peculiarities' which must be accounted for in a retrofit
program. The implications of this diversity of locomotive configura-
tions and the accompanying disagreement concerning available
technology and the cost of its application (i.e., labor rates, capital
costs of new facilities, etc.) have given rise to cost of compliance
R-36
-------
figures which range from the EPA's original estimates of
$80 to $100 million to industry estimates approximating
$400 to $800 million. Although the generation of additional information
concerning the availability of technology may allow the Agency to
reconcile these widely varying retrofit cost estimates, the collection
of such data would be a costly and time consuming process which may
produce a retrofit cost estimate which remains substantially high
relative to the public health and welfare benefits which would result,
especially in view of the fact that railroad noise has not been identified
as one of the major sources of noise in the environment. For these
reasons the Agency has decided to remove the retrofit require-
ment from the regulation being promulgated herein. Acknowl-
edging the uncertainties which currently accompany the retrofit pro-
vision, the Agency may reconsider the retrofit issue and may promul-
gate a retrofit requirement should further information indicate that the
technology is available and that retrofit compliance costs are
reasonable, relative to the health and welfare benefits to be accrued.
(2) Economic Impact on Bankrupt/Marginal Railroads:
The Association of American Railroads, Mr. R. Harnden, and
Mr. K. K. King, expressed concern that the regulations as proposed
may have substantial adverse economic impact upon the bankrupt and
marginal railroads.
The Agency has endeavored to anticipate and account for all costs
which the bankrupt railroads specifically, and all railroads generally.
may incur as the result of this regulatory action. Best and worst
R-37
-------
case estimates for the sum of equivalent annual manufacturing costs
and equivalent annual fuel costs over 25 years, vary from $4. 59 million
to $4. 76 million for the entire railroad industry. The fractional impact
of these costs on the marginal and bankrupt railroads is expected to
be approximately 28 percent of the total cost to the entire railroad
industry, with such costs not seen as being significant in
comparision to other costs regularly incurred by such railroads.
(b) Technical Considerations
The Association of American Railroads (AAR), the Illinois Rail-
road Association (IRA), and Donaldson Company, Incorporated, indi-
cated concern that mufflers may cause excessive backpressure when
applied to locomotives, especially when coupled with spark arresters.
The AAR, and the Salt River Project, of Phoenix, Arizona, indicated
that this backpressure increase will cause an increase in fuel consump-
tion, with the AAR also warning of increased chemical and particulate
air emissions.
Mufflers can be designed which are well within the manufacturer's
warranty backpressure specifications, for both Rootes blown and turbo-
charged locomotives, for use both with or without spark arresters.
Mufflers which are within these specifications should cause only
insignificant increases in atmospheric pollutant emissions and a
minimal increase in fuel consumption.
The Forestry Department of the State of Oregon urged the EPA to
carefully consider the production and control of carbon particles in
the locomotive exhaust, and the Association of American Railroads
R-38
-------
(AAR) indicated that carbon collection in mufflers presents a potential
fire hazard.
The EPA has given careful consideration to the production and
control of carbon particles and sees no indication that properly designed
locomotive mufflers will interfere with effective spark arresting.
Harco Manufacturing Company, a member of the muffler manufac-
turing industry, reinforced this posture in their docket response,
expressing their professional opinion that effective mufflers can be
designed to integrate with spark arresters, while keeping within avail-
able space limitations.
Presently there is no substantial indication that carbon collection
in locomotive mufflers would present a potential fire hazard. Within
spark arresters which are currently found on today's locomotives,
carbon particles are gathered from the exhaust gases prior to the pas-
sage of those gases through the outlet section of the spark arrester for
discharge through the exhaust pipes. While it could be postulated that
hot carbon might conceivably collect within mufflers which are in tan-
dem with or are integrated into spark arresters, it could also be pos-
tulated that such carbon collection might just as readily occur at the
outlets of spark arresters or within exhaust pipes which are presently
found on locomotives. However, no such fire hazard due to carbon
collection has been evidenced at spark arrester outlets or in exhaust
pipes, and the Agency sees no indication that the installation of mufflers
will substantially increase the potential for such a fire hazard.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) indicated concern
that increased railroad rates to cover compliance costs may cause
R-39
-------
diversion of traffic to more fuel intensive modes which also emit more
atmospheric pollutants.
Original Agency analysis of this issue indicated that retrofit costs
would, in themselves alone, be insufficient to cause a major increase
in railroad freight rates. This EPA estimation was largely attributable
to the relatively low magnitude of retrofit costs in comparison to total
railroad costs and operating expenses. A further contributing factor
is the fact that a large and increasing proportion of railroad tonnage
involves the transport of bulk commodities and raw materials such as
grain and coal for which there is generally little cross-elasticity
between the major land transport modes. Further information on
this subject may be found in the Background Document.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) indicated that the
application of mufflers will result in decreased reliability of the loco-
motives both with respect to failure of the mufflers themselves and to
other components of the locomotives.
Mufflers could be made out of anti-corrosive, heat-resistant al-
loys for a long service life. Also an important consideration is the
fact that the muffler would be within the carbody of the locomotive and
would not be-exposed to the elements, thus extending its expected use-
ful life. Large industrial mufflers have been designed for a useful
life of over 20 years and it is expected that locomotive mufflers may
be designed for a similarly long.life span. Also, the design and util-
ization of mufflers which are within manufacturers' backpressure spec-
fications, should preclude major adverse effects to other internal loco-
motive components.
R-40
-------
Donaldson Company, Incorporated, indicated that they see little
problem with the retrofit of switcher locomotives, but that a visibility
restriction, however, may hinder direct application of the muffler
to the switcher's hood.
Donaldson further indicated that the retrofit of road locomotives
will be more difficult, with the retrofit of turbocharged locomotives the
most difficult of all. They attributed this difficulty to the lower back-
pressure and greater space restrictions of turbocharged engines, ex-
plaining that these space restrictions are further complicated by the
fact that turbocharged locomotives require large size mufflers due to
their large air flow. Donaldson stated that the necessary technology
is available to retrofit turbocharged locomotives; however, consider-
able design ingenuity will be required to ensure its successful appli-
cation.
Donaldson Company indicated its agreement that mufflers can pro-
vide between 8-10 dB(A) attenuation (locomotive exhaust noise at 101
ft., full throttle), but beyond that noise reduction level, other nois<
sources become dominant.
The Association of American Railroads (AAR) indicated tha
exhaust muffler manufacturers would have difficulty in designing muf
flers for particular engines, unless they knew all the parameters o
the engines involved. Donaldson Company reinforced this opinion b;
stating that they do not have the capability to develop muf fling/silencin
systems independently of the railroads or locomotive manufacturers
Since the regulation is now applicable to only newly manufacture
locomotives, the Agency foresees no problem with the coordinatio
of both locomotive engine and muffler design in order to achieve ne
locomotive compliance.
R-41
-------
3. Health and Welfare.
E. Schmidt, R. Harnden, K.K. King, and the City of Bloomfield,
New Jersey, indicated that the EPA did not provide adequate informa-
tion as to the number of people impacted by railroad noise nor the
number to be benefited by the regulation. The Association of American
Railroads called for information as to whether such people were ad-
versely affected from a health and welfare standpoint initially.
The Agency included in the Background Document studies and data
which indicated that the number of people exposed to various noise
levels by railroad traffic are significant. Such numbers appear to be
approximately 2.29 million people at an Ldn value of 55 dB(A).
Exposure to such noise levels for extended periods of time has been
determined to have an adverse effect on the health and welfare of
those exposed, as indicated in an EPA report of March 1974 entitled
"Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety." In ad-
dition the EPA is establishing this regulation as part of a regulatory
strategy that, according to Agency analysis, could eventually relieve
approximately 520,000 people from railroad noise levels in excess
of 55 dB(A), Ldn.
E. Schmidt, R. Harnden, K.K. King, and the Salt River Project,
contended that the health and welfare of people is not affected
by railroad equipment which operates in sparsely populated or rural
areas and that, therefore, the regulation of such equipment is not
called for.
R-42
-------
The Agency has determined that there is substantial mo-
bility of the use of railroad equipment not only within particular
railroad operating regions but across the nation as a whole, and that
such mobility is an important facet of the manner in which railroad
companies operate. This mobility is evidenced by the fact that rail
cars and locomotives are transferred from one area to another in order
to satisfy the fluctuations in required hauling capacity which take place,
and by the practice whereby old line locomotives are retired by trans-
ferring them to railroad yards to act as switchers. It has been found that
such mobility is increasing as evidenced by Railbox, a plan utilized
by a growing number of railroads whereby rail cars are pooled so that
their use may be shared anywhere within the operating regions of the
participating railroads.
The Agency has determined, therefore, that the mobility of rail cars
and locomotives requires that the standards be applied uniformly to
all such pieces of equipment.
R-43
-------
4. Legal Considerations.
The Association of American Railroads raised a number of legal
questions in its comments to the proposed regulation. These questions
dealt primarily with the scope of the Agency's duties and authority
under the Noise Control Act of 1972, and Section 17 in particular, as
they apply to the Agency's decision not to regulate all railroad facilities
and equipment at this time, and with the Agency's interpretation of the
preemptive effect of the regulation.
The AAR indicated that the EPA has improperly exercised
its authority to regulate noise from the operation of railroad facilities
and equipment in that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, all rail-
road noise sources must be regulated according to the Noise Control
Act of 1972.
The Agency, after an analysis which considered the language of the
statute as well as its legislative history, feels that it does have the
authority to decide and indeed should decide what priority should be
given to the regulation of various sources of railroad noise, all of
which differ in their impact upon the society and the need for their
uniform regulation. The EPA does not take the position that there
are any sources of railroad noise that it will not regulate. The Agency
may consider the possible regulation of other sources of railroad noise
under Sections 6, 8, and 17 of the Act, and may regulate such
additional sources as the need for and feasibility of such regulation
becomes established.
R-44
-------
The AAR also questioned whether the Agency has the
authority to offer an opinion as to the preemptive effect of its regula-
tions, and in particular, felt that, contrary to the Agency's stated
position, the setting of Federal emission standards for locomotives
and rail cars preempts every effort to control noise from that same
equipment by local and State authorities, such as the required erection
of noise barriers, or the regulation of overall rail road yard noise.
The EPA believes that the Noise Control Act of 1972 is clear in its
contemplation that Federal and State governments work together in the
control of noise. However, the Act also provides, in some cases,
that the Federal authority be preemptive. The Agency therefore feels
that it is proper for it to explain the extent of its regulations and to
indicate the point beyond which the States and local governments may
act; and that it is not prohibited from assisting the State and local
governments by indicating ways in which the Agency believes they may
augment its regulatory efforts. In addition the EPA's analysis indicates
that, based on legal precedents, subsections 17(1) and (2) provide only
for the preemption of State and local regulations which set standards
on the noise emissions of Federally regulated equipment or facilities,
or which have that effect by requiring the modification of such
equipment or facilities, or the alteration of their use.
The Illinois Railroad Association indicated that State and local
governments do not have the inclination or ability to determine the
technical feasibility and cost of compliance of noise regulations and,
therefore, the EPA is not acting in accordance with the instructions
of Congress by encouraging such local initiative.
R-45
-------
The Agency believes as stated above that the Congress did intend
that the Federal and State authorities cooperate in the control of noise.
Certain States, in particular California, and Illinois, have well
established environmental agencies and have enacted and are enforcing
comprehensive noise regulations. These States and others are clearly
not devoid of technical and economic expertise. It appears to the
Agency, therefore, that there is no fundamental reason why such States
should not be permitted and encouraged to consider the technology
available within relevant economic restraints to solve those noise prob-
lems peculiar to them that are not preempted by Federal regulatory
action.
R-46
-------
5. Measurement Methodology and Compliance Regulations.
The National Rail Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) and the DOT
recommended that the EPA specify the following sound measurement
parameters in the regulation: wind velocity, humidity, ambient noise,
test site characteristics, test equipment orientation, and test operator
location. In addition the DOT and the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation included suggestions for types of test
equipment that should be utilized, and the New York D.E.C. also
requested the specification of error tolerances within the measurement
procedures.
The proposed regulation did not include a detailed measurement
methodology since it was contemplated that such would be included as
part of the compliance regulation to be promulgated by the DOT. Such
measurement methodology, dealing with the enforcement aspects of
railroad noise measurement, will still be developed by the Depart-
ment of Transportation. The Agency, however, as a result of its own
further analysis and after consideration of the questions and suggestions
received during the public review process, has decided to incorporate
additional measurement criteria into the standards as an added subpart
of the final regulation being promulgated. Such measurement criteria
contain specifications for ambient noise, wind noise, test site condi-
tions, test equipment orientation, and other parameters necessary for
the consistent and accurate measurement of the sound levels specified
in the regulation.
This decision was made due to the complexity of the problem of
accurately and fairly performing noise measurements of railroad equip-
ment, and because the Agency felt it necessary to ensure that the
R-47
-------
standards within the regulation be fully and definitively specified so
that there be no question as to the standards promulgated. The proper
and complete definition of such standards is particularly critical with
respect to railroad noise because there is no generally accepted meas-
urement scheme in use nationally or throughout the affected industry
unlike the situation in other industries subject to Federal noise
regulation.
G. W. Kamperman indicated that the C scale would be more
appropriate for this regulation than the A scale.
It has been argued that the A-weighted sound level discriminates
against low frequencies and, thus, should be replaced by the
C-weighted sound level. Efpwever, the ear also discriminates against
\
low frequencies so that at low frequencies the sound pressure level
must be comparatively high before it can even be heard. Since the
correlations between A-weighted sound level and human response are
consistently better than that obtained with the C-weighted sound level,
\
the EPA believes that the measurement procedures using the A scale
on which these regulations are based are appropriate, and therefore,
\
no change has been made.
\
The Cook County, Illinois Department of Environmental Control
\
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
expressed concern over the 100 foot measuring distance and indicated
that the specificiation of a 100 foot measuring distance in the standards
is too far because such would require that too large an area be cleared
for the necessary measurement site.
R-48
-------
The Agency believes from the analyses used to develop the regula-
tion and from its study associated with the development of measure-
ment criteria that the 100 foot measuring distance does not appear
to create significant problems with finding suitable sites for the mea-
surement of the sound levels associated with any of the standards, and
has therefore not changed such distance.
The DOT requested more than 270 days to develop compliance
regulations due to the complexity of the nature of railroad noise control
and because existing experience and expertise in the field are so
limited.
The Agency is aware of the problems associated with the regulation
of railroad noise and is concerned that adequate time be provided
so that comprehensive and effective compliance regulations may be de-
veloped. While it has taken upon itself the development of detailed
measurement criteria which are being incorporated as part of the final
regulation, the Agency recognizes the need of the DOT for adequate
time to develop the compliance regulation. Therefore, in direct re-
sponse to the request of the DOT, the effective date of the Best Main-
tenance Practice Standards has been changed from 270 days to 365
days from the date of promulgation.
The Agency realizes that unforeseen difficulties may occur
and it will therefore attempt to work closely with the DOT in the devel-
opment of the compliance regulations so that appropriate measures
may be taken should such difficulties arise.
R-49
-------
6. Special Local Conditions
The City of DesPlaines, Illinois; the City of Bloomfield, New
Jersey; and the City of Chicago Department of Environmental Con-
trol, all requested that local railroad noise regulations not be pro-
hibited by the EPA's regulatory action. In addition. Citizens Against
Noise, the City of Bloomfield, New Jersey, and the City of Chicago
Department of Environmental Control indicated that separate special-
ized noise regulations such as those that would control railroad noise
emissions in highly populated areas, especially at night, should be in-
cluded in the Federal regulatory strategy or allowed on the local level.
The Agency recognizes and agrees with the language in the Noise
Control Act of 1972 which envisions a cooperative effort between local,
State and Federal governments in the control of noise. All of the types
of regulatory action mentioned by the commenters will not necessarily
be prohibited by this Federal regulatory action. The Agency has
explained the nature of the preemptive effect of its regulations in the
Preamble to the regulation and feels that such explanation should serve
as a guide to the future status of such State and local regulatory
efforts. As interpreted there by the Agency, State and local govern-
ments may exercise regulatory authority as provided in section 17 (c)(2)
as well as for equipment and facilities not covered by Federal regula-
tion, and are encouraged to do so, so long as such regulation is within
relevant technical and economic constraints and does not impose a
significant burden on interstate commerce.
The City of DesPlaines, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
J. Palmer, and the City of Chicago Department of Environmental
Control had comments which dealt specifically with the interpretation
R-50
-------
of the provision in the Act for special local determinations.
The Agency believes that Section 17(c)(2) is intended to provide
certain limited relief from a uniform national standard due to "special"
local conditions. However, Section 17(a) calls for such uniform national
standards and these could be significantly diluted through an overly
broad interpretation of what constitutes special local conditions. The
Administrator, under Section 17(c)(2) of the Act, will make specific
case by case determinations which, in his judgment, balance the need
for national uniformity against the need for exceptions to' the national
regulations in particular situations.
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
requested that the standards be reviewed periodically and strengthened
as technological advances are made.
The Agency fully intends to continue to review the field or railroad
noise control and may propose revisions to the regulations as such
revisions become technically and economically feasible.
The Illinois Railroad Association indicated that local governments
were free to make the Federal regulation meaningless by the exercise
of their non-preempted regulatory authority.
State and local governments in exercising their non-preempted reg-
ulatory authority, as explained by the Agency under its discussion of
preemption, may not issue regulations which set standards on the noise
emissions of Federally regulated equipment or facilities, or which have
that effect by requiring the modification of such equipment or facilities
or the alteration of their use, and thus the Agency sees no problem
with the Federal regulations being circumvented.
R-51
-------
7. Property Line Standards.
The DOT and the City of Bloomfield, New Jersey, requested that
the EPA impose property line standards on railroad noise using an
L10 noise level standard.
The use of property line noise standards is applicable primarily
to the regulation of noise from fixed facility and area noise sources.
In the regulation of railroad noise such sources include maintenance
shops, marshalling yards, humping yards, and terminals. Since EPA
has not covered these facilities in the regulation, the use of such area
noise level standards in the regulation is not appropriate.
R-52
-------
8. Background Document Data and Information.
General Motors Corporation (GM) questioned the validity of the
6 dB(A) conversion factor for changing measurements made at 50 feet
to an equivalent 100 foot value, due to the length of the locomotive.
Agency analysis indicates that any slight inaccuracy which may
exist in the use of the 6 dB(A) conversion factor for the conversion of
locomotive noise levels measured at 50 feet to 100 foot levels, is in
fact a conservative error which understates the actual noise level as
it would be recorded by a physical measurement at 100 feet.
Accordingly, some of those locomotives whose noise levels have been
measured in this manner may emit actual noise levels at 100 feet
which are in fact slightly lower than those levels described by EPA
data which were converted from 50 feet. Such locomotives may in fact
require less quieting than is suggested by the 50 foot data, and as such
may be more easily brought into compliance with the noise standards.
The Agency emphasizes that any inaccuracy inherent in using the con-
version factor is slight and has minimal effects upon the data so con-
verted.
General Motors also stated that page 5. 3 of the Background Docu-
ment claims that mufflers will provide 6 dB(A) reduction of all loco-
motive noise levels. They further indicated that a 6 dB(A) reduction
is not always possible, and that 87 dB(A) at 100 feet would be a better
statement than a 6 dB(A) reduction.
The above GM comment is apparently attributable to an incorrect in-
terpretation of the Background Document. The standards being promul-
gated by the EPA require an absolute noise level of 87 dB(A), not a net
R-53
-------
reduction of 6 dB(A). Specifically, the Background Document states:
"Based on the considerations of available empirical data, an overall
noise reduction of 6 dB(A) for the noisiest (emphasis added) seems
reasonable. Accordingly, the application of exhaust mufflers can be
expected to permit all locomotives to to achieve the following levels:
Idle - 67 dB(A) (now 70 dB(A)); Overall Maximum - 87 dB(A). "
GM further indicated that based on the magnitude of the one-third
octave band levels, the measurements on p. 4-13, Figure 4-2, appear
to have been made at closer to five feet than 55 feet as specified when
measuring the noise emissions of an EMD GP4O-2 locomotive.
An investigation of Figure 4-2 in the Background Document does
indicate that the recorded noise levels are inordinately high. These
high readings are attributable to the increased projection of fan and
casing radiated noise due to open engine access doors during the test-
ing. However, the intent of this figure and its supporting discussion
was not to quantify the absolute noise levels due to fan noise, but to
demonstrate that fan noise is in fact an appreciable noise source. To
quote from page 4-13 of the Background Document: "Since it was nec-
essary to open the engine access doors during the measurements, the
recorded levels are somewhat higher than would be generated under
normal operating conditions. However, there is little doubt that
cooling-fan operation can contribute significantly to overall levels."
Although Figure 4-2 does not purport to accurately quantify cooling-fan
noise levels under normal operating conditions, it does succeed in its
primary purpose which is to demonstrate the relative significance of
cooling-fan noise.
R-54
-------
9. Statements of Support
Of the 29 docket submissions received by the Agency, the following
6 expressed general and often enthusiastic agreement with the proposed
regulations: The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, the Harco Manufacturing
Company, the City of Chicago Department of Environmental Control,
the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
and the Office of Environmental and Planning Studies of the University
of Illinois Law School at Urbana Champaign.
In addition, the Department of Transportation expressed agreement
with the standard for locomotive operation under moving conditions, and
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation expressed
agreement with and gratitude for the inclusion of a detailed description
of the preemptive effect of the regulation in the preamble.
R-55
-------
D. SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS FROM THE SPECIAL CONSULTATION
MEETING ON THE PROPOSED RAILROAD NOISE EMISSION
REGULATIONS
Introduction:
On August 14, 1974, a special consultation meeting was held in
Des Plaines, Illinois, concerning the Proposed Interstate Railroad
Noise Emission Regulations. The transcript of the meeting is included
as part of the total body of public comment received by the Agency.
Since all of the comments raised at this meeting have been
addressed elsewhere in this document the following section will consist
only of a listing of the particular comments received.
Summary of Comments:
Citizens Against Noise requested .that separate standards be prom-
ulgated for rural and urban areas, since the effects of railroad noise
on people are so much greater in the latter than the former. In
addition the regulation or elimination of railroad acoustical warning
devices was called for as well as the inclusion of subway and elevated
trains in the regulation.
M. Schiep requested that the 4 year effective date of the regulation
be reduced.
The City of Des Plaines expressed concern that local ordinances
that have produced meaningful noise control of railroad equipment will
be eliminated by the preemptive effect of the Federal regulation. Also
called for was a delineation of the meaning of special local conditions
as used in the Noise Control Act of 1972.
General agreement with the proposed regulation was expressed by
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.
R-56
-------
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requested clarification of
how and why the EPA had preempted track and right of way without
at the same time regulating such. In addition clarification was
requested of the definition of Interstate Carrier as used in the Act.
The City of Bloomfield, New Jersey, indicated that property line
noise level standards should be imposed along with more strict noise
level standards for locomotives and rail cars. A reduction of the
4 year time period for the application of the stricter standards was also
called for.
R. Beauchard requested clarification of how the measurement
methodology for the regulation would be promulgated.
Kamperman Associates, Inc., commented that they felt the C-scale
was better suited to measure locomotive noise than the A-scale.
The Cook County, Illinois Department of Environmental Control
expressed concern that the 100 foot measuring distance was too far and
would require too much open area for compliance measurements.
The Harco Manufacturing Company asked that EPA consider the
effects on the utilization of spark arresters of the proposed regulation.
The City of Chicago raised questions with respect to the extent of
Federal preemption in limiting the local and State governments from
enacting and enforcing noise regulations relative to railroad noise..
R-57
-------
INDEX OF WRITTEN DOCKET SUBMISSIONS
DOCKET NO. PERSON OR ORGANIZATION
R001
R002
R003
R004
R005
R006
ROOT
R008
R009
R010
R011
R012
R013
R014
R015
R016
R017
R018
R019
R020
R021
R022
Mr. B. Leath
State of New York, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Albany
Association of American Railroads submission
of August 7, 1974
Shell Oil Company
ADM Company
Deleted EPA Region Ill's Comment, which will be
considered apart from the formal docket
Ritchies Furniture Company
Mr. R. Weinrich
Mr. R. Harnden
Mr. E. Schmidt
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Exhibits 1-2, Attachments A-C
Illinois Railroad Association (IRA) Exhibits A-K
Association of American Railroads (AAR)
Harco Manufacturing Company
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland,
Oregon
Fruit Growers Express Company, et al
Salt River Project, Phoenix, Arizona
National Railroad Passenger Corportation (AMTRAK)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Donaldson Company, Inc.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
R-58
-------
DOCKET NO.
R023
R024
R025
R026
R027
R028
R029
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION
Forestry Department, Salem, Oregon
Town of Bloomfield, New Jersey
General Motors Corporation (GM)
Mr. K.K. King
Deleted (irrelevant letter)
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
City of Chicago, Department of
Environmental Control
R-59
-------
INDEX OF
DOCKET NO.
5030
5031
5032
5033
5034
5035
5036
5037
5038
5039
5040
5041
5042
5043
SPECIAL CONSULTATION MEETING PARTICIPANTS
PARTICIPANT
Mr. Theodore Berland, President, Citizens
Against Noise
Mrs. William Schiep
Mr. Phillip Lindahl, Environmental Officer for
the City of Des Plaines
Mr. N. D. Povair, Supervisor, New Jersey
Environmental Protection and Noise Control
Mr. Thomas Greenland, Attorney for Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad
Mr. Robert Helwig, Jr., for Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
Mr. Al Perez, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mr. John Steven Newman, City of Chicago,
Department of Environmental Control
Mr. DiLeonard, Counsel for City of Des Plaines
Mr. Henry Sant'Ambrogio, for the Town of
Bloomfield, New Jersey
Mr. D.N. Trafalette, for the Association of
American Railroads
Mr. Simtana, Cook County Department of
Environmental Control
Mr. J. Palmer
Mr. G. W. Kamperman, Kamperman Associates
R-60
-------
|