United States
               Environmental Protection
               Agency
               Office of
                  Al.ai^iiKMit Control
               Washington DC 20460
EPA 550/9-78-207
Feb 1979
v>EPA
Background Document
for Proposed Revision to
Rail Carrier Noise
Emission Regulation

-------
        BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
      FOR PROPOSED REVISION TO
RAIL CARRIER NOISE EMISSION REGULATION
        February 1979

-------
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section                                                         Page No.

   1          INTRODUCTION                                        1-1

   2          INDUSTRY PROFILE                                    2-1
                   Introduction                                   2-1
                   Physical Profile                               2-1
                   Economic Profile                               2-5
                   References                                     2-18

   3          IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION  OF  RAILROAD
              EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES                            3-1
                   Railroad Equipment and Facilities              3-1
                   Classification of Railroad Property            3-5
                   Classification System for Railroad Yards      3-5
                   Description of Typical Railroad  Yards          3-9
                   Summary of Rail Yard Statistical Data          3-18
                   References                                     3-27

   4          BASELINE NOISE EMISSIONS                            4-1
                   Railroad Noise Sources                         4-1
                   Railroad Property Noise Survey Program         4-2
                   Measurement Methodology                        4-3
                   Existing Noise Data Base                       4-3
                   References                                     4-14

   5          NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY                            5-1
                   Introduction                                   5-1
                   Descriptions of Yard Noise Sources and
                   Abatement Technology                           5-1
                   Noise Control to Achieve Alternative
                   Regulatory Study Levels                        5-13
                   References                                     5-21

-------
                      TABLE OF  CONTENTS  (Continued)
Section
                                             Page No.
              HEALTH AND WELFARE  IMPACT                           6-1
                    Introduction                                   6-1
                    Distribution and Configuration of  Rail Yards  6-10
                    Rail Yard Noise                                6-61
                    Rail Yard Noise Impact                         6-94
                    References                                     6-110
              ANALYSIS OP COST AND ECONOMIC  IMPACTS               7-1
                   Approach                                       7-1
                   Estimated Cost of Noise Abatement              7-8
                   Potential Cost Burden on  Individual
                   Rail Carriers (Major and  Other  Roads)          7-24
                   Economic Impact Analysis                       7-31
                   Application of a Microeconomic  Modeling
                   Technique To Estimate Price  Increases
                   Resulting from Compliance with  Potential
                   Noise Standards by Rail Carriers               7-54
                   Price Demand and Employment  Impacts on
                   Individual Railroads                           7-55
                   References                                     7-65
Appendices
     A
     B

     C
     D
     F
     H

     I
NOISE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY                  A-1
RAIL YARD NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA               B-1
(Printed Separately)
NOISE SOURCE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES          C-1
SUPPORTING MATERIALS RELATED TO THE LAND
AQUISITION OPTION                              D-1
TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES STUDIED
INCLUDING NUMBER OF YARDS OWNED AND
COMPANY OWNERSHIP                              £-1
TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES BY NAME
AND CODE DESIGNATIONS (ACI AND UNIFORM
ALFA CODES)                                    F-l
FINANCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS BY RAILROAD
COMPANY                                        G-l
DERIVATIONS OF THE GENERALIZED MICRO-
ECONOMIC MODEL                                 H-l
ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY RAILROAD COMPANY           1-1
                                     ii

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued)

Appendices

     J             CONRAIL:  BACKGROUND  AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS      J-1
     K             INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA                         K-1
     L             REFINEMENT TO COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR
                   REGULATORY OPTION DECISION PROCESS             L-1
     M             FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE                    M-1
     N             RAIL CAR COUPLING NOISE MEASUREMENTS           N-1
     0             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION                 O-1
     P             FINANCIAL ANALYSES/IMPACT ASSESSMENT  OF
                   PROPOSED REGULATORY OPTIONS                    P-1
                   PART A:  Financial Impact Analysis
                   PART B:  Switching and Terminal Company
                            Impact Assessment
     R             SELECTION OF SAMPLE RAIL YARDS AND
                   EXAMPLES OF EPIC ANALYSES                      R-1
     S             LAND USE DISTRIBUTION DATA                     S-1
     T             POPULATION DENSITY                             T-l
     U             SOURCE ACTIVITY AND NOISE LEVELS               U-1
     V             RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  ONE HOUR Leq LIMITS
                   AND DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVELS AND COMPARISON
                   OF ANNUAL AVERAGES WITH DAILY DAY-NIGHT
                   NOISE LEVELS                                   V-1
                   PART A:  One Le_ Versus Day-Night Levels
                   PART B:  Annual Average Versus Daily
                            Day-Night Sound Levels
                                 iii

-------
                              LIST OF TABLES

Table No.                                                       Page  No

   2-1        LOCOMOTIVE AND FREIGHT CAR INVENTORY
              CLASS I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS  (1976)                  2-2

   2-2        SUMMARY OF THE U.S. RAILROAD YARD INVENTORY         2-3

   2-3        NATIONAL INCOME ORIGINATING IN THE
              TRANSPORTATION AND RAIL SECTORS                     2-4

   2-4        VOLUME AND PERCENTAGE OF DOMESTIC INTERCITY
              FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY TYPE OF TRANSPORT                2-6

   2-5        REVENUE CARLOADING BY COMMODITY GROUPS              2-9

   2-6        EMPLOYMENT ON CLASS I RAILROADS RELATIVE TO
              THE NATIONAL ECONOMY                                2-10

   2-7        EMPLOYEES AND THEIR COMPENSATION 1967-1977          2-10

   2-8        COMPARISON OF WAGE RATE INDEXES                     2-12

   2-9        NET WORKING CAPITAL AND MATURING DEBT               2-13

   2-10       RATE OF RETURN NET INCOME                           2-14

   2-11       RATE OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT AFTER
              DEPRECIATION BY REGIONS                             2-16

   3-1        RAILROAD PROPERTY                                   3-2

   3-2        RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES                                3-3

   3-3        RAILROAD FREIGHT EQUIPMENT CARS                     3-3

   3-4        SPECIAL PURPOSE EQUIPMENT                           3-4

   3-5        CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTIES               3-6

   3-6        ACTIVITY LEVELS FOR RAILROAD YARDS                  3-8

   3-7        CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RAILROAD YARDS            3-8

   3-8        SUMMARY OF HUMP YARD DATA                           3-16

   3-9        SUMMARY OF FLAT YARD DATA                           3-18

   3-10       DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. RAILROAD YARDS BY TYPE,
              FUNCTION AND LOCATION                               3-21

   3-11       DISTRIBUTION OF HUMP YARDS BY ACTIVITY,
              POPULATION OF LOCALITY                              3-22
                                 iv

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)

Table No.                                                       Page No.
   3-12       DISTRIBUTION OF FLAT YARDS BY ACTIVITY
              POPULATION OF LOCALITY, AND LOCATION                3-22

   3-13       DISTRIBUTION OF ALL FLAT-YARDS BY CITY POPULATION   3-23

   3-14       DISTRIBUTION OF ALL YARDS BY LOCALITY POPULATION    3-23

   3-15       U.S. AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION YARDS                 3-24

   4-1        NOISE SOURCE LEVEL SUMMARY                          4-5

   4-2        SUMMARY OF MEASURED NOISE LEVELS (Range of
              L^ LEVELS)                                         4-6

   4-3        SUMMARY LEVELS AT CLASSIFICATION YARD PROPERTY
              LINES ACCORDING TO YARD ACTIVITY (Range of
              L^jj Levels)                                         4-6

   4-4        MEASURED Ldn LEVELS AT RAILROAD YARD
              PROPERTY LINE                                       4-8

   4-5        MEASURED Ldn LEVELS INSIDE RAILROAD PROPERTY
              LINE                                                4-9

   4-6        MEASURED Ldn LEVELS BEYOND RAILYARD PROPERTY
              LINE                                                4-9

   4-7        MEASURED NOISE LEVELS DURING HOUR OF MAXIMUM
              Leq ACCORDING TO YARD TYPE                          4-10

   4-8        COMPARISON OF DAY AND NIGHT SOUND LEVELS AT
              SELECTED RAILROAD YARD PROPERTY LINES               4-12

   4-9        DAILY VARIATION IN DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND
              LEVELS AT SELECTED CLASSIFICATION RAIL YARD
              PROPERTY LINES                                      4-13

   5-1        TREATMENT AND NOISE SOURCE LEVEL REDUCTION          5-11

   5-2        RAIL YARD NOISE SOURCES AS A FUNCTION OF YARD
              CATEGORY                                            5-14

   5-3        ESTIMATED EQUIVALENT DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL         ,  .
              REDUCTION REQUIRED IN RAILROAD YARDS      ,"         5-15

   5-4        ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ACHIEVING STUDY            . ,
              LEVELS IN YARDS                                     5-17

-------
Table No.                  LIST OF TABLES (Continued)         Page No.


   5-5        NOISE SOURCE LEVEL REDUCTION                        5-20

   6-1        RAIL YARD NOISE IMPACT                              6-9

   6-2        ACTIVITY RATES FOR HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARDS        6-12

   6-3        ACTIVITY RATES FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS        6-13

   6-4        RAIL YARD DISTRIBUTION BY YARD TYPE, PLACE
              SIZE AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY                      6-14

   6-5        DISTRIBUTION OF RAIL YARDS SELECTED FOR
              PHOTOGRAPHIC EVALUATION BY PLACE SIZE AND YARD
              TYPE                                                6-18

   6-6        RAIL YARDS INCLUDED IN EPIC SURVEY                  6-19

   6-7        SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR HUMP
              CLASSIFICATION YARDS                                6-26

   6-8        SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR FLAT
              CLASSIFICATION YARDS                                6-27

   6-9        REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL
              AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL RAIL YARDS                     6-28

   6-10       DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RAIL YARDS BY POPULATION
              DENSITY RANGE                                       6-34

   6-11       DISTRIBUTION OF HUMP YARDS BY PLACE SIZE,
              TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY AND POPULATION DENSITY
              RANGE                                               6-35

   6-12       DISTRIBUTION OF FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS BY
              PLACE SIZE, TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY AND POPULATION
              DENSITY RANGE                                       6-36

   6-13       DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARDS BY PLACE
              SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE                   6-37

   6-14       DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL INDUSTRIAL FLAT BY PLACE
              SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE                   6-38

   6-15       NOISE SOURCE LEVEL SUMMARY                          6-46

   6-16       HUMP YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO DAY-NIGHT
              SOUND LEVEL (Ldn)  AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES
              (dn/df)  TO NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY,
              AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY                           6-49

   6-17       FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRI-
              BUTION TO DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (dn) AS A
              FUNCTION OF DISTANCES (dn/df) TO NEAR AND
              FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY, AND TRAFFIC RATE
              CATEGORY                                            6-50

                                vi

-------
Table No.                  LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)          Page  No,
   6-19       SMALL FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRI-
              BUTION TO DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) AS A
              FUNCTION OF DISTANCES (dn/df) TO NEAR AND
              FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY, AND TRAFFIC RATE
              CATEGORY                                            6-52

   6-20       BARRIER (BUILDING) INSERTION LOSS COEFFICIENTS
              AS A FUNCTION OF PLACE SIZE AND AVERAGE
              POPULATION DENSITY RANGE                            6-57

   6-21       BASELINE EQUIVALENT NOISE IMPACT (ENI) AND
              POPULATION EXPOSED                                  6-59

   6-22       BASELINE LAND AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE
              LEVELS                                              6-60

   7-1        SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS              7-5

   7-2        SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS FOR THE RAILROAD
              INUSTRY                                             7-7

   7-3        SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR THE  RAILROAD
              INDUSTRY                                            7-9

   7-4        ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ACHIEVING STUDY LEVELS
              IN YARDS                                            7-11

   7-5        CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF YARD NOISE
              ABATEMENT PROCEDURES                                7-12

   7-6        COST ESTIMATES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S.
              RAILROADS Study Level 1                             7-14

   7-7        COST ESTIMATES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S.
              RAILROADS Study Level 2                             7-16

   7-8        COST ESTIMATES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S.
              RAILROADS Study Level 3                             7-17

   7-9        COST ESTIMATES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S.
              RAILROADS Study Level 4                             7-18

   7-10       ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MIXED
              STANDARDS BY YARD TYPE                              7-19

   7-11       LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS REGULATORY
              STUDY LEVELS WITHOUT EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE
              CONTROL TECHNOLOGY                                  7-22

   7-12       LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS REGULATORY
              STUDY LEVELS, ASSUMING EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE
              CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TO MEET Ldn75 AT  PROPERTY
              LINES OF HUMP AND FLAT YARDS                        7-23

                                 vii

-------
                      LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)

Table No.                                                        Page No.

   7-13       LAND AQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS REGULATORY
              STUDY LEVELS, ASSUMING EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE
              CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TO MEET Ldn70 AT PROPERTY
              LINES OF HU11P, FLAT AND  INDUSTRIAL YARDS            7-23

   7-14       DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS I  LINE-HAUL RAILROADS
              (UNIFORM ALPHA CODE)* ACCORDING TO THE  RELATIVE
              NUMBER OF YARDS OWNED                               7-25

   7-15       CLASS I & OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR
              STUDY LEVEL 1                                       7-27

   7-16       CLASS I & OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR
              STUDY LEVEL 2                                       7-28

   7-17       CLASS I & OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR
              STUDY LEVEL 3                                       7-29

   7-18       CLASS I & OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR
              STUDY LEVEL 4                                       7-30

   7-19       ESTIMATED COSTS OF NOISE CONTROL AT DIFFERENT
              REGULATORY LEVELS                                   7-32

   7-20       RATE OF RETURN ON NET WORTH — LEADING
              CORPORATIONS (CALENDAR YEAR 1976)                   7-33a

   7-21       CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATED WITH VARYING
              REGULATORY LEVELS AND VARYING ELASTICITIES          7-41

   7-22       ESTIMATES OF PRICE ELASTICITIES OF RAIL
              TRANSPORT DEMAND                                    7-52

   7-23       ESTIMATED RAIL TRANSPORT PRICE ELASTICITIES OF
              DEMAND FOR EACH MAJOR COMMODITY, WEIGHTED BY
              ITS SHARE OF RAIL FREIGHT REVENUES                  7-53

   7-24       COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVEL
              Ldn 70  ed = -1.41                                  7-56

   7-25       COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS, Ldn 70;
              ed - -1.41                                          7-57

   7-26       COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS, Ldn 65;
              ed - -0.39                                          7-58

   7-27       COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS, Ldn 65;
              ed - -1.41                                          7-58

   7-28       ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON ROADS FALLING IN CATEGORIES
              OF:  (a) Near Bankruptucy, (b) Declared
              Bankruptcy,  or (c) Reorganized                      7-62
                                viii

-------
                                  LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.                                                      Page No.

   2-1        FREIGHT TRAFFIC TRENDS CLASS I RAILROADS
              1966 - 1977                                          2-8

   2-2        NET INCOME CLASS I  RAILROADS 1966 - 1977            2-12

   3-1        SCHEMATIC OF HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARD               3-9

   3-2        HUMP YARD CREST AND RETARDER SYSTEM                 3-10

   3-3        TYPICAL MODERN  CLASSIFICATION HUMP YARD LAYOUTS     3-12

   3-4        HUMP YARD CAPACITY                                   3-13

   3-5        GROUP RETARDERS IN  HUMP YARDS                       3-14

   3-6        TYPICAL FLAT YARD CONFIGURATIONS                    3-17

   3-7        FLAT YARD CAPACITY                                   3-19

   5-1        INSERTION LOSS  OF RETARDER BARRIER AS A
              FUNCTION OF BARRIER HEIGHT                          5-4

   5-2        INSERTION LOSS  OF 12 FOOT BARRIERS AS A
              FUNCTION OF ANGULAR LOCATION                        5-5

   5-3        INSERTION LOSS  OF A 10 FOOT HIGH ABSORPTIVE
              BARRIER AS A FUNCTION OF THE DISTANCE FROM
              THE RETARDER TO THE OBSERVER AT 90 DEGREES          5-6

   5-4        FREQUENCY SPECTRUM  OF NOISE EMITTED FROM
              MASTER RETARDER (at 100 ft.) AND MECHANICAL
              REFRIGERATOR CAR (at 50 ft.)                        5-19

   6-1        REPRESENTATIVE  CONFIGURATION FOR HUMP AND
              FLAT CLASSIFICATION RAIL YARDS                      6-30

   6-2        REPRESENTATIVE  CONFIGURATION FOR FLAT INDUSTRIAL
              AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL RAILYARDS                      6-31

   6-3        RAILROAD YARD NOISE IMPACT MODEL                    6-41

   6-4        RAIL YARD NOISE IMPACT MODEL                        6-58

   7-1        FLOW DIAGRAM OF ANALYTICAL STEPS ENCOMPASSING
              COST & ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS                     7-4
                                  ix

-------
SECTION 1

-------
                              SECTION 1

                            INTRODUCTION

     In accordance with Section 17 of the Noise  Control Act of  1972,  the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on January 14,  1976, promulgated
noise emission standards for  railroad locomotives and rail cars which are
used in interstate commerce.  That regulation was challenged in a suit
brought against the Agency  by the Association of American Railroads  (AAR)
on the basis that it included only locomotives and rail cars and therefore
did not preempt state and local regulation of all rail carriers' equipment
and facilities. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia has ruled that the Agency must broaden  the scope of the existing
railroad regulation.  The text of the Court decision  appears in Appendix 0.

     The January 14,1976 regulation sets maximum noise emissions for
locomotives in the stationary and moving modes (73 dBA at idle  and 96 dBA
measured at 30 meters under maximum load), with a further reduction by
January 1980 to a maximum of  90 dBA.  The improvement in locomotive emis-
sions is to be achieved through the application of mufflers to  the diesel
engine exhaust system*  Rail  car noise, which includes the wheel/rail
interaction, is limited to  88 dBA for trains moving at a speed up to  72
km/hr (45 mph) and 93 dBA for trains moving at a speed greater  than 72
km/hr with the levels measured at 30 meters.  The standards established in
the original railroad noise regulation were not affected by the decision of
the U.S. Appeals Court for  the District of Columbia in Association of
American Railroads vs. Costle, and they are not changed by this revision to
the Railroad Noise Regulation.

     Information and data supporting the January 14,  1976 regulation
appears in the Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards,
EPA-550/9-76-005, dated December 1975.  This report is available by
document number PB-251713,  from the National Technical Information
Services (NTIS), U. S. Department of Commerce, 425 13th Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20004.
                                  1-1

-------
     The Agency now proposes  to  expand  the  14  January,  1976  regulations
to include standards which limit noise  emissions resulting from  the
operations of equipnent and facilities  of interstate  rail carriers.

     These standards reflect  the degree of noise reduction that  is
achievable through the application of "best available technology, taking
into account the cost of compliance".

     The revised Background Document specifically presents information
and data to support imposition of a property line-type regulatory standard,
and standards for specific pieces of railroad equipment or operation of
equipment.
                                  1-2

-------
SECTION 2

-------
                              SECTION 2

                          INDUSTRY PROFILE

INTRODUCTION

     This section examines the economic role and posture of the
railroad industry, including the physical, economic, financial and
institutional attributes of the U.S. railroad system and its operations.
Since the potential noise regulations are associated largely with
the operation of railroad yards, this profile includes a brief descrip-
tion of the importance of yards in overall railroad operations.

     Also described in this section are the size of the industry,
recent patterns in the behavior of industry revenues and costs and the
financial conditions under which today's U.S. railroad industry is
operating.  The description will establish a framework in which the
problem of noise emission and its control can be examined.

PHYSICAL PROFILE

Background Information

     As of 1977, 260 line-haul railroads and 80 switching and terminal
companies constituted the U.S. railroad industry.1  These rail-
roads together operated more than 4,100 railroad yards.^  For
statistical reporting purposes, these railroads have been divided
into two groups by the Interstate Commerce Commission - Class I and
Class II organizations.  In 1977 there were 52 line-haul railroads in
Class I (excluding Amtrak and Auto-Train), which together represent
about 99 percent of railroad industry traffic, operate 96 percent of rail
mileage and account for 91 percent of workers employed by all railroad
companies.3  since the Class I railroads represent such a significant
portion of the total industry, and because data on the Class I railroads is
more readily available than data for Class II railroads, much of the
remaining discussion will be confined to Class I railroads.  No significant
information will be lost because of this simplification.
                                 2-1

-------
     As of 1976 the inventory of these railroads included the
following:

                              TABLE 2-1
                 LOCOHOTIVE AND FREIGHT CAR INVENTORY
                    CLASS I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS

                                (1976)
                                             Units
               Locomotives
                 Yard Service                  6,330
                 Road Freight Service         20,699
                 Road Passenger Service          416
               Freight Cars on Line        1,496,164
Individual railroad detail, by region, for this summary table is
shown in Appendix K Table K-l.

     In addition to the line-haul railroads, 21 companies were desig-
nated Class I switching and terminal companies in 1977 (see Appendix K
Table K-2).  As indicated by the title, these companies are not involved
in line-haul traffic but instead confine their operation primarily to
providing services associated with car switching, terminal trackage or
similar facilities and their operations.  Many of these terminal
companies operate within the proximity of large industrial plants, for
example, several of these railroads operate within steel mills and are
wholly owned subsidiaries of the steel producers.

Yards in the U.S. Railroad System

     Line-haul railroads and switching and terminal companies own and
operate a sizeable number of yards.  These facilities perform several
functions for the railroad industry and are strategically located
throughout the network.  A summary of the yard inventory,2 shown
                                 2-2

-------
in Table 2-2, portrays  the yard distribution by function  and  by  yard  type.
A classification yard receives, disassembles,  reassembles,  and dispatches
line-haul traffic.  Generally industrial yards provide  the  freight  interface
between the railroads and other U.S. industries.   Flat yards  employ locomotive
power for all car movements within a yard complex, while  hump yards are
designed to utilize a gravity-feed system to classify trains  of  cars  into
departure configurations.  As shown in  these data, hump yards represent
only three percent of the current yard  inventory.  However, they are
massive, expensive complexes that perform a variety of support services  for
the industry.  A detailed description of railroad  yard operations is
presented in Section 3.
                             TABLE 2-2
           SUIB1ARY OF THE U.S. RAILROAD YARDS IN 1976 & 1977
               BY ICC CLASS I & II RAILROAD COMPANIES
               YARD FUNCTION BY TYPE OF YARD
             CLASSIFICATION         INDUSTRIAL
CLASS
I
II
TOTAL
HUMP
117
7
124
FLAT
1,047
66
1,113
IND.
1,183
198
1,381
SM. IND.
1,349
202
1,551
TOTAL
3,696
473
4,169
PERCENTAGE
88.7
11.3
100.0
     Appendix E presents a tabulation of railroad companies for each category,
the number of yards that it operates is shown.  In addition, this appendix
incorporates the ownership distribution of railroad yards. Appendix K, Table
K-3, contains a tabulation of railroad companies which operate yards by ICC
CLass designations (Class I and II) and region  (for Class I railroads).  For
each company, the number of yards by type are tabulated and then summed.  The
actual railroad company names can be ascertained in Appendix F.  Table K-4 in
Appendix K lists the roads which changed ICC class designations between the
years 1976/77 and 1978.
                                  2-3

-------
                       TABLE   2-3
   NATIONAL INCOME ORIGINATING  IN  THE TRANSPORTATION
           AND RAIL SECTORS   ($ IN BILLIONS)

YEAR

1950
1960
1970
1975
1976
GROSS
NATIONAL
INCOME ^
$242.8
418.0
804.4
1246.7
1399.3

TRANSPORTATION

$13.4
18.1
30.3
44.5
50.6

TRANSPORTATION
AS % OF INCOME
5.5%
4.3
3.8
3.6
3.6

RAIL

7.1
6.7
7.6
9.9
11.1

RAIL AS OF % OF
TRANSPORTATION
53.0%
37.0
25.1
22.2
21.9
SOURCE:   Statistical Abstract of the U. S., 1977, p.  434
                              2-4

-------
ECONOMIC PROFILE

Economic Role

The railroad industry occupies an important place  in  the  national economy.
However, growth in its volume has lagged behind that  of trucking, its
strongest competitor.  As Table 2-3 displays, 5.5  percent of  the national
income originated in the transportation sector in  1950, and railroads
represented 53 percent of the total transportation revenues.  By 1976,
transportation represented 3.6 percent of national income, but  the  rail-
roads represent only 22 percent of transportation.  Table  2-4  chronicles the
railroads' declining share of total U.S. freight transportation.  As the
table indicates, railroads' share has declined from 57 percent  in 1950 to
36 percent in 1975, with trucks and pipelines gaining at  the  railroads'
expense.

     The data displayed in Table 2-5 reflect the aggregate of a number of
commodities which comprise intercity freight traffic.  For example, during
1975, U.S. railroads.transported 123 million tons  (MT) of agricultural
products, 918 MT of materials resulting from mining,  121 MT of  food and
drug commodities, and 110 MT of lumber and lumber  products.^  Although
these four commodities represent approximately 75  percent of  the total
tonnage handled by the railroad system, they are also a major commodity
transported by water or motor carriers. Fifty-two  percent of  the tonnage
transported by water carrier consists of agricultural and mining products.
Motor carriers and railroads derive approximately  equal fractions of their
annual revenue from lumber and building products,  and food and  drug
commodities.  Rail, water or motor carriers also transport substantial
quantities of textiles, furniture, paper products,  chemicals, stone and
glass, iron and steel, and motor vehicles.

     Since all of the above commodities are presently carried by more
than one means of freight service, the railroads'  share of these markets is
particularly sensitive to cost and service comparisons.  Although the
railroad industry may never be totally excluded from  the  transport of these
commodities, rail cost increases or reductions in  rail service  could result
                                  2-5

-------
                                                    TABLE 2-4



                  VOLUME AND PERCENTAGE OF DOMESTIC INTERCITY FREIGHT TRAFFIC BY TYPE OF TRANSPORT
YEAR
1950
1960
1970
1973
1974
1975
TOTAL VOLUME
(Billion Ton-Miles)
1,094
1,330
1,936
2,232
2,212
2,080
RAILROAD VOLUME
(Billion Ton-Miles)
628
595
771
858
852
757
RAILS ' %
OF TOTAL
57.44
44.73
39.83
38.51
38.52
36.39
W5TOR VEHICLES'
%OF TOTAL
15.80
21.46
21.28
22.66
22.38
23.46
INLAND
WATERWAYS '
%OF TOTAL
14.93
16.56
16.46
16.08
16.05
16.49
OIL
PIPELINES'
%OF TOTAL
11.81
17.19
22.26
22.75
22.87
23.46
AIRWAYS'
%OF
TOTAL
.029
.058
.17
.175
.18
.192
to
I
        SOURCE:  Statistical Abstract  of the U.  S., 1978 p. 627.

-------
in the loss of some of this business to the other available and qualified
carriers.  Energy considerations, which generally favor water and rail
carriers over truck carriers,-* may partially compensate for adverse cost
or service conditions for rail carriers.  It should be noted, however, that
water and motor carriers are viable alternatives to the railroad industry
for the movement of a substantial fraction of intercity freight traffic and
many of the commodities which comprise that traffic.

Railroad Volume

     Railroad revenues are earned from two main sources: freight traffic
and passenger service.  Total revenues declined during 1974 and 1975 but
are again on the increase.  Preliminary estimates for 1977 are 800 billion
freight revenue ton-miles for the industry, with 794 billion ton-miles
carried by Clasa I companies (See Figure 2-1).  Coal is the largest single
commodity carried by rail, accounting for 20 percent of total carloadings
in 1977. (See Table 2-5.)  Other important commodities include chemicals,
motor vehicles and equipment, metallic ores and grain.

     Passenger service has diminished from 24 percent of total railroad
revenues to about 3 percent in recent years.  In 1977, Anitrak-operated
trains accounted for 4.2 billion passenger-miles, with another 218 million
passsenger-miles attributable to Auto-Train.6  While Class 1 railroads,
other than Amtrak and Auto-Train, accounted for only 1.1 billion intercity
passenger-miles, they represent nearly all of commuter traffic, or 4.5
billion of the 4.6 billion commuter passenger-miles.

Railroad Employment and Wages

     Railroad employment trends generally seem to follow those of total
railroad output, declining over time both absolutely and as a share of U.S.
employment.  Tables 2-6 and 2-7 portray these declines.  As Table 2-6
demonstrates, Class I railroads accounted for 2.7 percent of non-agricul-
tural U.S. employment in 1950, and by 1976 the share had fallen to 0.6
                                  2-7

-------
 Million        FREIGHT TRAFFIC TRENDS
 Carloadings       class  x Railroads
 40	        1966-1977
 Billion
 Ton-Miles
	900
         Revenue
         Ton-Miles
30
                                                      800
       700
25
         Carloadings
      600
20
   1966 67   68  69  70  71   72  73   74  75  75  1977
      500
SOURCE:  "Review of 1977", Railway Age, Jan. 30, 1978
                       FIGURE 2-1
                          2-8

-------
                              TABLE 2-5
                 REVENUE CARLOADING BY COMMODITY GROUPS
                    (Carloadings shown in thousands)

                                   1977      Percent of Total
     Coal	  4,713          20.2
     Chemical and allied
       products	  1,411           6.1
     Motor vehicles and
       equipment	  1,335           5.7
     Metallic ores	  1,312           5.6
     Grain	  1,250           5.4
     Primary forest products	  1,112           4.8
     Pulp, paper and allied
       products	  1,103           4.7
     Food and kindred products...  1,028           4.4
     All others	 10,034          43.1
     TOTAL CARS LOADED            23,298         100.0
SOURCE:   "Review of 1977", Railway Age, January 30, 1978.
                                 2-9

-------
                              TABLE 2-6
    EMPLOYMENT ON CLASS I RAILROADS RELATIVE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY
         Number of All Employees
           In Non-Agricultural
   Year   Establishments (1000)
   Railroad
    Class I
Employment (1000)
 Class I as %
      of
National Total
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1976
45,222
54,234
60,815
70,920
77,051
79,443
1220
780
640
559
491
490
2.7%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.6%
Source:   Statistical Abstract of the U.S. 1977.  Table No. 657.



                                TABLE 2-7

              EMPLOYEES AND THEIR COMPENSATION - 1967-1977
Year
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
Est.
Average
No. of
Employees
610,191
590,536
578.227
566,282
544,333
526,061
520,153
525,177
487,789
482,882**
485,200

Total
Payroll
(Thousands)
$4,933,663
5,110,636
5,362,754
5,711,280*
5,999,968*
6,424,920
7,088,383
7,475,834
7,474,800*
8,278,400
8,743,600

Average Annual
Earnings Per
Employee
$ 8,085
8,654
9,274
10,086*
11,023*
12,213
13,627
14,235
15,324*
17,141
18,121

Average Straight-Time
Hourly
Rate
$3.30
3.47
3.70
4.05*
4.52*
4.94
5.43
5.72
6.30*
6.96
7.43

Hourly
Earnings
$3.56
3.74
4.00
4.35*
4.84*
5.32
5.83
6.16
6.77*
7.49
7.99

 *    Adjusted to include retroactive increases

 **   The decline in employment in 1976 is attributable in part

      to the transfer to Amtrak of certain rail properties and

      personnel in the Northeast Corridor.

 SOURCE:   "Review of 1977", Railway Age, January 30, 1978.
                                  2-10

-------
percent.  Annual data over the past decade are shown in Table 2-7, which
includes average employment and compensation.  While employment had been
decreasing, the total annual payroll had risen to a high of $8.7 billion in
1977.

Moreover, increases in wage rates for railroad employees over the
decade have been greater than increases in the manufacturing sector,
as shown in Table 2-8.  In 1970, the average hourly earnings per
worker in manufacturing (private) were $3.22.7 xhe average rail
empoyee's earnings per hour were $4.35** or 135 percent of the
average compensation in manufacturing.  By 1976, the wages were $4.87
and $7.09 for the manufacturing and rail sectors, respectively.

Railroad Profitability

     Railroad profitability has declined significantly over the
past 12 years.  This is portrayed in Figure 2-2, which shows net
railroad operating income in both current dollars and in constant 1966
dollars for the years 1966 through 1977.  Net railway operating income
(NROI) is operating revenues less operating expenses, taxes and rents
for equipment in joint facilities.  Note that non-operating income
and fixed costs are not a part of the NR01 calculation.

Working Capital

     As demonstrated in Table 2-9, railroads have experienced a
decline in net working capital.  The table shows the derivation of net
working capital and compares it with long-term debt maturing within
one year.  As indicated, working capital has declined significantly,
with deficits in three of the past four years.  Maturing long-term
debt has increased steadily over the period, requiring ever increasing
borrowing on the part of the railroad.

Net Income and Rate of Return

     The financial difficulties experienced recently by the railroad
industry are shown most vividly by the data of Table 2-10.  Net
                                  2-11

-------
                     TABLE 2-8
         COMPARISON  OF WAGE RATE INDEXES


               (Base Year:  1968)
Industry
Manuf ac tu ring
Class I RR
1970
121.7
125.6
1971
129.8
139.4
1972
137.0
153.4
1973
147.0
173.9
1974
161.7
189.1
1975
179.8
207.1
1976
193.2
230.2
Million
Dollars
1,000	
   NET INCOME
Class I Railroads
    1966-1977
800-
600-
400-
0
\
\
\
\
\
s
\
\

D Current Dollars
P Constant 1966 Dollai
—

\
\
\
\
\



\
\
\
\


—
\
\
\
\


-n n
\
s


\
\



T
\
\
-


-1
\
\
\
-


"£
\
\
\
\
\
\




[h
\
s
\
\

I
\
\1
    1966 67  68  69  70  71  72  73   74   75  76  1977*

                                        *12 months ended
                                         Sept.  30
                     FIGURE 2-2
                        2-12

-------
                               TABLE 2-9

                   NET WORKING CAPITAL AND MATURING DEBT


(Dec. 31)
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
9-30-77


Total
(millions)
$3,257
3,094
3,180
3,379
3,583
3,586
3,612
4,056
4,553
4,641
5,293
5,633
Current assets
excluding
material
& supplies
(millions)
$2,750
2,595
2,054
1,876
3,032
3.031
3,070
3,469
3,651
3,622
4,212
4,424

Current
Liabilities
(millions)
$2,279
2,319
2,501
2,820
2,923
3,017
3,049
3,275
3,721
3,838
4,211
4,425

Working
capital
(millions)
$477
276
153
56
109
14
21
194
(70)
(217)
1
(1)
Long-term
debt
maturing
within
one year
(millions)
$529
525
615
744
601
631
623
623
613
735
739
751
Parentheses indicate a deficit .
Source:  "Review of "77", Railway Age, Jan, 30, 1978, p. 65.
                                    2-13

-------
                            TABLE 2-10
              RATE OF RETURN AND NET INCOME - 1966-1977
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
Net railway
operating
income3
(millions)
$1,046
676
678
655
486
595
654
650
768
351
452
12 mos. to 343
9/30/77
Rate of return
on investment
after
depreciation
3.90%
2.46
2.44
2.36
1.73
2.12
2.34
2.33
2.70
1.20
1.60
1.27
Net income
after fixed
charges0
(millions)
$904
554
569
514
227
247
319
359
730
145
355
202
Net income in
constant 1966
dollars0
(millions)
$904
538
529
455
191
197
245
261
483
88
204
111
 a Ordinary income before extraordinary and prior-period charges
   and credits.
 b After provision for deferred taxes beginning in 1971.
 c After provision for deferred taxes beginning in 1971 and
   including equity in undistributed earnings of affiliated
   companies beginning in 1974.

Source:  "Review of '77", Railway Age, Jan. 30, 1978, p.59.
                               2-14

-------
railway operating income (column 1) shows a dramatic decline from a  1966
high of over 1 billion dollars to less than 400 million in two of the past
three years.  Discounting the 1966 high, the performance of the past three
years is clearly lower than that of prior years. Columns 3 and 4 reflect
essentially the same income data after the deduction of fixed charges.
Here the picture is the same, with distinct declines over the period, and
1975 and 1977 displaying the poorest performance of the decade.  Rate of
return on investment, shown in coluun 2, further describes the generally
poor condition of the U.S. railroads.  In no year since 1966 has the rate
of return on investment been as high as 4 percent.  In four of the past 12
years, including the last three, the rate of return has been lower than 2
percent.

     lluch of this general decline is accounted for by the Eastern rail-
roads, as shown in Table 2-11.  The railroads in both the Southern and
Western districts depict essentially uniform returns on investment over the
1966-76 period.

Summary and Conclusions

     The railroad industry has experienced serious problems of national
dimensions.  A number of factors operate jointly which have resulted in
poor operating conditions for many U.S. railroads. These problems have been
most acute in the Northeast where Penn Central and other Class I railroads
have been reorganized as Conrail. Several other Class I railroads have
considered or undertaken steps leading to mergers in recent years.

     Changes in the American economy have slowed the growth of the total
intercity rail freight demand.  Another significant influence on the
railroads' viability is the competitive position of railroads in relation
to truckers because of the interstate highway system.  Shippers have chosen
truck transportation in lieu of railroads because of improved service
delivery on some specific commodities.  The railroads have not adapted
quickly to these changes.  In the absence of traffic growth sufficient to
offset salary gains by labor, railroad employment has dropped.  The  rate
of return on investment of Class I railroads in transportation property
has only been 2.8 percent during the past ten years, discouraging new
capital investment.
                                  2-15

-------
                         TABLE 2-11
RATE OF RETURN ON  INVESTMENT AFTER DEPRECIATION BY REGIONS
Year
1929
1939
1944
1947
1951
1955
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971*
1972*
1973*
1974*
1975*
1976*
United
States
5.30%
2.56
4.70
3.44
3.76
4.22
2.74
3.12
3.16
3.69
3.90
2.46
2.44
2.36
1.73
2.12
2.34
2.33
2.70
1.20
1.60
Eastern
District
6.03%
3.14
4.37
3.02
3.47
4.10
1.80
2.28
2.56
3.32
3.55
1.58
1.27
1.10
( - )
( - )
0.11
0.11
0.46
( - )
( ~ )
Southern
District
4.27%
2.77
5.45
3.52
4.74
5.45
4.17
4.04
4.01
4.16
4.45
3.86
3.79
4.17
4.50
4.36
4.61
4.01
4.73
3.98
4.62
Western
District
4.85%
1.85
4.62
3.84
3.76
3.86
3.15
3.60
3.43
3.87
4.03
2.75
3.01
2.81
3.02
3.51
3.34
3.34
3.66
2.65
3.57
Parentheses indicate deficit.
* Reflects inclusion of deferred taxes.
                           2-16

-------
     Analysis of income and rate of return point to a weak financial
position for railroads.  Declining profits have caused a cutback in
capital investment to maintain and/or add to real assets.  Low earnings
from slow growth in revenues eventually necessitates further borrowing
to cover total operating and investment costs.  The low rates of return
to equity discourage potential lenders, and the costs of accessible
investment funds rise accordingly.  This cycle of cause and effect
appears to characterize the railroad industry.

     For a more comprehensive discussion and analysis of the railroad
industry's importance to the Nation, current situation and causes of
it's problems, interiaodal competition, restructuring of the industry and
a look at it's future, the reader is referred to a recent Department
of Transportation document.'
                                  2-17

-------
                          FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
 Footnotes

 1.   The Official Railroad Equipment Register, Vol.  93,  No.  2 National
     Railway Publication Company, New York,  N.Y.,  October 1977.

 2.   Railroad Classification Yard Technology - A Survey  and  Assessment.
     Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,  California, January,  1977.

 3.   Yearbook of Railroad Facts,  1978 Edition, Association of American
     Railroads.

 4.   Intercity Domestic Transportation System for  Passengers and
     Freight. U.S.  Government Printing Office, 1977.

 5.   Final System Plan. Supplemental Report, U.S.  Railway
     Association, September, 1975.

 6.   Class I List of  Principal Railroads in  the United States.
     Association of American Railroads, Washington, 1). C.,
     September,  1976.

 7.   Statistical Abstract of the  U.S.  1977.  U.S. Department  of
     Commerce, Bureau  of the Census,  p. 402.

 8.   Yearbook of Railroad Facts 1977.  p.  57.

 9.   A Prospectus for  Change in the  Freight  Railroad  Industry A
     Preliminary Report by the Secretary  of  Transportation,  U.S.
     Department  of  Transportation, October 1978.

 Other References

 Eighty-Ninth Annual Report on Transport  Statistics in the United
 States for the  Year Ending December  31.  1975  - Part  I Railroads.
 Bureau of Accounts, Interstate Commerce  Commission,  Washington, D.C.

 Final Standards. Classificaiton, and  Designation  of  Lines of
 Class 1  Railroads  in  the  United  States.  Vol.  II,  U.S. Department
 of Transportation, June 30,  1977.

 Class I  List  of  Principal Railroads  in the  United States. Association
 of American  Railroads,  Washington, D.C., January, 1978.

 Yearbook  of Railroad Facts  -  1977 Edition,  Association of American
 Railroads, Washington,  D.C.

Operating and Traffic  Statistics - Class I  Line-Haul Rail roads in
 the United States. 0.  S.  Series No. 218. Year  1976. Association of
American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
                               2-18

-------
                     FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES  (Continued)
Conrail consolidated the properties of the former Perm Central/
Erie Lackawanna, Reading, Central of New Jersey/ Lehigh Valley,
and Lehigh and Hudson River/ and has operating responsibility for
the Ann Arbor.

Railroad Quiz, Office of Information and Public
Affairs, AAR.

"Review of 1977", Railway Age, Vol. 179, No. 2, January 30,
1978.

One component to note (cf.  Table 2-6) is the increase in maintenance-
of-way expenses.  This indicates not only rising costs but also
the increasing amount of track mileage needing maintenance.

Improving Railroad Productivity, Task Force on Railroad Productivity
for the National Commission on Productivity and the Council of
Economic Advisors, Washington, D.C., November 1973.

Domestic Transportation System for Intercity Passenger and
Freight/ Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Report,
95th Congress, Washington, D.C., 1977.
                                  2-19

-------
SECTION 3

-------
                             SECTION 3

                  IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION
                OF RAILROAD EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES
RAILROAD EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

     Railroad property consists of equipment and facilities. Equipment
includes locomotives, cars, and special purpose items for maintenance-of-way
and marine applications.  Facilities consist of track, tunnels, bridges,
yards, and a host of general or special purpose buildings.1  Table 3-1
presents a list of the major items of railroad property.

     The property, shown in general terms in Table 3-1, may be expanded
by the type or function of each item.  For example, there are four types
of rail lines described by annual traffic density (i.e, A Main, B Main,
A Branch, and B Branch).  Table 3-2 indicates that two basic types
of locomotives, diesel and electric, perform four functions.^
Table 3-3 shows that railroad freight cars fall into nine functional
categories.3

     Special purpose equipment for marine applications and maintenance-of-way
is listed in Table 3-4^.  Although this tabulation may not be all
inclusive, it reflects the majority of the inventory of this type of
railroad property.

     The functions of railroad yards are:  classification, storage,
interchange, trailer/container on flatcar handling, and local switching/
industrial interfacing.^»-*  These facilities employ locomotive power
for freight equipment movement through the yards (flat yards) or they
rely upon gravity and yard grades for car movement through portions
of the yard complex (hump yards).
                                   3-1

-------
                                  TABLE 3-1
                              RAILROAD PROPERTY
Lines

Tunnels

Bridges

Trestles

Culverts

Elevated Structures
           FACILITIES
Stations

Office Buildings

Service Facilities

Repair Facilities

Manufacturing Facilities

Testing Facilities
Power Generating Facilities

Communication Facilities

Freight Terminals

Marine Terminals

Flat Yards

Hump Yards

Power-Transmission Facilities
                             PRINCIPAL EQUIPMENT

                             Locomotives

                             Cars

                             Special Purpose Equipment
                             (including Marine)
                                    3-2

-------
            TABLE 3-2
      RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES
  Type
                        Function
 Diesel
Road Passenger
Road Freight
Road 'Switcher
Yard Switcher
Electric
Road Passenger
Road Freight
Yard Switcher
            TABLE 3-3
 RAILROAD FREIGHT EQUIPMENT CARS
           Box Car
           Refrigerator Car
           Stock Car
           Gondola Car
           Hopper Car
           Flat Car
           Tank Car
           Special Car
           Caboose
               3-3

-------
                     TABLE 3-4
             SPECIAL PURPOSE EQUIPMENT
 Ballast Cribbing Machines
 Belt Machines
 Brush Cutters
 Compactors
 Welding Machines
 Snow Plows
 Spike  Pullers
 Crosstie Replacers
 Cranes
 Spike  Drivers
 Ballast  Tampers
 Rail Aligners
 Ballast  Cars
 Crosstie Cars
Weed Sprayers
Ditching Car
Rail Saw
Rail Bender
 Track Layer
 Caboose and Tool Car
 Dump Car
 Ballast Spreader and Trimmer
 Flat Car
 Track Inspection Car
 Hand Car
 Ballast Unloader
 Snow-Removing Car
 Store-Supply Car
 Pile  Driver
 Steam Shovel
 Tool  and Block Car
 Derrick
Boarding Outfit  Car
Car Ferries
Car Floats
Tugs
                      3-4

-------
     Table 3-1 contains other types of facilities which are not covered
under lines and yards.  These are stations, terminals, and isolated
facilities which perform support functions.  Stations and terminals include
freight, passenger, and marine facilities.  Support facilities cover
such functions as service and repair, power generating and transmission,
and manufacturing and testing.1

     The purpose of this section is to reorganize the equipment and facilities
of the railroad industry into a logical classification system.  This
system will permit the identification of noise sources within the
railroad industry and will allow for the effective and efficient assignment
of noise abatement techniques to the proper source or sources.

CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTY

     Table 3-5 summarizes the items presented in the preceding subsection
and suggests that all railroad property be grouped into four categories:
lines, stations/terminals, yards, and isolated support facilities.  Each
category is divided into several types of property.  The principal
equipment which operates in, or on, each of the four categories of
property are also listed.  Although other types of railroad equipment
may be associated with each of the properties shown, this tabulation
includes only principal items of railroad property.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RAILROAD YARDS

     The preceding discussion indicates that there are two principal
types of yards in the railroad system, (i.e. hump and flat).  There are,
however,  several subtypes of yards within each principal type. These
subtypes are defined by function, location, land use, activity level,
and the population of the yard's locality.
                                   3-5

-------
                                TABLE 3-5

                  CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROAD PROPERTIES
   Category of
 Railroad Property
     Type of
 Railroad Property
   Associated
Principal Equipment
 Lines
 "A"  Main >_ 20M*
 "B"  Main 5-20M*
 "A"  Branch 1-5M*
 "B"  Branch <  1M*
                                                   Locomotives
                                                   Rail Cars
                                                   Special  Purpose Equipment
 Stations/Terminals
Freight
                         Passenger
                         Marine
Locomotives
Rail Cars
Special Purpose Equipment
Ferries
Floats
Tugs
Yards
Hump
                         Flat
Locomotives
Rail Cars
Special Purpose Equipment
Isolated Support
Facilities
Service
Repair
Manufacturing
Testing
Power Generating
Power Transmission
Communication
* M = millions of gross ton-miles per mile per year.
                               3-6

-------
     The two primary functions of railroad yards are the assembly,
disassembly, and reassembly of line-haul trains (classification yard);
and the collection and distribution of cars to provide freight service
to and from other industries (industrial yard). ^|5

     The primary land uses adjacent to the locations of railroad yards
are:

          o    Industrial
          o    Commercial
          o    Residential
          o    Agricultural
          o    Undeveloped

     The activity levels selected for both principal types of yards
are presented in Table 3-6.4  It should be noted that these activity
levels only apply to yards performing the classification function.  They
do not apply to those yards whose only function is freight service to
and from industry (i.e., industrial yards).

     The population of a yard's locality is described by six population
categories.  These are:4

          o     0-5000 people
          o     5,000-50,000 people
          o     50,000-100,000 people
          o     100,000-250,000 people
          o     250,000-500,000 people
          o     >500,000 people

     The system for the classification of railroad yards is summarized
in Table 3-7.
                               3-7

-------
                    TABLE 3-6
       ACTIVITY LEVELS  FOR RAILROAD YARDS
Yard
Type
Yard
Activity
Number of Cars
Classified per Day
Hump
Flat
Low
Medium
High

Low
Medium
High
<1000
1000-2000
>2000

<500
500-1000
>1000
                   TABLE 3-7
   CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RAILROAD YARDS
YARD CHARACTERISTIC
Yard Type: Hump
Flat
Yard Function: Classification
Industrial
Classification/Industrial
Adjacent Land Industrial
Use: . ..
Commercial
Residential
* Agricultural
Undeveloped
Yard Locality 0-5000
Population: 5000-50,000
50,000-100,000
100,000-250,000
250,000-500,000
>500,000
Legend
(H)
(F)
(C)
(I)
(C/I)
(I)
(C)
(R)
(A)
(U)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
                   3-8

-------
DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL RAILROAD YARDS

Hump Yards

     Hump yards perform both the classification and industrial
service functions for U.S. railroads.  This type of yard generally
consists of a subyard to receive incoming line-haul traffic, a subyard
where these trains are broken up and reassembled into outbound confi-
gurations, and a subyard for outbound traffic.  These three subyards
are defined as receiving, classification, and departure "yards" re-
spectively, as shown below in Figure 3-1 •->

                     Direction of Traffic Flow
          receiving  \  / classification  \    / departure
            "yard"   /\     "yard"     /    \   "yard"
          FIGURE 3-1.  SCHEMATIC OF HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARD

     The unique characteristic of hump yards is that they employ a
gravity-feed system between the receiving subyard and the classification
subyard.  This system consists of a hump crest and a series of retarders
for car spacing and speed control.  This feature of all hump yards is
shown in plan and elevation view on Figure 3-2.5  Not shown are the
"inert" retarders which are located at the departure end of each classifi-
cation track.  It should be noted that some hump classification yards
also contain approach retarders (upstream of the hump crest), tangent
point retarders (downstream of the group retarders, at the origin of each
classification track), and intermediate retarders (between the master and
group retarders).  A description of these retarding devices is contained
in Section 5 of this document.
                                  3-9

-------
                                            PLAN VIEW
                                                                             Classification Tracks
          Hump Control Tower
                                Car Retarders
     - iiiiiiniITTT  muni
Yard Switch
Locomotive
            Hump Crest
                               Retarder
                                                  Retarder
                           FIGURE 3-2.  HUMP YARD CREST AND RETARDER SYSTEM

-------
     A typical hump yard also contains a variety of buildings and
facilities, such as:

          •  Office/Administration Buildings
          •  Stock Pens
          •  Trailer Ramp
          •  Powerhouse
          •  Compressor Building
          •  Hydraulic Pump House
          •  Fuel Pump House
          •  Car One Spot Service and Repair Facility
          •  Caboose Service Facility
          •  Locomotive Washer Facility
          •  Locomotive Service Facility
          •  Maintenance-of-Way Facility

     All types of locomotives can generally be found operating
or undergoing service, maintenance, and perhaps, repair in hump yards.
Further, all types of freight cars pass through hump yards and many of
the way maintenance machines may be employed in, or housed on, hump
yard complexes•
                          «
     The three subyards of the yard complex may be arranged in various
configurations, as shown in Figure 3-3.

     The physical characteristics of hump yards vary considerably
depending upon yard configuration and yard capacity.  However, as
shown in Figure 3-4, yard activity or capacity, measured in terms of car
classifications per day,  is a function of the number of tracks in the
classification "subyard".  Further, the number of group retarders may be
approximated from classification track data as shown in Figure 3-5. Hump
yards are usually several miles long and a few thousand feet wide.
                               3-11

-------
                LOCOMOTIVE 6 CAR  --.{._
                  SERVICING    V^TX  "M
                                     . -i -  * *•
     CLASSIFICATION MUMP
YARD FOR LOCAL TRAFFIC
                                                                      LOCOMOTIVt (, CAR
                                                                        SERVICING

       RAILROAD MAIN LINE
 RECEIVING AND
DEPARTURE YARDS
                                                                            CLASSIFICATION
                                                                              YARD
                                                                                RECEIVING AND
                                                                               DEPARTURE YARDJ
                                                                             CLASSIFICATION
                                                                                 HUMP
                                               Courtesy of Westinghouse Air Brake  Co.
  MO I I VI.  f,  CAR L"
 SERVICING
                                                                                •
                                                       RECtlVINCJ
                                                     DEPAKTIJKi;  YARDS
                         '^RAILROAD MAIN  I. INI: t
                         ^^r   M •
                                     Courtesy of Westinghouse Air Brake  Co.
        FIGURE  3-3.   TYPICAL MODERN CLASSIFICATION HUMP YARD LAYOUTS
                                          3-12

-------
~   4
IB
U

y,
4J
•H

t
On
«
u
                                                                          • Conway
        / Barstow
Buckeye •    *
                                           Roanoke
                 DeWitt
                  Balnver, East L.A.
                                            J.
                                 J_
                   20          40           60          80

                            Number of  Classification Tracks
                                             100
                                                                                120
                     FIGURE 3-4.  HUMP  YARD CAPACITY


                                          3-13

-------
    2
    H
       16
       14
       12
       10
V   §
    H
                                                                                 Markham
                                                                                             •  Roanoke
                                                     Sheffiel
                           ^»    Cicero
                       ^         •
                        Mechanicville
 W. Colton
• •  Roseville
• Barstow
                                                                       •  Buckeye
                                                       • Centreville
                                     East L.A.
                                                                           Nalbridgc
                         10
20             30             40
Number of Classification  Tracks
                                                                                      50
                  60
70
                                          FIGURE 3-5.   GROUP RETARDERS IN HUMP YARDS

-------
Each of the three "subyards" have a standing capacity of hundreds
of cars resulting in a total standing capacity of thousands of freight
equipment cars.    Hump yards process dozens of trains per day and
sometimes contain hundreds of miles of track within the complex.

     Some of the major characteristics of this type of railroad facility
are summarized in Table 3-8.  These data are based upon the two preceding
figures and extractions from other reports.^-*  Hump yard operational
procedures may be found in Section 2.3 of Railroad Classification Yard
Technology. ^

Flat Yards

     Flat yards also perform the classification and industrial service
functions for the railroad system.  This type of yard does not contain
specific "subyards" for receiving, classification, and departure but is
generally configured as shown in Figure 3-6.^

     Yard switch locomotives move cars out of the receiving tracks and
use either continuous push or acceleration/braking techniques to distri-
bute them into specific classification tracks.  The continuous push or
the accelerate/brake action of the switch locomotive accomplishes
the same function in a flat yard as the "crest-roll-retard" action in
a hump yard.

     Flat yard tracks consist of switching leads, ladder tracks and
receiving, classification, and departure tracks.  Flat yards may also
contain "inert" retarders on some classification tracks, locomotive
and car service/repair facilities, and other buildings associated with
yard operations.
                                3-15

-------
       TABLE 3-8




SUMMARY OF HUMP YARD DATA
Yard Characteristic
Number of Classification Tracks
Number of Master Retarders
Number of Group Retarders
Number of Inert Retarders
Number of Receiving Yard Tracks
Number of Departure Yard Tracks
Standing Capacity of
Classification Yard
Standing Capacity of
Receiving Yard
Standing Capacity of
Departure Yard
Number of Cars Classified/Day
Yard Activity (Classified Cars Per Day)
< 1000
26
1
4
26
11
9
1447
977
862
783
1000 - 2000
43
1
7
43
11
12
1519
1111
969
1663
> 2000
57
1
10
57
13
14
2443
1545
1594
2661
       3-16

-------
             Ladder .       f               "
             Track  ^""^^^r                      x

                                                   \
                          Classification Tracks -
Switching
A                          Receiving and       \
                         Departure Tracks      \
                                                \
              {        Classification Tracks       j

                                                /
        FIGURE 3-6.  TYPICAL PLAT-YARD TRACK CONFIGURATIONS
                                      3-17

-------
     Flat yard activity or capacity, measured by cars classified per
day, is also a function of the number of tracks used for that function.
As shown in Figure 3-7-*, this relationship is similar to that of
hunp yards.

     Table 3-9 presents some typical data on flat yards showing yard
characteristics similar to those shown for hump yards.^
                                TABLE 3-9
                        SUMMARY OF FLAT YARD DATA
Yard Characteristic
Number of classification tracks
Standing capacity of
classification yard
Cars classified/day
Yard Activity (Classified Cars/day)
<500
14
653
348
500-1000
20
983
907
>1000
25
1185
1692
Flat yard operational procedures may also be found in Section 2.3
of Railroad Classification Yard Technology.^

SUMMARY OF RAIL YARD STATISTICAL DATA

     A recent survey of the railroad system in the U.S. has resulted
in valuable data regarding the railyard inventory.^  This section
presents a condensation of that data and is designed to complement the
data base used in other sections of this document.
                                   3-18

-------
    2  T
ID
•O
u

*
4J
•H
O
«J
&
10
u
U
•P
                       10               15              20


                        Number of Classification Tracks
25
                        FIGURE 3-7.  FLAT YARD  CAPACITY
                                        3-19

-------
      The  survey  concludes  that  there  are  4169  railroad yards  in  the
 contiguous  48  states.  Of  these,  124  are  hump  yards  and 4045  are
 flat  yards.  Table  3-10  displays  these  yards by  function and  adjacent
 land  useage.   These data show that  the  majority  of yards perform  the
 industrial  service  function  and  that  only approximately five  percent
 of  the yards are used  solely for  car  classification  purposes.  The
 data  also indicate  that  only approximately 15  percent  of the  yards
 are located in agricultural  and  undeveloped areas.

      Table  3-11 shows  the  distribution  of hump yards according to yard
 activity  and population  of the yard's locality.  These  data  show that the
 highest concentration  of hump yards is  in areas  of population size two
 (5-50K persons) and in areas of  industrial land  use.

      Table  3-12 shows  the  distribution  of the  1113 flat  yards used
 for the car classification function.  These data also  show  that popu-
 lation size two and industrial areas  have the  highest  concentration
 of  this yard type.

      Tables 3-13 and 3-14  round out the yard/population  data  by showing
 the distribution of  all  flat yards and all yards of  both  types by locality
 and population, respectively.

      The  final tabulation  in this section,  Table 3-15,  contains a
 list  of automatic classification yards."   These  data show that
 79 of the approximately  124  hump yards in the  U.S. railroad system
 are automated  to varying degrees.  Yard automation may include the
 receiving, service,  classification, and departure functions; car
 identification; switch control; speed control  including car weight
and reliability; and yard/car inventory and location.

      Examples of the new automatic classification yards  in  the U.S.
railroad system are Northtown (BN), Bars tow (ATSF), West Colton (SP),
Sheffield (SOU), and Bailey  (UP).7
                              3-20

-------
                        TABLE  3-10

             DISTRIBUTION OF U.  S.  RAILROAD YARDS
               BY TYPE, FUNCTION, AND  LOCATION
Yard Type
 C/I
                                Yard Function
                                                      Total
Hump
Flat
  98
 930
     18
    183
2932
                                                       124
      4045
Total
1028
    201
2940
      4169
Yard Type
                        Adjacent Land Use By Percent
        C
        R
         U    Total
Hump
20
       27
                                        13
        33     100
Flat
21
11     35
12
21      100
Flat Ind.
30     16     32
                                                18      100
Flat Snail Ind.   31      14     28
                               20      100
                              3-21

-------
              TABLE 3-11
      DISTRIBUTION OF HUMP YARDS
BY ACTIVITY AND POPULATION OF LOCALITY
Yard
Activity
Low
Medium
High
Total
Population of Locality
1
0-5K
8
1
4
13
2
5-50K
11
18
10
39
3
50-100K
7
3
2
12
4
100-250K
8
a
6
22
5
250-500K
5
6
5
16
6
>500K
8
10
4
22
Total
47
46
31
124
               TABLE 3-12

       DISTRIBUTION OF FLAT YARDS
         USED FOR CLASSIFICATION
 BY  ACTIVITY AND POPULATION OF LOCALITY

Yard
Activity
Low
Medium
High
Total
Population of Locality
1
0-5K
102
64
33
199
2
5-50K
219
140
71
430
3
50-100K
75
43
23
146
4
100-250K
60
35
21
116
5
250-500K
42
23
12
77
6
>500K
73
47
25
145
Total

571
357
1H5
1113
                    3-22

-------
                   TABLE  3-13



DISTRIBUTION OP ALL FLAT  YARDS BY CITY  POPULATION
Population of Flat Yard Locality

0 - 5000
5K - 50K
50K - 100K
100K - 250K
250K - 500K
> 500K
Total
Yards
Number
1115
1625
366
268
238
433
4045
Percentage
27
40
9
7
6
11
100%
                   TABLE 3-14



DISTRIBUTION OF ALL YARDS BY LOCALITY POPULATION
Population of Railroad Locality

0 - 5000
5K - 50K
50K - 100K
100K - 250K
250K - 500K
> 500K
Total
Yards

Number
1128
1664
378
290
254
455
4169

Percentage
27
40
9
7
6
11
100%
                      3-23

-------
            TABLE 3-15



U.S. AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION YARDS
Company
ALS
ATSF



BO
BETH STL
BN






CO

MILW


CR










DRGW
DTI
DTS
CR
EJE
Location
East St. Louis, 111
Pueblo, Colo.
Corwith Yd., Chicago, 111.
Eastbound Argentine Yd. , Kansas City, Mo.
Barstow Yd., Barstow, Calif.
Westbound Yd., Cumberland, Md.
Burns Harbor, Ind.
Gavin Yd., Minot, N. Dakota
Cicero, 111.
Missoula, Montana
North Kansas City, Mo.
Interbay Yd., Seattle, Wash.
Pasco , Washington
Northtown Yd. , Fridley, Minn.
Stevens, Kentucky
Manifest Yd., Russell, Kentucky
Airline Yd., Milwaukee, Wis.
Bensenville, 111.
St . Paul , Minn .
E.B. Rutherford Yd., Rutherford, Pa.
Eastbound Conway , Pa .
Westbound Conway, Pa.
Frontier Yd., Buffalo, N.Y.
R.R. Young Yd., Elkhart, Ind.
Big Four Yd., Indianapolis, Ind.
Grandview Columbus, Ohio
59th Street, Chicago, 111.
Pavonia, N.J.
A.E. Perlman Yd., Selkirk, N.Y.
Buckeye Yd., Columbus, Ohio
Grand Junction, Colo.
Flat Rock Yd. , Detroit, Mich.
Lang Yd., Toledo, Ohio
Bison Yd., Buffalo, N.Y.
Kirk Yd. , Gary, Ind.
Supplier
GE-GRS-WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO- ABEX -ATSF
GRS
GRS
GRS
WABCO
GRS
WABCO
ABEX
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
GRS
ABEX
ABEX
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
ABEX
WABCO
GRS
GRS
Year
1965
1950
1958
1969
1976
1960
1969
1956
1957
1967
1969
1969
1971
1974
1955
1958
1952
1953
1956
1952
1955
1957
1957
1958
1960
1964
1966
1967
1968
1969
1953
1967
1974
1963
1952
                3-24

-------
                TABLE 3-15



U.S AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION YARDS  (Cont.)
Company
ICG

1KB
LRT
LN



MP


NW



PLE
RFP

SLSF

SSW
SCL


SOU







SP





Location
Southbound Markam Yd., Chicago, 111.
East St. Louis, 111.
Eastbound Blue Island Yd., Riverdale, 111.
Licking River Yd., Wilder, Ky.
Tilford Yd. , Atlanta, Ga.
Boyles Yd., Birmingham, Ala.
Southbound DeCoursey, Kentucky
Strawberry Yd., Louisville, Ky.
Neff Yd., Kansas City, Mo.
North Little Rock, Arkansas
Centennial Yd., Ft. Worth, Texas
Portsmouth, Ohio
Bellevue, Ohio
Roanoke, Va.
Lamberts Point, Va.
Gateway Yd . , Youngstown , Ohio
Southbound Potomac Yd., Va.
Northbound Potomac Yd., Va.
Tennessee Yd., Memphis, Tenn.
Cherokee Yd., Tulsa, Oklahoma
Pine Bluff Yd., Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Hamlet, N.C.
East Bay Yd. , Tampa, Fla.
Rice Yd., Waycross, Ga.
Sevier Yd., Knoxville, Tenn.
Norris Yd., Birmingham, Ala.
De Butts Yd. , Chattanooga, Tenn.
Inman Yd. , Atlanta, Ga.
Brosnan Yd., Macon, Ga.
Sheffield Yd., Sheffield, Ala.
Piggy Back Yd., Atlanta, GA.
Linwood Yd., Salisbury, NC.
Richmond, Calif.
City of Industry, Los Angeles, Calif.
Eugene , Oregon
Beaumont, Texas
West Colton, Calif.
Strang Yd., Houston, Texas
Supplier
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
WABCO
GRS
ABEX
ABEX
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
Year
1950
1964
1953
1977
1957
1958
1963
1976
1959
1962
1971
1953
1967
1971
1952
1958
1959
1972
1957
1958
1958
1955
1970
1976
1950
1952
1955
1957
1966
1973
1973
1978
1964
1966
1966
1967
1973
1977
                    3-25

-------
                TABLE 3-15





U.S. AUTOMATIC CLASSIFICATION YARDS  (Cont.)
Company
TNO
TRRA
UP
URR
Location
Englewood Yd . , Houston , Texas
Eastbound Madison Yd., Madison, 111.
North Platte, Neb. 1 _ .,
North Platte, Neb. ( BalleV
East Los Angeles, Calif.
Hinkle Yd., Hinkle, Oregon
Mon. Southern Yd., Pittsburgh, Pa.
Supplier
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
WABCO
Year
1956
1974
1956
1968
1971
1977
1954
                    3-26

-------
                              SECTION 3
                       FOOTNOTES AND REFERENCES
1.  Letter from Philip F.  Welsh, Association of American Railroads
    to Henry E. Thomas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    November 8, 1977.
2.   Final System Plan, Supplemental Report, U.S. Railway Association,
    September 1975.
3.  The Official Railroad Equipment Register, Vol. 93,  No. 2,
    National Railway Publication Co., New York,  N.Y., October  1977.
4.  Railroad Classification Yard Technology - A Survey and Assess-
    ment .  Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park,  California,
    January 1977.
5.  Railroad Classification Yard Technology - An Introductory
    Analysis of Functions and Operations, PB-246724, U.S. Department
    of Transportation, Cambridge, Mass., May 1975.
6.  Automatic Classification Yards - United States and Canada,
    Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.,  May 4,  1977.
7.  Railway Age, Vol. 179, No. 6, Simnons-Boardman Publishing Corp.,
    Bristol, Conn., March 27, 1978.
                                   3-27

-------
SECTION 4

-------
                            SECTION 4

                    BASELINE NOISE EMISSIONS

RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES

     Noise is generated by rail carriers during the operation of
nearly all the equipment listed in Section 3.  In order to character-
ize railroad noise emissions, the Agency has attempted to determine
noise levels both from individual sources and from the operation of
multiple sources which are combined into larger single operations
such as a classification yard.  The understanding of how multiple
sources interact to produce an overall noise level is essential
since it is the combined noise source operation which is heard by
the community.  A knowledge of individual equipment noise source
levels is equally important since individual noise source treatment
is usually the most effective method for reducing overall noise
emissions.  The individual sources of noise which have been
identified as major contributors to railroad noise are:
          •    Engine noise from locomotives and switch engines
          •    Retarder squeal
          •    Refrigerator car noise
          •    Car-coupling noise
          •    Load cell testing, repair facilities and locomotive
               service area noise
          •    Wheel/Rail noise
          •    Horns, bells, whistles, public address systems
                               4-1

-------
The primary focus in this Draft Background Document is on the above
rail yard noise sources.  Other railroad operations such as stations and off.
yard repair facilities are minor contributors to community noise when
compared to wayside noise from line operations and noise emissions
from yard operations.  Noise from line operations will be reviewed
only briefly in this document.  For more exhaustive treatment of
noise from line operations the reader is referred to the December
1975 Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards.^

RAILROAD PROPERTY NOISE SURVEY PROGRAM

     The EPA has undertaken a limited noise measurement program to
supplement the existing railroad noise data base and to develop baseline
data at and near rail yard property lines.

     This program included twenty—four hour measurements at each facility
to ensure that the measured noise emissions were characteristic of the
facility. Sound equivalent levels and statistical percentile levels
were computed hourly.  Noise correlate data such as individual noise
events and distances to railroad yard noise sources were also noted
during the recording period.  These data, together with existing data
collected previously by the EPA serve the following purposes:

          •    Establish the relationship of these measurements to
               selected rail yard, yard function, and
               level of activity, as a basis for the development of
               classification categories;
          •    Establish a baseline for determining the benefits
               afforded to the health/welfare of the nation's
               population by reducing noise emissions within each
               property classification category; and
                               4-2

-------
          •    Select a measurement methodology, which is consistent
               with the health/welfare analysis and the noise emission
               data base, for prescribing "not-to-exceed" noise
               emission level standards.
MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

     In developing a noise emission test procedure, EPA recognized
the need for a relatively simple method of accurately determining
noise emissions which would be suitable for enforcement auditing by
the Department of Transportation and compliance determination by the
railroads and local enforcement officials.  A methodology was chosen
consistent with the objective that it should:

          •    Ensure that noise emissions characteristic of major
               noise sources are being represented;
          •    Correlate well with the known effects of environmental
               noise upon public health and welfare; and
          •    Discriminate between railroad and non-railroad noise
               sources.

The procedure developed estimates the yearly Day-Night Average Sound
Levels, (L^) at a measurement position and distinguishes whether
the dominant contribution to the L^ is from railroad or non-railroad
properties.  The measurement procedure appears in its entirety in
Appendix A.

EXISTING NOISE DATA BASE

     The data base for railroad noise exists in two forms.  The first
addresses specific railroad noise sources. These data are contained in
several documents and reports.1/2,3,4,5,6  The other form focuses on
overall rail yard noise levels resulting from the combined rail yard
noise sources.  The rail yard noise data are contained in Appendix B.
                               4-3

-------
     Table 4-1 summarizes the data base for source noise levels with
the principal contributors to railroad yard noise represented.  These
data are energy averages of the numerous data points available for
each noise source.

     A summary of available yard noise data is shown in Table 4-2.  The
table shows the range of value mesaured according to yard type and measure-
ment location relative to the property line.  The noise emissions are
expressed as day/ night sound levels.  Rail yard noise surveys were
conducted by the EPA regional representatives, consultant contractors
to the EPA and a consultant contractor to the AAR.  The resultant data
covers measurements taken at 36 yards .  The measurements were generally
taken with automatic data recording equipment over a period of at least
twenty-four hours.  At most sites, in addition to the day/night levels, the
automatic equipment provided hourly Leg, Lmax, L^j, L^Q, L5Q,
   / and
     As an aid to assessing the significance of the measured values,
several other types of information were gathered along with the noise level
data.  These include data logs containing identification of the principal
rail yard and non rail yard noise sources and events, maps showing measure-
ment positions relative to yail yard property line and noise sources, and
observations of the measurement teams concerning factors such as; the
measurement procedures employed, the level of yard activity, the dominance
of rail yard noise and the adjacent land useage.  Since every yard is
unique in geometry, activity, environment, etc., the correlate information
is essential to interpreting the noise data.  The tables presented in this
section are only a summary of the noise level data.  For details of the
mesaurements taken at individual yards the reader should refer to Appendix B%

                                   4-4

-------
                                    TABLE 4-1

                           NOISE SOURCE LEVEL SUMMARY


                         Number of     Level of Energy Average*
   Noise  Source         Measurements     LAvg.  @10° Ft- (3BA)    SENEL @100 Ft.


Master Retarder:
Group, Track, and
Intermediate                410                  111                  108
Inert Retarder               96                    93                   90
Flat Yard Switch
Engine Accelerating
(Throttle Set  1-2)           30                    83                   98 (5 MPH)


Stationary Switch
Engine
(Throttle Set  1-2)            4                    76


Idling Locomotive
(Throttle Set  1-2)           63                    63


Hump Switch Engine,
Constant Speed
(Throttle Set  1-2)       Ref.  2                    78                   95 (4 MPH)
Car Impact                  133                   100                    92


Refrigerator Car            60                    63
Load Test
(Throttle 8)                59                    90
    LMax.Average for Intermittent or Moving Sources
                               4-5

-------
                        TABLE  4-2

            SUMMARY OF  MEASURED NOISE LEVELS
                  (RANGE OF  L^ LEVELS)
              Inside Yard
Yard Type    Property Line
         On Yard           In
      Property Line    Community
Hump            65-78

Flat            68-85

Industrial        -
                                      60-83

                                      66-79

                                      67-78  .

                                     Sample Size:
                          64-68

                          56-74

                          60-67

                       36  yards
                       TABLE  4-3

                      SUMMARY  OF
        MEASURED LEVELS AT CLASSIFICATION YARD
       PROPERTY LINES ACCORDING TO  YARD ACTIVITY
                (Range of L^ Levels)
Yard Type

Hump



Flat
Yard Activity

    Low
    Med
    High

    Low
    Med
    High
                                                          Levels

                                                          80-83
                                                          60-79
                                                          60-80

                                                          68-74
                                                          66-79
                                                          66-76
                                  Sample  Size:   22 yards
                            4-6

-------
     Table 4-3 displays the available measured property  line  level  ranges
for classification yards by yard type and  by  yard activity.   No  clear
relationship between yard activity category and measured L^  at  the
property line is evident from the yards  sampled.

     Table 4-4 lists the yard names, railroad ownership  and range of measured
levels of the yards for which property line measurements were obtained.  The
range of measured levels is shown when more than one property line  location
was surveyed.  In selecting the measurement locations along the  property
line, the measurement teams attempted to minimize the yard noise contamination
due to non rail yard sources such as street traffic.

     Table 4-5 shows ranges of levels for  yards when measurements were taken
inside the railroad property line.  The selection of measurement locations
inside the property line was sometimes necessary to assure that  the dominant
noises being measured were from the rail yards.

     Table 4-6 shows measurements taken beyond rail yard property lines.
Measurements taken beyond the rail yard property line tend to be more
representative of the levels experienced within the community surrounding
the yards.  The levels experienced within  the community  surrounding the
yards.  The levels, however, frequently reflect the contributions of non
rail yard sources such as street traffic.

     Table 4-7 shows a sample of yard measurements with  level percentiles shown
during the hour of the maximum LeQ.

     The relationship between the maximum  equivalent sound level
(L6q) and statistical measures of noise data  for the rail yards
surveyed are shown in Table 4- 7.  The hour of occurrence for  each
maximum Leg is also presented for all fourteen yards.
                                  4-7

-------
                                TABLE 4-4
                       MEASURED  L^ LEVELS AT
                       RAILROAD YARD PROPERTY LINE

Yard Type
Hump











Flat









Yard
Activity
Low
Med
Med
Med
Med
High
High
High
High
High
High
High
Low

Low
Med
Med
Med
Med
High
High
High
Range of L^ No .
Yard
Til ford
Centennial
Cumberland
Corwith
Roseville
Brosnan
Frontier
Boyles
Inman
Crest
Northtown
Barstow
Blue Isl.
Bowden
Burlington
Settegast
Mo r man
Richmond
Mays
Eureka
Dillard
Barr
Railroad
LN
TP
CO
ATSF
SP
SOU
CR
LN
SOU
MP
BN
ATSF
RI
FEC
DRGW
MP
ATSF
ATSF
ICP
MKT
SOU
CHESS IE
Level Data
80-83
76-79
66-77
74
60-75
60-75
64-70
69
71-72
72,80est.
67-68
70-76
73
67
68-69
66-72
70-79
71-76
67-73
74
66
71-76
of
Points
6
2
4
1
3
4
4
2
7
2
3
6
2
1
4
2
2
3
4
1
1
4
Industrial
Western Ave
MILW
67-78
                             4-8

-------
                           TABLE 4-5
                 MEASURED  L^  LEVELS INSIDE
                    RAILROAD PROPERTY LINE
Yard Type

Hump
  Yard
Railroad
Flat
Barstow
Crest
Cicero
Northtown
Enola
Johnson
E. Dallas
Settegast
Dillard
ATSF
MP
BN
BN
Conrail
ICG
ATSF
MP
SOU
  Level

  62-78
  78-88
  78-81
  65-74
  67-77

  75-85
  68-69
  68
  73-77
                         TABLE  4-6

               MEASURED  Ldn  LEVELS BEYOND
                 KAILYARD PROPERTY LINE
Yard Type

Hump


Flat
Industrial
   Yard

Argentine
Potomac

Eureka
Blue Island
West Springfield
Forrest

Denver
E. Deerfield
Morman
Interbay
Readville
Fort Lauderdale
 Railyard

  ATSF
  RFP

  MKT
  RI
  CR
  SOU

  DRGW
  CR
  ATSF
  BN
  Level

64 @ 200'
68 @ 650'

56-65 unknown
72-74 @ 270'
69 @ 60'
60 @ 320'
67 @ 120'
64-73 unknown
61 @ 100'
68-71 unknown
65, 65 C 250'
70 @ 350'
62 @ 750'

60 @ 62'
67 @ 63'
                              4-9

-------
                               TABLE  4-7



MEASURED NOISE LEVELS  DURING HOUR OF MAXIMUM L
                                               eq
ACCORDING TO YARD TYPE
Yard
Type
Flat










Hump







Yard
Activity
Low

Low

Medium
Medium
Medium
High

High
High
Low

Medium

Medium
Medium

High
High

Yard
Denver

Burlington

Sottegast
Mays
Richmond
E. Dallas

Dillard
Johnston
Til ford

Centennial

Barstow
Roseville

Brosnan
Inman

RR
UP

DRGW

MP
ICG
ATSF
ATSF

SOU
ICG
LN

TP

ATSF
SP

SOU
SOU

Hour of
Max. L
eq
08-09
18-19
15-16
17-18
17-18
01-02
17-18
16-17
14-15
23-24
00-01
00-01
22-23
19-20

00-01
08-09
15-16
16-17
13-14
22-23
Max.
Leq
74
74
69
69
75
74
80
68
68
76
88
81
81
81
81
77
79
79
72
70
70
L0
105
102
95
96
90
95
112
93
98
98
122
106
105
105
108
97
101
109
91
92
96
Ll
86
89
81
81
88
80
71
80
80
88
77
94
94
94
94
88
94
93
84
81
76
L10
57
57
64
59
80
67
46
65
64
71
67
72
80
81
76
77
74
73
73
69
67
L50
54
52
57
48
54
56
40
60
60
52
66
61
65
57
57
62
60
54
62
66
62
L90
52
50
54
44
52
48
33
58
58
46
66
58
57
51
55
57
54
50
52
59
59
L99




50
46
24


44
66 1
i
i
i

;
54
52
48 ;
43
1

                                   4-10

-------
     Average equivalent sound levels (Leq) for daytime and night-
time operations in each yard are summarized in Table 4-8.  Daytime
operations cover from 0700 to 2200 hours.  Night operations are from
2200 to 0700 hours of the next day.  Examination of these data reveals
that for the yards sampled sound levels from nighttime operations are
approximately equal to those from daytime operations.

     Variations in property line L,^ noise levels experienced over a
number of measurement days are shown in Table 4-9.  This information
indicates that yard noise level does not appear to fluctuate appreciably
from day to day.  It should be noted, however, that the available data
base for these variations is not large and that seasonal effects may not
be accurately represented.
                                  4-11

-------
                          TABLE 4-8

           COMPARISON OF DAY AND NIGHT SOUND LEVELS
           AT SELECTED RAILROAD YARD PROPERTY LINES
Yard
Yard Type Activity
Hump Low
Med
Med
Med
Med
High
High
High
High
High
High
Flat Low
Low
Med
Med
Med
Med
High
High
High

Yard
Til ford
Centennial
Cumberland
Corwith
Ro Seville
Brosnan
Frontier
Boyles
Inman
Crest
Barstow
Blue Isl.
Burlington
Settegast
Morman
Richmond
Mays
Eureka
Dillard
Barr

Railroad
LN
TP
CO
ATSF
SP
SOU
CR
LN
SOU
MP
ATSF
RI
DRGW
MP
ATSF
ATSF
ICP
MKT
SOU
CHESSIE
^
Day* :
76
74
69
68
57
67
62
62
65
64
80
64
66
62
67
63
72
58
69
63
65
65
5
Night
77
73
69
68
55
68
59
64
63
65
82
66
68
63
65
64
68
61
67
58
65
66
Industrial
Western Ave  MILW
74
                                                          70
* 0700-2200 hours
** 2200-0700 hours
                            4-12

-------
             TABLE  4-9








  DAILY VARIATION IN  DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE



SOUND LEVELS AT SELECTED  CLASSIFICATION




       FAIL YARD PROPERTY LINES


Rail Yard
Tilford
CumberXad
Centennial
Roseville
Brosnan
Inman
Frontier
Northtown


Barstow
Burlington
Morman


Operator
LN
CO
TP
SP
SOU
sou
CR



ATSF
DRGW
ATSF

Yard
Capacity
Low
Med
Med
Med
High
High
High



High
Low
Med

Yard
Type
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Hump
Flat
Flat
No. of
Measurement
Days
6
2
2
2
2
7
2
3
3
3
2
4
2
Variation
^ Ldn
Values (dB)
3
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
9
                 4-13

-------
                              SECTION 4
                              REFERENCES
1.  Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards/ EPA
    550/9-76-005, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
    D.C., December 1975.

2.  Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations
    Jack W.  Swing and Donald B. Pies, Wyle Laboratories, Contract
    No. 0300-94-07991, Report No. WCR 73-5, July 1973.

3.  Measurement of RR Noise-Line Operations, Boundaries, and Retarders,
    J. M. Path, et. al., National Bureau of Standards, for EPA,
    December 1974.

4.  Noise Level Measurements of Railroads Freight Yards and Wayside,
    Transportation Systems Center, E. J. Rickley, et. al., DOT-TSC-
    OST-73-46, Final Report, PB 234 219 May 1974.

5.  Rail and Environmental Noise:  A State of the Art Assessment,
    Bender,  E. K., et. al., Bolt, Beranek and Newman, #2709, 105 pp.,
    January 1974.

6.  Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Refrigeration Unit Noise, Thomas J.. Retka ,
    #DOT-TSC-OST-75-5, Final Report, January 1976.
                                   4-14

-------
                              SECT: ON  5

                       NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

     The major sources of railroad noise and the alternative abate-
ment procedures for reducing noise emissions from the sources were
investigated by the EPA prior to issuing noise emission standards for
rail cars and locomotives in January 1976.  A brief  summary of the
sources and treatments is included in  this document.  A more compre-
hensive analysis can be found in the Background Document for the Railroad
Noise Emission Standards, December 1975-1-.  In considering the noise
control technology available to reduce railroad noise emissions, it is
necessary to consider also the alternative regulatory approaches which
might be employed in developing a noise emission standard.  For example/
a source-type standard requires that individual noise sources meet
specified "not-to-exceed" levels which are generally based on best
available technology, taking into account the cost of compliance.  For a
property line-type standard, individual noise sources do not have fixed
"not-to-exceed" levels.  Thus, for a property line standard, available
technology requires only that tota_l_ noise emissions  from the operations
of all equipment on the property not exceed a specified level at each
point along the property line or the adjacent receiving land.  It is
clear that the options available to meet a property  line-type standard
include operational procedures such as rescheduling of activities and
relocation of noise sources; and alternatives such as land acquisition to
provide a buffer zone from the railroad noise sources.

DESCRIPTIONS OF YARD NOISE SOURCES AND ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY

Locomotives and Switch Engines

     Over 99 percent of the trains in the United States are hauled by
diesel-electric locomotives.  A few trains, particularly in the Northeast
                                 5-1

-------
SECTION 5

-------
corridor, are powered by all-electric or gas turbine locomotives.
The few remaining steam locomotives in the United States are preserved
primarily as historical curiosities.

     Diesel-electric locomotives have a diesel engine driving an electric
alternator or generator which, in turn, drives electric traction motors
on the wheels.  The electrical system acts as an "automatic transmission"
and, in a given throttle setting, maintains a constant load on the
engine for differing train speeds.  The operation of diesel-electric
locomotives represents a major source of the noise emitted from yards.
The major noise-producing mechanisms in diesel-electric locomotives are
engine exhaust/ engine casing vibrations, and cooling fans*

     Noise abatement for locomotives and switch engines can be accomplished
by the following approaches:

          •      Equipment modification

                 - Improved exhaust muffling
                 - Cooling fan modification
                 - Engine shielding

          •      Operational procedures

                 - Park idling locomotives closer to center of the
                   yard or away from residences
                 - Reduce speed
                 - Reduce nighttime operations.

Retarders

     Within the classification portion of most major U.S. hump yards/
retarders are used to control the velocity of free-rolling freight cars.
                                  5-2

-------
The speed with which the cars enter the classification track must be
controlled, so that the impact at the destination is just sufficient
to ensure coupling.  The master retarder at the entrance to the switching
zone provides velocity control and spacing between the cars, while the
group retarders at the entrance to each group of classification tracks
bring the cars to the speed required for final coupling.

     The retarders are mechanical devices which clamp a beam against
the wheel of the cars, thereby creating a friction force which slows the
forward motion of the cars.  The retardation is controlled by varying the
pressure applied to the beam.  The friction force, in addition to con-
trolling the rail car retardation, can produce and radiate an intense
squealing noise.

     Three approaches for reducing the noise emissions from retarder
squeal have been developed and are currently in use.  The methods are:

          •       Barriers
          •       Lubrication systems
          •       Ductile iron shoes.

Barriers have proven effective at the Madison Yard, operated by the
Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis.  These barriers are twelve
feet high, measured from the top of the rail, with the peak of the
barriers eight feet on a perpendicular line to the rail track center.
The barrier's construction consists of supporting timbers, corrugated
transite, and four inch fiberglass absorptive material with protective
covering.  Noise measurements before and after barrier installation
showed that the noise levels were reduced up to 25 dB.  Similar measure-
ments conducted as part of a research project at the Burlington Northern
Railroad^, Northtown freight yard showed insertion loss values of
16 dB to 22 dB.  Figures, 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 show how sound levels vary
as a function of barrier, height, absorptive characteristics and dis-
tance from the barriers.
                                   5-3

-------
-
                                                    6            8
                                             Barrier Height, Feet
                                                   10
             FIGURE 5-1.
INSERTION LOSS OF RETARDER BARRIER AS A FUNCTION OF BARRIER HEIGHT
(100 FEET FROM BARRIER AT 90  DEGREES)

 O ABSORPTIVE

 • REFLECTIVE

-------
                     12-1
              30                   60

FIGURE  5-2.   INSf;                               RS,  Ar> A FUNCTION
              OF Ar             ON  (100-FOOT EQUIVALENT DISTANCE)

               0 ABS-

               •
                                     5-5

-------
                    10-Foot Barrier
                        50                  100
            Distance From Retarder,  Feet
FIGURE 5-3.
INSERTION LOSS OF A 10-FOOT HIGH  ABSORPTIVE  BARRIER
AS A FUNCTION OF THE DISTANCE FROM THE  RETARDER TO
THE OBSERVER AT 90 DEGREES
                                  5-6

-------
     Lubrication systems are currently being employed by Burlington
Northern at their Northtown yard.  The lubrication system consists
of a series of nozzles on a header pipe running down both sides of each
rail with a concrete trough below the rail to collect the runoff.  A
water soluble oil solution of less than two percent oil is employed.  A
mixture of ethylene glycol is added in winter to keep the water from
freezing.  The lubricant is collected in a retrieval system and cleaned
for reuse.  Approximately three gallons of the dilute mixture is used per
car sprayed when the system is operating.  At least 50 percent and
maybe as high as 75 percent of the mixture is recoverable.  The con-
sumption of oil may be as low as 75 gallons per day.  The system
eliminates retarder squeal as a significant noise source by reducing the
frequency of the stick-slip action.  Ductile iron shoes, cast with free
spheroidal graphite dispersed throughout the metal, are also being
employed to reduce the frequency of retarder squeal.  At the Southern
Pacific's West Colton yard^, squeal frequency dropped from 53 percent
with the standard steel shoes to 17 percent with ductile iron (inside
shoe only).

Inert Retarders

     Inert retarders are generally located at the end of each track
used for classification.  Their function is to hold the block of cars
being assembled from rolling out of the bottom of the yard.  Inert
retarders are either constant retardation spring-type or the self-
energizing, weight sensitivity controlled-type.  A squeal is produced
when a block of cars is being pulled out of the classification tracks
so that the duration of squeal from the inert retarder is considerably
longer than that of the master or group retarder.  Noise from inert
retarders can be eliminated by replacing inert retarders with commer-
cially available releasable-type retarders which allow cars to pass
freely when the release is activated.
                                   5-7

-------
Car Coupling Noise

     Car impacts constitute one of the most randomly distributed sources
of noise in the railroad yard.  As a railroad car rolls along the track
into the classification yard, it may be stopped by an inert retarder,
collide with a stationary car, collide with a string of cars coupled to
the restrained car (causing a chain reaction of impacts), or it may
overtake one or more cars that are not restrained.

     The noise level produced in car-car impacts varies according to
the different configurations, relative speed of cars, type of cars, type
of couple (cushioned or non-cushioned), weight of cars, size and weight
of load.  Little is known about the contribution of each of these factors
to the total car-coupling noise level, however, the relationship of car
speed to total coupling noise has been measured for a number of simulated
operating conditions.  The results are presented in Appendix N.  Practical
approaches to reducing coupling noise may be limited at present to keeping
car speeds to minimum levels required for coupling and reducing nighttime
classification operations in residential areas.

Refrigerator Cars

     The railroad industry has gradually been changing over from block
ice-cooled perishable transport cars to closed-system, diesel engine-
driven, mechanical-refrigerator cars.  While awaiting transit, refrigerator
units are kept running continuously.  During this period, they are often
parked near the perimeter of rail yards in large blocks consisting solely
of these units.

     The required technology for reducing noise emissions from mechanical
refrigerator cars has been applied to truck and trailer-mounted
refrigeration units.^  It consists of a better muffler for the
diesel engine and the application of sound-absorptive foam.
                                  5-8

-------
Repair Facilities, Load Cell Testing  and  Locomotive  Service Areas

      In the United States there are approximately  216  locomotive and
repair facilities located on or in close  proximity to  yards.   When
diesel-electric locomotives undergo major engine service or repair, they
are generally subjected to a series of  static performance  tests and
inspections.  These tests include engine  performance under load.
Locomotives can be load tested at all throttle  settings including full
power by routing the electrical power generated into resistor  banks
termed "load boxes" adjacent to the test  site.  This load test is
usually conducted in the service rack facility, generally in the vicinity
of the engine shop area.  Load test facilities  are operated on a 24-hour
per day basis.

      In addition to the repair facilities, the  locomotives go  through a
routine maintenance inspection at a service area.  This servicing
primarily includes washing, sanding, fueling and analysis of the lube
oil.  Other minor underbody inspections and lubrications may also be
performed.  The main source of noise at the service and repair areas can
be attributed to the idling locomotives clustered  in the facility at any
given time.

      Reducing noise impacts from repair facilities, and load cell
testing and service areas, which currently are  causing impacts, may
require construction of large barriers or enclosure of the testing
area.  Where enclosure or barriers are impractical because of  the
size of the area, relocation of the test  area to greater distances
away from property lines will reduce property line noise levels.

Wheel/Rail Noise

     The four main sources of wheel/rail  noise  are:  squeal, impact, roar
and flange rubbing.   The major wheel/rail noise emissions are  associated
with mainline operation and have levels which increase with train speed;
however, wheel squeal is occasionally a yard problem and can occur at
very slow speeds.  Wheel squeal and flange rubbing occur when  a train
negotiates a tight curve.
                                5-9

-------
     The squeal noise from tight curves in yards can be mitigated by
use of automatic rail oilers, and local barriers along tight curves.

Miscellaneous Sources

     Railroad yards contain various miscellaneous sources of noise.
Among these are loudspeakers/ horns/ and whistles.  These noises are
different in nature from most other types of railroad noise because they
are primarily used intentionally as warning devices to convey information
to the receiver rather than being unwanted by products of some other
activity.  They are regulated at the Federal and State levels as safety
devices rather than noise sources.

     Table 5-1 summarizes the techniques for reducing noise emissions
and the estimated noise level reduction for major noise sources in
railroad yards.  Miscellaneous yard activities and equipment including
rail repair, use of maintenance equipment/ generators/ motors, etc., help
constitute a general ambient level which can be lowered by treating
individual sources with the techniques listed.

     Other techniques generally applicable to all noise sources that
might effecively reduce noise impacts are:
     - Rescheduling of activities so that major noise emissions
       do not occur at nighttime  (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.).  Turning off
       equipment not in use.
       Relocation of noise-source activities to areas away from
       property lines and noise sensitive zones•
       Extension of property line beyond existing property lines
       in order to create buffer zones around noisy areas.
     - Replacing old or noisy equipment with new quieter equipment.
       Modification of structures subjected to noise impact
       (residences, hospitals, etc.).
                               5-10

-------
                             TABLE  5-1
                TREATMENT  AND NOISE SOURCE LEVEL REDUCTION
NOISE SOURCE
TREATMENT
                        ESTIMATED NOISE  LEVEL
                           REDUCTION  (dB)
Retarder (master £ group)
Inert retarders

Locomotives
Moving switch engine
  (throttle set 1-2)

Idling switch engines
  (throttle set 0)
Car coupling impact

Refrigerator car

Repair facilities/
Load testing

Wheel/rail at tight
curves
 Barriers
{Lubrication
\Ductile iron
\  shoes
 Replace non- re-
 leasable type
 (currently regulated)

 Exhaust muffling
 Cooling fan treatment
 Exhaust muffling
 Cooling fan treatment
 Reduce car speed
 Exhaust muffler,
 partial enclosure
 Enclose facility.
 Relocate facility

 Barrier
                       16-22*


                       Reduces no. of car
                         squeals


                       Eliminates retarder
                         squeal
                          4


                          3



                          4

                          25


                          10-20
  Insertion loss perpendicular to barrier at 100 ft.
                                  5-11

-------
     The abatement technology which has been described is proven
technology that is currently available "off the shelf" or with short
lead times.  The actual lead times for application of the technology
will depend more on planning by rail carriers and on the availability of
labor and rail equipment requiring retrofit.  Abatement measures such as
rescheduling of nighttime activities and construction of local barriers
could most likely be accomplished in less than a year, however, measures
requiring difficult scheduling, for example, retrofit of all refrigerator
cars and switch engines could take up to five years if operating disruptions
are to be avoided.
                                    5-12

-------
NOISE CONTROL TO ACHIEVE ALTERNATIVE  REGULATORY  STUDY  LEVCLS

     Four alternative property  line study  levels have  been examined
as potential regulatory levels:
                 Day-Night Level  (dB)
                    o  Level  1-75
                    o  Level  2-70
                    o  Level  3-65
                    o  Level  4-60
The levels are "not-to-exceed" day-night average sound levels measured
at the property line.

     In estimating  the degree of noise control required to achieve the
alternative regulatory study levels,  it is necessary to determine the
major noise sources within each yard  category and the  contribution of
these sources to the property line L^.  The assignment of railroad
noise sources to various rail yard categories is  developed in detail in
Section 6 in the rail yard model developed for determining noise impacts.
Note:  In order to  complete  the technology and cost background
       studies in the short  time that was available, the noise abate-
       ment analysis was conducted using a preliminary version of the
       rail yard model presented in Section 6.   Several differences
       exist between rail yard model  features used for  the technology/
       cost analysis and those used for the noise impact analysis in
       Section 6.   These differences  are related  to the grouping of
       sources to form independent noise source  centers, noise source
       to property  line distances and the  rail yard equipment activity
       levels.

     For the purposes of noise abatement determination and cost analysis
a reduced number of categories are distinguished.  Industrial and
small industrial yards have  been lumped into a single  category since
they contain identical noise sources  and are estimated to have almost
the same property line levels.  Table 5-2  shows  the yard categories
and corresponding noise sources used  for the noise abatement and cost
analysis.  Table 5-3 shows the estimated average of current maximum
Ljjj property line levels for yards in each category and the L^n
reduction required  to achieve each of the four property line study
                                  5-13

-------
           TABLE  5-2
  RAIL  YARD NOISE  SOURCES  AS  A
    FUNCTION  OF  YARD CATEGORY
YARD CATEGORY
NOISE SOURCE
Hump
Retarders (Group & Master)
Hump Switchers
Inert Retarders
Makeup Switchers
Car Impacts
Load Tests
Idling Locomotives
Refrigerator Car
Industrial Switchers
Outbound Trains
Inbound Trains
Flat
 (Classification)
Classification Switchers
Car Impacts
Inbound Trains
Outbound Trains
Idling Locomotives
Load Tests
Refrigerator  Cars
 Flat
 (Industrial/
 Small  Industrial)
 Switch  Engines
 Car  Impacts
 Inbound Trains
 Outbound Trains
                5-14

-------
                                    TABLE  5-3
ESTIMATED EQUIVALENT DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL  REDUCTION REQUIRED IN RAILROAD YARDS
YARD CATEGORY
Hump Yards
Low Activity
Medium Activity
High Activity
Flat Classification Yards
Low Activity
Medium Activity
High Activity
Industrial/Small Industrial
Flat Yards
ESTIMATED PROPERTY
*
LINE LEVEL (dB)

80
79
80

74
78
76

71
Ldn
REDUCTION TO ACHIEVE LEVELS
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2
(75 dB) (70 dB)

5
4
5

-
3
1

-

10
9
10

4
8
6

1
LEVEL 3
(65 dB)

15
14
15

9
13
11

6 I
LEVEL 4
(60 dB)

20
19
20

14
18
16

11
   *Maximum L   value along property line
             dn

-------
levels.  Two types of data were used to develop estimates of the
property line levels.  These were:  (1) the measured property line
levels, and (2) the predicted property line levels from the propagation
model presented in Section 6.  Each yard type has a range of L^n
values for each type of data.  The estimated property line levels are
selected from the overlapping ranges of predicted and measured property
line L(jn values.  The approach estimates somewhat higher property
line levels for "typical" yards than the levels indicated by the
measured property line values.  It is realizd that yards vary con-
siderably in their configuration and that no yards are "typical".  Thus,
any given yard may have measured property line levels which differ
significantly from the estimated property line level for a typical
yard.

     The analysis of property line levels (both measured and predicted)
by yard activity classification shows little variation of property line
levels with yard type by activity.  As can be seen in Table 4-3 the
rail yards selected to represent high volume classification yards
had measured property line levels which were not significantly different
from those of the other measured yards. Apparently, the reason for this
is  that yards designed for high volumes of traffic have greater distances
from the noise sources to the property lines than do other yards.  This
inverse relationship between yard activity and source distance to
property line appears confirmed by the detailed analysis of photographs
of approximately 120 yards  (see analysis of EPIC survey data - Section
6).  The data,  therefore, suggest that there would be little difference
in  the  types of treatments associated with abating noise for yards from
differing activity categories but of a similar yard type.

     In Table 5-4, the various abatement procedures described earlier
in  this section are shown in combination to achieve the  required L^
reduction for each study level.  Land acquisition is considered as
an alternative  and has not been considered in  combination with the
other  abatement procedures,  llany alternative  combination of abatement
techniques can  also achieve  the required property line noise level
                                 5-16

-------
                                              ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ACHIEVING STUDY LEVELS IN YARDS*
YARD TYPE
Hump



Flat
(Classification)


Flat
(Industrial/Small
Industrial)

STUDY LEVEL
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
ABATEMENT
Tl T2 T3 T4 T5
X
X X
X XXX
XX XX
X
X
X
X
(Current L, below Level 1)
an

PROCEDURES**
T T T T
X6 7 8 9

X XX
X XX
X X X X
X X
X XX
X X X X
X X X X
X
X
X

rio



X

X
X
X
X
Ul
I
             * Medium level of activity
             ** Code symbols
                T-    Petarder Barriers
                ^2    Lubrication of Jtetarders
                T    Ductile Iron Shoes
                T.    replace Non-Releasable with
                     Releasable Inert fetarder
                T_    Ftefrigerator Car Treatment
8
Switch Engine Treatment
Enclose Facility  (Engine  repair,  car  services)
Ralocate Structure/Load Test Site
Relocate or Shut Down Idling Locomotive
Reschedule to Reduce Nighttime Activities and/or
Number of Classifications.

-------
reductions.  The amount of noise abatement required and the techniques
which would be selected at a specific rail yard would, of course, be
determined by the noise sources, yard geometry and operational factors
peculiar to that yard.

     In addition to the potential property line regulatory study levels,
individual major rail yard noise sources are candidates for source
regulation.  Noise sources for which the noise abatement technology is
well established, e.g., noise from retarders, mechanical refrigeration cars
and car coupling, could be required to meet specific cource levels inde-
pendent of property line regulatory levels.  Such a requirement would
recognize the fact that the Ljn descriptor is inadequate for charac-
terizing annoyance from certain types of sources.  For example, sources
such as retarders and refrigerator cars which have large, pure-tone com-
ponents (see Figure 5-5) can be especially annoying even when they are not
affecting ambient levels appreciably.  Likewise, impact noise from car
coupling can be a major cause of annoyance while contributing little to
L^n.  Recent studies conducted for the EPA indicate that the maximum
car impact noise from coupling is a function of coupling speed.  The
study data (See Appendix N) indicate that 95 dBA is the maximum level
observed at 30 meters for car coupling speeds of approximately 4 mph.
Using the treatment summarized in Table 5-1, it is estimated that levels
of individual sources could be reduced as shown in Table 5-5.
                                5-18

-------
                                                         Refrzgerator  Car  at

                                                            High Throttle
                      100
                                        500           2000


                                Frequency in Hertz
                                                                5000
0)


0)
0)
fc
3
W
CflCN
T)
c o

o
C/J 0)


c «
(d 'O
m

0)

ID
-P
CJ
O

ro

•H
                                                        T	1	



                                                               Master Retarder
     100
     90
     80
     70
                              _L
                                        _L
r
l^
                50     100              500            2000



                                Frequency in Hertz
                                                               5000
         FIGURE 5-4   FREQUENCY SPECTRUM OF  NOISE EMITTED FROM MASTER

                      RETARDER  (at  100  ft.)  AND MECHANICAL REFRIGERATOR

                      CAR  (at 50 ft.)•
                                        5-19

-------
                               TABLE 5-5
                    NOISE SOURCE LEVEL REDUCTION
Noise Source
Level* (dBA)
at 100 feet
Reduced Level (dBA)
    at 100 feet
Retarders
  (master and group )
Inert retarder
Moving switch engine
  (throttle set 1-2)
Idling switch engine
  (throttle set 0)
Refrigerator car
   111
    93

    83

  69 at 50'
  69 at 50'
        90
         0

        79

      66 at 50'
      65 at 50'
* L max. average for intermittent or moving source
                                 5-20

-------
                             SECTION  5
                            REFERENCES
1.  Background Document for  Railroad  Noise  Emission  Standards,
    EPA-550/9-76-005, U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
    Washington, D.C., 1975.
2.  Railroad Retarder Noise Reduction, Burlington Northern  Inc.
    and Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
    on-going study.
3.  Private communication, Mr. Rudy Nagal, Signal Department,
    Southern Pacific Railroad, April 3, 1978.
4.  Noise Control Technology for Truck-Mounted Refrigeration
    Units,  BBN Report No. 3264, Submitted to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency/ March 1976.
                             5-21

-------
SECTION 6

-------
                               SECTION 6
                       HEALTH AND WELFARE If IP ACT
INTRODUCTION

Benefits to Public Health and Welfare

     The phrase "health and welfare",  in the analysis and in  the context
of the Noise Control Act, is a broad term.  It includes personal comfort
and well-being, and the absence of mental anguish, disturbances and annoy-
ance, as well as the absence of clinical symptoms such as hearing loss or
demonstrable physiological injury.  In other words, the term  applies  to the
entire range of adverse effects that noise can have on people, apart  from
economic impact.

     Improvements in public health and welfare are regarded as benefits of
noise control.  Public health and welfare benefits may be quantified
both in terns of reductions in noise exposures and, more meaningful,
in terns of reductions in adverse effects.  This analysis first quantifies
rail facilitiy noise exposure (numbers of people exposed at different
noise levels), then translates this exposure into a community impact.

Noise Exposure

     People are exposed to noise from rail facilities in a variety of
situations.  Some examples are:

     1.  Inside a home or office
     2.  Outdoors at home, or near commercial and industrial areas
     3.  As a pedestrian, or participant in recreational activities

     In this analysis, no attempt was made to quantify the complexities
of rail noise exposures of people moving from environment to environment
and activity to activity.  Instead, the analysis quantifies residential
noise levels and numbers of residents living in each different level  of
                                   6-1

-------
 noise  environment.   This  is  appropriate to a quantification of a community's
 general  adverse  response  to  rail facililty noise.

 Effects  of Noise on  People

     Noise affects people in many ways, although not  all noise effects
 will occur at  all  levels. Rail  facility noise may  or may not  produce
 the effects  mentioned  below,  depending on exposures and  specific situa-
 tions.   The  discussion here  refers  to  noise in general.

     The best-known  noise effect  is  probably noise-induced hearing loss.
 It is  characteristic of noise-induced  hearing loss  that  it first occurs in
 a high-frequency area  of  the  auditory  range which is  important for the
 understanding  of speech.   As  a noise-induced hearing  loss develops,  the
 sounds of speech which lend  meaning  become less  and less discriminable.
 Eventually,  while utterances  are  still heard,  they  become merely a series
 of low rumbles,  and  the intelligibility is less. Noise-induced hearig loss
 is a permanent loss  for which hearing  aids and medical procedures cannot
 compensate.

     Moreover, noise is a potent  stressor.   The  body  has a basic, primitive
 response mechanism which  automatically responds  to  noise as  if to a warning
 or danger signal.  A complex  of  bodily reactions (sometimes  called the
 "flight-or—fight" response)  takes  place which is beyond  conscious control.
 When noise intrudes, these reactions include elevation of blood pressure,
 changes  in heart rate,  secretions  of certain hormones  into the bloodstream,
 changes  in digestive processes,  increased perspiration on the  skin and  many
 others.

     This stress response occurs with  individual noise events,  but it is
 not known yet  whether  the reactions  seen  in the  short  term become,  or
 contribute to, long-term  stress disease such as  chronic  high blood pres-
 sure.  Therefore, the  stress  response  to  noise cannot  yet be quantified.

     On  the  other hand, some  of  this stress  response  may be  reflected in
what  people  express as  "annoyance",  "irritation", or  "aggravation".  This
analysis  does quantify the generalized  adverse  reaction  of  groups of
                                  6-2

-------
people to environnenratal noise.  To the extent that stress and verbalized
annoyance are related, the "general adverse response" quantity may be
seen to partially represent or indicate the magnitude of stress response.

     The general adverse response relationship to noise levels may  also
be seen as partially representing another area of noise effects:  activity
interference.  Noise interferes with uany important daily activities such
as sleep and communication.  These effects (sleep disturbance and communi-
cation interference) can be quantified, as can hearing loss, but time and
resources prohibited these calculations from being made.  In expressing the
causes of noise annoyance, people often report that noise interferes with
sleeping, relaxing, concentration, TV and radio' listening, and face-to-face
and telephone discussions.  Thus, the general adverse response quantity may
be seen also as indicative of the severity of interference witli activities.

Magnitude of Noise Effects

     Because of inherent differences in individual response  to noise, the
wide range of rail facility configurations and environments, and the com-
plexity of the associated noise fields, it is not possible  to examine
all situations precisely.  Hence, in this predictive analysis, certain
stated assumptions have been made to approximate typical, or average,
situations.  The approach taken to determine  the benefits associated with
the noise regulation  is  therefore statistical, in that an effort is made
to determine the order of magnitude of  the population that  may  be
affected at each study level.  Some uncertainties with respect  to
individual cases or situations will remain.

     In general, reducing noise levels  at the boundary of rail yard
facilities is expected to produce the following benefits:

     1.  Reduction in overall  rail yard site  noise levels and
         associated cumulative long-term  impact upon the
         exposed population.
                                   6-3

-------
     2.  Fewer activities disrupted by  individual,  intense  noise
         or intruding noise events.

     3.  General improvement  in the quality of life, with
         quietness as an amenity resource.

     The approach taken for the analysis was to evaluate the effects, in
terms of the percentage change in the impact of rail yard noise, on the
U.S. population resulting from reduction of noise levels at rail yard
boundaries by reducing the noise levels of the predominant  noise sources
found in rail yards.  Another predominant source of railroad operation
impact, line-haul noise (locomotives and rail cars) is currently subject
to Federal noise emission regulations.'
                                        6-4

-------
Health and Welfare Impact Ileasures
     The health and welfare impact analysis utilizes a  noise measure  that
integrates the sound pressure or energy fluctuations of  the noise
environment into a simple indicator of both sound energy magnitude  and
duration.  This general measure for environmental noise  is  the  equivalent
or average A-weighted sound (noise) level, in units of  decibels.  The
general symbol for equivalent sound level is Lcq.  This  indicator
correlates well with the overall long-tern effects of noise on  the  public
health and welfare, and its use has increased as a result of the Noise
Control Act of 1972, which required EPA to present information  on noise
levels "requisite to protect the public health arid welfare with an
adequate margin of safety."  The analytical expression  for L    is:
      eq
           10
               >sio
                             1
t2-ti
                                   t-1
where t2 - t^ is the interval of time over which  the pressure  levels
are evaluated, p(t) is; the time varying sound pressure  of  the  noise,  and
po is a standard reference pressure  (20 micropascals).  When expressed
in terms of an A-weighted sound level, the equivalent sound, level  (Leg)
is expressed by:
        Leq = 10 Iog10
                           t2-tj_
where, in general, L(t) = 10
            /     10
                                       p(t)'
                                                 L(t)/10
                                dt
     The impact of the daily noise environment on people  is  assesed  in
terms of the day-night average sound level  (L^) which  is  a  noise
rating scale developed by the EPA.  Ljn is  used as  a  rating  scale  for
the daily (24-hour) sound exposure and incorporates a weighting  factor
applied to nighttime noise levels to account  for the  increased sensi-
tivity or reaction of people to noise intrusion at  night.  Thus, Ldn
                                   6-5

-------
 is defined as  the equivalent  sound  level  during a  24-hour period, with a
 10 dB weighting applied to  the noise  exposure  or levels  for  the noise
 events during  the nighttime hours of  10 P.M. to 7  A.li.   This may be
 expressed by the following  equation:
Ldn = 10 Iog10 1
                           10L(t)/10   dt +      J   10[L(t)+10]/10 .  dt
                        tx                      t2

 T=t3-t1, t;L=7 A.M. on 1st day, t2=10 P.M., and t3 = 7 A.M. next day.

 When values for average or equivalent sound levels during the daytime and
 nighttime hours (Ld and l^, respectively) are known, Ldn can be expressed
 as:
          Ldn=10 log10  j .  l5 X 10      + 9 x 10

 where,  Ld is the Leq for the period 7 A.M. to 10 P.M., and Ln is the
            for the period 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.
      In  the  assessment  of rail yard noise impact, the Leq and Ldn
 scales are used  to  indicate the response of people exposed to various
 levels of noise.  Appendix V has been prepared to show the relationship
 between  Leq  and  Ldn.  Annoyance response may vary depending upon
 previous exposure,  age,  socioeconoinic status, political cohesiveness , and
 other social variables.   However, in the aggregate for residential  loca-
 tions, the average  degree of the expressed  annoyance  of groups of people
 increases as the cumulative noise exposure, as expressed by a rating
 scale such as Ldn increases.  For example,  the different forms of
 response to  noise,  such  as  hearing damage,  speech disruption or other
 activity interference, and  annoyance, were  realted to  Leq or Ldn
 in the EPA Levels Document *-.  For the  purposes of  this  study,  criteria
 based on Ldn presented in  the  EPA Levels Document are  used.   Further-
 more, it is  assumed that  if  the  outdoor  level of  Ldn=55  dB (which is
 identified in the EPA Levels Document as  requisite to  protect  the public
health and welfare) is met,  no adverse impact in  terms of general annoy-
ance and community response  exists .
                                  6-6

-------
     The cotiimunity reaction data presented in Appendix D of  the Levels
Document show that the expected reaction to an identifiable  source  of
intruding noise changes from "none" to "vigorous" when the day-night
average sound level increases from 5 dB below the level existing  without
the presence of the intruding noise to 19 • 5 dB above  the level before
intrusion.  Thus, 20 dB is a reasonable value to associate with a change
from 0 to 100 percent impact .  Such a change in level would  increase the
percentage of the population that is highly annoyed by 40 percent of the
total exposed population •  Further, the data in the Levels Document
suggest that within these upper and lower bounds the  relationship between
impact and level varies linearly, i.e., a 5 dB excess  (L{jn=60 dB) consti-
tutes a 25 percent impact, and a 10 dB excess (Ljn=65 dB) constitutes a
50 percent impact.

     For convenience of calculation, percentages of impact may be expressed
as Fractional Impact (FI) .  An FI of 1.0 represents an impact of  100
                     «
percent, in accordance with  the following formula:

                        .05(L-C) for L > C,
               FI -
                             0    for L < C.

L is the observed or measured L,jn of the environmental noise, and in
this study the criterion level C is 1^=55 dB.

     Thus, relative to projected community annoyance  response, the
impact of rail yard noise is expressed in terms of both extensiveness
(i.e., the number of people  impacted) and intensiveness (the severity of
impact) by multiplying the FI value by the number of  people  (P) exposed
for the corresponding noise level and area under consideration.

     In a particular area, then, the equivalent noise  impact (ENIj_) ,
or the number of people who are considered 100 percent impacted,  is
given by:
                                   6-7

-------
Thus, for example, in a populated area where 1000 people  are  exposed to
an L^n (averaged over the area) of  60 dB,  or an  FI  =  0.25,  the  noise
impact is considered equal to 250 people 100 percent  impacted.   Since
L
-------
                               TABLE 6-1
                        RAIL YARD HOlSE I11PACT
  llax.  Composite L^ at        Equivalent Number
         :rd Boundary*         of People It
         (dB)                         EH I
                  ju
Rail Yard Boundary          of People Impacted      Population  Exposed
  Baseline 	 «7            1,161,400                 3,946,500
  Study Level 1 	 75            1,073,700                 3,754,900
  Study Level 2 	 70              880,700                 3,260,900
  Study Level 3 	 65              409,800                 2,010,700
  Study Level 4 	 60               81,100                   694,400
     The alternative study levels are discussed in Section 5.
**   The population enclosed by the Ltjn=55 dB contours at all  the  rail  yards.
     The basic assumptions used for the ENI analysis were:

          •  The noise impact rating is based on community  annoyance
              (adverse response),

          •  Only rail yard noise is considered.

          •  There was no significant overlap in noise  exposure  patterns
             from the major groups of noise sources  that  are  generally  widely
             separated in the rail yards.
                                    6-9

-------
DISTRIBUTION AND CONFIGURATION  OF  RAIL  YARDS

Function, Activity Rates,  and Distribution

     The  results of  the  identification  and  classification of railroad
equipment and  facilities  in Section  3 indicated  that railroad yards can
basically be categorized  into two  types :-*

     •    Hump Yards
     •    Flat Yards,

and four functions:
     •    Classification  (C) Yards
     •    Classification/Industrial  (C/I) Yards
     •    Industrial  (I) Yards
     •    Small Industrial (SI) Yards.

     In developing the rail yard noise  impact model,it was considered
appropriate to group all hump yard complexes,(which include C, C/I, and I
yards) into one category, which was referred  to generally as hurap classi-
fication yards, and to group all flat classification and classifica-
tion/industrial yards into one general category of flat classification
yards.  The flat industrial yards and the flat small industrial yards
were grouped as separate categories.  Thus, the four basic rail yard
categories used in the impact model are:

          •    Hump Classification Yards
          •    Flat Classification Yards
          •    Flat Industrial Yards
          •    Flat Small Industrial Yards.

     In the rail yard study document, the rail yard types and locations
were also grouped by the average level of activity (traffic rate), the
population size of the urban area in which  the yard is located, and by
                               6-10

-------
the general land use designation adjacent to the yard.   There were six
population size classes used based on the "greater urban area" definition
in the 1970 census documents. <5000, 5000 to 50,000, 50,000 to 100,000,
100,000 to 250,000, 250,000 to 500,000, and >500,000 people. The hump and
flat classification yards were also grouped into low, medium, or high
average-traffic rate (activity level) classes.  The average magnitudes of
the activity level descriptors for hump and flat classification yards are
shown in Tables 6-2 and 6-3, respectively.

     The number of yards in each type and place-size category were also
distributed according to five general land use designations:  agricultural,
commercial, industrial, residential, and undeveloped.-*  The designation
of rail yard locations by type of land use was determined from a question-
aire/survey conducted during the SRI rail yard study, and was a result of
subjective judgements by Federal Railroad Administration  (FRA) Safety
Inspectors.  The judgements made apparently were that the land use sur-
rounding each yard was characterized by industrial,  residential, or other
use.  However, it is considered likely that in each case  the surrounding
land use was a mixture of several different types, and that in the case
of industrial and commercial land uses, there were adjacent residential
areas.

     The numerical distribution of rail yard types by fraction, location
(place size), activity rate, and adjacent land use are shown in Section
3, Tables 3-10 through 3-14.

     A sumary of  the yard  data discussed in Section 3 is shown in Table
6-4 in terms of number of yards by type of yard, place size of yard loca-
tion, and rate of  traffic  (activity).  The distribution of yards by the six
place size in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 was changed to the distribution of yards
in the 3 place sizes shown  in Table 6-4.
                                   6-11

-------
                                  TABLE 6-2
                ACTIVITY RATES FOR HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARDS"
Activity Parameter
No. of Classification Tracks
Receiving Tracks
Departure Tracks
Standing Capacity of Classification Yard
Standing Capicity of Receiving Yard
Standing Capacity of Departure Yard
Cars Classified Per Day
Local Cars Dispatched Per Day
Industrial Cars Dispatched Per Day
Road-Haul Cars Dispatched Per Day
Cars Reclassified Per Day
Cars Weighed Per Day
Cars Repaired Per Day
Trailers & Containers Loaded or
Unloaded Per Day
Average Time In Yard (Hours)
Inbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day
Outbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day
Local Trains Dispatched Per Day
Hump Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Makeup Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Industrial Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Roustabout Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Traffic Rate Category
Low
(<1000)*
26
11
9
1447
977
862
689
86
74
632
94
74
38

36
21
8
8
2
3
3
2
2
Medium
(1000 to 2000)*
43
11
12
1519
1111
969
1468
250
86
1050
195
42
43

30
22
14
14
3
5
6
2
1
High
(>2000)*
57
13
14
2443
1545
1594
2386
315
220
2297
275
149
153

39
22
27
25
5
6
11
10
4
*Range of number of rail cars classified per day
                                    6-12

-------
                                  TABLE 6-3
                ACTIVITY RATES FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS'
Activity Parameter
No. of Classification Tracks
Standing Capacity of Classification Yard
Cars Classified Per Day
Local Cars Dispatched Per Day
Industrial Cars Dispatched Per Day
Road-Haul Cars Dispatched Per Day
Cars Reclassified Per Day
Cars Weighed Per Day
Cars Repaired Per Day
Trailers & Containers Loaded or
Unloaded Per Day
Average Time In Yard (Hours)
Inbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day
Outbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day
Local Trains Dispatched Per Day
Industrial Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Roustabout Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Switch Engine Work Shifts Per Day
Traffic Rate Category
Low
(<500)*
14
643
288
72
47
218
60
14
13
22
19
3
3
2
2
0
4
Medium
(500 to 1000)*
20
983
711
93
69
472
196
21
28
22
19
6
7
3
3
1
7
High
O1000)*
25
1185
1344
182
121
942
348
16
31
76
18
10
11
2
4
2
10
*Range of number of rail cars classified per day
                                     6-12

-------
                                         TABLE 6-4
                             RAIL YARD DISTRIBUTION BY YARD TYPE,
                             PLACE SIZE AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
                                           NU11BER OF RAIL YARDS
                                          Place Size (Population)
Yard Type
 Less Than 50
 Traffic Rate:
Low   Med   High
              50 to 250
            Traffic Rate:
           Low   Med   High
Greater Than 250
  Traffic Rate:
 Low   Med   High
                                                                                        Total
I Hump Classification   19
II Flat Classification 321
III Industrial         849
IV Snail Industrial   1262
Total                 2792
      19
     204
 14
104
14 12 8
135 83 44
239
133
668
13 16 9
115 70 37
293
156
709
124
1113
1381
1551
4169

-------
Confifiuration Analyses

1.  Introduction

     Preliminary analyses indicated that the configuration of rail yard
facilities was very complex, and thus, accurate analyses of rail yard noise
impact and noise reduction costs required determination of typical or
representative dimensions for yard geometries and noise source locations
relative to yard boundaries and adjacent residential areas.  The available
maps, which consisted mainly of U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle maps, did
not provide sufficient detail to detect yard boundaries and noise source
locations.  This type of information was essential to developing the input
parameters (source to boundary distances, land use distributions, etc.) for
the noise propagation models, the health and welfare impact model, and the
noise reduction cost model.  Therefore, the assistance of  the EPA's Environ-
mental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) was enlisted to provide
additional data through examination of aerial (photographic) imagery of
rail yard complexes.

     The objective of the photographic evaluation was to acquire sufficient
data (yard boundary dimensions, etc.) to develop within acceptable statis-
tical certainty limits representative configurations for each type of
yard.

     The data requested from EPIC included:

     •  Percentage distribution of land uses (agricultural,
        commercial, industrial, residential, and undeveloped)
        along the rail yard boundaries, and within a one-half
        mile wide strip along both sides of the rail yards.

     •  Boundary to boundary and track to track widths of  the
        receiving, departure, and rail car classification  areas
        of rail yard complexes

     •  Lengths of receiving, departure, and classification areas.
                                  6-15

-------
      •  Distances from rail yard boundaries to Lhe nearest
         cluster of residences, measured from several locations
         around the yards.

      •  Distances to yard boundaries on each side from master
         retarders, repair facilities, road-haul locomotives,
         and switch engines.

      In  general,  the selection of the rail yard sample  from which the
 representative yard  data  were  obtained was conducted by a random process to
 avoid  inadverdent biasing of  the desired input parameters for the health
 and  welfare impact model.   As  indicated in Table 6-4,  there are 4169 rail
 yards  in the U.S.  to consider, and  these consist of 4  types of yards
 located  according to 3  population size classes. Due to  schedule and
 resource constraints, a decision was made to obtain via a random selection
 process,  ten yards for  each of the  twelve yard type-lace size combinations
 (i.e., cells),  for a total of  120 representative yards.

 2.0  Selection Procedure

     In  order  to  obtain the 120  rail yards necessary to develop representa-
 tive site-specific data,  300 yards  were  initially chosen from the SRI^-
 list of  4169 rail yards in the U.S.   This  list  has  about 80 pages with
 nearly 50 yards listed  on  each page, and it is  arranged alphabetically  by
 state, city, yard name  and railroad company.   Thus,  as  far as yard type
 and  place size  are concerned,  the listing  is  random.  The procedure  for
 selecting the  300  yards was designed to  evenly  distribute, as much as
 possible, the  yard sampling throughout  the list,  and consequently,  through-
 out  the  U.S.   Roughly,  every fourteenth  or fifteenth yard on the list was
 selected for inclusion  in  the  sampling,  until  a total of 300 yards had  been
 chosen.

     These  300  yards were  then classified  into  the  twelve cells,  represent-
 ing  combinations  of  the three  place  size arid  four yard  type categories.
As shown in Table  6-5,  the resulting distribution of yards among the  cells
was  very uneven.   It would have  been ideal to  classify  all the yards  on

                                  6-16

-------
the SRI list into the twelve cells, and then randomly pick the requisite
ten yards from each cell, but because of lack of time and resources, a more
practical approach was taken and additional yards were selected from the
list to augment the deficient cells.

     The procedure for selecting the initial 300 yards was modified some-
what to select the additional yards because it was felt that it would be
too time consuming to use, given the relatively sraall overall percentage
of some yard types.   (e.g., hump yards).  To assure that these additional
yards were uniformly distributed throughout the list, a selection formula
was developed for each cell, based upon the number of additional yards
required for that cell.  For example, cell number 3 needed several addi-
tional yards, so the total number of pages in the list (80) was divided by
number of yard required  (7), which equals eleven; thus, every eleventh page
was examined for the required yard type (in this case, hump classification
yards in areas with more than 250,000 people) until the requisite number of
additional yards had been obtained.  In some cases, it was necessary to go
through the list  several times, starting with a different page number but
following the same page-interval formula, in order to find the needed
yards.

     When all twelve cells had at least ten yards in them, a similar
random selection procedure was followed to select ten yards from those
cells that had a surplus of yards in them.  Table R-l in Appendix R
presents the initial list of 120 rail yards, by cell number which was
developed using the procedures described above.  However, as discussed
in Appendix R, substitutions were required for some yards, and the final
list is given in Table 6-6.

     When this list of 120 rail yards was given to EPIC for extraction
of yard data from aerial imagery, EPIC indicated that 25 of the yards
would require substitutes, because nine of the yards had been abandoned,
thirteen had inadequate photo coverage, and three for various other
reasons.  Each cell needed at least one substitute yard, and so basically
the same selection procedure was used as was developed for filling the
previously described deficient cells.  The only difference was, in the
                                  6-17

-------
                            TABLE  6-5
                    DISTRIBUTION  OF  RAIL  YARDS
              SELECTED FOR  PHOTOGRAPHIC EVALUATION BY
                      PLACE  SIZE AND  YARD  TYPE
                                     Place Size
                                          2
Yard Type
<50k People   50k-250k People   >250k People
I.     Hump Class
   Cell #1
      6
Cell #2
   0
Cell #3
   3
II.   Flat Class
   Cell #4
     42
Cell #5
  12
Cell #6
  20
III.  Flat Ind.
   Cell #7
     55
Cell #8
   5
Cell f/9
  27
IV.   Small Ind.
   Cell #10
     85
Cell #11
   10
Cell #12
   14
                               6-18

-------
                                 TABLE  6-6
                      RAIL YARDS INCLUDED  Hi  EPIC  SURVEY
STATE   CITY

AL      Ens ley
AZ      Tucson
AR      Fort Snsith
AR      Little Rock
AR      N. Little Rock
AR      Pine Bluff
CA      Sloomington
CA      E. Pleasanton
CA      llartell
CA      San Jose
CA      Stockton
CO      Pueblo
CA      Stanford
FL      Nichols
FL      Pensacola
FL      Tampa
FL      W. Palm Beach
GA      Atlanta
GA      Brunswick
GA      Colunbus
GA      Ilacon
GA      tlacon
GA      Savannah
GA      Vidalia
IL      Chicago
IL      Chicago
IL      Chicago
IL      Chicago
IL      Chicago Heights
IL      E. St. Louis
IL      Flora
IL      Joliet
IL      tlarkham
IL      Streator
IN      Burns Harbor
IN      Elkhard

IN      Evansville
IN      Jasonville
IN      Terre Haute
IA      Des Moines
IA      Missouri Valley
KS      Uurand
KY      Owensboro
KY      Russell
KY      Silver Grove
LA      New Orleans
LA      New Orleans
LA      Shreveport
ME      South Portland
              RAIL
YARD          ROAD

Ens ley        SOU
Train         SP
Train         IIP
E. 6th Street HP
Cres t         IIP
Gravity       SSW
W. Colton     SP
Train         SP
Train         AMC
College       SP
Mormon        ATSF
Train         ATSF
Stamford      PC
Dry Rock      SCb
Wharf         LN
Rockport      SCL
W. Palm Beach WPBT
Howell        SCL
Brunswick     SCL
Columbus      SCL
Old CG        CGA
Brosnan       SOU
Paper Mill    CGA
Vidalia       SCL
Corwith       AISF
Western Ave.  C1ISPP
43rd Street   CRIP
58th Street   PC
Heightsd      BO
Madison       TRRA
Train         BO
South Joliet  ICS
Markham SEND  ICG
Train         PC
Burns Harbor  PC
RBIP Young
  Hump        PC
Harwood       ICG
Latta         CMSPP
Hulman        CMSPP
Bell Avenue   CNW
Train         CNW
Train         MP
Doyle         ICG
Coal Class    CO
Stevens       CCO
Harahan       ICG
Oliver St.    SOU
Deramus       KCS
Rigby         PTM
                  YARD
FUNCTION          TYPE

Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Class./Indus.     Hump
Class./Indus.     Hunp
Industrial        Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Industrial        Flat
Industrial        Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat
Industrial        Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Small Indus.      Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Classification    Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Classification    Hump
Class./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat

Class./Indus.     Hump
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Industrial        Hump
Class./Indus.     Hump
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
                                      6-19

-------
TABLE 6-6 (Continued)
tlD
flA
MA
MA
III
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
M1J
US
MO
MT
MT
NE
NE
NE
NE
NJ
NY
NY
11 Y
NY
NY
NY
Oil
OH
OH
OH
Oil
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OR
OR
PA
PA
Pa
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
Owings liills
Boston
Lowell
Worcester
Ann Arbor
Detroit
Detroit
Willow Run
Duluth
Inver Grove
St. Paul
Sleepy Eye
Durant
St. Louis
Billings
Helena
Lincoln
Lincoln
llcCook
Omaha
Caiaden
Binghamton
Buffalo
llcchanicville
Olean
Syracuse
Troy
Al.ro n
Cincinnati
Dayton
Hamilton
Huron
Lancaster
Lorain
Marion
Portsmouth
Springfield
Toledo
Madill
Tulsa
Eugene
Portland
Salem
Allentown
Ceraenton
llarrisburg
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh
Say re
Greenville
Hampton
Maryland
Yard 8
Bleachery
Worcester
Ann Arbor
Davis on Ave.
Flat Rock
Indus trial
Missabi Jet.
Train
New
Train
Durant
12th Street
Stock
Train
E. B. 11 u rap
Train
Train
Freight House
Pavonia
YU
Hamburg St.
Hump
Train
Dewitt
Troy
Mill St.
Fairmont
Needmore
Wood
South
Lancaster
South
Westbound
W. B. Hump
Int'l Harv.
Lang
Train
Laf eber
Train
Lake
Train
Allen town E.
Ceraenton
Enola West
Midvale
Neville Isl.
Monon Jet.
Say re
South
Train
1*1
Bl-l
BM
BM
AA
DT
DTI
PC
DHIR
CRIP
CHSPP
CNW
ICG
HP
BN
BN
BN
OLB
BN
UP
PC
DH
EL
BM
EL
PC
PC
EL
BO
BO
110
NW
CO
LT
EL
NW
PC
DTS
SLSF
MIDLV
SP
PRTC
BN
LV
LV
PC
PC
POV
URR
LV
SOU
SCL
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class/Indus.      Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Classification    Hump
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Classification    Hump
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Industrial        Flat
                        Class./Indus.     Hump
                        Class./Indus.     Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
                        Small Indus.      Flat
     6-20

-------
                             TABLE 6-6  (Continued)
IN      Chattanooga
TN      Knoxville
TN      lleraphis
TX      Abilene
TX      Austin
TX      Cleburne
TX      Fort Worth
TX      Great S.W.
TX      Houston
TX      Houston
TX      Lubbock
TX      Port Arthur
UT      Salt Lake City
VA      Crewe
VA      Richmond
VA      Roanoke
WA      Gold Bar
WA      Seattle
WI      Milwaukee
Ue Butts      SOU
John Sevier   SOU
Hollywood     ICG
Abilene       TP
Train         IIP
Cleburne      ATSF
Birds         ATSF
Great S.W.    GSW
Bellaire      SP
Uollarup      11BT
Lubbock       ATSF
Train         SP
Fourth South  DRGW
Train         11Q
Belle Isle    SOU
Roanoke       NW
Train         BN
House         UP
Airline       CI1SPP
Class./Indus.     Hump
Class./Indus.     Hump
Class./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Industrial        Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Class./Indus.     Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Classification    Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Classification    Hump
                                       6-21

-------
 case of the cells which had excess yards initially, the substitute yards
 were chosen from the initial surplus yards (e.g., Cell number 7). At least
 two additional yards were selected for each cell, and the substitute yard
 list was prioritized so that the yards at the top of each cell's substitute
 list were from the same general part of the SRI list as the original yards
 which they were replacing.   Table R-2, Appendix R, presents the substitute
 yard list by cell number.

      Using the initial  list of  120 rail yards,  EPIC located each yard on
 U.S. Geological Survey  (U.S.G.S.) quadrangle  maps, samples of which are
 shown in Appendix R,  Figures R-l and R-2.   EPIC then ascertained whether
 there was sufficient  recent aerial imagery of the yard and vicinity to
 gather the necessary  data..  As  previously mentioned, there were 25  yards
 v/hich either had been abandoned or for which  there was inadequate photo
 imagery  available.   In  these cases,  another yard  was selected from  the
 appropriate  cell on  the  substitution yard  list.

      Bausch  and  Lomb  zoom scopes  and light  table  for viewing transparencies
 (transparent  aerial imagery)  of the  yard  areas  were  used  for photo  analyses
 and  to produce  overlays  (see Appendix R,  Figures  R-3 and  R-4)  on the
 U.S.C.S.  quandrangle  maps,  indicating yard boundaries,  and  land  use areas
 within 2000  feet  of  the  boundaries.   Based on the  Standard  Land  Use
 Coding System (re. U.S.  UOT-FHWA  1969),  the land  uses  around each yard
 were  grouped  into the following types:   residential, commercial,  indus-
 trial, agricultural,  and undeveloped.   In  addition  to  determining yard
 boundaries and  land use  areas,  EPIC  extracted the  following  yard  data
 from the  aerial  imagery  using a scaled  eye loop on  tube magnifier in
 some  cases:   distance from boundaries  to  residential areas;  yard
 dimensions; and  location  of  identifiable noise  sources within  the yard.
These sources included repair facilities,  retarders, switch  engines,
 road engines, TUFC/COFC,  and  bulk  loading facilities.  Figure  R-5 and
R-6  illustrate the data  sheets  used,  with data from  two sample yards.
                                  6-22

-------
3.0  Data Evaluation

     a.  Procedure for Grouping and Averaging the Sample Rail Yard Data:

     The random selection of rail yards in the hump and flat classifica-
tion types was conducted independently of considerations regarding the
activity parameters of the yards since the traffic rate category of any
particular yard was unknown.  However, the detail of analyses necessary
for the health and welfare and cost impact models required determination
of typical rail yard dimensions for the low,  medium, and high activity
or traffic rate categories.  Therefore, it was necessary to estimate
from the sample yard dimensions into which category each rail yard could
be placed.

     The FRA/SRI rail yard study data was used to estimate the classifi-
cation yard area corresponding to the average traffic rates determined
for the low, medium, and high activity categories.  This was done by
using the average rail car length (69 ft.) and distance between parallel
classification trucks (15 ft.) in conjunction with the number of cars
classified per day and the number of classification trucks given by the
SRI study for a yard type and traffic category to compute the equivalent
length and width, and then the typical area covered by the classification
tracks.  Thus—
                               rail cars/day x length/car
     Equivalent length (l)-2*x
                               number of parallel tracks
     Equivalent width (w) = number of tracks x distance between
                            tracks.

     Typical area covered (A) ™ w x 1.

*The factor of 2 accounts for the switching areas at end of  the
 classified rail car storage area.
                                6-23

-------
     The  range  of  typical  areas  for  the  average  traffic  rates  for  low,
medium, and high activity  traffic  rates  for  low,  medium,  and hig activity
huup and  flat classification yards was also  computed  in  the same mariner.
This provided 3 ranges  (or  bandwidths) of areas  bracketing  the  low,  medium,
and high  traffic rate yard  sizes.

     The  classification portion  dimensions for each of the sample  hump and
flat classification yards  analyzed by EPIC were  used  to  obtain  the corres-
ponding classification yard areas.   These areas  were  compared  to the
previously determined area  ranges and thus each  yard  was  placed in one of
the traffic rate categories.  In this way, the traffic rate categories for
26 of the 30 sample hump yards  (in cells 1,  2, and 3) were estimated  (in
the remaining 4 cases the  yard dimensions were ambiguous). As a result, 9
of the yards were placed in the  low  activity  category, 9  in medium,  and 8
in high.  The sample flat  classification yards were distributed into  the 3
traffic rate categories as  follows:  12  low,  8 medium, and 3 high  (for 7 of
the 30 sample yards, the dimensions  were ambiguous).

     The purpose of classifying  the  sample hunp  and flat  classification
yards into lov;, medium, and high activity rates  was to provide groups of
sample yards for which the dimensions could be tabulated  and averaged to
derive representative yard  configurations of  each type.   This was  done
irrespective of the place  size class for each sample yard location since
there was no indication that yard dimensions were correlated with  place
size (or  location).  For example, the representative dimensions for low
traffic rate hump classification rail yards were obtained by averaging
the dimensions from 3 sample hump yards located  in the small place class,
3 in the  medium place size class, and 3 in the large place size class.

     b.  Data Used for Determining Average Dimensions:

     The data requested from the EPIC survey of  the selected rail  yards
included:
                                  6-24

-------
     •  Track-to-track width, boundary-to-boundary width, and length
        of the classification and receiving and departure portions
        of the rail yard complexes.

     •  Distances to the boundaries on both sides of the rail yards
        from the master retarder and engine repair areas, and from
        observed road haul locomotives and switch engines.

     •  Distances from the rail yard boundaries to the nearest cluster
        of residential buildings at several locations around the rail
        yard.

     Examination of the data for the flat and hump classification yards
indicated that, in general, the yards were asymmetrical and quite com-
plicated in configuration.  Time constraints and data limitations
required that the yard data be reduced to obtain simplified representa-
tive yard configurations.  Therefore, it was assumed that the various
portions of the rail yards were rectangular and that groups of noise
sources were located within the rectangular areas at unequal distances
from the yard boundaries.  In addition, the yard configuration and noise
source location analyses indicated that the master retarder, engine
repair, and idling road haul locomotive locations were in the same general
area.  Therefore, the dimensions obtained from the EPIC analyses were
grouped into distances from the sources (or assumed source group loca-
tions) to the nearest and farthest yard boundaries.  In the case of the
observed locomotives, at any yard, the weighted average distances of the
boundaries were obtained by multiplying the number of locomotives by the
corresponding distances, summing the products, and then dividing by the
number of locomotives observed.  Thus, the measured dimensions for each
group of yards (low, medium, and high traffic activity groups determined
as discussed in the preceding sub-section) were tabulated and then
averaged.  The resulting average dimensions are shown in Tables 6-7
through 6-9.
                                  6-25

-------
                             TABLE 6-7

   SUMMARY OF  AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARDS
Huiap Yards
                            Average Dimensions (ft.)
                                  Traffic Rate:
                      Low             Medium            High
                  Wear**  Far**      Near   Far        Near   Far
Classifica-
  tion Area:
D*
  w
DER
DRL
205   632
198   /70
222   422
225   579
                                  27 /    558
                                  328    626
                                  295    736
                                  326    702
                                                    352   690
                                                    368   735
                                                    370   980
                                                    379   615
 AVG
210   600
    3700
                                  310    660
                                      4300
                                                    370   750
                                                        5700
Receiving
and Departure
Area:
Davg=D*w
L
    5100
                                        48°
                                      6400
                                                          56°
                                                        6400
*DW Near = Track to track width 4 2
 Dw Far = Boundary to boundary width * 2
     = Distance from master  retarder  to yard  boundary
     = Distance from engine  repair  area to  yard boundary
 E>RL = Weighted average distance  from road  haul locomotives to
         yard boundary
**Shorter and larger distances from source  to boundaries.
                              6-26

-------
                            TABLE 6-8

   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION  YARDS
                           Average Dimensions  (ft.)
Flat Classifi-                   Traffic Rate:
cation Yards         Low             Medium             High
                 Near** Far**     Near   Far         Near   Far
Classifica-
  tion Area:

D*w              80   240         130     -           230    600
DER             130   340         -      -            -    520
DRL             ***    -          80    380          390
DSE             150   470         -     460          340    960
DAVG            120    350         105    420          300   700
L                    2800              4300               6800
Receiving
and Departure
Area:

Davg=D*w        100    350         100    450          300   600
L                    2600              3200               4100
*DW Near = Track to track width * 2
 Dw Far •= Boundary to boundary width * 2
       Distance from engine  repair  area to  yard boundary
       Weighted average distance  from road  haul locomotives  to
         yard boundary
       Weighted average distance  from switch engines  to yard boundary.
**Shorter and larger distances from source  to boundaries.
***Blank space indicates uncertainties in data.  Averages judged not
   applicable.
                               6-27

-------
                          TABLE 6-9
       REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
                 SHALL INDUSTRIAL RAIL YARDS
                                Average Dimensions  (ft.)

                                             Small Industrial
                          Industrial Yards        Yards
1>W                            230                170
%L                           190                 80
Ds                            200                100
DAVG                          230                170
L                            4300               3300
                              6-28

-------
     Also, the hump yard classification area widths were averaged with
the master retarder, engine repair facility, and road haul locomotive
distances to obtain the representative average distances (U^VG) to
the near and far boundaries.  In the case of the flat classification
yards, the classification area widths were averaged with the source
to boundary distances for the observed engine repair facilities, road
locomotives, and switch engines.  The observed engine repair facilities
and road haul locomotives were assumed to indicate that the positions
of the load test facilities and storage of idling locomotives (identi-
fied noise sources for the noise impact model) were at the master retarder
end of the classification area.  In the case of flat classification yards,
the locations of the switch engines observed by EPIC were not specified,
however, they were assumed to be located at each end of the classification
area, and thus, tended to also indicate the dimensions of the classifica-
tion area.  Similar analyses of the data from the sample industrial and
small industrial yards resulted in the representative dimensions shown in
Table 6-9.  The configurations of the industrial and small industrial
yards were generally more symetrical than the other yards, and  thus, the
representative dimensions indicate that sources are located in  the center
of the yard areas (equi-distant from the boundaries on either side).

Representative Rail Yard. Configurations

     The representative configurations derived from the EPIC rail yard
data evaluation are shown in Figures 6-1 and 6-2.  The hump and flat
classification yards were assumed to have identical receiving and departure
area dimensions (the receiving and departure areas could usually not be
differentiated on the photographic imagery).  The d^ distance of 140 ft.
for the low and medium  traffic rate hump yards is the average of the
corresponding distances of 130 and 150 ft. previously determined.  Also,
the d^ distance of 630  ft. for the low and medium traffic rate  is the
average of the corresponding for distances of 600 and 660 ft. previously
determined.  Similar averaging was done to obtain the d3 distance of 110
ft. for the low and medium traffic rate flat classification yards.
                                  6-29

-------

I. J!u*.vp Clas'.-.i£j.-»
Cc.tion:
Traffic Rate:
Low
Medium
High
II. Flat Clar.sifi-
Traffic Rate:
Low
Medium
High

6\ £,, d

140 <;o 210
140 430 310
180 5GO 370


100 350 110
100 450 110
300 600 300
• • i • 	 ••
" ' i . • • 1,
d4

630
630
750


350
420
700
~ 	 1
»"'• ''' " '::.on (f-;-. )

5100 3700
6-100 4300
6400 5700
~1

2600 2800
3200 4300
4100 6800
Figure 6-1.  Representative Configuration For Hump And
             Flat Classification Kailyards
                                  6-30

-------
                                                    Diuu Maoris   (ft.)
        Small  Industrial
                                          230
170
  1

4300


3300
Figure 6-2.  Representative Configuration For Flat Industrial And
             Small Industrial Railyards
                                6-31

-------
 Population Density Analyses

 1.   Local Average Population Densities for Sample Rail yards

      In conjunction with the rail yard configuration analyses,  computer-
 ized census data  was accessed to obtain site  specific population  data  for
 each of the 120 rail yards  selected for examination.  The  objective was
 to  obtain local average  population densities  in  the  areas  adjacent to  the
 rail yards.  These data  were required  to accurately  assess the  rail yard
 noise impact in terms of equivalent number of  people subjected  to Uay-
 tlight Average Noise  Levels  (Ljn)  greater than  55  dB.

      The  population  data was generated by Consolidated Analyses Centers,
 Inc.  (CACI) using  their  Site II  System data base  and computer program
 which incorporate  1970 block level census data.   This  program accesses
 and  suiauarizes the 1970  census at  the  block and block group  levels and
 also  estimates the 1977  population for  the selected  study  areas based  on
 such  information as  public utility connections and residential  construc-
 tion  rates.  The CACI system produced  a  Demographic  Profile  Report for
 each  of  the 120 rail yards.   Samples of  these  reports  are  shown in
 Appendix  T, Figures  T-l  and  1-2.

      Preliminary analyses indicated that  rail yard noise could impact
 populations within 2000  to 5000  ft.  of  the yard boundaries.  Therefore,
 for  each  rail yard the study area  selected was rectangular in shape
 extending the length of  the  yard  complex  and either  2500 ft. or 5000 ft.
 to either  side depending on  the size of  the yard  (i.e., 5000 ft. for
 classification yards and 2500 ft.  for  industrial and small yards).  In
 each  case,  the site  specific  or local  average population density was
 obtained  by dividing the computer  estimated 1977 population  (produced by
 the computer program) by the  area  within  the rectangular coordinates
 (excluding  the rail yard area).  The resulting average population density
values are shown in Table T-3, Appendix T.
                                  6-32

-------
2.   Distribution of Rail Yards by Density Class

     The percent of sample railyards in each density class or range was
computed, and these values are shown in Table 6-10.

     The average density values and percent distribution of rail yards
for the corresponding density range classes were assumed to hold for (or
represent) the total population of rail yards in the respective place
size categories.  Thus, for example, the percent distribution of rail
yards in the smaller place size was assumed to hold for the yards in
each yard category (type and traffic rate) in the small place size class
shown in Table 6-4.  Application of the percent factors in Table 6-10
to the number of yards shown for each yard type shown in Table 6-4 results
in the total number of rail yards of each type estimated for each density
class as shown in Tables 6-11 through 6-14.
                                   6-33

-------
          TABLE 6-10
DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RAIL YRUS
  BY POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
Population Density
Range
(People/Sq.tii.)

500
1000
2000
3000
5000
7000
<500
to 1000
to 2000
to 3000
to 5000
to 7000
to 11,000
Place Size
less than
50,000
People
8
6
13
7
2
2
2
Place Size
50,000 to
250,000
People
4
5
6
7
10
4
3
Place Size
Population Greater
Density Range than 250,000
(People /sq. /mi ) people
<1000
1000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 10,000
10,000 to 15,000
15,000 to 22,000
6
10
13
2
2
3
4
             6-34

-------
                                TABLE 6-11
                  DISTRIBUTION  OF HUMP YARDS BY PLACE SIZE,
                    TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY AND POPULATION
                               DENSITY RANGE
     Place  Size
(Thousands  of People)
  Population
Density Range
(People/tlile2)
      Number of Yards
   Traffic Rate Category
Low    Medium   High   Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
50 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
50-250 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000

<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
250 7000-10000
10000-15000
15000-22000
Total
Total
4
3
6
3
1
1
1
19
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
14
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
13

4
3
6
3
1
1
1
19
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
12
2
4
5
1
1
1
2
16

3
2
4
2
1
1
1
14
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
8
1
2
3
1
1
0
1
9

11
8
16
8
3
3
3
52
4
5
5
5
9
3
3
34
5
9
12
3
3
2
4
38
124
                                    6-35

-------
     Place Size
(Population Range)
                                    TABLE 6-12

                   DISTRIBUTION OF FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS
                     BY PLACE SIZE, TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
                         AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
  Population       Number of Yards By
Density Range    Traffic Rate Category
 (People/Mile2)  Low    llediun   High
Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
1. Less than 50,000 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
2. 50,000 to 250,000 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
3. Greater than 250,000 7000-10000
10000-15000
15000-22000
Total
Total
64
48
103
58
16
16
16
321
14
20
20
20
39
11
11
135
17
29
34
9
6
8
12
115

41
31
65
37
10
10
10
204
9
12
12
12
24
7
7
83
10
18
21
6
3
5
7
70

21
16
33
19
5
5
5
104
4
7
7
7
13
3
3
44
6
9
11
3
2
2
4
37

126
95
201
114
31
31
31
629
27
39
39
39
76
21
21
262
33
56
66
18
11
15
23
222
1113
                                        6-36

-------
                       TABLE 6-13

          DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARDS
        BY PLACE SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
                          Population
     Place Size          Density Range
(Thousands of People)     (Peopie/Mile^)   Number of Yards
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
50 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
170
128
272
153
42
42
42
849
-500
500-1000
1000-2000
50-250 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
24
36
36
36
69
19
19
239
<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
250 7000-10000
10000-15000
15000-22000
44
73
88
23
15
21
29
293
Total
1381
                          6-37

-------
                          TABLE 6-14

               DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL INDUSTRIAL FLAT
             BY PLACE SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
                          Population
     Place Size          Density Range
(Thousands of People)     (People/Mile^)   Number of Yards
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
50 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000
50-250 2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
250 7000-11000
11000-15000
15000-22000
Total
Total
253
189
404
227
63
63
63
1262
13
20
20
20
38
11
11
133
23
39
47
12
8
11
16
156
1551
                           6-38

-------
RAIL YARD NOISE

General Description of the Noise Model

     The noise sources identified in rail yards include moving and
stationary sources which have varying degrees of proximity to one another
depending on the yard type, function, and geometry.  Some of the noise
sources which contribute significantly to the overall noise environment
are located or operated in specific areas of the yards while others may
be randomly distributed in various sections of the yards.  Even though
many of the noise sources and activities can be characterized in terms
of their operational parameters, such as usage time or rate of occur-
rence, and distribution during the daytime and nighttime periods, an
accurate definition of the typical positions of source groupings relative
to one another and to the rail yard boundaries is not possible without
considerable additional descriptive data on the 4169 rail yards in the U.S.
These data are not currently available.

     Therefore, a noise generation model was developed for each identified
source for which a noise data base was available.  Due to the uncertainty
in the noise source locations, the basic preliminary assumption made for
the ENI analysis was that the noise levels on the periphery of rail yard
complexes were due to widely separated individual groups of sources.
Additionally, examination of the yard noise source characteristics indi-
cated that only two types of basic noise generation models were necessary,
one for stationary sources and another for moving point sources.  In the
case of stationary or virtual (groups of stationary) sources, the corres-
ponding average daily noise levels are a function of source strength and
percentage of time operating or number of on-off events.  For the moving
sources, the average daily noise levels at any observation location are a
function of source strength and number of pass-by events. The noise levels
resulting from the grouping of two or more individual sources were used
to represent property line values and for the ENI analysis.  The selection
of source groupings was based on the assumed location of specific opera-
tions and activities within each rail yard type.
                                  6-39

-------
     Another basic  concept  for  the  noise model was  the grouping of rail
yards by  two types, hump and  flat yards, and  three  main functions:
classification,  industrial, and small  industrial yards. The classification
yards are further separated into low,  medium, and high traffic categories,
based on  the number of rail cars classified per day.  Thus, there are
eight typical yards in the composite model:

     •     High  Traffic or Activity Hump Classification Yards
     •     llediun Traffic Hunp  Classification Yards
     •     Low Traffic Hump Classification Yards
     •     High  Traffic Flat  Classification Yards
     •     tlediun Traffic Flat  Classification Yards
     •     Low Traffic Flat Classification Yards
     •     Industrial Flat Yards
     •     Small Industrial Flat Yards

The basis for these groupings,  and  the supporting data on the number of
yards and their  distribution  by  location, land use, and traffic level,
were developed in a railroad  yard survey conducted  for DOT.-*  The noise
generation model is thus based  on the  average number of sources and
activity  levels  for each of the classes of yards which are either pre-
sented in the referenced study  or derived from the statistical data
presented there.

     A schematic diagram for  the railroad yard noise adverse response
impact model outlining the basic elements of  the model and the required
input information is shown in Figure 6—3.

Rail Yard Noise  Sources and Levels

    1.   Noise Sources

    The predominant noise sources for each class of rail yard were identi-
fied by examining the literature and data base on railroad equipment and
facility surveys, and noise measurement studies.  Discussions with the
AAR staff and consultants provided additional data on potential noise
                                  6-40

-------
   SURFACE
NOISE LEVELS
  NUMBER OF
OCCURRENCES;

    YARD
 ACTIVITIES
   SOURCE
 LOCATIONS
  IN YARDS
BASELINE L
          dn
 FOR EACH
SOURCE GROUP
                 NOISE ATTENUATION
                 • GEOMETRIC
                   SPREADING
                 • AIR AND GROUND
                   ABSORPTION
                 • SHIELDING
                                       NOISE LEVELS
                                        PROPAGATED
                                        BEYOND YARD
                                        BOUNDARIES
                                          COMMUNITY NOISE
                                          IMPACT (ADVERSE
                                          RESPONSE, END :
                                          INTEGRATION OF
                                          NOISE LEVEL
                                          FACTOR (FI) AND
                                          POPULATION
                                         'EXPOSED
      FIGURE  6-3 - RAILROAD  YARD  NOISE  IMPACT MODEL

-------
sources, activities,  and levels.   The  identified noise sources  for  which
a sufficient  noise data base  were  available to  determine a  statistically
meaningful average level  were included in the rail yard  noise model.
The major  noise sources which have been included  in  the rail yard  noise
model and  health/welfare impact model  are  listed below according  to  yard
type and function category:

    •    HUMP YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

              MR - Master Retarders  (Includes Group, Intermediate,
                   and Track)
              HS - Hump Lead Switchers
              IR - Inert Retarders
              KS - Makeup Switchers
              CI - Car Impacts
              IL - Idling Locomotives
              LT - Locomotive  Load Tests
              RC - Refrigerator Cars
              IS - Industrial  and Other Switchers
         -    OB - Outbound Trains  (Road-Haul plus Local)
              IB - Inbound  Trains

     •  FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

          -     CSE - Classification Switchers,  East End of Yard
                CSW   Classification Switchers,  West End of Yard,
          -     CI  - Car Impacts
                IB  - Inbound  Trains
          -     OB  - Outbound Trains  (Road-Haul plus Local)
                IL  - Idling Locomotives
                LT  - Load  Tests
          -     RC  - Refrigerator Cars
                                  6-42

-------
     •  FLAT  INDUSTRIAL YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

                SE   -  Switch Engines
                CI   -  Car  Impacts
                IB   -  Inbound Trains
          -     OB   -  Outbound Trains  (Road-Haul plus Local)

     •  SMALL INDUSTRIAL  FLAT YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

                SE   -  Switch Engines
          -     CI   -  Car  Impacts
          -     IB   -  Inbound Trains
                OB   -  Outbound Trains

     The yard noise sources  identified but  not modeled  include  horns  and
whistles,  locomotive  brake  squeal,  wheel-track  screech on  curves,  loud-
speakers,  slack pull-out (between cars in  outbound  trains or  cuts of
cars) , compressed air release from  car air  brake-bleed and pneumatically-
operated  switches  and retarder  mechanisms,  and  other  unidentified  yard
equipment.  However, the  indications from the  data base are that,
although the non-inclusion of these sources  (which  may be present in some
yards,  and  types  of  yards, but  not  in others) results in a  degree of
uncertainty  in  the  determination of the overall  noise  levels at rail yard
boundaries,  the major  noise sources identified  in  the preceding  yard
noise source  list  produce noise  levels and event  rates sufficiently high
to provide good indicators  for  the  noise  environment and  impact  at  the
rail yard  boundaries.   It should be  noted  that  load test facilities were
assumed  to be located at  high  level activity  hump  and flat  classification
yards only.  This assumption was based on survey data provided by the AAR.

     Although the  exact  location of  sources  in various  portions  of  yard
complexes  are  unknown,  there are  logical  source groupings  and locations
to consider  for placement of grouped sources.   Information derived  from
the  EPIC rail yard survey,  the  AAR,   and consultants  regarding rail yard
operations was  used  to  develop reasonable  source groupings  and  group
placements within  the yard complexes.   For  example,  it  was assumed that
                                  6-43

-------
locomotive  load  test stations and  storage  of  idling locomotives would be
positioned  in  the  general  area  of  engine repair  facilities.During the
EPIC  rail  yard survey it  was  observed  that engine  repair facilities were
frequently  situated near  the master  retarder end  of  the classification
yard.   Therefore,  the master  retarder  noise  source group  was assumed to
include  idling  locomotives and load  test stations.   It seemed logical to
form  a noise  source  group  by combining  switch  engine  and  inbound  train
operations  (located  in the receiving  yard)  and another group by combining
other  switch  engine and  outbound  train operations  (located  in the depar-
ture yard).

The hump  and  flat  classification  rail  yards were thus  assumed  to  have 4
noise  source  groups  while  the flat industrial  and  small industrial yards
were  assumed  to  have  2  source  groups.    In the absence of  any specific
data on yardt activity parameters, it was assumed that the distances moved
by  switch  engines and inbound  and outbound locomotives are  equal  to the
receiving and  departure  yard lengths  of the hump and flat classification
yards, and  to the  yard  lengths  of the other  industrial  and  small indus-
trial yard types.

     2.  Average Noise Source Levels

     The rail  yard  noise data base provided average (energy  basis) noise
levels (Lavg)  at a distance of  100 feet  from the source  for each  of
the major  noise  sources  identified.    In  the  case  of  time-varying noise
levels (for retarder,  car  impact,  locomotive pass-by, etc.),  the averages
of the maximum A-weighted sound levels,  Lavg (max) were computed.
In  addition,  for moving  sources  (switch  engines  and  locomotives)  and
intermittent  sources (retarders and  car  impacts) an  SENEL value  was
determined from  Lav., values  and the corresponding event duration (or
time-history).   The Lavg and  SENEL values  were  calculated according
to:
                              , n     L 710
                       10 log -  I   10
                              n 1=1

                SENEL = Lavg (max)  + 10  log n  —  ; moving source.1''

                SENEL = Lavg (max)  + 10  log  E;  stationary source.
                                  6-44

-------
Where:
     L^   =  Measured noise level for specific event i, dBA

     n    =  Number of measurements for each source

     LaVg =  Average or average maximum noise level, dBA

     D    =  Shortest distance between stationary observer
             and source path

     V    =  Source speed

     E    =  Effective duration, seconds.

The results are shown in Table 6-15.

     The  flat  yard switch  engine noise  level  represents  the  noise level
for an  acceleration condition associated with "kicking"  (decoupling) cars,
and  pulling out  a cut  or  block  of  cars.   The  hump  switch  engine noise
level  represents  a condition  of  constant velocity for  hump switching and
other  switch  engine operations at a steady pull.   The integration of the
noise  level time  histories for retarder  and  car  impact noise events given
in  the data  base  indicate average effective durations of 1/2  and 1/7
seconds,  respectively.

Noise Generation Models

     The  noise rating scale  selected  to assess  rail  yard noise impact is
the  day-night average  sound  level, Ldn.   Therefore,  since the rail yard
noise  model is developed  from measured  sound  levels  for each individual
source,  a  baseline L^n value  is required  for  each  source and  for each
level  of  activity.   However,  the empirical  data base  on rail yard  source
noise  levels in general provided average noise  levels (Lavg)  and  single-
event  noise exposure levels  (SENEL) as  discussed in the  previous  section.
It  is necessary,  then,  to use the  Lavg or  SENEL  values and the  activity

                                   6-45

-------
                                    TABLE 6-15

                           NOISE SOURCE LEVEL SUMMARY
  Noise Source
  Number of
Measurements
Level of Energy Average
 LAvg.  @10° Ft< (3BA)    SENEL (§100 Ft,
Master Retarder:
Group, Track, and
Inte rmediate
     410
          111
108
Inert Retarder
      96
           93
 90
Flat Yard Switch
Engine Accelerating
(Throttle Set 1-2)
      30
                           83
                                98  (5 MPH)
Stationary Switch
Engine
(Throttle Set  1-2)
                           76
Idling Locomotive
(Throttle Set  1-2)
      63
           63
Hump Switch Engine,
Constant Speed
   Ref. 6
           78
 95  (4  MPH)
Car Impact
     133
                                                 100
                                92
Refrigerator Car
      60
           63
Load Test
(Throttle 8)
      59
           90
*   LMax.Average for Intermittent or  Moving Sources
                                  6-46

-------
parameters, developed  in the  preceding section,  to  compute the  baseline
Ldn values .  The  expressions for L^n will vary depending  on the type
of  source,  (moving  or  stationary),  and mode  of  operation,  (continuous,
quasi-continuous or  intermittent).    Thus,  the  two  basic general  expres-
sions for Ldn at a given location are:

     Ldn    = SENEL + 10 log (NEd +  10HEn)  - 49.4,  and
     Ldn    - Leq   + 10 1°8 (NHd 4-  10NHn)  - 13.8,
                 H
where

     NEd    = number of daytime events (or  occurrences)
     NEn    » number of nighttime events
     Leq     =  the equivalent or  average   sound  level  for  1-hour  periods
     NHj    = number of hours operating during the  daytime
     NHn    = number of hours operating during nighttime

     The daytime and nighttiiae periods, as  usual, are defined as
7 A.M.  to 10 P.M., and  10 P.M. to  7 A.M., respectively.   The two  Ldn
expressions above  are  used  with the  baseline noise data to  compute  Ldn
values at  100  feet from the source.   The  latter of  the1 two expression is
applicable when Leq  remains the same for all hours the  source is
                   H
operated.  The types of noise sources for which this condition was
determined to hold are parked refrigerator  cars, stationary idling
locomotives, and  locomotive load tests.   The first expression  for  Ldn is
applicable to moving  sources such as  the switch engines,  and to intermit-
tent sources such as car impacts and retarder noises.

     A more detailed discussion of the distribution of sources in
the  rail  yards and  the methods and  assumptions used  to  develop activity
parameters  (numbers  of  events, hours  of operation,  etc.) is  presented in
Appendix U.
                                  6-47

-------
RAIL YARD NOISE IMPACT
Rail Yard Boundary Noise Levels
     The baseline  L^n values for  the  rail yard  noise  sources  were deter-
mined  from:    1)  average source  noise  levels at  a reference  distance  of
100  feet,  2)  rail  yard  source  activity  and  operational  parameters,  and
3)  average attenuation  factors   for  each  noise  source  or group.   These
three  parameters  were  used  to  compute  rail  yard  boundary noise  levels
which  formed  the basic  input data base  for  the  rail  yard  impact  model.
The  general expression  for computing L^n values will  be discussed  in
a following section.

     Analysis of the  EPIC survey  data  indicated  that,  in general, hump and
flat classification  rail  yards have an  asymmetrical configuration.   As a
result, a  near and  a  far  yard bounndary distance was assigned to each yard
source and an  L
-------
                       TABLE 6-16

   HUMP YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO  DAY-NIGHT  SOUND
     LEVEL  (Ldn)AS A FUNCTION OF  DISTANCES  (dn/df) TO
WEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY, AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
Ldn (dB)@
TRAFFIC RATE
Source
Group
(a)



(b)





(c)




(d)




LOW
Noise Source

Hump Switchers
Inbound Trains
Composite Levels

Retarders (Master
and Group)
Idling Locomotives
Load Tests
Composite Levels

Inert Retarders
Refrigeration Cars
Car Impacts
Composite Levels

Makeup Switchers
Industrial Switchers
Outbound Trains
Composite Levels
Near Side
@140 ft
65
64
68
@210 ft

86
70
—
86
@210 ft
68
66
71
74
(§140 ft
68
69
65
73
Far Side
(§450 ft
60
58
62
(§630 ft

72
60
— —
72
@630 ft
54
55
59
61
@450 ft
62
63
59
67
dn/df (ft.)
CATEGORY
MEDIUi-1
Near Side
@140 ft
63
67
71
@310 ft

85
70
—
85
@310 ft
67
69
70
73
(§140 ft
71
68
68
74
Far Side
(§480 ft
63
61
65
@630 ft

75
64
__
75
@630 ft
57
62
63
66
(3480 ft
65
62
62
68
HIGH
Near Side
(§180 ft
69
68
72
@370 ft

87
68
75
87
@370 ft
69
69
70
74
(§180 ft
71
72
69
76
Far Side
(§560 ft
64
62
66
(§750 ft

76
59
69
77
(§750 ft
58
62
62
66
(§560 ft
65
66
63
70
                             6-49

-------
                           TABLE 6-17

      FLAT  CLASSIFICATION YARD  NOISE SOURCE  CONTRIBUTION TO
  DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (dn) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES (dn/df)
TO NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY, AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
Ldn (dB)@
TRAFFIC RATE
Source
Group
(a)




(b)



(c)



(d)




LOW
Noise Source

Classification
Switches (W)
Inbound Trains
Composite Levels

Idling Locomotives
Load Tests
Composite Levels

Refrigeration Cars
Car Impacts
Composite Levels

Classification
Switches (E)
Outbound Trains
Composite Levels
Near Side
(§100 ft

69
60
70
@110 ft
75
—
75
@110 ft
75
73
77
@100 ft

69
64
70
Far Side
(§350 ft

64
55
65
(§350 ft
65
—
65
@350 ft
65
62
67
(§350 ft

64
59
65
dn/df (ft.)
CATEGORY
MEDIUM
Near Side
(§100 ft

74
63
74
@110 ft
78
—
78
(§110 ft
77
77
80
(§100 ft

74
67
75
Far Side
(§450 ft

67
56
67
(§420 ft
67
—
67
(§420 ft
66
65
69
(§450 ft

6/
60
68
HIGH
Near Side
(§300 ft

71
60
71
*
(§300 ft
70
78
79
(§300 ft
71
70
74
(§300 ft

71
63
72
Far Side
(§600 ft

67
57
67
(§700 ft
63
70
71
(§700 ft
63
60
65
(§600 ft

67
60
68
                                 6-50

-------
                    TABLE 6-18

     FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO
DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES  (dn/df)
        TO NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY
                              Ldn (dB) @ dn/df (ft.)
   Source
   Group      Noise Source     Near Side  Far Side
   (a)                         @230 ft    @230 ft
           Inbound Trains        53         53
           Outbound Trains       53         53
           Switch Engines        69         69
           Composite Levels      69         69
   (b)     Car Impacts           63         63
           Composite Levels      63         63
                           6-51

-------
                    TABLE 6-19

   SMALL FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD NOISE SOURCE CONTRIBUTION TO
DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES (dn/df)
TO NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY, AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY

Source
Group
(a)




(b)



Noise Source

Inbound Trains
Outbound Trains
Switch Engines
Composite Levels
Car Impacts
Composite Levels
Ldn (dB) @

Near Side
@170 ft
54
54
64
65
59
59
dn/df (ft.)

Far Side
@170 ft
54
54
64
65
59
59
                              6-52

-------
is a 100 percent impact.  The FI relationship for other Ldn values is
given by the following equation:
               1
          FI - 20~(Ldn -55) for Ldn >55
          FI =  0 for Ldn <55

     In computing the number of people affected by rail yard noise using
the fractional impact concept, the magnitude of total impact associated
with a defined level of environmental noise is determined by multiplying
the number of people (P) exposed by the corresponding fractional impact
(FI) value for a given noise level and area:
     is the equivalent number of people who receive a fractional impact
equal to unity (100 percent impacted).  The total impact  for all areas or
rail yards under consideration is given by:

          ENI =  £  FIipi

Where ENI, thus, is the total equivalent number of people who are considered
100 percent impacted.

ENI Model for Rail Yards

     The ENI impact analysis methodology requires the determination  of
the variation of L^ with distance from the rail yard boundary.  The
basic general expression for computing Ldn values for each source or
source group at any distance (D) from the source is:
                                   r»  _
          Ldn     '
                                  6-53

-------
           Ldno     =  baseline  L^n  value  at  Do  (the  yard  boundary),  dB.
           DQ       =  distance  from source  to yard boundary,  feet
           n        =  1  for moving  sources
           n        =2  for stationary  sources
           k^       =  combined  air  and  ground absorption  coefficient,  dB/ft.
           k£       =  building  insertion  loss coefficient,  dB/ft.

The baseline Ldn values and k^ values are  listed in previous  tables.
The noise barrier  (building)  insertion  loss coefficient  (k2)  values
were determined as a function of  place  size and average population density
(p) range.  Table  6-20 presents a  summary  listing  of  the  k2values.

     The basic noise impact relationship is given  by  EN1  =  (FI)A  , where
the area (A) is a  function of source  type  (moving, or stationary)  and
population density (p) is a function  of place  size and population density.
range.  The general equations for  computing A  were developed  on the basis of
eliminating the area inside the yard  boundary  from the determination of
noise impact areas.  The area expressions  for  the  two different types of
sources are for either segments of circles for stationary sources or
rectangular strips for moving sources:
        A
        — = Lo(D/Do), moving  sources
        A
           = D2 cos"1  (D0/D)-D0  /D2-D2      ,  stationary source
          L0  = characteristic path length  for moving sources.

     The development of the density values  applicable to the rail yard
areas in terras of place size and population density range was presented
in a previous section.

The characteristic path length for the switch engines and locomotives
were determined on the basis of the 120 yard sample evaluated during the
EPIC survey as previously discussed.  The resulting L0 values ranged
from 2600 to 6800 feet, depending type of yard arid traffic  rate.
                                   6-54

-------
                             TABLE 6-20

          BARRIER (Building) INSERTION LOSS COEFFICIENTS  AS  A
       FUNCTION OF PLACE SIZE AND AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
      Place Size
(Thousands  of  People)
 Population Density
Range (people/sq.mi.)
   Insertion  Loss
Coefficient dB/ft.
<500
5000 to
<50 1000 to
and 2000 to
50 to 250 3000 to
5000 to
7000 to
1000
2000
3000
5000
7000
11000
<1000
1000 to
>250 5000 to
7000 to
10000 to
15000 to
3000
7000
10000
15000
22000
0
0
.005
.005
.008
.008
.008
0
.005
.005
.008
.008
.008
                                    6-55

-------
     The rail yard noise model was developed to determine the noise

impact resulting from groups of yard noise sources •  The yard noise

sources  are  modeled  as  either  moving  point  sources  or as  stationary  or

grouped  point  sources.   The noise  emanating  from each  source  is  pro-

pagated  out  to the  distance  where the  Ljn value  is  decreased  to  55 dB.

The  noise  attenuation as  a function  of  distance  depends  on the  type  of

source,  the   spectral  distribution  of noise  energy,  and   the  population

density  as  discussed in  previous sections.   For  each yard noise  source

group, the  impact,  given  in  terms  of Equivalent  Noise Impact  (ENI),  is

obtained by  summing  the noise  source group  impacts over  the  appropriate

nuuber of  yards defined  by yard  type,   function  and  activity  level, and

receiving land use  and place size population density.


     To determine  yard  noise  impact, compute  the  ENI for  each  source for

each yard category  according to the following sequence:


          •     Select yard type and  noise source.

          •     Find  L^no from yard/source matrix.
          •     Compute L^n per D for 1 or 2 dB decrements using
                appropriate n, kj , and k2 values relative to source
                and population density range.

          •      Compute  FI for each  successive  strip area using  the  LJ
                average relative to the strip boundaries.

          •     Compute  strip  area between successive D values (in accord-
                ance with the type of source).

          •       Compute  ENI^  for each  strip  area  using  the  appropriate
                population density value for the place size
                 Sum the EM-^ values  to  obtain the ENI per  source  for  the
                selected conditions.  Multiply the  ENI value by  the number
                of  rail  yards in  the particular  yard  category  selected.

                  Repeat  the  procedure and  sum the ENI values for  all  the
                sources, all  the  population density ranges, all  the  place
                size classes and all  the  rail yards for the selected  yard
                type and activity level.

                  Repeat the  procedure  for each  activity  level  to  obtain
                total ENI for all the  yard types  selected.

                Repeat  the procedure  for  each of the  yard  types  and obtain
                the grand total  EHI  for  all  sources, yard  types, activity
                levels,  etc.
                                  6-56

-------
     A flow diagram for  the  model  elements arid ENI computing procedure  is
shown in Figure 6-4.   A computerized model for the rail yard noise  impact
assessment  programmed according  to  the above relationships, was  exercised
using baseline noise level  data  and  activity  parameters  to  obtain  the  total
baseline ENI  for  all the  rail  yards.   Because  the typical configuration
of the hump and flat  classification yards was asymmetrical, the  near side
ana far  side  ENI  values were computed  separately  and  added to obtain the
total baseline ENI.

Baseline and Study Level Impact

     The results  for the  baseline  case  indicate  the  total  noise  impact
under the  estimated  current  conditions for  the  identified sources at all
the rail yards.   The  estimated  total equivalent number of  people impacted
(ENI)  is 1,161,410,  while the  corresponding population  exposed to rail
yard noise  of Ldn  j>55 dB is 3,946,490. In addition, the  total area
surrounding the rail  yards  exposed  to L$n >_55 dB is  estimated  as  14,610
square  miles.   The  baseline  ENI  results  are shown  in more  detail  on
Table  6-21 which presents  the computed ENI values  for  each  yard type
aggregated  by  place size.   The baseline  population exposed  (to L^ _>  55
dBA)  aggregated  by yard  type  and  place  size are  presented  in  the  right
hand columns  of  the  table.   In addition, the land areas exposed to L^n
values exceeding  75, 70, 65,  60, and 55 dB are also summarized by place size
as shown on Table  6-22.

     The relative changes  in  impact were computed  for noise levels at the
rail  yard  boundary reduced  to  L
-------
                Rail  Yards  by  Type,
            Function and Volume,  V
                  Specify  Yard
               Type and Function
                   Location
                 (Land Use), U
                  Yard Noise
                   Source, S
             Population Density, p
               By Place Size, P
                 and Land Use
                 Noise Impact:
               £ ENI(s), Area(s)
               P
                 Noise Impact:
                 ENI(s), Area(s)
                 Noise Impact:
              ENI  (S, P), Area  (S, P)
                 Noise Impact:
                 Noise Impact:
                  ENI  (S
             VUSP
               Area  (S, P, U, V)

                                         Number of Yards
                                           N  (V, U, P)
FIGURE 6-4    RAIL YARD NOISE IMPACT MODEL
                        6-58

-------
                         TABLE 6-21
BASELINE EQUIVALENT NOISE IMPACT  (ENI) AND POPULATION  EXPOSED






T
Ul
VO
Yard Type

Hump Yards
Flat Classification Yards
Industrial and Small
Industrial Flat Yards
TOTAL

<50,000 people
44,950
224,470

254,440
523,660
Equivalent Noise Impact
Place Size
50,000 to 250,000 people
35,750
119,730

'/4,680
230,160
(ENI)
>250,000 people Total
72,450 153,150
176,600 520,600

158,540 487,660
407,590 1,161,410
Population
Exposed

451,080
1,716,730

1,778,680
3,946,490

-------
                   TABLE 6-22
BASELINE LAND AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS
Land Area Exposed To Given L^n or Greater (Square Miles)
Ldn Place Size

75
70
65
60
55
<50,000 people 50,000 to 250,000 people >250,000 people
85 4
113 53 47
1,030 398 363
3,170 1,240 1,050
10,000 2,550 2,060
Total
17
213
1,791
5,460
14,610

-------
reducing the noise levels of the noisiest sources in the noisiest group
first, and continuing to reduce noise source levels until the desired
composite boundary L<.jn was achieved.  For example, in order to have a
maximum composite boundary L^ = /5 dB for any source group, composed of
three sources, all individual sources would have to be reduced to an
Ldn — /O dB.  In order to achieve a composite boundary L(jn no greater
than 60 dB, the Ldn for all individual sources in the groups except for
hump switcher and inbound and outbound train operations would have to be
reduced to the L(jn £ 54 dB range.  Therefore, the ENI for this latter
case is relatively small compared to the baseline case.  A summary of the
alternative study level impacts is shown in Table 6-1

     The ENI value for various study levels can only be approximated due
to the uncertainty in source location and grouping in each type of yard.
However, a consistent procedure for successively reducing the boundary
^dn was utilized, and the relative change in ENI compared to the base-
line case provides a good indication of the magnitude of the change in
impact (or the degree of benefit obtained by reducing source noise
levels).  The relative change in impact, RCI, is expressed as:
        RCI -        baseline - ENI)
        RCI ~       ENI baseline         X 10°
Also, the ENI reduction { ENI = ENI baseline - ENI) can be used as an
indicator of impact change.  The total ENI values obtained using the
computer model for the cases outlined above were used to determine the
general variation of RCI and  ENI with composite L
-------
                                          TABLE  6-22
                     BASELINE  LAND AREA EXPOSED TO VARIOUS NOISE LEVELS
                     Land Area  Exposed To Given L^ or Greater (Square Miles)
Ldn
Place Size
             <50,000 people     50,000 to 250,000 people        >250,000 people       Total

cr>
to



75
70
65
60
55
8
113
1,030
3,170
10,000
5
53
398
1,240
2,550
4
47
363
1,050
2,060
17
213
1,791
5,460
14,610

-------
                            REFERENCES
                            SECTION 6

 1.  Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
     Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety,
     550/9-74-004, U.S. EPA,  Washington, B.C., March 1974.

 2.  1970 Census; Population. Number of Inhabitants, United States
     Summary,  U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, PC(1)-A1,
     December  1971.

 3.  Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, J. E. Baerwald,
     Institute of Tranportation Engineers, 1965.

 4.  Statistical Abstracts of the U.S., U.S. Bureau of the Census,
     (98th Edition), Washington, D.C., 1977.

 5.  Railroad  Classification Yard Technology, A Survey and Assessment,
     S. J. Petrocek, Stanford Research Institute, Final Report,
     //FRA-ORD-76/304 for DOT, January 1977.

 6.  Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations
     Jack W. Swing and Donald B. Pies, Wyle Laboratories, Contract
     No. 0300-94-07991, Report No. WCR 73-5, July 1973.

 7«  Background Document/Environmental Explanation for Proposed
     Interstate Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulations. EPA
     #550/9-74-005; March 1974.

 8.  Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards,
     EPA #550/9-76-005; December 1975.

 9«  Measurement of RR Noise-Line Operations, Boundaries,
     and Retarders. J. H. Path, et al., National Bureau of
     Standards, for EPA, December 1974.

10.  Noise Level Measurements of Railroad Freight Yards and Wayside,
     Transportation Systems Center, E. J. Rickley, et al., DOT-TSC-
     OST-73-46, Final Report, PB 234 219, May 1974.

11.  Rail and  Environmental Noise;  A State of the Art Assessment,
     Bender, E.K., et al., Bolt, Beranek and Newman #2709, 105 pp.,
     January 1974.

12.  Diesel-Powered Heavy-Duty Refrigeration Unit Noise. Thomas J. Retka,
     #DOT-TSC-OST-75-5, Final Report, January 1976.

13.  Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Engineers. Gordon, C.G., Galloway,
     W. J., Kugler, B. A., and Nelson, D. A., NCHRP Report 117, 1971.

14.  Highway Noise - A Field Evaluation of Traffic Noise Reduction
     Measures. Kugler, B. A.  and Pierson, A. G., NCHRP Report 144,
     1973.
                                  6-63

-------
                       REFERENCES (Continued)
                             SECTION 6
15.   Background Document for the Wheel and Crawler Tractor
     Noise Emission Regulation, U.S. EPA Report 550/90-77-250,  June 1977

16.   Population Distribution of the United States As a Function of
     Outdoor Noise Level, U.S.  EPA Report 550/9-73-002, June 1974.

17.   Comparison of Measured and Theoretical Single Event Noise
     Exposure Levels for Automotive Vehicles and Aircraft, S.R.  Lane,
     AIAA Proceedings Transpo-LA,  1975.
                                  6-64

-------
SECTION 7

-------
                                SECTIOW /

                  ANALYSIS OF COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

APPROACH

     This section describes the costs and economic impacts of alter-
native noise regulatory levels on both the railroad industry and
individual rail carriers that could be affected by imposition of a
noise standard. The cost and economic impacts were developed from the
information previously described in the Sections 5 (Noise Control
Technology) and 6 (Health and Welfare Impact). The discussion of cost
and economic impacts that follows is based upon information generated
from the modelling of rail yards and rail yard operations, including
levels of activity, as well as the assessment of noise abatement
procedures to reduce noise emissions from particular sources.  As
indicated previously in Section 5, the noise control technology
requirements and cost estimates relied upon a preliminary version of
the rail yard noise propagation model.  We believe that the refine-
ments made to this model should not significantly alter the compliance
cost estimates and economic impacts analyzed.

     To derive the estimated costs which represent the dollar amounts
needed to comply with specific noise regulatory study levels, capital
costs were derived from unit costs for an array of selected noise
abatement procedures.  The procedures used were described in detail
in Section 5.  The capital investments required then are annualized
and combined with other expenditures such as operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs on an annual basis to represent the total annual costs to
meet the various regulatory study levels.  The estimates of cost are
calculated for the entire railroad industry on the basis of the
universe of yards. A disaggregation of total costs to the industry is
derived also in terms of individual railroad companies which own and
operate rail yards for each of the analyzed regulatory study levels.
                               7-1

-------
      Since employment of noise  abatement  procedures  represented  but

one mechanism  to meet the  required noise  regulatory  levels,  another

option to achieve  these levels  was studied,  as well.   This option was
the purchase of land contiguous to a  railyard.   Estimates of  the costs

to meet the various noise  regulatory  study levels were derived using

the revised health/welfare model.


      The applied methodology consisted  of the following analytical

steps:
     •  Processing and tabulation  of  the  FRA/DOT data base  to array the
        total number  (universe) of rail yards by type, function  and
        place size,
     •  Estimation of the unit costs/annualized capital and operating
        and maintenance costs associated  with noise abatement procedures
        that were previously identified in  Section 5 as applicable to
        reduce noise sources in yards,

     •  Estimation of compliance costs related to the ability to
        measure yard noise at or beyond the property line using  the
        methodology described in Appendix A,

     •  Estimation of compliance costs related to the employment of
        various combinations of noise control ("best available") tech-
        nology to meet the specified  regulatory study levels for the
        universe of yards,

     •  Estimation of compliance costs related to the acquisition of
        land by land use categories to meet the specified regulatory
        study levels for the universe of  yards,
     •  Estimation of compliance costs related to employment of noise
        abatement procedures and noise measurement for the purpose of
        meeting specified regulatory study levels on a firm by firm
        basis (including major roads, i.e., Class I line-haul railroads,
        and other companies which perform line-haul and/or switching
        and terminal services),

     •  Estimation of compliance costs related to land acquisition and
        noise measurement for the purpose of meeting specified regu-
        latory levels on a firm by firm basis (including major roads,
        i.e., Class I line-haul railroads, and other companies which
        perform line-haul and/or switching and terminal services.
     Based upon the developed compliance cost data, additional analytical
steps were performed to determine the economic impact upon the industry
and on major roads.  The sequence of analysis was as follows:
                              7-2

-------
     Based upon the developed compliance cost data, additional analytical
steps were performed to determine the economic impact upon the industry
and on major roads.  The sequence of analysis was as follows:
        Analysis and assessment of the economic impact on the railroad
        industry resulting from imposition of specified regulatory study
        levels related to rail yards,
        Analysis and impact assessment of each major road using key
        financial ratios which measure the burden that noise abatement
        compliance costs might place on such firms at regulatory
        study levels of either Ljn 70 or L^ 65,
        Determination of the economic impact on each major road and
        other companies resulting from compliance with rail yard noise
        emission regulatory study levels of either L^ 70 or L^ 65
        using technological fixes associated with selected noise
        abatement procedures,
     Figure 7-1 displays these and several additional analytical steps
that comprise the overall methodology used in analyzing the cost and
economic impacts of alternative noise standards on rail yards.
Summary of Results

     Table 7-1 indicates the estimated costs to comply with various
regulatory study levels related specifically to rail yard noise source
emissions control.  Each study level shown in Column 1 effects the
universe of yards (Columns 2 and 6) considered in this analysis.
This effect has been discussed previously in detail in Sections 5 and
6. Based upon the information on rail yard noise levels and the noise
abatement techniques used to reach each regulatory study level for yards
by type and function, the compliance costs in Columns 3 and 4, respec-
tively, were derived.  The utilization of technological fixes represented
one of the two alternative noise control methods examined in the cost
analysis.  The other method of analysis used the noise model (described
in Section 6) to calculate the total amount of land continguous to
typical rail yards by type, function, place size, and activity level,
                                  7-3

-------
   Tabulation of All
   Yards by Type,
   Function £ Place Size
   Estimation of -Unit
     Costs, Capital
 Investment s Anni'ilized
     Q^sts for Noise
   Control Procedures
  Estimation of Compli-
  ance Costs Related to
    Regulatory Levels
  using 'Tech.  Fixes'
    Estimation of Com-
      pliance Costs
  Related to Regulatory
     Levels  Using Land
        Acquisition
 Tabulation of Yards
 Operated by Major
   and Other Roads
  Estimation of Costs
    to Comply with
Regulatory  Levels Using
 Noise Control  Options
 Only for Yards Owned
    by Major  and
      Other Roads
   Development of
  Railroad Industry
       Profile
 Analysis of Impacts
of Noise Standards on
  Railroad Industry
  (Aggregate Level)
 Analysis of Major and Other
 Roads  (Disaggregate Level)
in Terms of Financial  Ratios
 Analysis of Major Roads in
Terms of Key Financial Indi-
cators Considering Compliance
Costs of Quieting Yards Zoned
   at Specified  Regulatory
 Levels (L(jn 70  and Ldn 65)
                                                         Estimation of Price Elasti-
                                                        cities of Demand Encompassing
                                                        Principal Commodities Trans-
                                                           ported by Rail Carriers
                                                                                        Determination of Economic
                                                                                     Impacts on Major Roads  (Changes
                                                                                     in Price, Demand & Employment)
                                                                                      ' Resulting  from Compliance
                                                                                          with Noise  Standards
                                                                             Economic
                                                                              Impact
                                                                             Analysis
FIGURE 7-1.   FLOW DIAGRAM OF ANALYTICAL STEPS ENCOMPASSING COST  & ECONOMIC  IMPACT ANALYSIS

-------
I
UI
                                                          TABLE 7-1



                                            SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COMPLIANCE COSTS


Study
Level
(Ldn>
(1)
75
70
65
60
65 NC
70 C
All Yards 	

(Technological Fixes)
No.
of
Yards
(2)
1,237
2,618
4,169
4,169
3,352

Capital
Costs
($000)
(3)
$ 37,820
49,754
639,017
883,328
311,922

Annualized
Costs
($000)
(4)
$ 9,848
16,798
355,009
450,976
165,471

(Land
Acquisition)
Capital
Costs
($M)
(5)
$ 1,878
25,825
239,100
564,940
211,834

Annualized
Costs
($M)
(6)
$ 306
4,210
38,973
92,084
34,530

Yards of j
Class I Roads (1976/77) Only
(Technological Fixes)
No.
of
Yards
(7)
1,164
2,347
3,696
3,696
2,969

Capital
Costs
($000)
(8)
$ 41,944
48,004
576,980
807,493
271,932

Annualized
Costs
($000)
(9)
$ 13,181
15,445
325,322
415,880
148,655

              C = Compatible (Industrial/Agricultural)



             NC = Non-Compatible (Residential/Commercial)

-------
that was contained within contours beyond the yard property at various
regulatory study levels.  Using the land areas computed for each level
and estimates of costs to purchase various categories of land, the
capital and annual costs were derived and shown in Columns 5.and 6,
respectively.

     The estimated costs of noise abatement procedure implementation
were developed also for the major roads (Class I line-haul railroads in
the year 1976/1977).  These roads owned and operated approximately 90
percent of the rail yards comprising this universe. Each major road's
yards were tabulated by type and function and the costs for noise
reduction to reach the indicated study levels were computed; these are
shown in Columns 8 and 9 in terms of capital investment (initial year)
and annualized expenditures including capital recovery and other expenses,

     To illustrate the relative impact of the estimated compliance
costs on the railroad industry, Table 7-2 was developed.  This table
contains two (2) key industry financial indicators, specifically the
capital expenditures and operating expenses, in the year 19/6, which
provide a basis for comparing the effect of potential noise standards
on the railroad industry.  Two regulatory study levels and the estimated
costs of compliance associated with the two options studied were selec-
ted and are shown in this table.

     Based upon the compliance cost estimates to meet the indicated
regulatory levels shown in Table 7-1, estimates of the economic impacts
on the industry and major roads were developed.  To measure the economic
impacts at the aggregate (industry) and disaggregate (individual roads)
the price elasticity of demand which is a necessary and key variable in
such an analysis had to be derived and applied.

     Since data about demand responses to price changes for individual
markets and roads were not readily available, a 'best' estimate on an
industry-wide basis was derived.  This 'best' estimate, representing
upper and lower values for the likely range of elasticities, was calcu-
lated using elasticity ranges obtained from several reports; the estimate
                               7-6

-------
                                                       TABLE 7-2



                                   SUMMARY OF COST IMPACTS FOR THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY
I
-j
Noise
Regulation
Unregulated
Ldn 70

Ldn 65

Abatement
Procedure
—
Noise Source
Land
Acquisition
Noise Source
Land
Acquisition
Cost
($M)
Capital Annualized
$ 1,700* $14,900*
50 17
25,825 4,210
639 355
239,100 38,973
Cost Increase
Capital Annualized
0.0 0.0
3.0 0.1
1519.0 28.3
37.6 2.4
14,064.7 261.6
                   *  Costs indicated  represent actual Class  I  line-haul  railroad  capital  expenditures

                     and operating expenses  for  1976  (Source:  The  1977  Yearbook  of  Railroad Facts,

                       1978 Edition, Association  of American  Railroads).

-------
consists of a weighted average price elasticity representing the major
classes of commodities transported by railroads.  Use was made of these
estimates of price elasticity to determine and assess the relative
economic impacts presented in this study.

     Table 7-3 summarizes the key economic impacts obtained from the
analysis performed.  Two regulatory study levels are shown along with
the upper and lower values for the likely range of elasticities.  Based
on the application of a micro-economic modeling technique, changes in
prices, demand and employment were computed.  Results from the computa-
tions made for these parameters are presented in Table 7-3 in terms of
minimum, average (or median) and maximum values.  A reference point is
given in terms of actual 1976 industry data for these same parameters to
show the potential impact of compliance with noise standards at the
regulatory study levels previously indicated above. Since the data
available on the major roads did not distinguish between yards on the
basis of land use, the derived impacts represent a range of potential
changes in the specified parameters (i.e., upper and lower limits).3
ESTIMATED COST OF NOISE ABATEMENT

Introduction

     This section describes the key steps used to develop the estimated
costs for two approaches of noise control.  The approaches examined
were:  (1) employment of selected noise abatement procedures (which
was previously detailed in Section 5); and (2) the acquisition of land
areas by category of land use which are contiguous to rail yards.  A
third approach that involves rail carrier management and practices
affecting rail yard operations was considered as another alternative,
but is not addressed because costs concerning this alternative are not
available fron existing reference sources.
                               7-8

-------
                                           TABLE  7-3
                         SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC  IMPACTS  FOR THE  RAILROAD INDUSTRY
                                           STUDY LEVELS

Price
Increase/firm
(Percentage)
Demand
Decrease/firm
(Percentage)
Employment
Decrease/firm
(No. of People)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Average
Maximum
L^ 65 d]
Price
e , = -1 41 EJ
(J — i. tJ. ^Q
0.0%
3.3%
6.8%
0.0%
4.6%
9.6%
1
249
3,056
3
Elasticity
Ldn 70
of Demand
= -0.39 ed = -1.41
0.0%
2.3%
4.9%
0.0%
0.4%
1.9%
0
52
714
0.0%
0.2%
0.8%
0.0%
0.3%
1.1%
0
11
119
dB

ed = -0.39
0.0%
0.2%
0.5%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
0
2
29
Industry Characteristics
for 1976
At the Individual Railroad Level*
Price Minimum 1 . 7
c/Ton-Mile Mediam 2.4
Maximum 10 . 8
Demand Minimum 154
(Millions Median 3,482
of Ton-Miles) Maximum 94,400
Employment Minimum 2 76
(No. of Median 2,645
People ) Maximum 98 , 800
* Data on industry represents Class I line-haul railroads.

-------
Noise Source Abatement Cost Estimates

     The procedure used for the development of  source  noise control  cost
estimates is summarized in the following sequential steps:
     Step 1.  Identify noise sources located in  rail yards.
     Step 2.  Identify noise abatement procedures  that can be  applied
              to each source.
     Step 3«  Estimate the noise abatement resulting from the  applica-
              tion of each procedure.
     Step 4.  Determine the number and type of procedures which must be
              applied to achieve selected noise  levels at yard boundaries.
     Step 5.  Estimate the costs incurred to apply each procedure.
     Step 6.  Calculate the costs incurred to apply all necessary
              procedures.
     Step 7.  Estimate the costs incurred to measure yard noise levels.
     Step 8.  Calculate the total costs  to achieve specified maximum
              noise levels at yard boundaries for  all rail yards.
     Step 9.  Develop cost estimates to  achieve  the same maximum noise
              level at yard boundaries through the acquisition of
              additional property around each yard.
     Step 10. Apply the above cost estimates to  all major and other
              railroad companies.
     The source noise control approach  (Steps 1 through 8 above)
consists of the application of selected noise abatement procedures  to
specific types of rail yards.  The association of these abatement proce-
dures to railyards as a function of study noise levels at yard property
lines is displayed in Table 7-4.   (This information is also shown in
Table 7-5.)  It should be noted that  the type of abatement procedure,
the number of procedures employed, and  the  resulting noise level are
based upon medium levels of car switching activity in all of  the hump
and flat classification yards.

     The estimated costs of each of the eight abatement procedures
summarized in Table 7-4 are displayed in Table 7-5.  These data, which
are developed from unit cost information contained in Appendix C,
                                   7-10

-------
                                 TABLE  7-4

         ABATEMENT PROCEDURES FOR ACHIEVING STUDY LEVELS IN YARDS
Yard Type
Hump*



Flat*
(Classification)


Flat
( Industrial/Small
Industrial)


Study Level
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 1
Level 2

Level 3
Level 4
Abatement Procedures
Pl P2 P3 P4 P5 P
X
X X
X XXX
XX XX
X
X
X
X
(Current L^n below Level
X

X
X
6 P7

X
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
1)


X
X
*Procedures apply for medium level of car switching activity in classification yards
Abatement Procedures

P,  Retarder Barriers

P2  Lubrication of Retarders

?   Ductile Iron Shoes
P4  Replace Non-Releasable with
    Releasable Inert Retarder
PC  Switch Engine Treatment

P6  Relocate Structure/Load Test Site

?7  Reschedule to Reduce Nighttime Activities
    and/or Number of Classifications

PO  Refrigerator Car Treatment
                                                (Applies  to  all  study  levels)

-------
                                                    TABLE  7-5



                         CAPITAL AND ANNUALIZED COSTS OF YARD NOISE ABATEMENT PROCEDURES
to
Procedure
Number Procedure
P^ Retarder Barriers :
Master
Group
P? Lubrication of Retarders
P_ Ductile Iron Shoes
P4 Releasable Retarders
i
i
P5 Switch Engine Treatment
I
i PS Relocate/Enclose Load Test Site
P7 Reschedule Night Activities:
Hump Yards
Flat Classification Yards
j Industrial Yards
Small Industrial Yards
Pg Refrigerator Cars
Capital Annualized
Cost Cost
($/Yard) ($/Yard)

22,500
90,000
1,750,000
0
322,258
3,000
90,000

220,250
220,250
220,250
0
110*

3,663
1,125
14,645
4,500
284,814
189,000
112,000
52,444
32,226
790
580
9,548
9,000

24,798
387,000
24,798
167,000
24,798
39,000
8,000
14*
Remarks

Capital Recovery
Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Lubricant
Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Additional Fuel
Capital Recovery
Maintenance

Capital Recovery
Operations & Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Operations & Maintenance
Capital Recovery
Operations & Maintenance
Operations & Maintenance
Capital Recovery
            *   Refrigerator Car  Capital  and Annualized Costs  are presented  on  a  cost per car  basis.

-------
include estimates for initial capital investment, operations and main-
tenance, and amounts for capital recovery.  The costs for each abatement
procedure are shown on a per rail yard basis except for refrigerator
cars as noted.

     Capital costs are the initial costs, or the investments, that
would be required to procure and install each noise control procedure.
Capital cost is the product of the unit cost and the quantity required
for each yard and includes both the procurement and the installation
cost of each procedure.  The annualized costs are total costs expressed
on an annual basis.  These costs include operating costs, such as
maintenance and fuel, as well as an amount for capital recovery.  The
elements of capital recovery include a 10 percent interest factor and
the expected useful life for each type of control technique, as indicated
in Appendix C. The costs shown are estimates of the incremental costs
that would be incurred for the addition of new equipment, the modifica-
tion of existing equipment, or by changing operational methods.

     The estimated cost to the railroad industry for the measurement
of yard noise levels is approximately $5.9 million in capital investment
for instrumentation and approximately $4.4 million in operations and
maintenance.

     The total costs incurred by the railroad industry to achieve
the specified study noise levels at the rail yard property line for all
yard types are presented in the next series of tabulations.

     Table 7-6 presents the results of the cost estimating calculations
to achieve study noise level 1 (i.e. Ldn 75) at railyard property
lines.  As shown in this display, noise abatement procedures are
required for hump and flat classification yards and the refrigerator
car fleet.  The procedures employed are refrigerator car treatment,
retarder barriers, switch engine treatment, and load test cell treatment
in flat yards.  Estimates for the cost of yard noise level measurement
are also included.
                                   7-13

-------
                                                            TABLE 7-6
                                     COST ESTIMATES FOR  NOISE ABATEMENT OF  U.S.  RAILROADS

                                                     Study  Level 1 (Ldn 75)
I
(-•
•fc.
Noise Sources
Type
Hump Yards: 124
Master Retarders

Group Retarders

Measurement


SUB TOTAL LEVEL 1 HUMP
Flat Classification
Yards: 1113
Switch Engines

Load Test Site

Measurement
SUB TOTAL LEVEL 1 FLAT
Refrigerator Cars
Quantity
Existing

124

744

124


YARD COSTS


2,783

185

1,113
Control Techniques
Type

Barrier Sets

Barrier Sets

Instr.





Mufflers and
Fan Treatment

Relocate or
Enclose


Quantity
Required

124

744

124





2,783

185


Unit Cost
$

$ 22,500

15,000

10,000



Costs
($000)

2,790

11,160

1,240



Costs
($000)

454
140
1,816
558
327
124
131

Notes

CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
Labor
15,190 3,550


1,200

90,000




3,340

16,650




881
646
1,765
1,665
1,013


CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
Labor
CLASSIFICATION YARD COSTS 19,990 5,970
24,000
Mufflers and
Fan Treatment
24,000
110
2,640
328
CR
GRAND TOTAL 37,820 9,848
            *  Capital Recovery

-------
     Table 1-1 summarizes the cost calculations for study noise level
2  (i.e. L^ 70).  Noise abatement procedures are required for hump
and flat classification yards and for industrial rail yards to achieve
this maximum noise level.  The procedures used are retarder barriers,
switch engine treatment , load test cell treatment, and refrigerator  car
treatment.  Estimates of the cost to measure yard noise levels are also
shown for the railyard network.
     Cost results for study level 3 (i.e. L^n 65) are displayed in
Table 7-8.  At this level all 4169 of the known railyard inventory
require the application of noise abatement procedures.  These procedures
include the treatment of refrigerator cars, retarders, switch engines,
and load test cells.  Retarder treatments require the use of barriers,
ductile iron shoes, and the introduction of releasable retarders at
the departure end of hump yard classification bowls.  This study level
also requires the curtailment of night operations in flat classification
and industrial yards between 2200 and 0700 hours.  Measurement costs for
all yards are also included.

     The estimated costs to the railroad industry to achieve study
noise level 4 (i.e. L
-------
                      TABLE  7-7
COST ESTIMATES FOR NOISE  ABATEMENT OF U.S.  RAILROADS
               Study Level 2 (L<3n  70)
Noise Sources
Type
Hump Yards: 124
Master Retarders

Group Retarders
Switch Engines
Load Test Site
Measurement

SUB TOTAL LEVEL 2 HUMP
Flat Classification
Yards: 1113
Switch Engines
Load Test Site
Measurement
Quantity
Existing
124

744
310
31
124

YARD COSTS

2,783
185
1,113
Control Techniques
Type
Barrier Sets

Barrier Sets
Mufflers and
Fan Treatment
Relocate or
Enclose
Instr.



Mufflers and
Fan Treatment
Relocate or
Enclose

Quantity
Required
124

744
310
31
124

Unit Cost
S
$ 22,500

15,000
1,200
90,000
10,000

Capital
Costs
($000)
2,790

11,160
372
2,790
1,240

Annual! zed
Costs
($000)
454
140
1,816
558
98
72
296
279
327
124
131
18,352 4,295

2,783
185

SUB TOTAL LEVEL 2 FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARD COSTS
Industrial Yards: 1381
Switch Engines
Measurement

3,452
2,932

Mufflers and
Fan Treatment
Instr.

3,452
463


1,200
90,000


1,200
10,000

SUB TOTAL LEVEL 2 INDUSTRIAL YARDS
Refrigerator Cars
24,000
Mufflers and
Fan Treatment
24,000
110

3,340
16,650


881
646
1,765
1,665
1,013
19,990 5,970
4,142
4,633

8,772
2,640
1,093
801
1,221
463
2,627
6,205
328
Notes
CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
Labor


CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
Labor

CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
Labor

CR
GRAND TOTAL 49,754 16,798

-------
                                      TABLE  7-8
           COST ESTIMATES  FOR  NOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S. RAILROADS
                              Study Level  3  (L^ 65)
Nulee Bourcee
*»•
HUPP Yerdd 124
Master Retarder*
Croup Ratardira
Switch Engine*
Master Mtd
Croup Ratardera
Inert Retarder*
Load Teat Sit*
Measurement
SUB TOTAL LEVEL 3 HUMP
PUt Classification
Yardsi 1111
Switch Engine*
Load Teat Git*
Measur
-------
                                                                  TABLE 7-9
                                         COST ESTIMATES FOK riOISE ABATEMENT OF U.S. RAILROADS

                                                          .Study Level  4  (Ldrv 60)
-j
I
oo
Nolee Sourcea

Type
Maater Retardara

Croup Retardere

Switch Engine a

Maater and
Group Retardars
Inert Ratardera

Load Teat Bite

Might Yard Molae

Heaaureaent



Quantity
Exlatlng
124

744

310

868
3.996

11

124

124


Control Technique*

Type
Barrier Seta

Barrier Seta

Kufflara and
Fan Treatment

Lubrication
Syatea*
Raleaaabla
Retardere

Relocate or
Encloa*

Reschedule
Night Act.

Inctr.


SUB TOTAL LEVEL 4 BUMP YARD COSTS
Flat Claaslflcatlon
Yardei 1111
Switch Enqinaa
Load Teat Site

Meaeureaent
Night Yard Hol.a


2.781
185

1.111
1,111


Hufflera and
Fan Treatment
Relocate or
Eticloea


Reachedule
Hight Act.

Quantity
Required
124

744

110

868
1.916

11

155

124



Unit Coat
*
« 22,500

15,000

1,200

250,000
10.000

90.000

176,000

10,000



Capital
Coata
»000)
2.790

11,160

172

217.000
19.960

2,790

27.111*

1.240



Annualltad
Coata
($000)
454
140
1.186
558
98
72
35,117
21.416
6.501
1.996
296
279
48.000
1,075
127
124
111
302,621 124,622


2.781
185


1,192


1.200
90,000


176. OOO
SUB TOTAL LEVEL 4 FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARD COSTS
Industrial Yardsi 2932
Night Yard Holaa

Switch Englnea

Heaaureaient



2.912

1,452

2,932



Reachedule
Night Act.

Mufflers and
Pan Treatawnt

Inatr.



1,726

3.452

4(1



176.000

1,200

10.000


SUB TOTAL LEVEL 4 INDUSTRIAL YARD COSTS
Refrigerator Care
24.000
Hufflera and I
Fan Treatment] Z4,ooo
110


1,140
16,650


*
245,182
265,172

104,121*

4,142

4,610


312,891
2.640
CRAUD TOTAL 883,328


881
646
1,765
1,665
1,011
186,000
. 27,607
219,577

66,000
14, 244
1.093
801
1,221
461
2.627
106.449
128
450,976


Motes
CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Lubricant
CR
Maintenance
CR
Maintenance
OtH
CR
CR
Maintenance
Labor



CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
Labor
out
CR


OtM
CR
CR
Additional Fuel
CR
Maintenance
Labor

CR

                          • SOt aore switch engine* with auffler and fan treataent.

-------
                          TABLE 7-10
ESTIMATED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE WITH MIXED STANDARDS BY YARD TYPE
                            (Ldn 70/65)

124 HUMP CLASSIFICATION/
INDUSTRIAL YARDS
Compatible: (Ldn 70)
With Load Test
Other
SUB TOTAL
Non-Compatible: (L^ 65)
With Load Test
Other
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL FOR HUMP YARDS
1113 FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS
Compatible: (L,jn 70)
With Load Test
Other
SUB TOTAL
Non-Compatible: (L^n 65)
With Load Test
Other
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL FOR FLAT CLASS. YARDS
2932 INDUSTRIAL YARDS
Compatible: (L^ 70)
Industrial
Small Industrial
SUB TOTAL
Non-Compatible: (Ldn 65)
Industrial
Small Industrial
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL FOR INDUSTRIAL YARDS
REFRIGERATOR CARS
MEASUREMENT
GRAND TOTAL
Number
10
31
41
11
32
43
• 84
61
306
367
85
427
512
879
470
605
1,075
663
651
1,314
2,389
24,000
3,352

Capital
Costs
Per Yard
($000)
205. S
115.5

527,8
437.8


93.0
3.0

313.3
223.3


3.0
0

223.2
0





Total Annualized
Capital Costs
Cost Per Yard
($000) ($000)
2,055 43.8
3,580 25.3
5,635
5,806 240.2
14,010 221.7
19,816
25,451
5,673 19.9
918 1-4
. 6,581
26,630 211.8
95,349 193.3
121,979
128,579
1,410 1-4
0 0
1,410
147,981 65.3
0 7.7
147,981
149,391
2,640
5,870
311,922
Total
Annualized
Cost
($000)
428
784
1,222
2,642
7,094
9,736
10,958
1,214
428
1,642
18,003
82,539
100,542
102,184
658
0
658
43,294
5,013
48,307
48,965
328
3,036
165,471
                               7-19

-------
environments  (i.e. industrial  or  agricultural).   The  remaining  rail  yards
(approximately  1869 yards) are in non-compatible  environments  (i.e.
residential or  commercial).  The  costs  incurred by  the  railroad industry
to achieve rail yard noise levels of  L^n  70  for 2300  yards and  Ljn
65 for  1869 yards are  reflected in this table.  Cost  estimates  for
the treatment of the refrigerator car fleet  and the accomplishment of
yard noise level measurement are  also included.   It should be  noted
that Table 7-10 consists of unit  costs, etc., related to  and found
in Tables  7-7 and 7-8  respectively.

     Data  and information presented in  Tables 7-6,  7-/,  7-8 and 7-9
formed  the basis of the various regulatory options  considered  in the
decision making process.  More than 100 options were  initially  con-
sidered and these were narrowed down  to five.  Additional costing
analyses were conducted, as necessary,  to enable  the  decision makers
to coupare options.  Appendix  L presents  a summary  of the additional
cost analyses.

     The information of Appendix  L led  to the selection  of option A  as
the candidate option for the proposed rulemaking.   To further  assess
the impact of the candidate option on railroad companies, financial
analyses were conducted and are presented in Appendix P.

Land Purchase to Meet Noise Regulatory Study Levels

     The following procedure was  used to  estimate the costs for land
acquisition.  Land acquisition represents the other option analyzed
for the purpose of meeting the specified noise regulatory study levels.
The preceding section  (Section 6)  described  the analytical methodology
followed for calculating the environmental noise  impact on the  popula-
tion exposed to railyard noise.   A similar analytical approach  was
used to calculate areas beyond railyard property  lines by yard  type,
level of activity and place size.

     To develop the estimated  costs for acquiring land to meet  the
various noise regulatory study levels that related  to these areas,
a step-by-step procedure was followed that is described  below.
                                   7-20

-------
Step 1.  Using the selected rail yards which were drawn at random
within the yard type and place size matrix (see Section 6 for a
detailed discussion of this procedure), U.S. Geological Survey
maps and other sources were procesed to construct map overlays
containing the identification of areas by land use beyond the
railyard property line out to a distance of roughly 2000 yards
around each yard.  The land use categories indicated were in terms
of non-compatible land (i.e. residential and commercial),compatible
land (i.e. industrial and agricultural), and undeveloped land.

Step 2.  Each yard map overlay was analyzed to determine the per-
centage of land related to the 5 land use categories.
Step 3.  Statistical analysis was performed using the information
developed in Step 2.  The analyses was performed to derive a
typical or average model for each of the 12 cells comprising the
railyard type and place size matrix in terms of the 5 land use
categories.  The results of this analysis are presented in
Appendix D.

Step 4.  Estimates of cost to purchase land for each land use
category were developed on the basis of information that was
collected from various sources.^* 2, 3  Listed below are the
estimated costs (current dollars per square foot) to purchase the
various land categories.
                                   Estimated 1978 Land Prices
Land Use CateRories                  (dollars/square foot)
Residential

•  Single dwelling unit                    $ 4.84
•  Multiple dwelling unit                   30.45
Commercial                                   3.51
Industrial                                   1.66
Agricultural                                 0.01
Undeveloped*                                 0.01
*Assumed equivalent to agricultural land prices.
Additional information about the derivation of the indicated
prices is presented in Appendix D.
Step 5.  A computer program which represents yards by type,
level of activity and place size was executed for several cases
to calculated areas beyond the yard property-line contained
within specific noise levels at 1 dB increments starting from a
pre-determined baseline level.  The cases examined included
calculation of areas assuming:  (a) existing environment, no
noise abatement procedures used; (b) Ldn 75, 70 and 65,
                             7-21

-------
                                                          TABLE 7-11

                                 LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS  REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS
                               WITHOUT EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY   (BASELINE CASE*)
NJ
NJ
        *  Baseline noise levels and land areas related to low, medium and high activity levels for hump and flat
           yards and typical activity levels for industrial/small industrial yards.
        Cap. = Capital costs
        Ann. = Annualized costs
Type of
Yard
Hump

Flat
Industrial
Small Ind.
I Total
COST (Millions of Dollars) BY REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS
Ldn 75
Cap.
1,270

608
-
-
1,878
Ann.
207

Ldn
Cap.
7,786
70
Ann.
1,270
i
99 18,039
-
-
306
-
-
25,825
2,940
-
-
4,210
Ldn 65
Cap.
27,588

122,003
89,509
-
239,100
Ann.
4,497

19,886
14,590
-
38,973
L, 60
dn
Cap . i Ann .
47,420

182,436
281,039
54,045
564,940
7,729

29,737
45,809
8,809
92,084
Ldn 70/65
Cap.
26,349

104,942
80,543
-
211,834
Ann.
	
4,295

17,106
13,129
—
34,530 !

-------
                             TABLE 7-12
    LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS,
  ASSUMING EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TO MEET Ldn 75
             AT PROPERTY LINES OF HUMP AND FLAT YARDS
1
! Type of
Yard
Hump
Flat
Total
COST (Millions of Dollars) BY REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS
Ldn 70 j Ldn 65
Cap.
3,864
15,294
19,158
Ann . i Cap .
629 ; 20,116
2,493 121,000
3,122 141,116
Ann.
3,279
19,723
23,002
Ldn 6
Cap.
57,636
315,178
372,814
0
Ann.
9,395
51,374
60,769
Ldn 70/65
Cap.
18,638
113,722
132,360
Ann.
3,038
18,537
21,575
                           TABLE  7-13

  LAND ACQUISITION COSTS FOR VARIOUS REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS,
ASSUMING EMPLOYMENT OF NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY TO MEET Ldn 70
     AT PROPERTY LINES OF HUMP, FLAT AND INDUSTRIAL YARDS
Type of
Yard
Hump
Flat
Industrial
Total
COST (Millions of Dollars) BY REGULATORY
STUDY LEVELS
Ldn 6
Cap.
7,621
47,887
-
55,508
5
Ann.
1,242
7,806
-
9.048
Ldn 60
Cap.
35,214
207,359
74,080
316,653
Ann.
5,740
35,430
12,075
53,245
Ldn 70/65
Cap.
6,929
44,917
-
51,846
Ann.
1,129
7,321
-
8,450
 Can. = Canital costs
 Ann. = Annualized costs
                             7-23

-------
     respectively, at property-line of yards using noise abatement
     procedures as specified previously in this Section.  Appendix
     D contains the data indicated in the areas contained within
     the various noise levels.
     Step 6.  Using the results of Step 5 and combining them with the
     products of Steps 3 and 4, the estimated cost to purchase land
     was calculated.  The capital costs are shown by type of yard by
     the various noise regulatory study levels.  The grand total or
     bottom line capital costs are indicated also for each study level.
     Table 7-11 represents the case where noise abatement procedures
     are not used.  Table 7-11 contains the estimated annual owning
     expenses for real estate which amounts to approximately 13 percent
     of the original land purchase price.  Appendix D discusses this
     subject in further detail.  The additional tables encompassing
     Tables 7-12 and 7-13, are formatted in a similar way to that of
     Table 7-11; however, the cases presented reltae now to employment
     of selected noise abatement procedures to meet the specified
     regulatory study levels.
POTENTIAL COST BURDEN ON INDIVIDUAL RAIL CARRIERS
(MAJOR AND OTHER ROADS)

     The expected cost of compliance with a noise regulation will not
fall equally or proportionally on individual railroads.  This section
examines each individual major railroad company in terms of the numbers
of yards owned by type.  This information was extracted from the FRA/DOT
data base.2  Some firms have a disproportionately large number of railroad
yards, while others have a smaller number compared with the size of their
operations.  The rail carriers which have a relatively larger number of
yards would be expected to bear a disproportionately larger cost burden
than those with relatively fewer yards.

     Table 7-14 presents three groupings of railroad firms with:  (1) an
above average number of yards, (2) an average number of yards, and (3) a
below average number of railroad yards.  The criterion used to calculate
proportionality was revenue  ton-miles.  If a company owns about the same
percentage of the total number of yards as its percentage of the total
ton-miles of revenue, it is  considered average.  If the percentage of
yards it owns is small compared to the percentage of revenue ton-miles
it operates, it is classified as below average.  Table 7-14 shows the
regional classification of the rail carriers, too.
                                   7-24

-------
                            TABLE  7-14

    DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS  (UNIFORM ALPHA CODE)*
            ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE NUMBER  OF  YARDS  OWNED
                          CLASS I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS  BY ICC DISTRICTS
                          ICC DISTRICTS  IN THE  YEAR,  1976.
     INDEX

ABOVE AVERAGE
EASTERN
DISTRICT

  BLE
  CP
  NW
SOUTHERN
DISTRICT

  CCO
  LN
  SOU
WESTERN
DISTRICT

  ATSF
  BN
  DRGW
  DWP
  MP
  SSW
  SP
  UP
AVERAGE
  CO
  RFP
  FEC
  ICG
  DMIR
  FWD
  KCS
  SLSF
  soo
  WP
BELOW AVERAGE
  BO
  BAR
  BM
  CV
  CEI
  CONRAIL
  DH
  DTS
  DTI
  EJE
  GTW
  rrc
  LI
  MEG
  PLE
  WM
  GA
  SCL
  CNWT
  MILW
  RI
  CS
  MKT
  NWP
  TO
  TPW
* Names of each  railroad  corapany associated with this list are
  presented  in Appendix  F and are keyed by the Uniform Alpha Code
  noted above.   The  number of yards related to each road are
  listed  in  Appendix E.
                                7-25

-------
     This table should be interpreted with caution, as there is an
implied assumption that the yards are homogeneous.  It is possible
for a railroad company with a disproportionately large number of yards
actually to experience less than average costs to quiet their yards.
However, if the costs are typical, the above average companies would
bear a larger part of the total; the average companies would incur
average costs; and the below average group would incur less than
average expenses •

     In previous tables (7-6, 7, 8, and 9) compliance costs were esti-
mated by yard type for each study level.  Using the FRA/DOT data base
the numer of yards by function and type were tabulated for each major road
On the basis of the data developed by yard function and type, the
following tables (Tables 7-15, -16, -17, and -18) were derived, and
these data represent cost estimates for each individual major railroad
company.  The railroad companies are grouped by region and indicate the
estimated compliance costs to meet the specified L
-------
                             TABLE 7-15

CLASS I S OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR STUDY LEVEL 1 (Lan 75)
EASTERN
SOUTHERN
WESTERN
1* 2*
238 " BJE
308 GTH
354 ITC
436 11
550 NW
456 (1EC
626 PLE
663 RFP
CB
839 WH
120 CV
105 CP
~ 129 " CEI
125 CO
195 DH
208 DTI
205 DTS
56 BAR
"69 ~B« ' "
61 BIE
50 BO
~724 	 SOU
712 SCL
"444 IS
350 ICG
299 GA
...263.. ...I EC ..._
216 DWP
268 FWD
itQQ KCS
490" HKT
482 SOO
494 HP
559 NWP
694 SSW
721 SP
693 SLSF
802 OP
769 TPW
762. .TM „
840 HP
22 ATSP
197 DPGi
213 DHIB
157 CS
145 RI
140 NILS
131 CNH
76 BK
g*,aSS 1

OTHERS
3
"T"~
12
... ._
2
77
3
4
3
223
7
" 	 2"
........ ..1._
51
9
4
1
3
8"
4
67
38
41
32 "
51
1
.._ 	 _3 ..
0
5
8
13"
20
" 37 "
1
11
ig-
35
1
2
5
. 58
.....
29
50
63
99
J164

11U
4 **
591.5
596.0
202.0
665.5
1417.5
199.2
572.0
329.0
""" 5707.3
690.5
196.0 "
193.0
"221.0
1340.5
587.0
661.5
302.5
236.3
703.5
562.0
1667.5
1T90.5'
1051.5
1084.0
1151.0
193.0
	 56U.5....
190.0
565.0
594.0
614.5
642.2
1010.8
193.0
702.5 '
2006.2
807.0
1592.2
193.0
196.1
575.0
1627.2
691.5
. 559.0. ...
556.0
936.0
1096.4
979.3
2621.7
_A1943.5_

8076.5
5
139.6
• 156.7
51.6
143.5
537.4
52.1
138.3
74^9
2144.6
170.4
48.8
42.9
65.8
£»33.0
151.6
158.1
66.3
54.9
"179.6
125.6
583.4
434.0
"363.6 "'
412.7
..1271.6
U1.5
130.6
158.3
170.5
193.4
369.9
48.3
176.0
620.9
259.3
457.3
48.3
46.2
144.2
518.4
177.0
.._.1.26.9
128.2
322.1
412.5
409.0
873.1
13.18Q..5 .

2709.8
                                                          Legend:
                                                          1-ACI Code
                                                          2-Uniform Alpha Code
                                                          3-No. of Yards Quieted
                                                          4-Capital Cost  ($000)
                                                          5-Annualized Cost
                                                              ($000)
 *   A listing of railroad names by ACI code and Uniform Alpha Code
    is given in Appendix F.
 **  1976 dollar, a discount rate of  10% per year is assumed.
                                  7-27

-------
                            TABLE 7-16
CLASS I & OTHER RILAROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR STUDY LEVEL 2 (Ldn 70)
EASTERN
 SOUTHERN
WESTERN
I* 2*
238" EJE
308 GTH
35tt ITC
136 11
550" HW
456 MEC
626 PLE
663 RFP
CB
839 HH
120 CV
105 CP
"129" CEI ""
125 CO
195 DH
208 DTI
205 DTS
... 56_ B*R._
69 BH
61 B1E
50 BO
724 SOB
.J.12_ _SCL__
444 IN
350 ICG
299 Gfc
263 FEC
216 DWP
268 FHD
400 KCS
490 HKT
482 SOO
49« HP
559 NWP
694 SSH
721 SP
693 SLSF
802 UP
769 TP*
762 TH
840 HP
22. JVTSF
197 DBGW
213 DHIB
157 CS
145 HI
140 HILW
..131 . ,CNW ..
76 BH
..CLASS i._1..._.
OTHERS
3
8 ~"
23
6
4
131
5
11
3
522
8
1
10 ~
81
20
10
2
5
24
6
118
86
129
86
99
2
6
1
5
16
16
31
67
2
12
95
38
66
2
.2. _
11
95
10
7
6
63
92
	 ...115 ..._.
184
	 2347.. _.
351
4**
6 96. 5
•629.0
208.0
674.5
1870.5
205.2
593.0
424.0
7330.3
696.5
205.0
193.0
230.6"
1445.5
620.0
702.5
308.5
242.3
754.~5~
568.0
1841.5
1818.5
1414.5
" " 13 48.0
1397.0
196.0
573.5
193.0
565.0
618.0
623.5
675.2
1289.8
196.0
' 708.5
2384.2
960.0
1787.2
196.0
196.1
593.0
1930.2
712.5
571.0
568.0
1044.0
1321.4
_..1138.3
3086.7
_48543.5_
8820.5
5
165-T~
172.1
54.4
147.7
678.3
5U.9
148.1
96.2
2737.5
173.2
53.0
42.9
70.6"
482.0
167.6
167.9
69.1
57,7
202.8
128.4
664.6
595.9
579.9
463.3
504.0
49.7
131.8
42.9
130.6
169.5
174.7
208.8
453.1
U9.7
178.8
750.3
307.2
52U.8
49.7
46.2
152.6
	 612.8. _
186.8
132.5
133.8
372.5
49K.O
	 483^2. ...
1043.1
. -1.5555*5.. _
3057.0
                                                          Legend:

                                                          1-ACI Code
                                                          2-Uniform Alpha Code
                                                          3-No. of Yards Quieted
                                                          4-Capital Cost ($000)
                                                          5- Annualized Cost
                                                               ($000)
**
A listing of railroad names by ACI Code and Uniform Alpha Code
is given in Appendix  F.
1976 dollar, a discount rate of 10% per year is assumed.
                                7-28

-------
                             TABLE 7-17
CLASS I & OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR STUDY LEVEL 3  (Ldn 65)
EASTERN
SOUTHERN
WESTERN
1*
238
308
35ft'
436
550
456
626
663

839
120
105
129
125
195
208
205
56
" 69"
61
50
"724
712
444
350
299
263
216
268"
400
490
482
494
559
694"
721
693
802
"769
762
840
22
197
213
157
1U5
"mo"
131
76
2*
EJE
GTW
ITC
LI
NW
HEC
PLE
RFP
CB
wn
cv
CP
CEI
CO
DH
DTI
DTS
BAR
BB
BLE
BO
SOD
SCL
IN
ICG
GA
FEC
DHP
FWD "
KCS
BKT
SOO
HP
NWP
ssw
.SP
SLSF
PP
TPW
IB
KP
ftTSF
DRGW
DMIB.
CS
El
HILB
_CNW.
BN
._CLAS.S_1 	
3
13 ~
24
6
4
180
8
16
4
789
	 22. __
6
	 1
^3
113
23
13
2
6
26
6
181
._ --y^—-
180
111
132
7
9
	 1 	
10
28
33
44
135
7
22
211
76
136
7
4**
256079""
5695.9
1529.8
1657.7
31443.8
1306.7
3016.3
1288.9
125590.7
2560.9
"1306.5
413.3
2433.0
19799.8
5026.0
3007.5
851. 1
1343.8
6143.7
1889.8
28550.9
~~ 21580.3"
30139.2
20701.8
23614.7
"636.6"
1895.3
413.3
1666". 5
4142.8
4148.3
7504.5
16355.9
636.6
3454. 1
2&128.7
9535.4
16734.9
636.6
5
1231.3"
3185.5
949.8
663.8
19314.0
781.5
1401.5
688.6
66837.2
1692.7
636.2
234.8
1628.1
12454.8
2620.1
1346.5
329.4" "
768.9
2780.3
1023.8
17297.4
114~37.9
14477.2
10265.2
13630,2
344.0
922.3.
106.8
'"1128.6*"
2308.3
2992.0
4849.8
10007.4
„ 3 44,0
2435.1
12486.0
5469.0
9779.1
344.0
	 3 	 636. 7 	 H3J.«JL_
21
. 173...
30
_ ...9 	
12
103
145
154 _.
297
301.6.3
23266.7
3017.5
2113.1
1889.8
15126.9
21895.0
26574.8
44641.9
_ 3.6.9,6. 	 57751.9.6
1572.5
14725,9 .
1496.3
	 979. 2_
819.4
8427,1.
13194.4
16200.5
26387.8
325A33..2 _
                                                          Legend:

                                                          1-ACI Code.
                                                          2-Uniform Alpha Code
                                                          3-No. of Yards Quieted
                                                          4-Capital Cost ($000)
                                                          5-Annualized Cost
                                                              ($000)
                OTHERS
                               583
87265.9  41905.8
*   A listing of railroad names bv ACT Code and Uniform Alpha Code
    is given in Appendix F.
**  1976 dollar, a discount rate of 10% per year is assumed.
                                 7-29

-------
                             TABLE 7-18

CLASS I S OTHER RAILROAD COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR STUDY LEVEL 4 (Ldn 60)
EASTERN
 SOUTHERN
 WESTERN
1* 2*
238' EJE""
308 GTW
354 ITC
436 LI
550 HH ' ' ~
456 MEC
626 PLE
663 BFP
CR
839 WB
120 CV
105 CP
"129 CEI~ '
125 CO
195 DH
208 DTI
205 DTS
56 BAB
69 BH
61 B1E
50 BO
724 son
712 SCL
444 LH "
350 ICG
299 GA
263 ._FEC
216 DVP
268 FVD
400 KCS
490 BKT
482 SCO
494 "HP
559 BWP
694" SSW*
721 SP
693 SLSF"
802 DP
769 TPW
762 . TH ._.
840 HP
22 ATSF
197 DRGW
213 DNIB
157 CS
145 81
140 BILB
131 CNH
76 BN
.CLASS_1 	
3
	 24__
4
180 "
8
16
4
789
22
6
1
13
113
23
13
2
6
26
18 1~
144
180
ill
132
7
1
10
28
33
44
135 ~
7
22
211
76
136
7
3
21
	 173 __
30
9
12
	 .10.3 	
145
154.
297
-1"'--
4**
~45317V
5695.9
1529.8
3627.9
45235.2
1306.7
3016.3
5229^3
188637.2
4531. 1
1306.5
413.3
2433.0
29650.8
5026.0
4977.7
2821.3
1343.fr
8113.9
1889.8
42342.3
37341.9
36049.8
28582.6
31495.5
636.6
1895.3
»•—•*-•-» — - . -.^— . jTi-»»
413.3
1666.5
4142.8
4148.3
7504.5
22266.5
5424 I 3~
39890.3
13475.8
24615.7
636.6
636.7
3016.3
4987^7
2113.1
1889.8
_ 19067.3..
27805.6
28545.0
64343.9
608032^7..
5
~2005~.3~
3185.5
949.8
1437.8
24732.0
781.5
1401.5
2236.6
91605.1
2466.7
636.2
234.8
1628.1
16324.8
2620.1
2120.5
1103.4
768.9
3554.3
1023.8
22715.4
17629.9
16799.2
13361.2
16726.2
344.0
106.8
1128.6
_..2308.3_
2992.0
4849,8
12329.4
3209"! 1
18678.0
7017.0
12875.1
344.0
437,7
1572.5
_17821.9_
2270.3
379. 2
819.4
~i 55 16^4
16974.5..
34127.8
4JS9_ai»l_
                                                          Legend:

                                                          1-ACI Code
                                                          2-Uniform Alpha Code
                                                          3-No. of Yards Quieted
                                                          4-Capital Cost  ($000)
                                                          5-Annualized Cost
                                                              ($000)
               OTHERS
                         583    108936.7   50419.8
**
A listing of railroad names by ACI Code and Uniform Alpha Code
is given in Appendix F.
1976 dollar, a discount rate of 10% per year is assumed.
                                  7-30

-------
ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

Introduction

     The preceding discussion developed the basic information required
to perform the economic impact analysis on the railroad industry and
individual railroad coupanies that is detailed in this presentation.
The material that follows describes: a) the effects on the industry
resulting from the compliance expenditures estimated as necessary to
achieve various noise abatement regulatory levels; b) the financial
analysis of major and other roads, that uses various measures to assess
an individual company's ability to meet the various regulatory levels;
and c) a further elaboration of the economic impact on major and other
roads resulting from compliance with various noise source abatement
regulatory study levels.

Factors Affecting Railroads

     As shown in the table below there are considerable differences in
cost to achieve the specified study levels of noise abatement.  Also,
there is a considerable difference in cost depending on whether noise
abatement techniques are employed or whether adjacent land is acquired
to extend railroad property lines (if and where land purchase is
physically possible) .

     The costs of compliance are shown in the following table.
Table 7-19 presents for each regulatory study level, the costs of noise
control through the use of abatement procedures,  and the costs of
acquiring land beyond rail yard property to achieve the various noise
levels•

     These estimates represent national aggregates, based on typical
yard situations.  In general, the railroad industry could be expected to
choose noise abatement  techniques in lieu of land acquisition, because
of lower costs. In some cases, however due to local circumstances,  land
acquisition may be less costly.  As presented in  this section, costs
                                   7-31

-------
                          TABLE 7-19
  ESTIMATED COSTS  OF NOISE CONTROL AT DIFFERENT REGULATORY LEVELS
  Study Level
      Ldn
 By Noise Source Control        By  Land Acquisition
  (Millions of Dollars)        (Millions of Dollars)
Capital   Annualized      Capital      Annual!zed
75
JO
65
60
70/65*
37.8
49.8
639.0
883.3
311.9
9.8
16.8
355.0
451.0
165.5
1,880.0
25,830.0
239,100.0
564,940.0
211,830.0
310.0
4,210.0
38,970.0
92,080.0
34,530.0
*  Denotes study level consists of L
-------
have been estimated for combining land acquisition with noise source
control.  The incremental cost of achieving specific noise levels with
land acquisition after using noise source control, far exceeds the costs
of using noise source control technology alone. In an assessment of the
overall impact the more reasonable assumption would be that the railroad
industry, in general, would implement the least-cost approach, (i.e.,
noise source abatement procedures) rather tlian the purchase of adjoining
land at a much higher cost.  The economic impact analysis, therefore, is
based on cost of noise source abatement.

     The financial impact on railroads would involve two basic considera-
tions:  1) the need to raise capital for the purchase and installation of
the equipment, and 2) the need to cover with increased revenues the
related additional recurring expenses required to meet the noise standard.

The Need For Capital

     As shown in Table 7-19, the costs of employing noise  abatement
procedures rises sharply between study levels  2 and 3.  Assuming a
regulatory level set at 70 L,jn, the added capital  requirement of about
$50 million would not be particularly significant when compared to  the
railroads industry's normal capital spending.  Capital expenditures by
Class  I line-haul railroads amounted to $1.7 and  $2.2 billion in  1976
and 19/7, respectively.  In addition to the capital expenditures made by
railroad companies, an additional $0.7 billion in  railroad investments
was made by related industries, raising total  railroad capital spending
in  1977 to $2.9 billion.

     Timing is also a consideration.   It  is unlikely that  the capital
spending on installations associated with noise  abatement  would all
be made in a single year.  The compliance period  for the  regulation is
envisioned to take place over  a 4-6 year  period.   The  added  capital
expenditures therefore could  be scheduled over a four-year period,
thereby amounting  to  an  average of approximately $12.5 million per
year.  This additional  capital  expenditure of  $12.5 million per year
would  add  less  than one-half  of one percent  to the levels currently
                                   7-33

-------
                        TABLE   7-20
RATE  OF RETURN  ON  NET  WORTH-
          LEADING  CORPORATIONS
                   Calendar  Year  1976
                                                    i       10       is       to        as
  1.   Soft  drink*                               21.•
  2.   S«MP. e««»tttr*                            20.9
  ].   Other Btnlni. 4u*rryl«|                     10.1
  *.   Dr»«» *nd **rflcln««                        10.4

  4~iht»»Tnt~>nd ~«h«Y"tV«niF>ort«(lon~            11.1
  t.   4«t9« *ntf trvcfc*                           II. *
  ft.   Household *p»1t*nec«                        17. S
  t.   l«M*ur.nt. .nd hotiU                      17.S

"THf.rirton.tr-tt Ion, Mt*rt«l-h«rula«| «t»pt,    TTT"
 11.   ll.ctrU.l *qulp.*nt .nd .UclTOC.l                             H.7
 1*.   Otftc* *^«lp«*m, co«t>ut«r«                 U.7
 1*.   Oth.r t>u*U««« ••r«lc«a                     1ft.4
 3Q^   Bjfriwjt* *nA  tool*	1	l^_j_
 21.   kklnt                                   U-*
 22.   Vh»l*.il* .n4 .l*t*ll«n*(K.* r.t.ll            !i. »
 23.   Ow«Jr»l product*                          IS.7
 24.   n«i*i •mini                               is. I
 i^. .__fL-->'.l!1fj	 _   	 j.i-Q^

 92.   Co—on ««rrl.r irvchlj>|                     .».!
 13.   lolUlni, h«»tln|t pliMblni *^ulfMic         14.8
 M,   TOTJIL THADE                               H.7
 M.   5ha»«. luther^ ,tc.	1^7
"~3>p.Tt»*M «rM •p«cUlty	I  •*

 42.   TOTAL NOMFIKAXC1AL                         1  .0
 41.   Dl*tllllni                                I  .0
 4*.   Kf>C«ll.T«u* •«v«r *n,   TOTAL rilKNClAt                            *•*
 44.   M<~.f«rro<,. »*t.l.                          1.7
 4V	Iron .r^ »lT.l	»-*
~W^   f»»il)r pioduct*                           *.i



 K.   lov,»i«-nt funJ*                           4.4

 "u.   CLA~$H~RAYlROADS                 TT

 72.   l.«l «*t*t*                               1.2     £3
                                                              ^
                                 7-33a

-------
being spent by the railroad industry.  It  is estimated that achieving
the 65 Ljjn level would result in a more significant capital requirement
of $639 million.  Spread over a four-year  period, the annual requirement
would amount to about 6 percent of average industry capital spending.

     Although the added burden at the L,jn  70 level and perhaps the
**dn 65 level, appears to be of modest proportions, it must be recognized
that certain railroads are in financial difficulty.  Firms typically
obtain capital from three sources:

     •    Internally from retained earnings
     •    by borrowing in the capital markets  (notes and bonds)
     •    from equity issues .

     Considering the railroad industry's general financial condition,
it may be difficult to raise capital in any of  those ways.  There are
some exceptions, of course. Some railroads are  financially healthy and
would have little difficulty raising capital, either internally or
externally.  However, the majority are not very profitable, and CONRAIL
requires direct government support to  remain operational.  A detailed
discussion of  CONRAIL is presented in Appendix  J.  There are enough
poorly performing firms to bring the average condition down to a
relatively low level.

     In 1977,  the railroad industry's return of investment was 1.3
percent which  is low in both absolute and  relative terms.  Table 7-20
illustrates  the relative profitability of  railroads when compared with
other industries, based on stockholders' equity.  This low rate is
indicative of  low net earnings which on the average makes internal
financing of large capital requirements very difficult.

     The relative unprofitability of the railroad industry also adversely
affects the terms of debt financing of fixed assets on which the return
is low and risks are high for marginal firms.   The railroad industry is
in a relatively poor position to compete for capital funds. As Table
7-20 shows, among 72 industries, railroads are  next to last in profitability
relative to equity or net worth.

                                  7-34

-------
     The purpose to which companies intend to use financing also weighs
heavily on decisions to lend-  Capital to upgrade equipment to improve
earnings is more likely to be made available at reasonable costs than if
its purpose is non-productive fixed plant.  Unfortunately, investments
in noise abatement devices would not  improve earnings and the profit-
ability of the industry, and therefore would be relatively more difficult
to finance.

Operating Expenses

     In addition to the industry's problem of raising the capital needed
for a noise abatement program, there  is  the related burden from the
increased operating expenses of railroads.  The resulting cost increases
will be in terms of the added capital recovery requirements «and the new
operating and maintenance expenses of the needed noise  abatement proce-
dures and equipment.  The effect that these increases will have on
railroad markets is an important consideration.  Of concern is the
extent to which freight rates would have to be raised to recover the
increased costs and the effect that higher rates would  have on the
volume of shipments and revenues.  The subsequent analysis provides
estimates of anticipated changes that might result from complying with a
noise standard in terms of relative increases in prices, decreases in
demand, and changes in the employment levels for the major and other
roads examined.

Tax Considerations

     Tax considerations could also have  a significant impact on the
costs of noise abatement.  In some cases, taxes would have the effect of
reducing costs, and in some cases, taxes would increase costs associated
with noise abatement.  Since the financial posture of the companies
analyzed varied, potential impacts are likely to differ considerably
depending upon 1) the techniques adopted by railroad companies, 2) local
tax provisions, and 3) each company's financial condition; therefore, no
adjustments were made in the costs due to tax considerations.
                                7-35

-------
     The Tax Reform Act of 1976 contains a special provision for
railroads.  Investment tax credits can apply to virtually all of the
1977 and 1978 tax liability for railroad companies.  Thereafter, tax
preference decreases by 10 percent each year until it reaches the
normal level of 50 percent in 1983.

     Investment tax credits will reduce investment costs by 10 percent
for qualified investments.  To qualify, investments must be in equipment
(rather than real property) and must have an economic life beyond a
certain time period or the credit  is reduced.  New structures in rail-
road yards to quiet noise may not  qualify.

     Unlike a deductible business  expense, an  investment tax credit
can be deducted directly from the  amount of tax payable.  A railroad
company operating in  the deficit,  however, would be limited in benefit-
ting from such a  tax  benefit.

     Local property taxes are a consideration  also,  l-ost local property
taxes are based on property valuation.  The construction of new struc-
tures, for example, would have the effect of increasing the value of the
railroad  property and, therefore,  the property tax that must be paid.
Such an increase  in property taxes would increase the annual expenses
associated with noise abatement.

      Increases in operating costs  due  to noise control also can have a
tax effect.   If increased operating  costs reduce profits, the loss would
be reduced to some extent through  the consequent reduction in corporate
tax payments .

     To conclude  this discussion,  there are a  number of tax considera-
tions that would  probably have the effect of reducing the costs associated
with noise control.   However, some number of these could have the
opposite  effect of increasing the  tax burden.  The overall effects would
vary depending upon the particular railroad, its noise problems, feasible
methods of abatement, and the company's financial position.
                                 7-36

-------
Accounting Considerations

     For track and road bed expenditures, railroad companies utilize
betterment accounting in contrast to general accepted accounting proce-
dures )GAAP).  This method of accounting may possibly be used for
certain noise abatement expenditures such as retarder barriers and
releasable retarders .

     Betterment accounting treats maintenance, repair and  renewal
outlays for track and road beds as operating expenses when they are
incurred.  If treated in this manner, capital recovery expenses for the
iteias affected would have to be treated differently.  They would have  to
be shown as expenses incurred for specific  time periods which was not
conducted in this study.

     The portion of  the expense that represents an  improvement would
be capitalized in accordance with betterment  accounting practices.
At this time it is uncertain as to whether  such expenditures would be
interpreted as improvements  in terms of noise abatement,  or whether the
installation of noise abatement techniques  would  be viewed as  track and
road bed expenditures.
Availability  of  Necessary Noise  Abatement Materials and Equipment

      It  is  highly unlikely that  the  employment of railroad noise abate-
ment  techniques  would  be  impeded by  any material shortages. For the
types of materials that are involved,  the amounts that would be required
represent only a small portion of the  quantities currently being produced
in  the United States.

      A variety of materials would be required for installing the noise
abatement equipment.   The major  materials needed for noise barriers
for retarders are sound absorptive materials, panels and metal mesh
to  hold  the acoustical material  to the panels.  Master retarders are
 150 feet in length, on the average.   Group retarders average about 100
feet in  length.   Assuming that noise barriers would be installed 10  feet
                                 7-37

-------
high on both sides of the retarders in all 124 hump classification
yards, there would be a requirement for  1,860,000 square feet of
barriers.  Barriers involving this amount of square footage results
in a need for equal amounts of acoustical materials, panels and mesh.

     Acoustical fiberglass could be used as the sound absorptive
material.  Production statistics for  insulation type fiberglass are
usually expressed in weight.  A square foot of acoustical type fiber-
glass weighs approximately one half pound.  A requirement for 1,860,000
square feet of fiberglass for the barriers would result in a requirement
of 930,000 pounds of fiberglass.

     The compliance period presently  under consideration is approximately
four years*  The requirements for materials should also span that four
year period.  As a consequence, approximately one-fourth of the necessary
materials would be required each year of the compliance period.  The
annual requirement for acoustical fiberglass therefore, would be one-
fourth of 930,000  or approximately  233,000 pounds for each of the four
years.

      The annual production of fiberglass insulating materials is
approximately 2 billion^  pounds.  The requirement, therefore, only
represents  .0014  of  the nation's annual  production.

      Outdoor plywood panels can be  used as barrier panels.  The same
square footage requirement would apply to panels, i.e., 1,860,000
square feet •  Inasmuch as this amount would also be spread over a
four year period,  the annual requirement would be for 466,000 square
feet of panel.  Annual production of  exterior softwood plywood in
the United States  is approximately  13 billion square feet.  The barrier
requirement, therefore, is an extremely  small fraction of national
production.

     There would be a similar requirement of 1,860,000 square feet
of wire mesh to hold the  acoustical material.  The national produc-
tion of similar materials, used for a variety of applications, but
                                7-38

-------
primarily fencing, is currently approximately  3.4  billion  square feet
annually.5  Spread over a four year  compliance period,  the noise
barrier requirement would equal 466,000 square feet.  Once agian,
only a very small fraction of the  national output  would be involved
in the requirement for railroad yard noise control.

     Another significant requirement for  noise abatement is  the construc-
tion that would be required to abate noise emanating  from  load test
sites.  The railroad yard noise abatement requirement is for $19.6
million of industrial type construction.  This requirement would
also be spread over a four year period, and therefore amount to $4.9
million per year for the four year compliance  period  under considera-
tion.  Approximately $8 billion5 in  expenditures for  industrial
building construction are made annually.  The  load test site require-
ment would only represent .0006 of the industrial  construction now
being carried out annually.

     The installation of improved mufflers also represents a significant
requirement for railroad noise abatement.  The number of switch engine
mufflers involved is approxiamtely 6500.  An added number  of refrigerator
car mufflers is approximately 26,000.  The requirement  for improved
mufflers of both types totals approximately 32,500 mufflers.  Over a
four year period, the requirements would involve 8,125 mufflers annually.

     Annual muffler production data are not available.  However,
solely on the basis of vehicle production quantities and inventories,
and not considering stationary engines, muffler production of all
types would exceed 50 million units annually including replacements.
An affected quantity of approximately 8,125, therefore, would represent
an extremely small portion of total U.S. muffler production.

Regulatory Considerations

     Because interstate carriers are regulated, the ICG's  role must
be taken into consideration in matters relating to any rate adjustment
that would result from additional costs related to noise abatement.  The
                               7-39

-------
ICC must approve rate changes for interstate carriers.  Some flexibility
in pricing policy has been given to railroads by Section 202 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976.  Under this
legislation, railroads may now, under certain conditions, alter rates up
to seven percent.  However, there is the problem as to whether this
provision is being effectively utilized.

     Although many factors enter into rate-making decisions, cost is
one of the more important considerations, along with value-of-service.
The consideration of value-of-service has been important in the past
in determining relative rates such as for the higher unit-value manufac-
tured products in comparison to lower unit-value raw materials.  However,
cost is a more important consideration  at the aggregate level.  The
ICC, in conducting its carrier rate-monitoring functions, collects
extensive data on railroad costs which  are used as yardsticks for
evaluating  the merit of proposed rate increases.  The  total revenues
obtained on the basis of  the rate  structure  must cover industry costs in
the long run and  should cover  all  variable costs in the short-term.

      Since  noise  abatement will increase  costs, the railroads can be
expected to apply for general  rate increases to cover  those costs.  To
be granted  a modest  rate  increase  to  comply  with a government regulation
for noise control should  not be difficult. Industry sources concede that
carriers generally have had  success  in  obtaining most  of the increases
they have proposed*  However,  in a competitive sense,  general rate
increases are relatively  risky, since  the risk is variable across
transportation markets and higher  for some.6

     As to  the regulatory lag  which  has been mentioned as a problem,
under Section 206 of the  ICC Act,  a  notice of intention to file for a
new rate due to an anticipated capital  investment can  be used to speed
up the process.

     In summary,  there should be little difficulty in  securing  from
ICC the related rate increases to  cover increases in  costs, provided
they are relatively small.
                                7-40

-------
Employment

     The added financial burden resulting from the cost of abating
railroad yard noise will have impacts on rates, volume of business,
and therefore, employment.  There are currently about 485,000 employees
in railroad companies.  The impact on employment was calculated for
individual companies for the discussion on individual railroads which
appears later in this section.

     Impacts were calculated for the two measures of the price
elasticity of demand for rail transportation constituting the range
of elasticities for commodity shipments.  Also, impacts were cal-
culated for the regulatory levels:  L(jn 70 and L^n 65.  From
these calculations, estimates were made of the impact on employment
for the entire railroad industry.  The results appear in Table  7-21
below.

                             TABLE 7-21
            CHANGES IN EMPLOYMENT ASSOCIATED WITH VARYING
             REGULATORY LEVELS AND VARYING ELASTICITIES
  Regulatory Levels                L^  70               L^  65
  Elasticity of Demand         -.39     -1.41        -.39      -1.41
  Percentage Decrease
    in Employment               0.03      0.13        0.66       3.22
  Decreases in Railroad
    Employment                  146       631        3201     15,617

Indirect Employment  Effects

     The employment  effects which  have been calculated and presented
previously would  be  the  direct effects on railroad company employment
There would also  be  indirect  employment effects,  impacting primarily
on  the  suppliers  of  noise  abatement  equipment and facilities.  Labor
will be required  to  manufacture the  necessary mufflers,  ductile ircn
shoes,  releasable retarders ,  noise barriers,  and  so on,  for all of
the items necessary  for  railroad yard  noise control.
                                7-41

-------
     Quieting load test sites would require additional  construction
workers to build structures to enclose locomotives during  load test
operations.  It is estimated that 216 such structures would be required,
and the total cost of constructing the structures would be approximately
$20 million.  Applying the average worker/industrial construction ratio
of $35,000* for workers indicates that 575 construction worker man-
years would be required for the construction. The need  to  construct
structures for load test sites, therefore, results in an  indirect
employment effect amounting to 575 man-years of  construction labor.

     A number of the  noise control techniques selected  for considera-
tion employ fabricated metal.  These  techniques  include modified parts
for locomotives and refrigerator units,  ductile  iron shoes and releasable
retarders.  Depending on the noise abatement level under  consideration,
the cost  of such fabricated metal parts  could equal approximately $72
million.  The worker/output ratio in  the fabricated metals industry is
one worker per  $160,000 value  of output.**  Therefore,  product shipments
valued at $72 million implies  an employment of  450 worker man-years.

     The  construction and  erection of retarder  barriers are estimated
to cost  approximately $14  million.   Industry categorization does not
show any  industry  as  specialized in  this type of construction.   For
making labor  estimates, however, industrial type construction could
be considered analogous.

     As  shown above the  employee/output  ratio for industrial construc-
tion is $35,000 per employee.   This  implies  that a requirement for
$14 million in  barrier  construction  would  require 400 man-years  of
construction workers.

     Summing the above  implied indirect  labor effects on  supplier
industries therefore, is as follows:
          Enclosure  Construction            575 man-years
          Fabricated Metals                  450 man-years
          Barrier  Construction              400 man-years
          Total                             1425 man-years
                                7-42

-------
Fuel Consumption

     In 1976, railroads consumed approximately four million gallons of
diesel fuel.  Over 99 percent of railroad locomotives are diesel-
electric units, and thus, virtually all of the fuel consumed in
railroad operations is diesel fuel.

     The rail yard noise control reguation has two opposing effects
on fuel consumption.  The first effect pertains to the anticipated
decrease in industry-wide freight services (revenue ton-miles) as the
result of higher freight rates, thus decreasing fuel demand by about
38 million gallons of fuel per annum.  The second effect increases
consumption, inasmuch as the new muffler to be installed on the
switch engines will consume one to one and one-half percent more fuel
than without such a technological fix.  Other EPA noise control
standards will have already required the line haul power to have
mufflers installed with an increased fuel consumption of one to one
and one-half percent.  Therefore, the new yard noise control
regulation will not further impact these units.  However, this
regulation will increase fuel consumption for yard switch engine
operations by approximately 800,000 gallons annually.

Balance of Payments

     It would be difficult to quantify the effects on the U.S. balance
of payments resulting from the noise abatement of railroad yards.
The increase in costs would be relatively small when compared with
the total operating costs of railroads.  Therefore, the impact on the
U.S. balance of payments would likewise be fairly low.  It can be
expected that any action which raises transportation costs and thus the
price of American export goods could have an adverse effect on the U.S
balance of payments.  American exports could become more expensive to
foreign buyers and their reaction could be to buy less from U.S. producers by
either cutting their consumption or seeking alternative supply sources.
                               .7-43

-------
     There are certain commodities important to foreign trade revenues
that would be affected.  U.S. grain and coal are important export
commodities and they are also heavily involved in railroad transportation.
If raising the price of these coraaodities to finance noise abatement
results in foreign buyers turning to alternative sources, the trade
effect would be detrimental.  If, however, the price elasticity of
demand is inelastic for these commodities abroad, then the added costs
could be passed on to foreign buyers without harm to the U.S. balance
of payments.

     Iron ore and coal used in making steel are also commodities worth
considering, but in a different context.  If, for example, freight rates
for iron ore and coal are raised and, as a result, prices of domestic
steel are raised, imports of foreign steel could increase.  This would
also have a detrimental impact on the U.S. balance of payments.
Financial Impact Analysis of Compliance Costs

     Compliance costs can be expected to impact to a greater or lesser
degree on different railroad companies depending upon their financial
situation*  Some railroads are in relatively good financial condition,
while others are in financial straits and may have difficulty with
the added expense of noise abatement.  This presentation attempts
to measure the financial condition of individual railroad companies,
and the cost impact of noise regulation compliance.  The purpose is
to provide an indication of the capacity of individual companies to
absorb the added costs of noise abatement.

     A selection of financial indicators were used as the basis for
assessing the financial condition of railroad companies.  The impact
of compliance costs has been measured at two levels; L^n 70 and
^dn 65.  The measures that were selected include liquidity, profit-
ability and efficiency measures.  The measures are outlined as follows
                                  7-44

-------
     1)  The extent to which revenues cover expenses -
         (ratio: net operating revenues/gross revenues)
     2)  The return on capital -
         (ratio: net operating revenues/total assets)
     3)  The extent to which assets are used to generate revenues
         (ratio: gross revenues/total assets)
     4)  The ability to meet current expenses -
         (ratio:  current assets/current liabilities)
     5)  The relationship of total assets to total liabilities -
         (ratio:  current assets/total liabilities).
The measures have been taken from the literature of financial assess-
ment of railroads.  Four of the five have been described as "price
picks" in terms of their ability to assess the financial condition
of railroads.?

     Another ratio (current assets to current liabilities) was included
in order to measure the liquidity position of railroads and this appears
relevant from the standpoint of measuring a firm's condition to finance
noise abatement techniques .

     Some caution should be exercised in the strict interpretation
of these ratios.  This is primarily because the analyses is addressed
to a single year.  Abnormal conditions (financial or operational)
could be different when reviewed from a longer time span.

     Another important cautionary note concerns the validity of using
financial ratios.  The use of ratios as financial indicators is not
universally accepted.  There is an opposing view that the financial
condition of a firm can only be assessed with a detailed examination
of that firms' finances and its organizational arrangements.  According
to this view, ratios can be misleading because of differences in the
manner in which firms treat the variables involved, such as asset
valuation or current expenses.  Nevertheless, because it was not
possible to conduct detailed analyses of the companies with the scope
of this study, ratios were developed and are presented here with the
                                  7-45

-------
understanding that they should not be viewed as conclusive.  This
is particularly true for the tables appearing below that present the
top and bottom five companies for each ratio because abnormalities are
more likely to appear in the extreme cases.  It should be noted,
however, that firms that are repeatedly in good financial condition
tend to appear in the upper sets, while those that are repeatedly
in financial difficulty tend to appear in the lower sets.

     A longer time span could lead to different results.  For example,
a recently published ICC studyb, indicates that a five year span
(1972-76) indicated that seven carriers had deficit returns on invest-
ments for at least three of the five years.  The carriers included
the Grand Trunk Wester, Canadian Pacific in Main, Long Island, Boston
and Maine, Rock Island, Milwaukee and Missouri-Kansas-Texas.  These
differ from the carriers shown in the tables below of one-year ratios.
Time constraints prevented the use of a longer time span in this study.
Also, the basic purpose of the indicators for this study is different.
The purpose here is to gauge the effects of added noise abatement
expenses, rather than to assess  the general financial conditions of
the companies.  A one year span  should be sufficient for this purpose.

     Contributing to the selection of ratios was the consideration
of the availability of data.  The measures had to be adapted to the
types of data which are also available for Class II railroads.  ICC
requirements usually ensure sufficient data for Class I carriers.
Nevertheless, one Class I and a  number of Class II railroads had to be
omitted from the analysis because their financial data were not available.

     The complete list of railroads and their financial rates appear
in Appendix G.  Listed below for Class I railroads are the top and
bottom five, to indicate those that are in relatively better financial
condition, in contrast to those  that are in worse financial conditions
on a relative basis.  In addition, the impacts of compliance costs
are calculated in the ratios for two noise abatement levels (L^n 70
and Ldn 65).
                                   7-46

-------
     It should be noted that the  impacts measured  here  apply solely
to compliance costs.  The impacts  from  secondary effects,  such as
increases in freight rates, changes  in  traffic  and revenues are
considered elsewhere in this section.

     The ratio values for Class  I  carriers  are  presented in three
columns.  The first column contains  the ratio prior to  noise regula-
tion, the second reflects the  cost to the  railroad to comply with
a regulation of L(jn 70 and the third column reflects the cost to
the railroad to comply with a  more stringent regulation of L^n 65.

     It is significaiit to note from  the ratios, and from the extent
to which ratios change due to  compliance costs, that the financial
condition of railroads would be  altered only to a  minor degree by  the
imposition of noise control regulations.
1.   Ratio:  Net Operating  Revenue/Gross  Revenue.
                                Current
     Company                  (before Reg.)       L^n 70     L
-------
2.   Ratio:  Net Operating Revenues/Total Assets
                                Current
     Company                  (before Reg.)      Ldn 70     Ldn 65
     (Top five)
Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific        0.55            0.55       0.54
Toledo, Peoria & Western          0.32            0.32       0.30
Chicago & Northwestern            0.20            0.20       0.17
Elgin, Joliet & Eastern          0.20            0.20       0.19
Detroit & Toledo Shoreline        0.17            0.17       0.15
      (Bottom five)
Chicago, Milwaukee,
    St. Paul & Pacific           -0.01           -0.01      -0.03
Pittsburgh & Lake  Erie            0.01            0.01       0.01
Bangor & Aroostook               0.01            0.01       0.00
Central Vermont                   0.02            0.02       0.00
Maine Central                     0.05            0.05       0.04

 3.   Ratio:   Gross Revenues/Total Assets
                                Current
      Company                  (before Reg.)      Ljn 70     Ljn 65
      (Top five)
 Toledo,  Peoria & Western          1.17            1.16       1.13
 Chicago & Northwestern            1.00            1.00       0.96
 Chicago, Rock Island
    & Pacific                      0.78            0.78       0.76
 Elgin, Joliet & Eastern           0.77            0.77       0.76
 Duluth,  Winnipeg & Pacific        0.74            0.74       0.73
      (Bottom five)
 Pittsburgh & Lake Erie            0.21            0.21       0.21
 Richmond, Fredericksburg
    Potomac                        0.28            0.28       0.27
 Colorado & Southern               0.30            0.30       0.29
 Bangor & Aroostook                0.31            0.31       0.30
 St. Louis Southwestern            0.35            0.35       0.35
                                    7-48

-------
4.   Ratio:   Current  Assets/Current Liabilities
                                Current
     Company                  (before Reg.)      Ldn 70     LHn 65
     (Top five)                                              Q
Texas Mexican                     3.39            3.33       2.86
Florida East  Coast                2.80            2.77       2.57
Western Maryland                  2.55            2.53       2.38
St. Louis Southwestern            2.38            2.37       2.27
Richmond, Fredericksburg
   & Potomac                      2.25            2.24       2.14
     (Bottom  five)
Union Pacific                     0.74            0.74       0.72
Fort Worth & Denver               0.80            0.79       0.75
Missouri-Kansas-Texas             0.81            0.80       0.73
Long Island                       0.85            0.85       0.83
Georgia                           0.85            0.85       0.80

5.   Ratio:   Current  Assets/Total Liabilities
                                Current
     Company                  (before Reg.)      Ldn 70     Ldn 65
     (Top five)
Western Pacific                   0.45            0.45       0.44
Texas Mexican                     0.39            0.38       0.38
Toledo, Peoria & Western          0.26            0.26       0.25
Western Maryland                  0.26            0.26       0.26
Elgin,  Joliet & Eastern           0.25            0.25       0.25
     (Bottom  five)
Northwestern Pacific              0.06            0.06       0.05
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie            0.07            0.07       0.07
Union Pacific                     0.08            0.08       0.08
Bangor & Aroostook                0.09            0.09       0.09
Akron & Barberton Belt            0.10            0.10       0.08

     The above tables included  only Class I railroads.  The ratios were
tabulated for all railroads  for which there were sufficient data,
including Class II railroads.   The complete list of railroads and their
ratios are presented  in Appendix G.
                                   7-49

-------
     Tabulations of the dispersion of ratio values were  made,  and
appear below.  Entries represent  the percentage  of railroads falling
below the column figures.
                 Dispersion of Financial  Ratio  Values
1.   Net Operating Revenues/Gross  Revenues
                 Min.    5%      25%
     Current   -8.60   -0.60   0.12
     L^ 70    -8.61   -0.61   0.10
     Ldn 65    -9.17   -0.86   0.06

2.   Net Operating Revenues/Total  Assets
                 Min.    5%      25%
     Current   -0.69   -0.10   0.04
     Ldn 70    -0.69   -0.11   0.04
     Ldn 65    -0.68   -0.17   0.03

3.   Gross Revenues/Total  Assets
                  Min.    5%      25%
     Current       *    -0.16    0.37
     Ldn 70        *        0.16   0.37
     Ldn 65        *        0.15   0.33

4.   Current  Assets/Current  Liabilties
                  Min.     5%      25%
     Current   -1.37     0.36   0.96
     Ldn 70    -1.22     0.35   0.95
     Ldn 65    -1-17     0.30   0.83

5.   Current  Assets/Total  Liabilities
                  Min.     5%      25%
     Current   -0.16     0.06    0.12
     Ldn 70    -0.14     0.06    0.12
     L   65    -.012     0.06    0.12
Median
0.22
0.21
0.18
:s
Median
0.11
0.11
0.12
Median
0.49
0.49
0.46
Median
1.33
1.30
1.11
Median
0.21
0.21
0.19
75%
0.32
0.32
0.27
75%
0.19
0.18
0.18
75%
0.67
0.67
0.64
75%
2.16
2.07
1.71
75%
0.32
0.32
0.31
95%
0.52
0.52
0.50
95%
0.44
0.42
0.39
95%
1.15
1.15
1.09
95%
6.01
5.34
4.32
95%
0.59
0.58
0.50
Max.
0.83
0.82
0.82
Max.
1.23
1.18
1.16
Max.
2.41
2.39
2.16
Max.
23.33
18.29
17.39
Max.
0-94
0.85
0.78
                                   7-50

-------
The Price Elasticity of Rail Transport Demand.

     The'price elasticity of demand must be considered in any attempt to
quantify the impact of cost increases associated with noise control of
the railroad industry.  Price elasticity of demand is defined to measure
the change in the quantity demanded of a good or service directly
associated with a change in the price of that good or service.  Estimates
of elasticity can be stated in terms of the percentage decrease in
demand corresponding to a one percent increase  in price.  Estimates
of -1.0 and below are considered price elastic  (i.e., the demand for
the good or service is relatively sensitive to  price changes), whereas
estimates between 0 and -1.0 are considered price inelastic  (i.e.,
demand is relatively less sensitive to price  changes).

     The elasticity estimates used in this section were drawn from
relevant studies by A.T. Kearney,  Inc.,  (19/7)  and A. Morton  (1969),
as presented in the ICC report to  Congress, entitled The  Impact of  the
4R Act.8  The ranges of empirical  elasticity  estimates  for  rail
transport services associated with particular major  commodities are
shown in Table 7-22.  There  are  a  number of considerations  that should
apply in the interpretation  and  use of  the elasticity values, which
are  as  follows:

     •   There are various  factors  other  than  price  that influence
         demand for  rail transportation.   One  important  factor is
         quality of  service.   If  the quality of  rail  service
         deteriorates  in terms of longer  transit time due  to nighttime
         curtailment,  for example,  rail  shipments could  decrease  even
         though freight rates  remain unchanged.   Other  factors
         include  income levels and  increased access  to  other
         transportation modes.
     •   Elasticity  values  are  time sensitive.  The values being
         presented here  are for  the short term.   Usually short term
         price  elasticity estimates are  less  elastic  than long term
         estimates.  There  is  greater  possibility for customer or
         shipper  adjustment to price  changes  in the  longer term.
      •   Price  elasticities are  often  variable with  regard to the
         level  of  price  and the  size of  the increase.  It is likely,
         therefore,  that no single value can be determined as the  price
         elasticity  of demand.
      •  The price  elasticity for a single product can vary according
         to  location,  or  from route to route,  often depending upon
         intermodal  competition.
                                   7-51

-------
                            TABLE  7-22
       ESTIMATES OF PRICE ELASTICITIES  OF  RAIL TRANSPORT  DEMAND
                                                  Range  of  Estimated
                                                  Price  Elasticities
   Commodity                                           of Demand  a
   Bituminous Coal                                 -0.128 to -0.38
   Iron Ore                                        -0.39 to -0.819
   Aggregate Materials                             -0-35 to -4.40
   Corn (to represent agric. products)             -0.837 to -1.32
   Pulpwood, logs, & chips  (timber)                -0.366 to -0.814
   Iron & steel mfg. goods                         -0.1   to -0.3
   Automobiles                                     -0.76 to -1.68
  Source:  Table V-3, p. 103,  ICC  report  to  Congress on The Impact of
           the 4R Act. Oct.  1977.
     With  the exception of  some  aggregates  and auto shipments, Table
 7-22 in general  indicates relatively inelastic values  for  the com-
 modities shown.   However, the  estimated  ranges are wide  and background
 data are not all current.   These estimates  are used in this study
 for the economic impact analysis.  Other sources do not  currently
 offer better estimates.

     In the subsequent price and impact  analysis, the  fourteen separate
 estimates  of the Table 7-22 were reduced to two, representing a low
 weighted average of  -0.39 and  a  high weighted average  of -1.41. This
 reduction  was achieved by weighting the  estimates displayed in Table
 7-22 by the contribution of each commodity  class to total  railroad
 revenue. The process and final estimates are shown in  Table 7-23.  It
 is estimated that  the listed commodities will account  for  about 75
 percent of railroad  revenues in  1985.  Some manufactured products
 finished for retail are characterized by greater price elasticity
but comprise less  than 20 percent of railroad revenue.
                                   7-52

-------
I
en
Co
                                                        TABLE  7-23

                             ESTIMATED RAIL TRANSPORT  PRICE ELASTICITIES OF DEMAND FOR EACH
                             MAJOR COMMODITY, WEIGHTED BY  ITS SHARE OF  RAIL FREIGHT REVENUES

Type of
Commodity
Agriculture
Iron Ore
Coal
Misc. Mining
Food & Drug
Lumber & Prod.
Chemicals
Iron & Steel
Stone Clay
Glass
Motor Vehicles
TOTAL :

Base3
(corn)


Average Share of
Major Source RR
Revenues
(1975+1985) v2
Percentage
13.70
3.37
17.98
(average between iron
ore & Aggregates) 8.51
(overall avg. used) 17.60
(pulpwood, logs
& chips) 11.05
(overall avg. used) 9.51

(aggregates)

5.46
7.08
5.77
100.3 avgs
Estimated RR Price
Elasticity of Demand
For Rail Services0
Low High
-.837 -1.32
-.39 -0.819
-.128 -0.38
-.37 -2.61
(overall avg. used)
-.366 -0.814
(overall avg. used)
-.1 -0.3
-.35 -4.40
Partial Price
Elasticities of
Demand Weighted By
RR Revenue Shares
Low High
-.11 - .18
-.01 - .03
-.02 - .07
-.03 - .22
-.07 - .27
-.04 - .09
-.04 - .15
-.01 - .02
-.02 - .31
-.76 -1.68 ' -.04 - .07
: -.4126 -1.540 avgs. -.39 -1.41
          a For a major commodity category,  the estimated price  elasticity of  demand for the commodity in
            brackets was used wherever information was not available.
          b These averages of 1975 and 1985  shares contributed to  RR revenues  were  obtained from Exhibit IV-D(21)
            p.  143 of the study,  Intercity Domestic Transportation System for  Passengers and Freight (Ref.  1).

          c These estimates of elasticities  are from Table V-3,  p.  103,  of the ICC  report to Congress on The_
            Impact of the 4R Act:  Railroad  Ratemaking Provisions,  Oct.  5, 1977 (Reference 10).
          d These columns are obtained by multiplying the normalized percentage in  the  first column by the  low
            or high estimates of  ten 2nd and 3rd column.

-------
APPLICATION OF A MICROECONOMIC MODELING TECHNIQUE TO ESTIMATE PRICE
INCREASES RESULTING FROM COMPLIANCE WITH POTENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS
BY RAIL CARRIERS
     The effect of a noise emission, standard on the railroad industry
is to impose variable financial and economic impacts on firms in the
industry.  The impact varies from firm  to firm since it represents
the cost to comply with a noise abatement regulation on railroad
property owned and operated by individual firms.  To cover  the com-
pliance cost imposed by such a regulation, individual  railroad firms
have but one option to recover such costs directly, assuming they
do not absorb the costs through profits and that no Federal subsidy
is available.  This options is to petition the ICC  for a  freight rate
change which can be expressed as a unit price increase for  the com-
modities the firm transports by rail.   The objective of the microeconomic
price model is to analyze  the size and  relative effect of a price
increase on each railroad  firm which must comply with  a noise emission
regulation. The model analyzes only the compliance  impacts  of the
imposition of  the noise standard and appropriately  excludes from con-
sideration the normal dynamics of  the  industry and  transportation
markets.

      The model assumes  that  the  changes in price  and demand are suffi-
 ciently small  that  they can  be  related  by a constant price  elasticity
 of demand.  It  further  assumes  that  the unit  cost of providing services
 is constant.   The model estimates  the  price  increase that has  to be
 introduced for  the  railroad  firm or  operator  to maintain  the  net income
 (i.e.,  operating  revenues  less  operating expenses)  before and after
complying  with the  noise  standard.   The price increase,   p, is given
by the  smaller  root of  the quadratic  equation:
                                       CC
          %  (Ap) +  [ed(p-c)+p]  (Ap)  - _ p  =  0
where     ey is  the  price  elasticity of demand,
           p is  the  unit price,
           c is  the  unit cost,
           q is  the  production level,
         CC is  the  total  compliance cost.
                                   7-54

-------
The detailed derivation of this equation and description of the model
is given in Appendix H.
The Employment Model

     When a rail carrier increases the price of service, demand and
output will decrease if the price elasticity of demand is less than
zero.  Assuming that employment is directly proportional to adjusted
revenue (i.e., revenue less compliance cost), a model is constructed
to estimate the decrease in employment resulting from a price increase
and demand decrease.  The detailed description of the model is given
in Appendix H.
PRICE DEMAND AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS ON INDIVIDUAL RAILROADS
Analyses of the Impacts of Comliance Costs on Prices,
Demand for Rail Services, and Employment
Study Level L^n 70 with price elasticity of demand assumed  to be -0.39
     Using the microeconomic price model the  1976 datac for the
unit "price", "cost", revenue ton-miles, and  the estimated  price elasti-
city of demand, the compliance costs per "ton-mile" of service level
for each railroad were analyzed to determine  the potential  impact of
price increases on demand/output, and employment.  Sufficient data are
available for analyzing most of the Class  I railroads and some other
railroads.  A full listing of the results  of  the analysis is given
in Appendix I.

     For the 49 Class I railroads, the  expected short-term  reaction of
shippers to a median increase of about  0.1 percent in railroad rates
that would cover compliance costs would lead  to an average  decrease in
demand for rail services of less than 0.05 percent.  This decrease would
create either an equivalent loss in jobs or underutilize about 119
railroad employees from these firms.  For  the other firms,  the potential
                                   7-55

-------
employment impact appears negligible.  If they were not laid off,  labor
productivity would decline accordingly.  For this study level, on  the
average, employment would decline about two to three workers per firm.
The railroads most heavily impacted are indicated in Table  7-24.
                              TABLE 7-24
        COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS, Ldn  70;  ed 	0.39

                         (A - Based on Heaviest Employment  Impacts)
                            Percentage    Percentage       Decrease  In
     Railroad               Increase       Decrease      Employment or No
                            In Price      In Demand       Workers  Idled
Conrail                       0.1           0.0*             29
Burlington Northern           0.1           0.0*              9
Southern Pacific              0.0*          0.0*              7
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe   0.0*          0.0*              5
                         (B - Based on Largest Price  Increases)
Texas Mexican                 0.5           0.2               0
Detroit & Toledo Shoreline    0.5           0.2               0
Central Vermont               0.4           0.2               1
* 0.0 indicates less  than 0.05.
Study Level Ldn  70 with  the price elasticity  of  demand assumed  to  be -1.41
     For the study level Ldn 70, with  price elasticity of  demand -1.41
those railroads  experiencing the greatest  price  and demand impacts are
presented in Table 7-25.

     With regard to  the  greatest impacts on employment, Conrail, would
experience about 120 workers underemployed or laid off, Burlington
Northern about 39. and Southern Pacific 33.
                                   7-56

-------
                              TABLE  7-25

        COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS,  Ldn  70;  ed 	1.41
                         (A - Based on Heaviest  Employment  Impacts)
                            Percentage    Percentage       Decrease  In
     Railroad               Increase        Decrease      Employment or No.
                            In Price      In Demand       Workers  Idled
Conrail                       0.1           0.1             119
Burlington Northern           0.1           0.1             39
Southern Pacific              0.1           0.2             21
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe   0.1           0.1             21
                         (B - Based on Largest Price Increases)
Detroit & Toledo Shoreline    0.8           1.1               2
Texas Mexican                 0.6           0.9               2
Richmond, Fredericksburg,
   & Potomac                  0.6           0.9               5
Detroit, Toledo & Ironton     0.5           0.6               0
Central Vermont               0-4           0.6               2
Study Level Ljn 65 with the price elasticity  of demand  assumed  to be -0.39
     Results of the impacts on price, demand/output, and  employment for
the most heavily impacted railroads are presented  in Table  7-26.

     Note that these impacts are heavier  than at the study  level
L(jn 70, as expected.  In general, consistency is indicated  insofar as
the same group of railways, more or less,  reappear  in each  analysis,
as may be expected.  Moreover, these analyses quantify  the  results of
the expected financial impacts.

     For railroads with e^ = -0.39, the median price increase would
be about 2.0 percent and demand would fall by about 0.8 percent.
Unemployment or underemployment would increase by  about 52  workers per
firm, and about 2547 overall.  The largest expected price increase is
about 4.9 percent.  The largest employment cutbacks would occur for
the railroads employing the most workers  in general.
                                   7-57

-------
                              TABLE  7-26

        COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR HIE STUDY  LEVELS,  Ldn 65;  ed 	0.39

                         (A - Based on  Heaviest  Employment Impacts)

                            Percentage    Percentage       Decrease In
     Railroad               Increase       Decrease      Employment  or No,
                            In Price      In Demand       Workers Idled

Conrail                       2.1            0.8            714
Burlington Northern           1.5            0.6            216
Southern Pacific              0.8            0.3            116
Illinois Central Gulf         2.0            0.8            115
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe   1.1            0.4            115

                         (B - Based on  Largest Price  Increases)

Texas Mexican                 4.9            1.9              5
Central Vermont               4.8            1.9              7
Illinois Terminal             3.9            1.5              7
Bangor & Aroostook            3.3            1.3              9
Delaware & Hudson             3.0            1.2             21
Study Level Ldn 65 with  the  price elasticity of demand assumed to be -1.41

     The most  stringent  study  level  analyzed is presented in Table 7-27•

Accordingly, the largest price increase required is sizeable (i.e., 6.8

percent).  The median price  increase is 2.6 percent.


     The number of workers underemployed or laid off is approximately

250 per firm,  for a  total of 12,200  which is about 2.5 percent of the

Class I railroad work force  in 1976.


                               TABLE  7-27

        COMPLIANCE IMPACTS FOR THE STUDY LEVELS, Ldn 65; erf 	1-41

                         (A - Based on Heaviest Employment Impacts)

                             Percentage    Percentage       Decrease In
     Railroad                Increase       Decrease     Employment or No.
                             In Price      In Demand      Workers Idled

Conrail                        2.6           3.6             23
Burlington Northern            2.0           2.8           1015
Norfolk & Western              2.8           3.9            654
Baltimore & Ohio               3.6           5.0            602
Chicago & Northwestern         3.8           5.4            570
                         (B - Based on Largest Price Increases)

Texas Mexican                  6.8           9.6             23
Illinois Terminal              5.5           7.8             35
Central Vermont                5,4           7.7             30
Richmond, Fredericksburg
   and Potomac                5.4           7-6             47
Soo Line                       4-2           5.9            1-83

                                   7-58

-------
Aggregate Decline in Demand for Rail Services, Employment.
or Productivity Associated with Price Increases
Study Level Ldn 70; ed = -0.39:

     For the least stringent study noise level analyzed (Ldn 70)
and an average price elasticity of demand of -0.39, the demand impacts
on 49 individual railroads were estimated and aggregated.  Based on
1976 total revenue and non-revenue ton-miles, the price increases
necessary for compliance with this level would result in a decline in
annual demand of about 0.1 percent of the 1976 total.  This decline
would idle about 120 railroad employees based on the 1976 level of
employment and the statistical relationship between employment and
railroad activity. If workers were not laid off, labor productivity
would decline by 0.1 percent.

Study Level Ldn 70; ed = -1,41:

     For the study noise level (Ldn 70) and price elasticity of
demand of -1.41, the demand for railroad services could be expected to
decline by about 0.3 percent of the 1976 total, if compliance costs
were to be passed forward as price increases by 49 of the major railroads.

     As a result of this cutback in demand, about 540 employees would
be idled or laid off among 49 railroads, if labor productivity losses
were to be avoided.  This labor productivity loss would be 0.3 percent.

Study Level Ldn 65; ed = -0.39:

     To achieve this study level of noise abatement, demand for railroad
services based on the original level of ton-miles in 1976 would decline
by 0.9 percent of 1976 demand.  As a result, employment would have to
be cut by about 2550 employees, if productivity losses were to be
avoided. If not, the labor productivity decline would be 0.9 percent.
                                  7-59

-------
Study Level Ldn 65;  ed - -1.41:

     This study level is the most stringent one analyzed here.  Using
1976 data again as a base, demand would drop about 4.6 percent.  The
decrease in employment would be about  12,200 or an equivalent decline
in productivity because of underemployment.  This decline in labor
productivity would be about 4.6 percent.

Bankrupt Roads

     The roads listed below represent  carriers which  fall within the
categories of near bankruptcy, declared bankruptcy or reorganized:

     1.  Grand Trunk Western Railroad  (GTW)
     2.  Canadian Pacific Lines in Maine  (CP)
     3.  Long Island Railroad  (LI)
     4.  Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad (MKT)
     5.  Conrail,  (CON)
     6.  Boston and Maine Railroad  (BM)
     7.  Chicago,  Milwaukee, St. Paul  and  Pacific Railroad  (MILW)
     8.  Chicago, Rock  Island and Pacific  Railroad  (RI)
     9.  Morristown & Erie Railroad,  (ME)

     The first two carriers  (Grand Trunk Western and  Canadian Pacific
Lines in Maine) are wholly owned subsidiaries of Canadian roads, and the
third (Long Island Railroad) is controlled by the State of  New York.
Because of their external cash flow,  these three carriers have been
excluded from further analysis.  The  last  four  carriers listed above
(Boston & Maine; Chicago, Milwaukee,  St.  Paul & Pacific; Chicago, Rock
Island & Pacific;  and Morristown &  Erie)  have already been  declared
bankrupt.

     For each road indicated above",  estimates were made of: a)
the percentage price increase, b) the  percentage decrease demand for
rail freight services,  and c)  the decrease in employment or in the
number of workers  idled*  These impact indicators were computed on  the
                                   7-60

-------
basis of the proposed noise study levels, applying an assumption that
all yards per firm were to be quieted to a noise level of either Ldn
70 or Ldn 65.  Aggregate average price elasticities of demand (ed),
representing a weighted low and a weighted high estimate, were used
as a base for the indicators shown in Table 7-28.

     Other roads which are financially weak have been discussed in
the preceding section.  A full listing of the financial  ratios of
all firms is given in Appendix G.

Conclusions

     As discussed earlier in this section, the costs and economic
impacts are not derived directly from the revised health/welfare noise
model, but instead utilized an earlier version of this model because
of time limitations.  The costs and economic impacts may be more severe
than those reported on in this section by some unknown amount. Further
study and analysis seems to be warranted to make such a  determination,
as well as to make the necessary adjustments, as applicable, related
to compliance costs and economic impacts.

     On the basis of  the estimated costs to meet the various noise
regulatory levels and the analysis of the economic  impacts corres-
ponding to these levels, a number of conclusions can be  drawn.  These
are presented below.

1.   The estimated costs of compliance were developed for 5 distinct
levels and it was observed that  the cots markedly increase at  the Ldn
65 level.  Based upon these results,  the economic impact analysis
focused on both the Ldn  70 and Ldn 65 noise  regulatory study levels.
The major feature of  the increase  at  the lower  level was caused by  the
need to curtail nighttime operations  so  that noise  emissions could  be
reduced to meet the required  level.   Employment  of  available noise
abatement procedures  are not  capable  of  reducing noise  emissions
to the desired  level  within flat classification yards unless nighttime
activity curtailment  of  operations  is  implemented.
                                   7-61

-------
GTW
CP
LI
MKT
CON**
BM
MILW
RI
                                TABLE  7-28

             ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON ROADS  FALLING  IN  CATEGORIES OF:
       (a) Near Bankruptcy,  (b) Declared Bankruptcy,  or (c)  Reorganized
                         STUDY LEVEL,  L^  70  dBA

                   ej = -0.39
                                                   -1.41

RAIL
ROAD



PER-
CENTAGE
PRICE
INCREASE


PER-
CENTAGE
PRICE
DECREASE


EMPLOY-
MENT
DECREASE
OR NO. OF
WORKERS
IDLED
PER-
CENTAGE
PRICE
INCREASE


PER-
CENTAGE
DEMAND
DECREASE


EMPLOY-
MENT
DECREASE
OR NO. OF
WORKERS
IDLED
GTW
CP
LI
MKT
CON**
BM
MILW
RI
0.1
0.0*
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
                      0.0*
                      0.0*
                      0.0*
                      0.1
                      0.0*
                      0.1
                      0.0*
                      0.0*
                          1
                          0
                          3
                          1
                         29
                          2
                          4
                          3
             0.1
             o.o*
             0.0*
             0.2
             0.1
             0.2
             0.1
             0.1
              STUDY LEVEL,
                                          65  dBA.
1.9
0.0*
0.3
2.7
2.1
2.5
2.4
2.2
0.7
0.0*
0.1
1.1
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
 24
  0
 15
 20
714
 25
112
 60
2.6
0.0*
0.2
3.8
2.6
3.0
2.4
2.9
            0.2
            0.0*
            0.1
            0.3
            0.1
            0.3
            0.1
            0.2
3.6
0.0*
0.3
5.3
3.6
4.3
3.4
4.1
              6
              0
              8
              5
            119
              8
             15
             12
 117
   0
  34
  99
3056
 112
 407
 285
*  0.0 indicates less than 0.05.
** Estimates for Conrail were made from  data  available on four of  the largest
   firms reorganized into Conrail:   Erie Lackawanna,  Lehigh Valley,  Reading,
   and Peun Central.  The contributions  from  the  other component  firms are
   expected to be small, and will only increase  the unemployment  estimates
   slightly.

Legend for Listed Railroads:

1.  (GTW) Grand Trunk Western Railroad
2.  (CP) Canadian Pacific Lines in Maine
3.  (LI) Long Island Railroad
4.  (MKT) Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
5.  (CON) Conrail
6.  (BM) Boston and Maine Railroad
7.  (MILW) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul  and Pacific Railroad
8.  (RI) Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad
                                7-62

-------
2.   The estimated costs related to nighttime curtailment pertain to
operations only and require such operations (car classifications) to be
switched over to daytime operations.  It was not feasible to estimate
costs of such curtailment in operations on segments or the entire
railroad system, since the focus of this study was on rail yard noise.
Railroad systems cost implications, as they might relate to freight
services and effects on the marketplace resulting from nighttime curtail-
ment of yard operations were not attempted.  It is expected that
such costs would be extremely high.

3.   Economic impacts on the railroad industry and on individual carriers
can range widely depending upon the price elasticity of demand.  The
elasticities have been shown to range from -0.39 to -1.41.  This range,
together with different costs estimated to reduce noise emissions to
meet the various regulatory study  levels, can make significant differ-
ences by an order of magnitude in  the derived statements of impact.  On
the other hand, this method of bounding the problem provides the insight
needed to determine the magnitude  of the effects caused by adopting
a particular noise regulatory study level on the industry, as well as
on individual rail carriers.  This procedure appears realistic in
light of the state of knowledge about the paucity of data on price
elasticity of demand on a firm-by-firm basis.

4.   The costs of noise control through  the use of noise source  abate-
ment procedures are not high when  compared to the industry's economic
and financial statistics.  The financial  condition of  the  industry and
that of individual carriers are not altered significantly by the added
expenses required to achieve  the  regulatory study levels  that were
analyzed in detail.  It  is recognized that  this analysis used but one
year's data and abnormalities occurring  in  the  year studied  could alter
the  results to  some degree.   However, it  is concluded  that  the outcome
should not be significant  to  alter the  analysis conducted.

5.    Extending  the property of railroad  yards  to  establish  the yard
perimeter sufficiently  far from  yard  noise  sources  to  meet  the regula-
tory  study  levels  is relatively  expensive as  compared  to  implementation
of noise  abatement procedures.   Property acquisition  seems to  be the
only alternative when  other  techniques  are  not  sufficient  to meet  a
given  noise standard.
                                   7-63

-------
6.   Supply problems involving either energy sources or material required
for noise abatement equipment and facilities should be insignificant.
Small amounts of additional diesel fuel would be consumed with improved
switch engine mufflers.  The supplies required to fabricate and produce
the quantities needed to implement the other noise abatement procedures
represent small portions of the products currently being manufactured.

7»   The impact of the noise regulatory study levels analyzed on prices,
demand for services, and employment does not appear significant when
viewed in terms of the entire railroad industry.  However, on the
basis of individual railroad carriers, the impacts observed do not vary
widely over the firms studied.  The majority (90 percent) of Class I
line-haul railroads have a need to increase prices to no more than 5
percent above the  1976 unit price as a result of an analysis at the most
stringent level analyzed.  Similarly, this seems to hold also for
employment.
                                   7-64

-------
   NOTE:   THIS  PAGE HAS BEEN UNFORTUNATELY  DELETED DURING
            THE PRINTING PROCEDURES,   PLEASE  NOTE AND INSERT
            APPROPRIATELY,
                            FOOTNOTES

a.   The employment effects analyzed are only those resulting from
     a decrease in 'adjusted1  revenues.  (See discussion in Appendix H.)
     The potential increase in employment for installation, operation
     and maintenance of noise  abatement procedures is not considered in
     this table of results.

b.   Rail Merger Study, Rail Services  Planning Office, Washington,
     B.C., April 1977.

c.   Moody's Transportation Manual,  1977; Moody!s Investors Service,
     Inc., New York, 1977.

d.   Estimates for Morristown  & Erie were not made due to lack of data.
 1.   Economic News Notes, National Association of Home Builders,
     Washington, D.C., May 1978.

 2.   Historical Analysis of Unit Land,  Prices,  Real  Estate Research
     Corporation, Chicago, Illinois,  1973 (unpublished report to HUD).

 3.   Farm Real Estate Market Develoment,  Economics,  Statistics and
     Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, July 1978.

 4.   Current Industrial Reports;  Fibrous Glass, p.  3> Table 2,
     Bureau of the Census, May 1978.

 5.   Predicasts Base Book, Predicasts,  Inc., 1977.

 6.   Ibid., p.  18.

 7.   Altman, E. I., "Railroad Bankruptcy Property",  Journal of
     Finance, Papers and Proceedings, December 1970.

 8.   The Impact of the 4-R Act Railroad Rate - Making Provision,
     Interstate Commerce Commission,  Washington, D.  C.,  October  1977.
                               7-65

-------
             UNITED STATES



     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY




 OFFICE OF NOISE ABATEMENT  AND CONTROL
APPENDICES TO BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FOR REVISED




      RAILROAD NOISE  EMISSION STANDARDS
                   FEBRUARY 1979

-------
         APPENDIX A
NOISE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

-------
                            APPENDIX A



                   NOISE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY



       Part A:   Noise Measurement Methodology for Community Locations



     Determination of compliance with the noise standards for railroad



facilities at a conmunity measurement location involves answering the




following two questions:



     1.  Does the railroad component of the day-night sound level exceed




         the limit value?




     2.   Is  the railroad  noise the dominant source of noise at the  measure-




         ment location?




     Answering these questions  involves measurement of the total day-night



sound level, and measurement or estimation of the railroad and non-railroad



components of the day-night sound level.



     .Railroad operations can be classified  into  infrequent and continuous



operations.  Infrequent operations are those which occur during a period



that has a total duration of less than two weeks during an entire year.



Continuous operations are those that regularly occur  in the normal year



and are not classified as infrequent; continuous operations can further be



divided into two categories depending upon  the variability of  the operations.



In order to define "normal" operations, the concept of an annual average day



is used.  The number of operations on an annual average day is the number of



annual operations during the most recent year in which information  is avail-



able, divided by 365.  The "week operations ratio11 is the number of opera-



tions of a specific kind for a specific week divided by 7 times the number of



operations on an annual average day.  Continuous operations are considered to



be normal when the week operations ratio throughout 50 weeks of the year does
                                   A-l

-------
not exceed the range of 1/3 to 3.  Continuous operations are considered to be



irregular when there is a high week operations ratio  (less  than 1/3).  This



classification of railroad operations  into  infrequent and continuous opera-



tions, with subdivision into normal and  irregular operations,  is  illustrated



in Figure 1.



     The noise of non-railroad sources  in the community can be considered



a mixture of a variety of sources, such  as  traffic, aircraft,  industry,



etc. For locations  in residential areas  where no specific noise sources are



identifiable, the day-night sound level  of  urban residential noise may be



approximated by the expression 10 ,    p  + 22, where p is  the number of people



per square mile living in the area.   In  areas with additional  sources, the



noise of these sources can be super-imposed on  the residential approximation



to provide a measure of the total noise  exposure.



     The noise of railroad operations  is considered to be dominant over the



noise of other sources in the community  if  either of  the  following two



situations occur:



      a.  The noise  of railroad operations  is clearly  dominant  over the



         noise of non-railroad sources.  This may be  demonstrated if  the



         railroad component of the day-night sound  leve  is  6 dB or more



         above the  non-railroad  component  of the day-night  sound  level



          (or, equivalently,  if the  total day-night  sound  level is 7 dB



         or more obove the non-railroad component).   In urban  residential



         areas with no specific  identifiable noise  sources, the approxi-



         mation above  (10 ,   p  + 22)  may  be used as  an estimate  of  the
                          log


         non-railroad noise exposure in this demonstration  of  clear



         dominance.
                                    A-2

-------
     b.  The noise of railroad operations is considered dominant over the




         noise of non-railroad sources if the railroad component of the



         day-night sound level exceeds the non-railroad component of the



         day-night sound level by 3 dB or more.  To demonstrate this



         dominance condition, both components (rail and non-rail) must



         be measured and/or estimated based on measurements at the measure-



         ment location.  Further, the sum of the rail and non-rail components



         must be within 2 dB of the measured total day-night sound level



         at the measurement location.



     When the railroad noise is high and the non-railroad noise is low at a



particular measurement location, the measurement methodology provides a simple



process for determining compliance.  Vt\er\ this situation does not occur, the



procedure for determining compliance is more complicated.   It  is therefore



desirable for enforcement purposes to select a community measurement location



where the first set of conditions apply.  Described below are  the general



procedures which culd be followed for both the simple and complicated cases of



compliance determination.



      Measurement Ins t r umentat ion



      (a)  An integrating sound level meter, or  instrumentation system,



that meets all of the requirements of American National Standard for Sound



Level Meters SI.4-1971, Type 1 shall be used.  The  integrating sound level



meter shall be capable of meeting the Type 1 tolerances for the sound



level meter when used with an  ideal  integrator  for  the following functions



(where applicable) and signals:



      1.  Sound Exposure Level;  For  sinusoidal  signals  in  its  stated operat-



         ing range with duration varying between  1  second  and  3600 seconds,



         with  the maximum sound exposure  level  of at  least  135 dB  re  (20



                                   A-3

-------
         micro pascals) squared and one second.  An additional tolerance of



         +^ 1 dB is allowed for events which have a duration of between 100



         milliseconds and 1 second.



     2.  Equivalent Sound Level;  For sinusoidal signals with sound levels



         varying between 45 and 125 dB, and frequencies between 200 and 1000



         Hertz, and for any combination of sound levels whose durations



         range between 1 second and 3600 seconds for hourly equivalent sound



         level, except that the maximum hourly equivalent sound level need



         not exceed 100 dB.



     3.  Da^-Night Sound Level:   For signals specified in (2) above during



         daytime hours and for signals that are ten decibels lower during



         nighttime hours (0000 to 0700) and (2200 to 2400).



     (b)  A microphone windscreen and an acoustic calibrator of the coupler



type shall be used as recommended by:  (1)  the manufacturer of the sound



level meter or (2) the manufacturer of the microphone.



     Measurement Location and Weather Criter^ia



     (a)  Enforcement measurements shall be conducted only at receiving



property locations where the sound from railroad facility operations is



dominant.



     (b)  No measurement shall be made within 10 meters distance from any



substantially vertical reflecting surface that exceeds 1.2 meters in



height, except for measurements on a residentials dwelling measurement surface.



     (c)  No measurement shall be made when the average wind velocity during



the period of measurement exceeds 12 mph (19.3 kph) or when the maximum wind



gust velocity exceeds 20 mph (32.2 kph).



     (d)  No measurements shall be taken when precipitation (rain, snow,



sleet, etc.) occurs for a period exceeding 20% of the measurement period,



unless it can be demonstrated that the precipitation does not increase the



sound level at the microphone.



                                   A-4

-------
     Procedures for Measurement



     (a)  General Approach



     The procedures for determination of the component sound level resulting



from railroad facility operations and demonstration that  it is the dominant



sound component for the purpose of Part B of this part are as follows:



     (1)  Select a location for measurement;



     (2)  Determine the level, either hourly equivalent sound level, or



          day-night sound level, by measurement;



     (3)  Determine the railroad facility component sound level and



          demonstrate dominance by using either  the procedures for clear



          dominance when  it exists, or  the  procedure  for  dominance where



     (b)  Microphone Location



     The microphone shall be positioned at  a height between 1.2 and  1.5 meters



above the ground, except, that on a residential  dwelling  measurement surface



as exemplified  in Figure A-l the microphone may  be positioned at  any height that



is greater  than 1.2 meters above the ground and  less  than the height of  the



uppermost  interior ceiling immediately  adjacent  to  the location on  the measure-



ment surface, or 7 meters, whichever  is less.  The  location shall be selected



where  it  is expected  that dominance can be demonstrated,  and  the  conditions of



measurement shall  be  selected  such  that the criteria of Sec.  201.32 are




satisfied.



      (c)   Determine the Measured Level



     The  hourly equivalent sound  level  in any daytime or nighttime  hour,



or  the day-night sound level in any continuous 24-hour period,  as desired,




shall  be  measured.
                                    A-5

-------
     (d)   Rail Facility Component Hourly Equivalent Sound Level or
           Day-Night Sound Level When it is the Clearly Dominant Sound

     Clear dominance exists when the measured hourly equivalent or day-night

sound level exceeds the component hourly equivalent or day-night sound level

from non-railroad facility and through train operations by 7 dB or more.

When clear dominance is shown to exist, the rail facility component hourly

equivalent sound level or day-night sound level for the purpose of Subpart B

shall be determined by subtracting one decibel from the measured level.  For

this purpose the following procedures, or functional equivalents thereof,

shall be used to estimate the non-railroad facility component hourly equivalent

or day-night sound level:

        (1)  The component hourly equivalent sound  level or day-night

            sound  level resulting from non-railroad and through train

            operations shall be calculated by sunning on an  energy basis

            the component sound levels from each of the significant

            source components present.   If the measurement  is  in a

            residential neighborhood where no other significant source

             is present, including through trains,  the non-railroad

            component  sound  level  is deemed to be  the non-railroad and

             through  train component sound level.   For this purpose a

             source is  considered significant  if  its component  sound

             level  is within  12 dB of  the measured  sound  level.  Methods

             for determining  the component sound  levels  for  several  types

            of sources are given  in  the  following:

        (A)   For a  measurement  location  in a residential neighborhood,

             in which  the  sound  from non-neighborhood  sources,  such  as major

             streets or highways,  industrial, commercial, or  public  establish-


                                   A-6

-------
     merit,  aircraft,  construction, etc., is not identifiable,  the
     residential neighborhood componente day-night sound level
     shall  be estimated to be equal to or less than the quantity
     [22 -)-  10 log (population density)].  The population density
     shall  be determined by dividing the population of the census
     tract  which contains the measurement location, by the area
     in square miles of the residential portion of the census
     tract.  The residential neighborhood component hourly
     equivalent sound level for day time hours shall be estimated
     by adding 1 dB to the estimated day-night sound level, and
     for nighttime hours by substracting 6 dB from the estimated
     day-night sound level.

(B)   For a  measurement location where a significant source of noise is
     civil  aircraft,  the aircraft component hourly equivalent sound
     level  or day-night sound level shall be estimated using the
     procedures contained in the EPA document, "Calculation of Day-Night
     Levels Resulting Fran Civil Aircraft Operations," EPA 550/9-77-450
     (January 1977).   In using these procedures, the number of aircraft
     operations on flight tracks which affect the noise at the comnunity
     location shall be that occurring during the period of measurements.

(C)   For a  measurement location where a significant source of noise is
     the motor vehicle traffic on a nearby roadway, the traffic component
     hourly equivalent sound level or day-night sound level shall be
     estimated using the procedures contained in the Federal Highway
     Administration document, "User Manual:  TSC Highway Noise Prediction
     Code:   Mod 04," FHWA-RD-77-18 (January 1977).  In using these
                            A-7

-------
     procedures,  the  traffic  flow characteristics  during each  hour  of



     the measurement  day shall  be used  to estimate the hourly  equivalent



     sound  levels throughout  the  day;  these shall  be weighted  for  time



     of day and summed  on an  energy basis to obtain the traffic component



     day-night sound  level.



     Alternatively,  if  through  trains operate on a regular basis,  the



     through train component  hourly equivalent and day-night sound  level



     for these trains may be  computed,  assuming the scheduled  times for



     purposes of  nighttime weighting (unless the actual times  are



     known), from the average sound exposure level measured for through



     trains at the location.   The average sound exposure level shall be



     determined from an energy average  of the measured sound exposure



     levels. For computation,  the total number of measurements shall be



     at least five through trains.



 (D)  For a  measurement  location where  a significant source of  noise is



     through trains  which move continuously through a railroad facility



     during the measurement  period the  through train component hourly



     equivalent sound level  or day-night sound level shall be  measured



     during the period.



(E)   For a measurement location where a significant source of noise



     is other than the above,  the  component hourly  equivalent sound



     level or day-night  sound level for  each significant source shall be



     determined from measurements.



(2)   For any measurement at a receiving property location the



     demonstration of clear dominance for the measured hourly



     equivalent sound level may be based on a comparison of the
                             A-8

-------
               value of the measured hourly equivalent sound level obtained in

               an hour in which operations in the railroad facility were

               judged to dominate the sound with the value of an hourly

               equivalent sound level obtained  in prior or subsequent period,

               or a combination of both,  in which the sound from operations in

               the railroad facility were judged to be less dominant, with

               both of these values measured within a total elapsed time not

               exceeding four hours.  When the  difference between the former

               and latter values of measured hourly equivalent sound level

               equals or exceeds 7 dB, clear dominance is demonstrated.


     (e)  Rail Facility Component Hourly Equivalent or Day-Night Sound Level
          and Dominance when Clear Dominance cannot be Demonstrated

     Dominance exists when the measured hourly  equivalent or day-night sound

level exceeds the rail facility component level by 3 dB or less.  Dominance of

the rail facility component day-night sound level shall be demonstrated for

the purpose of subpart B of these regulations by showing that the calculated

rail facility component sound level exceeds the non-railroad facility component

sound level by at least three decibels, and that the level calculated on an

energy basis from these two quantities  is within 2 dB of the measured sound

level less the through trains component sound level.  For this purpose the

non-railroad facility component sound level and the through train component

sound level may be determined by the procedures in Sec. 201.33d, and the rail

facility component level determined by  the following, or functional equivalent

thereof:

     (1)  Calculate the partial rail facility component day-night sound

          level from the values of rail facility component equivalent

          sound level measured under conditions of clear dominance,

          Sec. 201.33d above.


                                   A-9

-------
(2)   Determine Che energy average sound exposure level for each



     noise source which contributes significantly to the noise at



     the measurement location.   For this determination, the average



     value for each type of source should be based on at least five



     measurements or a number equal to the range of measured levels



     in decibels.  Compute the rail facility component sound level from



     the energy average sound exposure levels for each significant



     source, type, the number of such source types operating per hour



     or day (by time of day), and their distance between source and



     receiver.
                               A-10

-------
     Part B:  Noise Measurement Methodology for Retarder Car Coupling and
              Mechanical Refrigerator Cars

     Measurement Instrumentation

     (a)  A sound level meter or alternate sound level measurement system

that meets, as a minimum, all the requirements of American National Standard

SI.4—1971* for a Type 1 instrument shall be used with the "fast" meter

response characteristic.  To insure Type 1 response, the manufacturer's

instructions regarding mounting of the microphone and positioning of the

observer shall be observed.

     (b)   In conducting the sound level measurements, the general require-

ments and  procedures of American National Standard SI.3—1971* shall be

followed,  except as specified otherwise herein.

     (c)   A microphone windscreen and an acoustic calibrator of the coupler

type shall be used as reconnended by:   (1) the manufacturer of the sound

level meter or  (2) the manufacturer of  the microphone.

     (a)   Measurement locations shall be selected such that the maximum

sound level from railroad equipment  is  not  increased by more than 1.0 dB

by sounds  reflected from any surface  located behind the microphone.
            "NationaT~Standards are available from the American National
    Standards  Institute,  Inc.,  1430 Broadway, New York, NY  10018
                                    A-ll

-------
The phrase "located behind the microphone" means located beyond a line  (or



family of lines) drawn through the microphone and perpendicular to the



line(s) between any point on the rail equipment and the microphone.   (Area A  in



Figure A-2).  This acoustical condition shall be considered fulfilled if the



following conditions exist:



     1.  No substantially vertical surfaces of greater than 1.2 meters



         height (i.e. walls, cliffs, etc.) are located within an arc of



         30 meters radius behind the microphone (Area B  in Figure A-2).



     2.  No substantially vertical surfaces, placed so they reflect signifi-



         cant railroad sound to the microphone, which subtend an angle  of



         greater than 20 degrees when measured from the  microphone in either



         the vertical and most nearly horizontal planes, are located within



         an arc of 100 meters behind the microphone  (Area C in Figure A-2).





     (b)  Miscellaneous objects may be  located between the railroad equip-



ment and microphone, except that all objects which break the line-of-sight



of the equipment must be closer to the  equipment than to the microphone;



that is, along a line between the microphone and any point on the equip-



ment, at the point of  intersection with the object the distance to the



equipment must be shorter  than  the distance to the microphone.





     (c)  Other railroad equipment may  be  located behind the equipment



whose noise  is being measured  (Area  D  in Figure A-2).





     (d)  The ground elevation  at  the microphone location shall be within



plus 5 ft. or minus 10 ft. of  the ground elevation of the source whose



sound level  is being measured.





     (e)  Measurements shall not be made during precipitation.



                                   A-12

-------
     (f)  Noise measurements may only be made  if  the average measured

wind velocity is 12 mph  (19.3 kph) or less,  and the maximum wind gust

velocity is less than 20 mph  (33.2 kph).
      Procedures for the _tteajsur_ement  of ^Retarder,  Car  Coupling^
      and fachmcal&&'igeratu:3~Car feise'
      (a)  Re f r igeratjLon Car Tes t .   The microphone shall be positioned  at

any location 7 meters  from the center line of the refrigeration car  track,

and between 1.2 meters above  the ground  and the height corresponding to the

top of  the refrigeration  car.  The microphone shall be oriented with respect

to the  equipment  in  accordance with the  manufacturer 's recommendations.

No observer shall  stand between  the microphone and the equipment being

measured.  The observer shall position the microphone in accordance with

the manufacturer's instructions  for Type 1 performance.  The standard

shall not be exceeded  during  any thirty second period after the throttle

setting is established.


      (b)  Car Coupling Test.   The microphone shall be positioned at a

location 30 meters from the center line of the coupling track, and at a

height  between  1.2 and 1.5 meters above the ground.  The microphone shall

be oriented with respect  to the equipment  in accordance with the manufac-

turer's recommendations.   No observer shall stand between the microphone

and  the equipment being measured.  The observer shall position the micro-

phone in accordance with the manufacturer 's  instructions  for Type 1

performance.   The maximum sound level, Lmax of  individual car  impacts

 shall be measured, and the average value  (energy average) of these maximum

 levels, L   ,  shall not exceed the standard.
                                    A-13

-------
The total number of measurements shall be at least ten.



     (c)  Retarder Test.  The microphone shall be positioned at a location



30 meters from the centerline of the retarder track, and at a height between



1.2 and 1.5 meters above the ground.  The microphone shall be oriented with



respect to the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommenda-



tions.  No observer shall stand between the microphone and the equipment



being measured.  The observer shall position the microphone in accordance



with the manufacturer's instructions for Type 1 performance.  The maximum



sound level, 1^^ of individual retarder squeals shall be measured, and



the average value (energy average) of these maximum levels L    shall not



exceed the standard.



The total number of measurements shall be at least ten.





     (d)  Alternative Microphone Locationsi_.  (1)  If the criteria of Sec.



201.26 do not permit measurements at the distances defined above, the



measurement location may be adjusted within the distance limits listed in



Table 1 below.  When such an alternate location is selected, the measured



maximum sound level shall be adjusted by addition of the amount listed in



Table 1 for the appropriate distance.



     (2)  The microphone shall be oriented with respect to the equipment



in accordance with the manufacturer's reconmendations.  No observer shall



stand between the microphone and the equipment being measured.  The



observer shall position the microphone in accordance with the manufacturer's



instructions for Type 1 performance.
                                    A-14

-------
                            Table 1

      Adjustment to L    for Variable Measurement  Distances

       Measurement Distance from Equipment, Meters      Adjjjstment^ to

Retarders and
Car Couplings          Refrigerator Cars                   Lmax dB

16.0 - 17.8                                                     -5
17.9 - 20.0                                                     -4
20.1 - 22.5                                                     -3
22.6 - 25.2                                                     -2
25.3 - 28.3                                                     -1
28.4 - 31.7                6.7  -   7.3                              0
31.8 - 35.6                7.4  -   8.2                              1
35.7 - 39.9                8.3  -   9.2                              2
40.0 - 44-8                9.3  -  10.4                              3
44.9 - 50.3               10.5  -  11.7                              4
50.4 - 56.4               11.8  -  13.1                              5
                          13.2  -  14.7                              6
                          14.8  -  16.5                              7
                          16.6  -  18.5                              8
                          18.6  -  20.8                              9
                          20.9  -  23.2                             10
                               A-15

-------
                      Measurement
                      Surface
                                               m=meters
Note: Tolerance on 2 Meter Distance is ± 0.5 Meters
         Figure A-l:  Residential Receiving Property Measarement Surface

-------
                                   Railroad Equipment

                                           Microphone Location
Figure A-2:  Retarder, Car Coupling and Mechanical  Refigerator
             Car Areas of Consideration for Noise Testing

-------
           APPENDIX B
RAIL YARD NOISE  MEASUREMENT DATA

-------
                                  Appendix B


     Over 400 pages of rail yard noise data comprise Appendix B.  The data

are derived from three sources:

     (1)  Measurements performed for EPA by contractors      Pg B-l

     (2)  Measurements performed by EPA regional repre-

          sentatives (reference B-l)                         Pg B-243

     (3)  Measurements performed for the AAR and provided

          to the EPA                                         Pg B-319


     Because of its volume, Appendix B has been printed separately and is

available from:

          Mr. Charles Mooney
          EPA Public Information Center
          (PM-215) Room 2194D
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
             APPENDIX C




NOISE SOURCE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES

-------
     Presented in this appendix are descriptions of  the methods and
data sources used in deriving cost estimates  for each of  the noise
source abatement procedures contained  in  this study.

     In developing these cost estimates no  costs are included for
disruption of service or removal of equipment and  facilities from
service.  The basis for this assumption is  that sufficient time will be
available for compliance with the noise regulation.

     Depending on the noise standard and  the  type  of railroad equipment
being treated, the compliance period under  consideration  would extend
over a four to six year time period.   This  period  would permit the
installation of noise abatement equipment without  incurring a cost for
interrupting operations, and in some cases, without  incurring costs
specifically related to the installation  of noise  abatement equipment.

     For example, given sufficient time,  the  modification indicated for
quieting switch engines and refrigerator  cars can  be accomplished as a
part of normal maintenance operations.  Railroad cars and locomotives
normally receive routine maintenance and  overhaul  on a regular basis.  A
four to six year compliance period would  permit the  modifications to
be made during such normal maintenance operations.

     The compliance period also has implications for constructing
noise barriers and installing track equipment.  With sufficient time,
the construction and installation in most instances  can be made without
disrupting yard operations.  Slack periods  can be  used to divert opera-
tions away from a portion of the retarders  for barrier construction
purposes, or for making modifications.

     An added consideration is that lengthy procurement lead times
for the noise abatement equipment considered  should  not be necessary.
One of the criteria for selecting the  noise abatement techniques was
that the technique be available and that  research  and product development
                                 C-1

-------
would not be necessary.  An increase in demand because of the require-
ments for noise regulation may deplete manufacturers' or distributors'
stocks, but from the standpoint of technological development, the
equipment would be available.  Thus, all required noise abatement
techniques should be easily installed within a reasonable compliance
period.

Retarder Barriers

     The type of noise barriers used as the basis for the cost  estimates
involve acoustical panels placed along both sides of the retarders.
The materials would typically consist of a heavy backing panel,  faced
with acoustical material, and then surfaced with a perforated or expanded
metal covering.  The barrier would range from 8 to  12 feet  high and  cost
$75 per linear foot installed.1  The useful life of retarder barriers
is estimated to be  10 years.

      1.  Master Retarders
      For master  retarders, which average 150 feet in length,  an average
 total of 300  feet  of barrier would be  required for both sides of the
 retarder.   The estimated  cost,  therefore,  would be 300 feet times $75
 per linear  foot  installed, or $22,500  per  railroad yard barrier set.

      2.  Group Retarders

      Group  retarders average  100 feet  in length.  The same barriers
 as those considered above for master retarders would be used.  There
 is an average of six  group retarders per railroad yard.  To erect a
 barrier on  both  sides,  200 feet would be required, resulting in a total
 requirement of  1200 feet  for  the six group retarders.  The cost, there-
 fore, would be  1200 feet  times  $75 or  $90,000 per railroad yard, or
 $15,000 per group retarder.
                                    C-2

-------
Lubrication System

     A lubrication system for a single  retarder  in a hump classification
yard is estimated to cost approximately $250,000.  The consumption of
oil in this system is assumed to be  about  75  gallons per day.  These
data were developed from a description  of  the system and its components,
based upon discussions with industry representatives, and the  article
entitled "The Quiet One, Burlington  Northern's Northtown Yard,"  Walker,
M.B., V77, Proceeding #658, AREA 76,  pps.  555-561.  The useful life of a
retarder lubrication system is assumed  to  be  10  years.
Ductile Iron Shoes

     A noise abatement  technique  under consideration for reducing
retarder  noise  involves  substituting ductile iron shoes on one  side  of
the retarder for which  steel  retarder shoes which are normally  used.
Ductile iron shoes would be used  in hump yards for both master  retarders
and group retarders.  The cost attributable to noise abatement  is the
incremental cost, i.e.,  the difference between the usual practice of
using only steel shoes  and the cost of using ductile iron shoes on one
side of the retarder.

     One  side of a master retarder requires 50 ductile iron shoes at a
cost of approximately  $115 per shoe.  Since installation of such shoes
requires  about  15 minutes and can be accomplished as part of routine
retarder  shoe replacement, incremental costs for installation are
regarded  as being insignificant.

      An  important cost  consideration that is accounted for in the cost
estimate  is  that ductile iron shoes wear out faster than steel shoes in
a one  side  application.
                                 C-3

-------
     The annual cost incurred for steel shoes in $14,000.  The annual
cost incurred when ductile iron shoes are placed on one side, consider-
ing they wear out 5 to 7 times faster than steel shoes is approximately
$81,000.

     The incremental cost, therefore, attributable to this noise  abate-
ment technique is the difference, or $67,000 per master retarder.

     In addition to master retarders, there are also group retarders
that would be modified with ductile  iron shoes on one side.  There
are six group retarders in a typical hump classification yard.  Group
retarders are approximately 100 feet in length, or two-thirds the
length of master retarders, therefore the cost per group retarder is
one-third less than the master retarder cost.

     An important consideration is that since there are typically
six classification groups per hump yard, the group retarders on the
average handle only one-sixth as much traffic as the master  retarders.
The longer shoe life would result in the replacement rate being one-
sixth of that of master retarders.

     These considerations for group  retarders can be organized into
the following estimating equation:

     Cg=CmxLxUxN
     Cg = Cost of replacing group retarder  shoes with  ductile
          iron shoes on one side
     Cm = Cost of replacing master  retarder shoes with ductile
          iron shoes on one side
     L  = Adjustment for difference  in  length
     U  = Adjustment for  longer life
     N  = Number of group retarders  for typical  hump  yard
     Cg = 67,000 x  .67 x  .17  x  6
     Cg = 45,000

-------
     Total annual incremental cost per hump classification is $67,000
for master retarder modification plus $45,000 for group retarders.
Therefore, the total annual incremental cost is $112,000 per yard.

Releasable Retarders

     Inert retarders can be replaced by releasable  retarders for the
purpose of noise control of that source.   EPA Background Document
(R13-14)3 estimates a $7,500  cost  for  each releasable  retarder.
With an addition for inflation  and installation,  an estimate of $10,000
per releasable retarder is used here.

     All  hump yards that are  not automated are  considered  to require
releasable  retarders.   It was estimated that about 20  percent  of  auto-
mated  yards already have releasable  retarders.4  The average hump
yard has  37 tracks.3  Therefore,  37  tracks times  108 yards requiring
releasable  retarders equals a quantity of 3996  releasable  retarders
in hump yards.   The useful  life of releasable retarders is estimated
at 10  years.

Refrigerator  Cars

      Of  the 98,000 refrigerator cars operating on the nation's rail
 system,  24,000  are mechanically refrigerated and require quieting.
 Mechanical equipment  for car  refrigeration includes a power plant
 (usually a diesel-electric unit), a refrigerant compressor, a
 refrigerant condenser and fan,  an evaporator and a  fan or fans for the
 distribution of the cooled air through or  around the  lading.  Defrosting
 is usually done automatically  by  electric  coils mounted in the evaporator,
 which are utilized for car heating also,  when  heat  is  called  for by the
 thermostat.  This equipment  is mounted in  one  end  of  the  car.

       Noise abatement techniques for refrigerator  cars and their  costs
 are presented in  the following:
                                      05

-------
                    Techniques and Costs**

          Improved muffler           $ 10 additional cost
          Insulation                   90
          Fan modification             10
          Total incremental cost     $110

     Applying these unit costs to the 24,000 cars results in a capital
cost for quieting refrigerator cars of $2,640,000.

     Considering a five year life for mufflers and 25 years for insula-
tion and fan modifications, the added cost for replacement would average
$14 per year per car.  The total incremental replacement cost, therefore,
would be $32,800 annually.

Switch Engines

     Quieting switch engines consists of installing mufflers.  Data
from ICC sources indicates a national inventory of 6,545 switch engines.
Omitting from consideration for small industrial yards, which typically
do not have their own switch engines, the number of yards served by
the 6,545 switch engines totals 2,618 yards.  The overall average,
therefore, is 2.5 switch engines per yard.  This general factor is used
to estimate costs and allocate the resulting estimates to the types of
yards.

     The basis  for the unit cost used to quiet switch engines is the EPA
document. Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards,
1975.  This document shows muffler costs ranging from $200 to $500 for
the GM switchers and from $500 to $800 for other types of switch engines.
To account for  subsequent inflationary increases, the highest point of
these ranges, $800 was used a general unit cost factor.

     In addition to mufflers, the switch engines' cooling fans would be
modified at an  estimated cost of $400 each.
                                   C-6

-------
     Switch engines in 1976 consumed 367,241,6715 gallons of diesel
fuel and the national inventory of switch engines for that year was
6,545 engines.  This means an average annual consumption of 56,000
gallons of fuel per switch engine.  At 32 cents per gallon, the annual
fuel cost is $17,920 per year, per switch engine.  A one to one and one
half percent increase in fuel consumption would result in an incremental
cost due to noise abatement of approximately $230 per year per engine.

Load Test Sites

     A load test site typically includes a  small structure to house
instruments and resistors.  Normally, locomotives are not sheltered
when under load test.  The noise abatement  technique considered involves
constructing an enclosure to contain the noise emanating from the
locomotive being tested.  An industrial type structure of 3,000 square
feet should be adequate to enclose the locomotive.  Construction costs
of $30 per square foot1 are used to estimate the cost of the structure.
Estimating the construction cost of 3,000 square feet results in an
estimate of $90,000 per structure.  It is estimated that there are 216
load test sites in the U.S. railroad system and that the useful life  of
the enclosure is 30 years.  The  incremental cost of this procedure to
the railroad industry is estimated to be:

                   Estimated Costs'  ($000)
                 Capital           Annualized
                  19,440              2,061      (Capital  Recovery)
                                     1,944      (Maintenance)

Relocation or Shut-Down of  Idling  Locomotives

     No  significant  costs can  be ascertained  for  relocating  or shutting
down idling  locomotives,  but  there would be some  savings in  fuel  expenses
However,  there  would be a counterbalancing expense if  the  locomotives
cannot be  restarted  promptly  when  needed as well  as some possibility
of  damage in  restarting the engines  during below  freezing temperatures
unless appropriate procedures  are  followed.

                                C-7

-------
     These types of expenses are difficult to determine; however,
they do not appear to be of sufficient magnitude to be significant.
Documents which present railroad operating costs, such as Guidebook
for Planning to Alleviate Urban Railroad Problems, SRI, Aug. 1974,
do not show idling locomotive costs.

Rescheduling Nighttime Activity

     The purpose of this section is to discuss the method used to
estimate the costs to the railroad industry if yard activities are
curtailed from 2200 hours to 0700 hours.  This curtailment is assumed to
be necessary to achieve L^ 65 for flat railyards and L^ 60 for
hump yard complexes.

     The method assumes that railroad management would elimate third
shift operations, except for skeleton crews to sustain yard utilities,
and assign third shift personnel to first and second shift operations.
The method also assumes that the normal first and second shifts are
fully utilized during normal three shift operations.  The introduction
of fifty percent more personnel into each of these two "daytime" shifts
would therefore require a fifty percent increase in yard equipment,
etc., in order to achieve in two shifts, the yard throughput and produc-
tivity of normal three shift operations.

     The number of available switch engines would therefore have to
be increased by 50 percent.  This results in an increase in the switch
engine inventory of approximately 3,300 engines at a capital cost
of §176,000 each.10  Further, many of the yard O&M expenses are
assumed to increase by 50 percent.  These include $112,500,000 for
maintenance of way and structures (50 percent of $225M9), $88,500,000
for maintenance of equipment (50 percent of $177M9) and $99,000,000
for transportation.- rail line costs (50 percent of $198M9).  The sum
of these assumed increases  in operations and maintenance costs is
therefore $300M.
                               C-8

-------
     This incremental cost estimate is now distributed to the 4,169
known railyards.'  Engine costs are distributed at $176,000 capital
costs annualized over 23 years and 10 percent  at  $19,840 per year.
The $300M cost increase for O&M is distributed to specific yards according
to yard annual volume and the number of yards  of  each major type.
The incremental cost increase for O&M is  distributed as  follows:
Yard Type
 Number
of Yards
Percent of
  Annual
Car Volume
   Total
 Incremental
O&M Cost ($ M)
Incremental
O&M Cost per
Yard  ($ K)
Hump
Flat Classification
Industrial
Small Industrial
124
1113
1381
1551
4169
16
62
18
4
100
48
186
54
12
300
                                               387
                                               167
                                                39
                                                 8
      The  total  incremental cost to the railroad industry resulting from
the  curtailment of  yard operations from 2200 hours to 0700 hours is
estimated to  be:

                    Estimated Costs ($000)
                 Capital            Annualized
                 576,614              64,926    (Capital Recovery)
                                     300,000    (Operations & Maintenance)
                                    $364,926

      The above estimates do not include the cost of several other
problems which could result from the curtailment of night operations.
 For example,  some of the current railyards may require physical expan-
 sion to maintain three shift throughput with only two shift operations.
 Rail service may also be adversely effected in certain areas due to
                                 C-9

-------
yard or line bottlenecks and congestion.  Service effects, which are
negative, could result in the loss of business and revenue to water
and motor carriers •

     The railroad and railyard system does, however, possess a certain
amount of inherent flexibility   Railyard operations may be adjustable
to produce an overall level of coordination which could increase line-
haul activity at night and which could result in morning yard arrivals
and afternoon yard departures.  Further, industry and industrial yard
interaction may be adjustable to a higher fraction of daylight service.
Although the level of railroad, railyard, and customer flexibility
cannot be quantified, without elaborate network modelling, the system
is flexible within certain unknown limits.

     Hie total incremental cost to the railroad industry resulting from
the curtailment of yard operations from 2200 hours to 0700 hours is
estimated to be:

                    Estimated Costs ($000)
                  Capital        Annualized
                  576,614           64,926   (Capital Recovery)
                                   300,001)   (Operations & Maintenance)
                                  ?364,000

     The above estimates do not include the cost of several other
problems which could result from the curtailment of night operations.
For example, some of the current railyards may require physical expan-
sion to maintain three shift throughput with only two shift operations.
Rail service may also be adversely effected in certain areas due to
yard or line bottlenecks and congestion.  Service effects, which are
negative, could result in the loss of business and revenue to water
and motor carriers.

     The railroad and railyard system does, however, possess a certain
amount of inherent flexibility   Railyard operations may be adjustable
to produce an overall level of coordination which could increase line-
                               C-10

-------
haul activity at night and which could result  in morning yard arrivals
and afternoon yard departures.  Further, industry and industrial yard
interaction may be adjustable to a higher fraction of daylight service.
Although the level of railroad, railyard, and  customer flexibility
cannot be quantified, without elaborate network modelling, the system
is flexible within certain unknown limits.

Estimated Cost of Yard Noise Level Measurement

     It is estimated that the labor  involved in the measurement of
railyard noise levels will vary from $500 to $2,000 per yard per year
depending on yard size.  Instrumentation costs, at $10,000 per set,
and the purchase of approximately 590 sets  by  the railroad industry
will result in a capital investment  of $587M.  The total incremental
cost estimated to be associated with railyard  noise measurement is
therefore:

                      Estimated Costs  ($000)
            Capital        Annualized         Remarks
            5,870             1,548             5 Year amortization
                                587             Maintenance
                              3,771             Labor
                             $5,906

     These estimates are based  upon  the measurement of each railyard
once each year and the purchase of one set  of  instrumentation for
every  twelve railyards owned by a particular  railroad  company.
                                  C-11

-------
                             REFERENCES
1.     Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards,
       U. S. EPA, Washington, D.C., Dec. 1975.

2.     Private Communication, Mr. Rudy Nagal, Signal Dept.,
       Southern Pacific Railroad, April 3, 1978.

3.     Calculated from Background Docment for Railroad Noise Emission
       Standards, Appendix C, U.S. EPA, Dec. 1975.

4.     Estimate received in discussions with members of the AAR's
       Research and Test Department on 31 March 1978.

5.     Statistics of Railroads-Class I, Year 1966-1976, American
       Association of Railroads, Dec.  1977.

6.     The basis of the construction cost estimates is Building
       Construction Cost Data, Means,  Duxburg, Mass. (1976).

7.     Railroad Classification Yard Technology, SRI, Menlo Park,
       1977.

8.     "Cost Impact Analysis of Prepared Noise Regulation for
       Truck Mounted Refirgerator Units", A. T. Kearney, Inc.,
       Chicago, Illinois, (undated).

9.     Transport Statistics in the United States, Part 1
       Railroads, ICC, 31 December 1975.

10.    Intercity Domestic Transportation System for Passengers
       and Freight, Committee on Commerce, Science, and
       Transportation, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977
                                  C-12

-------
          APPENDIX D
 SUPPORTING MATERIALS RELATED
TO THE LAND ACQUISITION OPTION

-------
                              APPENDIX D


     SUPPORTING MATERIALS RELATED TO THE LAND ACQUISITION OPTION


     This section contains supporting materials related to the option of

land acquisition for noise abatement.  The acquisition of land represents

an alternative strategy to the application of noise abatement procedures

to noise sources within yards that the railroad industry could use to

meet the various noise regulatory study levels.


     •  Distribution of Land Beyond Yards^ by Land Use

        Percentage of land outside the railyards within the  specified
        contour surrounding the yards by  land use categories.  These
        categories are residential, commercial, industrial,  agricul-
        tural and undeveloped; designations  (alpha code) for land
        use shown in the tabularized array are R, C,  I, A, and U,
        respectively.  Table  1 displays percentages for the  land use
        categories as a function of yard  type and place size for all
        yards which were analyzed.
        Based on the sample data contained within each element of the
        matrix, Table 2 was developed to  represent the land  use
        distribution around a typical yard for each matrix element
         (yard type by place size).  The content of elements  (percent-
        ages of the categories of land use for a typical yard) were
        used directly in the  computation  of  land acquisition costs.

     •  Estimated Costs of Land by Land Use  Categories
        Acquiring the land surrounding noise sources  located within  a
        railroad yard can be  used with, or  as an alternative to,
        technologically induced noise level  reduction.  The  land would
        be acquired in such a pattern that  the  noise  levels  at  the
        perimeter of yard-owned  lands would  conform with  the
        proposed regulation.
        To estimate the compliance costs  to  the  railroads of acquiring
        the land surrounding  their yards, an average  price per  square
         foot was determined for  each of  the  five major  land  uses:
         residential, commercial,  industrial, agricultural and
         undeveloped.  These prices are  as follows:
                                   D-1

-------
  Land Use                      1978 price/sq.ft.

  Residential

       Single family units            4.84^

       Multi-family units            30.45

  Comnercial                          3.51

  Industrial                          1.66

  Agricultural                        0.014

  Uhdeveloped                         0.014

  1  Includes structure and property.


The sources used to estimate these prices were:

     Economic News Notes/ National Association of Home-
       builders, May 1978.

     Historical Analysis of Unit Land Prices/ Real Estate
       Research Corporation, 1973.

     Farm Real Estate Market Developments, Economies,
       Statistics & Cooperatives Service, U. S. Department
       of Agriculture, July 1978.
The single family unit price per square foot was determined from
the NAHB data by:
      1.  Dividing the 1977 sales price by the average size of  lot
      2.  Inflating the resulting price/sq. ft.  to  1978 values  by
         applying an inflation rate of 10 percent  per year.
The multi-family unit price per square foot was established as
follows:
      1.  The Real Estate Research  Corporation data on
         residential prices were inflated  from  1973  to  1978 values
         by applying an assumed inflation  rate  of  10 percent per  year.

      2.  The ratio between sales prices  listed  by NAHB  and RERC for
         single family units was calculated and applied to the
         inflated RERC data to determine the  1977 average sales
         price.  An identical procedure  is used to calculated the
         average size of a lot for multi-unit dwellings.
      3.  The 1977 average sales price was  inflated to  1978 values
         and divided by the average  size of lot.
                            D-2

-------
                                                  TABLE 1

                              PERCENT OF RAILROAD YARD BY LAND USE CATEGORIES
YT
POP
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
12

R
68
79
30
119
142
42
55
195
32
75
62
112
86
36
43
19
61
17
16
46

C
16
18
2
58
7
18
2
17
0
4
32
22
4
14
0
0
28
2
6
21

A
0
0
13
76
57
36
66
0
9
80
3
19
0
43
6
40
41
0
0
68

I
26
32
2
100
31
10
82
71
49
77
68
8
33
2
27
13
0
2
3
3

U
131
17
184
107
131
125
32
39
150
61
44
25
103
9
48
50
71
0
1
5
YT
POP
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
22

R
41
100
148
95
150
12
75
152
23
11
33
49
63
46
58
65
32
29
62
10

C
9
82
36
4
49
0
5
110
20
17
28
17
7
20
21
0
16
0
7
5

A
52
0
9
0
32
40
115
0
174
0
0
14
0
0
10
0
27
61
0
69

I
79
67
90
19
81
29
23
93
24
153
35
21
9
26
33
48
0
0
81
0

U
128
33
90
201
44
174
112
59
66
238
2
80
121
25
11
18
18
75
19
15
YT
POP
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

R
25
78
86
56
34
89
155
27
4

45
125
21
30
0
100
57
30
30
78

C
11
69
18
0
0
7
31
0
4

23
20
6
32
0
14
113
1
5
39

A
0
0
0
0
11
64
0
129
13

0
0
2
31
0
0
0
42
7
0

I
17
162
42
42
34
45
36
25
44

97
84
61
58
110
8
120
1
56
17

U
115
0
20
51
65
7
0
9
35

0
0
43
32
57
8
9
35
67
0
Legend;
YT POP = Yard Type and Place Size
11; 12; 13 = Hump Yards in Place sizes of
1
31
41
50,000 population; 50-250,000

-------
                                                   TABLE 1   (Continued)

                               PERCENT OF RAILROAD YARD BY LAND USE CATEGORIES
YT
POP
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
31
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
41
Legend;
R
6
73
8
10
3
86
48
54
5
45
46
3
7
26
51
51
9
15
34
0

C
0
17
0
0
0
28
25
8
2
6
9
0
0
65
6
33
0
9
19
0

A
0
0
4
147
0
6
24
19
20
0
33
95
4
0
0
0
0
5
11
5

I
16
23
146
0
83
67
0
4
50
35
2
4
0
6
25
9
0
37
21
18

U
38
89
65
44
0
33
20
45
75
30
7
0
8
0
46
11
8
29
13
40

YT
POP
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42


R
71
33
63
46
79
31
73
75
23
30
11
35
11
56
73
12
20
77
16


C
17
57
0
26
8
13
29
1
28
43
10
0
25
13
13
7
18
24
11


A
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
48
0
0


I
23
24
36
24
42
9
13
5
29
26
15
44
53
49
9
40
10
27
84


U
5
4
3
30
2
26
13
0
0
1
40
4
10
113
28
25
6
18
7


YT
POP
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43

R
53
23
30
23
16
45
34
35
2
29
21
2
121
48
11
48
29
25
13
6

C
70
14
7
2
58
36
45
29
0
14
18
2
25
24
28
9
9
7
1
31

A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

I
67
13
58
42
29
18
107
24
53
35
23
69
9
97
9
68
59
34
73
38

U
10
41
0
14
0
1
1
0
53
43
95
0
5
8
17
0
7
14
0
20

YT POP » Yard Type and Place Size
11; 12; 13 = Hump Yards in Place sizes of   50,000 population; 50-250,000
1
31
41

-------
                  TABLE  2




RAILROAD YARD LANDUSE  SUMMARY (PERCENTAGE)

Yard
Type
Hump





Flat
Class.

\
1


Flat
Ind.



Flat
S/Ind



All
Yard
Types


Land
Use
Code
R
C
A
I
U
j
R
C
1
A '

I
U
R
C
A
I
U
R
C
A
I
U
R
C
A
I
U

POP. <50K
Mean Variance
30 16
5 5
11 11
17 11 :
37 24

42 20
10 8

16 18

11 10
21 18
22 18
5 7
12 23
30 30
30 19
31 19
14 21
! 17 29
13 13
25 22
31 19
9 12
14 21
18 19
28 21
Place
POP. 50-250K '
Mean Variance ;
23 15
10 11
14 19
19 10
35 22

32 12
10 9

15 23

18 18
24 19
49 21
21 17
1 3
21 11
8 11
28 19
12 7
6 16
33 23
21 19
33 19
13 12
9 17
23 16
22 20
Size
POP. 250+K
Mean Variance
28 19
7 7
13 23
24 15
27 26

31 24
13 12

6 13

33 21
17 17
26 12
22 18
0 0
37 16
15 20
25 21
14 13
0 0
46 29
14 19
28 19
14 14
I 5 13
35 22
18 20

ALL POP.
Mean Variance
27 17
7 8
13 17
20 12
33 24

35 19
11 10

12 19

21 19
21 17
32 21
16 16
4 14
30 21
18 19
28 19
14 15
8 20
31 26
; 20 20
31 19
; 12 13
\ 9 18
25 21
23 21
'
                    D-5

-------
   The prices  per  square foot for commercial and industrial land uses
   were calculated as  an average of the inflated price ranges listed
   by the  RERC data.   (1973 data was inflated at a 10 percent rate to
   1978 values.)

   The U.  S. Department of Agriculture's average price per acre of
   voluntary and estate sales for the 48 continental states was used
   and divided by  the  number of square feet in an acre to obtain the
   average price per square foot.
   Due to  the  low  value of agricultural land, the price per square foot
   of undeveloped  land was assumed to be equivalent.
   Distribution of Residential Land Between Single & Multiple
   Dwelling Units

   Based upon  an analysis of 1970 Census data acquired through the
   Bureau of Census,  Department of Commerce, pertaining to census
   tract data related to each of the sampled yard populations
   (universe), information was derived for the estimation of single
   and multiple dwelling units.  The estimates made were in per-
   centages representing the weighted averages of residential
   land distributed between such units for each of the 12 cells
   comprising the matrix of yard types and place size.  Table 3
   displays the data results of the analysis in terms of the
   weighted averages (percentages) for each cell of this matrix.
                             TABLE 3

      PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF SINGLE & MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS
       RELATED TO THE MATRIX OF TYPE OF YARD AND PLACE SIZE
                50K             50K - 250K             25OK
Type of     Dwelling Units      Dwelling Units      Dwelling Units
 Yard      Single  Multiple    Single  Multiple    Single  Multiple

Hump         83       17         78       22         63       37
Flat         87       13         64       36         60       40
Ind.         70       30         56       44         47       53
Sm. Ind.     92        8         77       23         54       46
   Estimated Annual Owning Expenses for Various Real Estate
   Categories
   In addition to the purchasing or capital cost, railroad companies
   would incur certain annual recurring costs as a result of real
   estate ownership.  Annual costs would include interest payments,
   insurance and property taxes.  Interest payments, as derived
                                 D-6

-------
     from current industrial bond rates, would amount to approxi-
     mately 10 percent per year.  An additional  1 percent would be
     required on the average for insurance payments.  An additional
     2 percent1 of the purchase price  (i.e. market value) would be
     required for property taxes.  These expenses are listed in the
     following tabulation:
           Estimated Annual Owning Expenses  for Real Estate
           Interest Payment              10%  of market value
           Insurance                      1%
           Property Taxes                _2%
                                         13%
     Calculated Areas Beyond Yard Property-Line by Yard Type and
     Place Size for Various Regulatory Study Levels
     Table 4 consists of 3 parts, labelled A, B, and C, to indicate
     the calculated areas contained within selected noise level
     contours beyond yard property lines by type of yard.  The
     designated numbers of place size  (1, 2, & 3) relate to populations
     less than 50K, 50-250K, >250K respectively.  Parts A and B
     relate to hump and flat classification yards respectively,
     while Part C of Table 4 includes  industrial and small indus-
     trial yards.  The first row of data contained in Parts A and B
     relates to the baseline noise level and calculated areas as
     a function of place size and yard activity levels  (low, medium,
     and high).  The areas contained within contours were calculated
     and the results are displayed for various noise regulatory
     levels.  The remaining rows of both Parts A and B  specify the
     total areas within noise level contours resulting  from reducing
     the noise at the yard property lines through application of
     noise abatement procedures (technology fixes, as previously
     described in Sections 5 and 7) to meet the regulatory study
     levels of L^ 75, 65 or 60.  Table 4, Part C is formatted
     in a similar way, but differs slightly resulting from use of
     one level of activity.  It should be noted also that yard
     property line reduction does not  have an impact on these
     yards until L^ 70 is used.
Taxable Property Values and Assessment  Sales Price Ratios,  1972
Census of Governments, Part 2, U.S. Department of Commerce,  1973.
                             D-7

-------
                             TABLE 4(A)
          6
AREAS  (xlO  sq. ft.) WITHIN  VARIOUS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS, TNrT.IinTNf; RASRT.TMF  awn
   REDUCTION OF YARD PROPERTY  LINE LEVELS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT OF
         NOISE CONTROL AT VARIOUS REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS


Volume

Hump Baseline
(1) Low
(2) Medium
(3) High
TOTAL
Hump SL 75
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 70
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 65
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 60
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Ldn 75
Place Size
123


30 24 19
41 24 31
85 48 49
156 96 99

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
Ldn 70
Place Size
123


158 125 100
290 167 223
426 242 245
874 534 568

80 63 52
167 97 133
217 124 129
464 284 314

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
Ldn 65
Place Size
123


683 540 419
1,197 694 894
1,505 860 835
3,385 2,094 2,148

492 389 306
921 534 697
1,035 592 585
2,448 1,515 1,588

220 173 141
3fi5 212 286
323 185 191
908 570 618

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
Ldn 60
Place Size
123


1,970 1,555 1,160
3,300 1,910 2,364
3,435 2,826 1,832
8,705 6,291 5,356

1,586 1,252 944
2,808 1,626 2,021
2,698 1,541 1,453
7,092 4,459 4,418

1,047 827 637
1,667 965 1,237
1,435 1,193 780
4,149 2,985 2,654

286 226 182
365 212 286
323 185 191
974 623 659

000
000
000
000
Ldn 55
Place Size
123


4,145 3,272 2,349
6,366 3,685 4,384
6,058 4,902 3,130
16,569 11,859 9,863

3,504 2,767 1,990
5,602 3,243 3,864
5,021 2,868 2,607
14,127 8,878 8,461

2,660 2,100 1,538
3,947 2,285 2,786
3,211 1,835 1,714
9,818 6,220 6,038

1,286 1,016 777
1,667 965 1,237
1,394 797 780
4,347 2,778 2,794

286 226 182
365 211 286
323 185 191
974 622 659
                                                                                               00

-------
TABLE 4(B)
Volume
Flat Baseline
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
SL 75 L
M
H
TOTAL
SL 70 L
M
H
TOTAL
SL 65 L
M
H
TOTAL
SL 60 L
M
H
TOTAL
Ldn 7S
Place Size
123
632
29 12 10
41 17 13
76 32 25
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Ldn 70
Place Size
123
102 43 35
1,409 573 458
759 321 246
2,270 937 739
67 28 23
1,288 524 419
568 241 187
1,923 793 629
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Ldn 65
Place Size
123
2,310 972 780
6,376 2,594 1,976
5,321 2,251 1,656
14,007 5,817 4,412
2,169 912 734
5,890 2,397 1,824
4,5-3 1,935 5,176
12,632 5,244 7,734
1,904 801 645
1,480 602 480
2,618 1,107 833
6,002 2,510 1,958
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Ldn 60
Place Size
123
11,451 4,972 3,772
17,453 7,101 5,143
14,649 6,198 4,347
43,533 18,271 13,262
11,328 4,764 3,636
15,995 6,508 4,706
12,844 5,455 3,853
40,217 16,727 12,195
10,153 4,270 3,257
6,637 2,700 2,045
9,484 4,013 2,872
26,274 10,983 8,174
1,905 801 645
1,480 602 480
21,718 1,107 833
25,103 2,510 1,313
000
000
000
000
Ldn 55
Place Size
12 3
28,140 11,834 8,602
34,240 13,931 9,682
28,278 11,963 8,073
62,380 37,728 26,357
27,247 11,458 8,328
31,153 12,675 8,805
24,945 10,553 7,187
.83,345 24,122 24,320
134,132 10,149 7,367
17,129 6,969 5,018
19,770 8,365 5,756
171,031 25,483 18,141
10,153 4,270 3,256
6,637 2,700 2,045
1,473 4,007 1,867
26,263 10,977 8,168
1,905 801 645
1,480 602 480
2,618 1,107 833
6,003 2,510 1,958

-------
TABLE 4(C)
Volume

Flat Ind. Baseline
1) Low
Level 65
Level 60
Sm. Ind. Baseline
Level 60
Ldn 65
Place Size
123


11,294 3,180 3,558
t
_
_
- - -
Ldn 60
Place Size
123


36,000 10,134 10,654
1,538 4,330 4,792
_
13,994 1,474 1,588
- - -
Ldn 55
Place Size
123


76,114 21,426 21,242
4,384 12,342 12,840
15,728 4,428 4,904
40,830 4,304 4,358
14,332 1,510 1,630

-------
                                            TABLE 4(A)
                 AREAS*WITHIN VARIOUS NOISE LEVEL CONTOURS, INCLUDING BASELINE AND
                   REDUCTION OF YARD PROPERTY LINE LEVELS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT OF
                         NOISE CONTROL AT VARIOUS REGULATORY STUDY LEVELS


Volume'
Hurtp Baseline
(1) Low
(2) Medium
(3) High
TOTAL
Hump SL 75
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 70
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 65
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Hump SL 60
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
Ldn 75
Place Size
123

30 24 19
41 24 31
85 48 49
156 96 99

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
1-dn 70
Place Size
123

158 125 100
290 167 223
426 242 245
874 534 568

80 63 52
167 97 133
217 124 129
464 284 314

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
Ldn 65
Place Size
123

683 540 419
1,197 694 894
1,505 860 835
3,385 2,094 2,148

492 389 306
921 534 697
1,035 592 585
2,448 1,515 1,588

220. 173 141
365 212 286
323 185 191
908 570 618

000
000
000
000

000
000
000
000
Ldn 60
Place Size
123

1,970 1,555 1,160
3,300 1,910 2,364
3,435 2,826 1,832
8,705 6,291 5,356

1,586 1,252 944
2,808 1,626 2,021
2,698 1,541 1,453
7,092 4,459 4,418

1,047 827 637
1,667 965 1,237
1,435 1,193 780
4,149 2,985 2,654

286 226 182
365 212 286
323 185 191
974 623 659

000
000
000
000
Ldn 55
Place Size
123

4,145 3,272 2,349
6,366 3,685 4,384
6,058 4,902 3,130
16,569 11,859 9,863

3,504 2,767 1,990
5,602 3,243 3,864
5,021 2,868 2,607
14,127 8,878 8,461

2,660 2,100 1,538
3,947 2,285 2,786
3,211 1,835 1,714
9,818 6,220 6,038

1,286 1,016 777
1,667 965 1,237
1,394 797 780
4,347 2,778 2,794

286 226 182
365 211 286
323 185 191
974 622 659
*   6
  10  Sq.  Ft.

-------
TABLE 4(B)
1
!
Volume
Flat Baseline
1 L
2 M
3 H
TOTAL
SL 75 L
M
H
TOTAL
SL 70 L
M
M
TOTAL
SL 65 L
M
H
TOTAL
SL 60 L
M
H
TOTAL
I-dn 75
Place Size
123
632
29 12 10
41 17 13
76 32 25
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
L.^70
Place Size
123
102 43 35
1,409 573 458
759 321 246
2,270 937 739
67 28 23
1,288 524 419
568 241 187
1,923 793 629
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
.000
000
I-dn 65
Place Size
123
2,310 972 780
6,376 2,594 1,976
5,321 2,251 1,656
14,007 5,817 4,412
2,169 912 734
5,890 2,397 1,824
4,571 1,935 5,176
12,632 5,244 7,/34
1,904 801 645
1,480 602 480
2,618 1,107 833
6,002 2,510 1,958
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
Ldn 60
Place Size
123
11,451 4,972 3,772
17,453 7,101 5,143
14,649 6,198 4,347
43,533 18,271 13,262
11,328 4,764. 3,636
15,995 6,508 4,706
12,844 5,455 3,853
40,217 16,727 12,195
10,153 4,270 3,257
6,637 2,700 2,045
9,484 4,013 2,872
26,274 10,983 8,174
1,905 801 645
1,480 602 480
21,718 1,107 833
25,103 2,510 1,313
000
000
000
000
I-dn 55
Place Size
12 3
28,140 11,834 8,602
34,240 13,931 9,682
28,278 11,963 8,073
62,380 37,728 26,357
27,247 11,458 8,328
31,153 12,675 8,805
24,945 10,553 7,187
.83,345 24,122 24,320
134,132 10,149 7,367
17,129 6,969 5,018
19,770 8,365 5,756
171,031 25,483 18,141
10,153 4,270 3,256
6,637 2,700 2,045
1,473 4,007 1,867
26,263 10,977 8,168
1,905 801 645
1,480 602 480
2,618 1,107 833
6,003 2,510 1,958

-------
TABLE 4(C)
Volume

Flat Ind. Baseline
1) Low
Level 65
Level 60
Sm. Ind. Baseline
Level 60
Ldn65
Place Size
123


11,294 3,180 3,558
_
_
_
_
Ldn60
Place Size
1 -2 3


36,000 10,134 10,654
1,538 4,330 4,792
-
13,994 1,474 1,588
_
Ldn55
Place Size
123


76,114 21,426 21,242
4,384 12,342 12,840
15,728 4,428 4,904
40,830 4,304 4,358
14,332 1,510 1,630

-------
                    APPENDIX E

TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES STUDIED INCLUDING
   NUMBER OF YARDS OWNED AND COMPANY OWNERSHIP

-------
          Road Name
Aberdeen & Rockfish
Akron & Barberton Belt

Akron, Canton & Youngstown
Alameda Belt Line
Aliquippa & Southern
Alton & Southern

Angelina & Neches River
Ann Arbor
Apache
Apalachicola Northern
Arcade & Attica
Arcata & Mad River
Arkansas & Louisiana Missouri
Aroostock Valley
Ashley, Drew & Northern
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay
Atlanta & West Point
 Number of
Yards Owned
      1
      2
      3
      1
      2
      1

      2
      4
      1
      2
      1
      1
      2
      1
      1
    173
      5
      2
           Ownership
Independent
Baltimore & Ohio RR Company;
Canton & Youngstown RR Co.;
Conrail
Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Aff. with Western Pacific
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
St. Louis Southwestern
  & Missouri Pacific
Southland Paper Mills, Inc.
Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Southern Forest Ind., Inc.
St. Joe Paper Company
Independent
Simpson Timber Company
Olinkraft, Inc.
Canadian Pacific, Ltd.
Independent
Santa Fe Ind., Inc•
International Paper
Seaboard Coast Line  RR Co.
Baltimore & Ohio
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago  Terminal
Bangor & Aroostock
Bauxite & Northern
Belfast & Moosehead  Lake
Belt Ry. Company of  Chicago
Bessemer & Lake Erie
Birmingham Southern
Boston & Maine
Brooklyn Eastern Dist.  Terminal
Burlington Northern
Butte, Anaconda & Pacific
    181
      9
      6
      1
      1
      6
      6
      6
      26
      1
    297
      4
Chesapeake  & Ohio Ry. Co.
Baltimore & Ohio RR Co.
Amoskeag Co.
Aluminum Company of America
City of Belfast, Maine
Various RR  Companies
U. S.  Steel Corporation
U. S.  Steel Corporation
Bomaine
Independent
Independent
Anaconda Company
                                      E-l

-------
          Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
      1
      1
      2
      2
      3
      I
Cadiz
California Western
Cambria & Indiana
Camino, Placerville & Lake Tahoe
Canadian National
Canton

Carolina & Northwestern
  (Norfolk Southern)
Carrollton

Central California Traction
Central of Georgia                     30
Central RR Company of New Jersey       13
Central Vermont                         6
Chattahoochee Valley                    2
Chesapeake & Ohio                     113
Chesapeake Western                      1
Chicago & Illinois Midland              6
Chicago & Illinois Western              1
Chicago & Northwestern                154
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
  & Pacific                           145
Chicago River & Indiana                 5
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific        103
Chicago Short Line                      1
Chicago South Shore & South Bend        1
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pac.    3
City of Prineville                      1
Clarendon & Pittsford                   1
Cliffside                               1
           Ownership
USRA and Stockholders
Georgia Pacific Corporation
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Michigan-California Lumber Co.
Independent
Canton Company of Baltimore
(sub. of Int'l. Mining Corp.)
Southern Ry. Company

Louisville & Nashville;
Seaboard Coast Line
Southern Pacific;
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe;
Western Pacific
Southern Ry. Company
Reading Company
Grand Trunk Corporation
West Point-Pepperill, Inc.
Chessie System, Inc.
Norfolk & Western Ry. Co.
Commonwealth Edison Company
DC Ind., Inc.
Independent

Chicago Milwaukee Corporation
Penn Central Trans. Company
Independent
Independent
Chesapeake & Ohio RR
Southern Ry. Co.
Independent
Vermont Marble Company
Cone Mills Corporation
                                       E-2

-------
          Road Name
Colorado & Southern
Colorado & Wyoming
Conrail
Cuyahoga Valley
 Number of
Yards Owned
      12
       2
       1
       1
          Ownership
Burlington Northern, Inc.
CR&L Steel Corporation
USRA and Stockholders
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Dansville & Mount Morris
Dardanelle & Russellville
Davenport, Rock Island S North-
  western

Delaware & Hudson
Delta Valley & Southern
Denver & Rio Grande Western
DeQueen & Eastern
Des Moines Union

Detroit & Mackinac
Detroit & Toledo Shoreline

Detroit Terminal

Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Duluth, Missabe & Iron Range
Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific
Durham & Southern
       1
       1
       1


      23
       1
      30
       2
       1


       4
       2
       13
        9
        1
        3
Independent
McAlister Fuel Company
Burlington Northern, Inc.;
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
  & Pacific RR Company
Dereco-Norfolk & Western
Independent
Rio Grande Ind., Inc.
Weyerhauser Company
Norfolk & Western  Ry. Co.;
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
  & Pacific RR Company
Independent
Grand Trunk Western RR Co. ;
Norfolk & Western  Ry. Company
Penn Central  Trans. Company;
Grand Trunk;  Michigan Central RR
Penn Central  Trans. System
U. S. Steel Corporation
Grand Trunk Corporation
Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
El Dorado  & Wesson
Elgin, Joliet  &  Eastern
Erie  Lackawanna
Escanaba & Lake  Superior
        1
       13
       91
        1
 Independent
 U.  S.  Steel Corporation
 Dereco-Norfolk & Western
 Independent
                                        E-3

-------
          Road Name
Fairport, Painesville & Eastern

Florida East Coast
Fonda, Johnstown & Gloversville
Fordyce & Princeton
Fort Worth & Denver

Fort Worth Belt
 Number of
Yards Owned
       9
       1
       1
      10
           Ownership
Penn Central;
Norfolk & Western Ry.
Independent
Delaware Obego Corporation
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Colorado & Southern;
Burlington Northern, Inc.,
  System
Missouri-Pacific RR Company
Gainesville Midland
Calveston, Houston & Henderson

Garden City Western
Genessee & Wyoming
Georgia
Grafton & Upton
Grand Trunk Western

Graysonia, Nashville & Ashdown
Great Western

Green Bay & Western
Greenwich & Johnsonville
       1      Seaboard Coast Line RR Co.
       5      Missouri-Kansas-Texas;
              Missouri-Pacific
       1      Garden City Company
       1      Independent
       7      Seaboard Coast Line
       1      Rockwell Int'l. Corporation
      24      Grand Trunk Corporation
              (sub. of Canadian Nat'l. Ry. Co.)
       1      Independent
       1      Great Western Sugar Company
              (sub. of Great Western United
                Corporation)
       5      Independent
       1      Delaware & Hudson Ry. Company
Hartwell
High Point, Thomasville, & Denton
       1      Independent
       1      Winston-Salem Southbound Ry. Co.
Illinois Central Gulf
Illinois Terminal
Indiana Harbor Belt
     132      1C Ind., Inc.
       6      Independent
      12      Conrail
                                       E-4

-------
          Road Name
Kansas City Terminal
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal
 Number of
Yards Owned
       1
       5
           Ownership
Twelve RR Companies
Independent
Lackawanna & Wyoming Valley              2
Lake Erie & Ft. Wayne                    1
Lake Erie, Franklin & Clarion            1
Lake Front Dock & RR Terminal            1
Lake Superior & Ishpeming                5
Lake Superior Terminal  & Transfer        1

Lake Terminal                            2
Lancaster S Chester                      1
Laurinburg & Southern                    1
Lehigh Valley                           34
Long Island                              4
Los Angeles Junction                     1
Louisiana & Arkansas                     8
Louisiana & Northwest                    1
Louisiana & Pine Bluff                  . 1
Louisville & Nashville                 111
Louisville S Wadley                      1
Louisville, New Albany  S Corydon        1
              Erie Lackawanna Ry. Company
              Norfolk & Western Ry. Company
              Independent
              Penn Central; Baltimore  & Ohio
              Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company
              B.N.; Chicago & Northwestern;
              Soo Line
              U. S. Steel  Corporation
              H. W. Close, et al., Trustees
              Independent
              Penn Central
              Metro. Trans. Auth., New York
              Atchison, Topeka &  Santa Fe
              Kansas City  Southern Ry. Co.
              H. E. Salzberg Company
              Olinkraft,  Inc.
              Seaboard Coast Line RR  Company
              Independent
              Independent
Maine Central                            8
Magma Arizona                            1
Manufacturers Junction                   1
Massena Terminal                         1
McCloud River                            1
Meridian  & Bigbee                        4
Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern      4
Minnesota, Dakota  &  Western             1
               Independent
               Magma Copper Company
               Western Electric Co.,  Inc.
               Aluminum Company of America
               Champion International Corp.
               American Can Company
               Independent
               Boise Cascade Corporation
                                        E-5

-------
           Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
           Ownership
Minnesota Transfer
Mississippian
Mississippi Export
Missouri-Illinois
Mi s souri-Kansas-Texas
Missouri Pacific
Mobile & Gulf

Monongahela

Monongahela Connecting
Montour
Morristown & Erie

Moscow, Camden & San Augustine
Moshassuck Valley
Mount Hood
       1
       2
       4
      33
     135
       1
       1
       2
       1

       1
       1
       1
Burlington Northern; Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific
RR; Chicago & Northwestern
Trans. Co.; Chicago, Rock Island
& Pacific RR; Soo Line
Independent
Independent
Missouri Pacific RR Company
Katy Ind., Inc.
Missouri Pacific Corporation
James Graham Brown Foundation,
  Inc.
Penn Central; Baltimore & Ohio;
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie RR Co.
Subsidiary of Whippany Dev. Co.
  & ME Associates
Independent
Independent
100% Subsidiary of Union Pacific
Nevada Northern
Newburgh & South Shore
New Orleans & Lower Coast
New York Dock

New York, Susquehanna & Western
Norfolk, Franklin & Danville
Norfolk & Portsmouth Belt Line

Norfolk Southern
Norfolk & Western
North Louisiana & Gulf
Northwestern Pacific
       4      Kennecott Copper Company
       3      U.  S. Steel Corporation
       2      Missouri Pacific RR Company
       1      Subsidiary of NYD Properties,
                Inc.
       3      Tri-Terminal Corporation
       2      Norfolk & Western Ry.  Company
       3      Seaboard Coast Line (four
                other RRs)
       9      Southern Ry. Company
     180      Independent
       2      Continental Group, Inc.
       7      Southern Pacific Trans. Company
                                     E-6

-------
          Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
Oakland Terminal
Ownership
              Western Pacific;
              Atchison, Topeka S Santa Fe
Pecos Valley Southern
Penn Central Trans. Company
Pennsylvania, Reading Seashore
  Lines
Peoria & Pekin Union Ry. Co.
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Pittsburgh & Ohio Valley
Pittsburgh, Chartiers &
  Youghiogheny
Port Huron S Detroit
Portland Terminal

Prescott & Northwestern
Providence & Worcester
       1      Independent
     567      Penn Central  Company

      14      Penn Central  Company
       5      Independent
      16      Penn Central  Company
       1      Shenango,  Inc.
       3      Conrail;
              Pittsburgh &  Lake  Erie
       1      Independent
       2      B.N.;  Oregon  & Washington RR
              & Nav.  Co.;  Southern  Pacific
       1      Potlatch Corporation
       2      Independent
Quanah, Acme  S  Pacific
Quincy
        2      St.  Louis-S.F.  Ry.  Company
        1      Sierra Pacific  Ind.
 Rahway Valley
 Reading
 Richmond,  Fredericksburg &
   Potomac
 River Terminal
 Roscoe,  Snyder S Pacific
        1      Independent
       47      Conrail

        4      Richmond-Washington Company
        5      St. Paul Iron Mining Company
               (subsidiary of Republic Steel
                 Corporation)
        1      Independent
                                       E-7

-------
          Road Name
Saint Joseph Terminal

Saint Louis-San Francisco
Saint Louis Southwestern
Saint Marys
Salt Lake, Garfield & Western
San Diego & Arizona Eastern
Sand Springs
San Luis Central
Santa Maria Valley
Seaboard Coast Line
Sierra
Soo Line
Southern
Southern Pacific
Southern San Luis Valley

Spokane International
Springfield Terminal (Vermont)
Staten Island KR Corporation
Stockton Terminal & Eastern

Terminal RR Assn. of St. Louis
Texas and Northern
Texas City Terminal

Texas Mexican

Texas-New Mexico
Texas South-Eastern
Toledo, Angola & Western
 Number of
Yards Owned
      76
      22
       2
       1
       1
       1
       1
       3
     180
       1
      44
     144
     211
       1

       5
       1
       2
       1

       8
       1
       2
           Ownership
       1
       1
       1
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
St. Joseph Grand Island Ry. Co.
Independent
Southern Pacific Trans. Company
Gilman Paper Company
Hagle Assoc.
Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Sand Springs Home
Pea Vine Corporation
Estate of G. Allan Hancock
Seaboard Coast Line Ind., Inc.
Independent
Canadian Pacific, Ltd.
Independent
Southern Pacific Company
Messrs. G. M. Oringdulph
  and H. Quiller
Union Pacific RR Company
Boston & Main Corporation
Baltimore & Ohio RR Company
Stockton Terminal & Eastern
  RR Company
Various RR Companies
Lone Star Steel Company
Missouri-Kansas-Texas RR;
Missouri-Pacific RR Company;
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe
Manufacturers Hanover Trust
  Company
Missouri Pacific RR Company
Independent
Medusa Corporation
                                      E-8

-------
          Road Name
Toledo, Peoria & Western

Toledo Terminal

Trona
Tucson, Cornelia & Gila Bend
 Number of
Yards Owned
       1
       1
                                                           Ownership
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe;
Penn Central
Conrail; Chesapeake s Ohio;
Baltimore & Ohio; Norfolk &
Western
Kerr McGee Chemical Corporation
Independent
Union Pacific
Union Terminal Railway
  (of Saint Joseph, Missouri)
Upper Merion & Plymouth
Utah
     136      Union Pacific Corporation

       1      Missouri Pacific RR Company
       2      Alan Wood Steel Company
       3      UV Ind., Inc.
Ware Shoals
Warren & Ouachita Valley

Warren & Saline River
Western Maryland

Western Pacific
Western Railway of Alabama
White Sulphur Springs  &
  Yellowstone Park
Winfield
Winston-Salem Southbound

Wyandotte Terminal
       1      Riegel Textile Corporation
       1      Chicago, Rock Island  &
                Pacific  RR Company
       1      Potlatch Corporation
      22      Chesapeake & Ohio;
              Baltimore  & Ohio
      21      Western Pacific Ind.
       1      Seaboard Coast Line System
       1      Montana Central RR &  Rec. Co.,
              Inc.; Rockland Oil Company
       1      Penn-Dixie Ind.,  Inc.
       2      Norfolk &  Western Ry.;
              Seaboard
       1      BASF Wyandotte Corporation
Youngstown & Southern
Yreka Western
       1      Montour  RR Company
       1      Independent
                                       E-9

-------
                    APPENDIX F
TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES BY NAME AND CODE
     DESIGNATIONS  (ACI AND UNIFORM ALFA CODES)

-------
          This appendix lists the names of each railroad comapny which
appeared in the FRA/DOT data base.  The data base was compiled by
Stanford Research Institute under the contract with the FRA.  The
work that they conducted is contained in a FRA document (#FRA-ORD-76/
304) entitled, "Railroad Classification Yard Technology, A Survey and
Assessment", dated January 1977.  Using this data base, railroad
company ACI code numbers were extracted and tehn related to the
uniform alpha code and railroad company names.  The results are com-
piled and tabulated below.  The listing shown makes use of another
reference document entitled, "The Official Railroad Equipment Register",
Volume 93, Number 2, NRPC, New York, N.Y., dated October 1977.  This
document was used to correlate the code numbesr to individual railroad
companies by name.

          Two separate tabulations, but similar, are presented; the
first listing of companies is based on ascending ACI code number, and
the second listing of railroads is formated on the basis of the
lexicographic order of the alpha code.
                                 F-l

-------
          ASDA
          ASHL"
          A OS
          AYSS"
          BCE
          BCHS
          BBH_
          CCO
          CPA
          CPLJ
          CBP_
          CSP
          CZ  _
          DLC
          DW
          DHML
          EM  _
          FCDN
          FEHB
          FLI "
          GFC_
          G1C
          HDH _
          HBDL
          HI
          HOBA
          IGN
          ISO
          I IB
          JE
          JGS_
          JSC
          KCC__
          KCflO
          KCHB_
          KNOB
          LCCB
          LE
          LPSG
          BAA
          HBRB
          HF
          HG"
          BID
          HLST
          HOI
          HOIC
          HVI
          NODH
          MOfitf
          NSC
          NSCT
 ASBESTOS 6 DANVILLE  	
"THE ATiAKTA STONE^HX».~5 IIIHONIA  BUY.  CO.
 AOGOSTA 6 SOMHERVILIE BAIIBOAD CO.	
"ALLEGHENY 6"SOUTH SIDE"
 BRITISH COLOMBIA HYDRO 5 EOHEB ATHOEIIY
 BOYNE CITY BAILEOA'D" CO.
 BEADIOBE 6 HOOEEHEAD BE CO.	
"CLIHCHPIELD fifi CO.
_CLOODEBSPOBX & POBI ALLEGEAMI	
 CAHP LEJEONE EAILBOAD'CO.
 CENTBAL BB OF
 CABAS PBAI1IE BB'COV
JCOAHDLIA & ZACATECAS_B^.	
 DB Oil BOND ~ LIGHTEBAGE
 DETBCII & BESIEBN  	
"DOE tlEST'BOTOB LINE
 EDGEHOOB 6 MANETTA BHY.^	
 FEBBCCARBIL DE NACOZABI, SCT.
 FELICIANA EASTEBN BB CO. .	
"FOSS LAONCH & TOG
 GBABE FAILS CEHTBAL BWY. CO., LID.
'GOLF TBANSPOBT"
 HODSCN & HANHATTAN
 HODSCN BIVEB DAY LINE
 HOBAED TEBHINAL  	
"HODSCN BAY"
JCNTEESATIONAL-GBEAT NOBTHJBK	
 lOHA'SOOTHEBH ' OTILlfIBS  (SOOTHEBH UO. "BB, IBC.),
JCSLAMD TOG Ap_BAfiGEE 	
 JEBSIYVILLE & EASTEBN
 JAHE5 GBIFFITHS & SONS
 JOBNSTOHB & STONY CBEEK BE CO.
 KANSAS CITY CONNECTING BE CO.
 KANSAS CITY,  dEXICO 6 OBIINT
 KANSAS CITY WESTPOBT BELT
 KLAIiATH NOBIHEBN SHY. CO.
 LEE COONTY CEHTBALJELJECTBIC	
^LOUISIANA EASTERN BB
 LIVE OAK, PEBBY & S. GEOBGIA EBY. CO.
 HAGHA ABIZONA BB CO.
 HEBIEAN & BIGBEE BB CO.
 HOCESTC 6 EHPIfiE TBACTIOB CO.
_HIDDIE FOflK	
 THE BOB!IE & GOLF SB CO.
JJIDWAY	
 flJDLiND
 HILSTEAD	
'HABIKE OIL TBANSCOBTATIOH
 HONTHEAL TBAHiAYS	
"HI. VEENON TEUINAL
JIEXICp NOBTHBBSTEBH	
 NOEHETAL
_BEM OBLEAHS, TE1AS & BEJtICO
 NEKTli S.S.
 NIAGARA, ST.
CATHARINES & TOBOHTO
1,  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                 F-2

-------
NYCN
OMLP
PAUT
PEL
PEB
PBKY
PPBD
PSFL
PST .
PSTB
PI
PTBB
PDCC
EC
SBM _
SFPP
                 NEW  YOfiK CONNECTING BK
                 OHIO  MIDLAND LIGHT 6 POSEJ
                 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
                 THE  PHILADELPHIA BELT_LIBE_BB_CO.
                 POET  EVEBGLADES BWY.
                 _POBT OF  PALM_ BEACH. .DIS1BICT
                 PDGE1  SOUND FREIGHT LINES
                 ..PHILADELPHIA SUBOHBAN .
                 POGE1  SOOND IDG & BABGE
                 PENINSULA  TEBHINAL CO.
                 POET TCKNSEND EE, INC.
                 POET UTILITIES
        SLS
        SHBL
        SNCO
        SSL_
        SI
        IAEA.
        TAS
        TEM_
        ITS
        OCB_
        UO
        VS_
        WAS
        WAIB_
        HAW
        WBC_
        ilF
        WLE__
        il
        W1CO.
        WEB
        AS	
        ABB
        ACl_
        AWW
        ABE..
        ACBL
        .AC	
        AR
        AA__
        APA
        .AH_
        ABA
        ABL_
        ALH
        ABCK
        ALQS
        AMC
        AMR
        ADH.-
     BOSSLYN, CONNECTING BE CC«
  	ST....IODIS, . BEOBNSVILLE & _HEXIC_Q	
     SPEUCE FALL POHEB & PAPEB
   __THE STATEN ISLAND RSjCOBP.	
     SEA-LAND SEEVICE, INC.
  	SIOOX CITY_& NEW pfiLEANSJABGEJ.INJE	
     SEAPCBT KAVIGATION
  	SKANEATELES. SHORT. LINE BiJg.QBg,	
     SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL BWY.  CO.  (VEEMONTi
  	TANGIPAHOA S.EASTEBN	
     TAHPA SOUTHERN BR
  	TEHISKAMIHG 6 NORTHERN OMIAEIO	
     TIJUANA & TECATE RWY.
  	UTAH  COAL_BOUTE	
                                 CO.
     ONION BE OF OEEGOH
    _VALLEY
     HAYNESBUBG SOUTHERN
     MATEEVILLE
     CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP.
    _KLKES=BARBE..CONNECIING..R8	
     WEST INDIA FBDIT &  SIEAHSHIP
	_.WHEELING^6..LAE._.EBIE	
     BELDWOOD TEANSPOETATION  LTD.
	HES1ERN 1EANSPORIATION _CC.*	
     WAHIKGTON WESTERN
Q0.1_ ABILENE 6 ..SOUTHERN_BALWAY._CO._-	
002  THE AKBON & BAEBEETON BELT BAILBOAD COHPAKI
003..THE. AKRON,_CANTON_S_ YOUNG STOW N_RB_CQ-«	
004  ALGES, WINSLOW & WESTERN EAILKAY CO.
005  THE ALASKA_EAILROAD	
 007  AHEBICAN COHMEBCIAL  EABGE LINES, IMC.
 008_ALGOMA..CEN.T.BAL_BAILH1X	;	
 009  ABEBDEEN & BOCKFISH  BAILBCAD CO.
 011  THE APACHE BAILWAY  COMPANY
013  AECACE AND ATTICA  BALEOAD COBP.
014  .ALAKEDA..EELT .LINE.,,	
016  ARKANSAS 6 LOUISIANA  MISSCUEI BWY. CC.
017.ALASKA.BBITISH.COLOMBIA .TBAHSEOEIAIi
018  ALIQDIPPA fi SOOTHEBN  RAILROAD CO.
C19  AHADCE .CENTBAL- BAILBOAD__CC.
            .^         ^
020  THE ARCATA AND MAD  RIVEB BAIL ROAD CC.
021-ASHLEY._DSEH-&-NOEIHEBN.BAILWAY-Cn.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                 F-3

-------
      12                 3
    ATSF 022 THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA 6 SA8TA  FE  BHI.  CO.
    ABP ..023 AILA ETA.-S_ BEST .POINT. BAILBOAD.JCO.	
    AIB  025 AILAKTIC & BESTEBH BAILBAX CO.
    PBSL._027_CONSCLIDATED. BAIL_COBP. .
    ACS  029 THE AIABABA GBEA1 SODIHEBli BAILBOAO  CO.
    AEC—031_AILAHllC-6-£AS£-CABQLJlLft  BATLHav en.
    ALS  032 THE ALTOB & SODTHEBH BAILIAI CO.
    AHE.-,033. THE AHMAPEE-S.,H£ST^-BHY.-CO>_DXT. _DP  MC!CT.nnn  PTT.  PP  rn
    AHB  035 AHGELIHA 6 HECHES BIVEB Bfi CO.
                                          rn, _ ___
    A7L  038 AEOOSTOOK VALLEEY BALBOAC CO.
    AH1  039 ALASKA^HYDBO-TBAiii
    ASAB 042 A1LASTA 6 SAINT AMDBEBS BAY BAILBAI CO.
    APD~ 043 ALBABY PCBT DISTfilCT
    AOG  044 AOGOSTA EAILBOAD CO.
    AL  ...... "046" ALBAKOB EAILBOAD* CO".
    ATCO_048 O.S.  ENEFGY_BESEABCH 6 DEM. ADHIKISIBATOH
    ABC  049 ILElANDEEB BALBOAD'COHPAHX
    BO    050 THE EALTIHOBE 6 OHIO RB CC.
    ABT~C51 AaEBICAK £EFfiIGEBA10R ^TBANSIT CO.
    BE    052 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
    BLA  C53 "THE iALTIHOBE £ ANNAPOLIS BB CO.
    BFC_054 BELLEFONIE CENTBAL BB CO.	
    B?S  055 BEVIIB & SOOTHEBH BB CO.
    BAB _056 BANGCB AND ABOOSICOK BAIIBOAD CO.	
    BCK"  059"CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBPOBAIOB
    BEEM  060 BEECB flOONTAIN BAILBOAD CC.	
    BLB  061'BESSIHEB 6'LAKE EBIE BB'CC.
    BLKM  063 BLACK OESA 6 LAKE POHELL 	
    BOCT~064 THE EALTI&OBE & OHIO CHICAGO TEBH. BB CO.
    BS	065 BIRHINGTGM SOOTHEEM_BB_Cp_.	
    BBB "066" BLACK BIVEB 6 BESTEBH CO BE.
    BB    C69 BOSTCN & flAINE COBP.
    BSE   073 BEAVEE, HEADS & EMGLEWOOD
    BUS   073 BEBLIH HILLS
    BH    076 BOBLINGTCH HOBTHEBH CO.
    BAP _ p78_B01Tlt_A»ACONDA 6 PACIFIC BAILBAI CO.
    BH    079 BATfl'e HAaflOHDSJPOBf
    BBC_083 THE BELT BAILHAI Cq^.OF CHICAGO _
    BXM   084 BADilTE'6 HOBTHEBM "BAILS AX CO^ - ' -- ~
    BHL   087 SELF AST _6 HOCSEHEAD LAKE BB CO. _
    BBFD  088"BBANFOBb STEAa'BAiLBOAD                        -
    CSSL_09q_CAHAEA_STEAMSHIP_LINES __
    BEOT  091 BBOOKLrN EASTEBH 0ISTBIC1 I EB MI HAL
    CAD_092 CADIZ BB_Cp.   __ ___
    CLK   093 "CADI ILAC 6 LAKE  CITX BBI. CO.
    CWC   095 SEABCABD COAST LINE BB (CHABLESTOH 6 VEST. CABOLIHA)
    CTK   097 CASTCN BAILBOAD'CO.      -- ~~~ -
    CF _ 099 CAPE FEAB JiAILBAISr_IHC. _
    CHB   100 CALliOBH'lA f ESTEBH'BB                        --
    CI _ 101 CAHBBIA fi INDIANA JB CO. _
    CH   "103"CAMAEIAM HATIOHAL' BAILHAIS                   ~~ --
    CBC   104 CAfiBCN CODNTI KB*. CO.
   CP    105  CP  BAIL  (CAKADIAH PACIFIC LID.)
         106  CABOIIHA_6  NOBTBBEST EB H BB I .
           "~              '
      _            _                       ^
   CKSO 107"~c6HDCK,  RINZOA' &  SOOiBEBH BB CO.
   CIC.._JU .CEDAB  BAPIDS  &  IOHA CIII BAILHAI CO..

1.  Uniform Aloha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                               F-4

-------
  12               3
CCT  112 CENTBAL CALIFORNIA  1BACTICN  CO.
CABS  113 THE CABBCLLTON BE.    	
CAC₯~114 COOPERSTOHN & C HAB LOTTED ALLEY" BB COfiP.
CGI  115 THE CANAEA & GDLE TEBMIMAI BAILHAI CC.
CIND  116 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP."
CHB  117 CHESTNUT BIDGE BAILttAY CC.
CGA  118 CENTBAL OF GEORGIA
CNJ  119 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
CV   120 CENTEAL VEERHONT BHY. CO.
CHV	124 CH ATIAHOpCHEE^AlLB Y _HH.]C.CO.
CO   125 THE CHESAPEAKE & OHIO      ~
IH	127 LITCBFIELD C flADISON_JCHIC. _6_N.H.  TBAHSP. CC.)
CEI  129 MISSCOEI PACIFIC BB  CO.

CN U  131 C BIG AGO .6 .NORr₯~HESTEBN ~'LBANS P.  CO,I__	
CBI  132 CHICAGO 6 KESIEN INDIANA  BB CO.
CIL .137 LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE BB CO.  {CHIC,  -..„
CHIT  139 CHICAGO HEIGHTS TEBMINAL  TRANSFER BB~CO.
MILH  140 CHICAGO,^MILWAUKEE,  ST,_PAOI_e  PACIFIC
CPLT  141 CAHIKO, ELACERVILLE  & LAKE TAHOE BB  CO.
CHH  142 CHESBICK 6 HARHAB	
CBI  143 CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBP,
BI  __145 CHICAGO, BOCK ISLAND 6
CSL  147 CHICAGO SHORT LINE BHY. CC.
CPTC  149 CHICAGO EBODUCE TEBKINAL  CO, 	
CIK  150 CHICAGO S ILLINOIS WESTEBH EE
CMYK  151 CENTEAL NEW YOBK BB  CORP. 	
CHIP  153 THE CINCINNATI, NEW  ORLEANS & TEXAS  EACIPIC BHI.  CO.
CS	157_THE COLOBADO & SOUTHERN BiY_t_ Cft^	
CH    158 THE COLOBADO 6 WYOMING R8Y. CO.
CNL._ 159 .COLOHBIA,
CLC  163 COLOHBIA 6 COBITZ BHY. CO.
COH_J64 COLONEL'S_ISLAKD
COP  166 CI1Y  01 PBINEVILLE BHY.
CNOR_167..CINCINNATI.NOETHEBN	
CSS  168 CHICAGO SOOTH SHORE & SOOTH BEND  BB
CLP	169 THEE  CLARENDON &_PITTSF08D_BR_.CQ»	
CHP  172 CHICAGO,  WEST PULLMAN & SCOTHEBN  BB  CO.
CAGY,177 COLDBBUS  & GBEENVILLE RHY. CO.. IHC.
CHH  179 CHESAPEAKE WESTERN BAILNAI
CLIP 181 CLIFESIDE BR CO.
CORB .184_COBTIS_BAY_5R_CO.	
CIRC 185 CENTEAL  IOHA TBANSP. COOP. .DBA CENT.  IOHA BHX.  CO.
CLCO 188 CLAREHONT & CONCOBD BHY. CO., INC.
CBE  .189 CONSOLIDATED BAIL CQBP. . IEASTEBM  DISIBICT)
CB   190 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
DE	191 DAPDANELLE & BDSSELIVILLE BB CO.	
DRI  192  CAVEENFO£T,  BOCK ISLAND & NOB1HWESTEBN BHY.  CO.
D7S_ 193. DELTA  VALLEY £ SOUTHERN_BHY»_£&«_	
DH   195  DELAKABE  &  HODSON BAILUAY CO.
DC	J96  DElBAY_CCNNECTING_BAILROA"i:_CCl!P_4HX	
DBGH 197 THE  DENVER  &  BIO GRANDE HESTEN  BB CO.
DQE_ .200. DE QCESN_6_£ASTEBS- SB CO,..	
CCB  201 THE  CORINTH  & CODNCE BB CC.
DUD... 2C2 DES  KOINES ONION BHY... CO.	
DH   204 DE1RCI1  &  HACKINAC RHY. CC.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name



                                 F-5

-------
  12                 3
D7S  205  THE CETRQIT AND TQIEDO SHrRE T.THP. KB  CO.
BRR  207  BELTCN RE CO.
D1I.._208 . DETBCIT, .TOLEDO. S_ IBONIOM BE,CO,.	
DA   209  CF  BAIL (CANADIAN PAC. LID.) (DOM. All. .BIX. .CO.).
DKS_.210 .DONIEIi&N,  KEHSETI._&. SEABCY .
DNE  212  DOL01H & NORTHEASTEBN BB CO.
D11IB._213..DD1D3H,.. MISSABE &-.IBON .
CBL  215 CONEBAUGH £ BLACK LICK BB CO.
DHP_216 .DDLOTH,  BINNIPEG _6 PACIFJC_BBY*.
DS   217 DORHAM & SOOTHERN BRY. CC.
DI	219 .DETROIT_IERHINAL_.£B._CO.	
DMM  220  THE EANSVJLLE AND HOONT MCBBIS BB  CO..
.CIBB_222..CHAT.IAHOOCHEE_INDUS1BIA1_EB	
ETL  228  THE ISSEX TEBHINAL RHY. .CC.
EEC	229—EASI._ERIE. COttMERCXAL._B£	
E?   231  THE EVEEETI BB CO.
         _ EAST_IEH flEfSSBE £ BBSTP-PH PTCT BB
EJE  238  ELGIl),  JOLIET_6 EASTEBS BiY. CO.  (CHIC*  & COIEB BELT)
EL vr"2aO~c6NSCLlDATED" BAIL COBP^
ELS  2U1_ESCAHABA & LAKE SOPEBIOB BB CO. _
EACfl"2U2  EAST'CAMEEIf 6 HIGHLAND^flB. .C0~
EJB _ 245  EAST  JERSEY BR AND I EB MI HAL CO. __
Eli   246  ESQUIHALl £""NANAiaO BHY. .CO.
   __     EL  DCBADO_5 HESSON BBY. CC.	
FPE  260  FAIEfORi; PAINSVILLE"6 "EASTERN BHY.  CO.
FEC  263'FLORIDA EAST COAST BHY. cc.
FJG  "264 FONDA,"JOHNSTOHN 6 GLOVEBSVILLB BB CC.
FP   265 FOBDYCE 6 PRINCETON__RR CC.	
FDDH"266~CHICAG6"6 NH TRANSP. CO. . (IT. .DODGErEES  MOINIS 6 SOOTH BHY.)
FHD  268 FT.  BORTH & DENVEB BHY. CC..
FCIM 272 FRANKFORT & CINCINNATI BE CO.
FRDN_273 FEBDIHANC BB COj.	
FHO  27tt" FT^'IAYNE" ONION
FCH _275 FEBBCCABBIL MEXICAHO (MEXICAN)
FHS  276 FOBI" HYEES SOOTflEBN" BB CC.
FWB  277 FT.  KCBTB BELT BBS. CO.
FSVB 279 "FT.  SHIIH & VAN BOBEN RHY. CC.
SEE_281_FERECCARRILES UHIDOS DEL SOBESTE. S. A.  DE C.
FOR  282 FORE RIVEB BB'COBPV
SBC  283 FERBCCAEEIL SONOBA BAJA CALIF., S.A.-DE C.V.
HDP  285  MEXICANN PACIFIC BB CO.,IKC.  (FEBBOCABBIL BEX.DEL PACIFICO)
NEH _286  FEEBCCARBILES BACIONALES IE HEX(HAIL.BHYS.CF HEX.) (CARS HKD.NDEH)
GCH" 287  THE GARDEN CITY"HESTERN"BHY. -CO.
GC	289_GRAHflH CI_Y.__BB CO.	.	
GM   290  GAINSVILLE HIDLAMD BB CD.
NDI	291_FEBBCC_ABBJ1_NACIOHAL DE TEHDANTEPECCTEHOANTEEEC MAI'L.)	
BGES 292  FEBBCCABBiLES KACIONALES EE BEXICO  (BAT1I.  BiYS OF MEXICO)
GHH	293J3ALVESIOI1,_HPOSTOH S HEBPtSON BB CO. .	
GE1Y 294  GE1TYSBOEG BB CO.
GANO_298  THE GEORGIA NORTHERN BHY. .CO.	
GA   299"GEORGIA BR co.
GSF_300_GEORCIA SOOTHERN & FLQBIEA BHY. CO.	
GBB  '302  GEOBCETOHN BB CO.
GBF  303  GALVESION HHABVES	
GSH  305  GHEA1  SOUTHWEST R.R., XNC.
GRN  306  GREENVILLE &  NOBTHEBN BHY. CO.
GNA  307 GBAYSONIA,  NASHVILLE & ASHCOBN BB CO.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                   F-6

-------
G1H  308 GBANE  TBUNK HESTEBN RBjCC.	
GKB  311 THE  GBEAT HESTEBN BUY," CC.
GBH  312 GBEEN  BAY & HESTEBN BB CC.	
GMEC 314"GBEEfiHTH. ~Efi CO£P.~
GMO_317 IILI BOIS_CENTBAL GOLF  BE  CO.  (GOLF,  BOBLE £ CHIP BB CO.)
GWIN 3"l9~GOODfiIlf EB INC'. "
GNWR 320 GENESEE & HYCMING BB CO.
GJ   321 GBEESWICH & JOHNSON VILLE  EHY.  CO.
GBNR 322 THE  GRAND BIVEB BHY. CO. __
GO  "323 GRAF1ON 6 UPTON RB~c6. ~~
HCBC 326 HILLSDALE_CTY. BHY. CO. ,  IHC. _________
HE ...... 328" HCILIS & ' EAST EBB BB CCu
HBS329 HOBOKES SHORE BE
    __                       ___ _
HB ' 33C  HAttPlON 6 BBANCHVILLE BB  CO.
HSH  331  HELEKA S001HWESTEEN BB CC.
HM   332  THE HUTCblNSON & NOE1HEBB  EHY.  CO.
HB1  33tt  HABTfiELI BHY. CO.
HMB  335  HOBOKEN HANDFACTOBEBS
HS   336  HABTIOBD & SLOCOHB BB CO.	
HL»E"338~HI1LSBOBG 6 NOBTH EASTEBli  BiY.  CO.
HI   339  HOLTCN IU2EB-UBBAN BHY.  CC.
HBT _ 3H2 HOUS10M  EELT 6 TEBHIMA1_BIY,__C_0_«
ICG  350 ILLIMOIS CENTBAL GOlf BB CO.
1C  _351 ILLISOIS CENTBAL GULF BE CO.  fllLIHOIS CBHTB1H
10   353 INDIANAPOLIS ONION
I1C  354 ILLINOIS TERHINAL BB CO., _
NCAN 356 INCAH  SUPEBIOB LID.
IHB  357 INDIANA HABBOB _BELT BE CO. _____
IB1  358 THE  IN1EKATONAL BBIDGE & 1ZBBINAL CQ.
IK1...361. INTESTATE BB.._CO,..._ .......... _____
DCI  362 DES  BOINES & CEN1BAL IOHA  BAILHAY CO.
IBN  36U CCNSC1IDAIEED. RAIL ..COHP..._.	
HPTD 366  HIGH  POIBT,  THOHASVILLE  8  DEKTOH BB CO.
SIBB 367  SOUTHEBN INDDSTBIAL^BB. IS.C.	
LAL  398 LIVONIA,  AVOH 6 LAKEVIILI  BB COEP.
KCS_UOO_THE  KANSAS..CITY ,SOOTHEBM...EH,_C(3i	
KCI  U01 KANSAS CITY TEBHINAL BWY.  CO.
KIT  402 KEEN1UCKY 6 INDIANA_TEBHIllAi_Ba_jC.QJ
KENN 403 KENNZCOTT COHPANY BB
LT   404 THE  IAKE  TERHINAL BB_CO,
Kl   405  KEES10CKY & TENNESSEE BHY,
LEE	406..THE_IAKE_EBIE_.6_ EASTEBN._BI._CQ«_
LOST 407  THE IAKE FBONT DOCK 6  BB  TZBHINAL CO.
LAS8 409  LACKAHAXEH_S_.STOOBBBIDGE_BE_CO_aE.	
KC   410  THE KANAHHA CENTBAL EHY. .CO.
KCHH_411
KNC  412  KINGCOME NAVIGATION
LBB  _4.13  CONSOLIC4TBO_BAIL_COEP_.
Kfl   414  THE KANSAS 6 HISSOOBI BiY.  & TEBHIHAI CO.
ISTT 417  LAKE SOPEBIOB
Lfc'V  419  CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
LEN  42L  THE IAKE EBIE 6 N06THEBN _EHY*_ CO,
LSBC 420  THE IA SALLE & BUREAU C1Y.  BB CO.
L1C_ 422..LAFF1BTY_3C.RANSP.OBTATION.
LEF  423" LAKE EBIE, FBANKLIN 6 CLABION BE CO.
LF.FH 424_LAKE ERIE 6 FT. .HAYNE Bfi_CO.	
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                  F-7

-------
LSI  425 LAKE  SUPEB10B 6 1SHPEHING Eli CO.
1C	4
IBS  427 LAUBINBUBG & SOUTHERN BR CO.
.LAJ	.428 ..LOS. .AHGELES. JUNCTION _BHlA__Cl
LHB  429 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
LON _.43Q_.LDDI1SGTOB.S. NOBTHEBB .
LV   431 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.

LBPA 435 LITTLE BOCK POBT BB
LI	436_IHE _IONG. ISLAND BB .CO.	
LAUV 437 THE  LOBAIN & BEST VIBGINIA BBY. CO.
LD1C. 439_LARHDALE_TBANSPOBTATON CO.	
LA   441 LOUISIANA & ARKANSAS BBY. CO.
              IOUISIANA_.$_.NOBTHHESI_.BB_CO..
LPB  443 THE LOUISIANA & PINE BLUFF Bil. CO.
LN ___ 444_LOOISVILLE..6...HASHVILLE_BJi_COJ
LSO  445 LOUISIANA SOUTHERN BHY. CC.
LNAC _446
LBB  447 THE LOBVILLE & BEAVEB BIVEB BB CO.
LCAtt. 448 .LCDISIANA. MIDLAND _B»I*-CO.
NC    449 LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE BB CO.  (NASHVLE,  CHATANOOGA & ST..LOUIS)
LEU	asn rmircBTFa, pnRTT.awn F. unnTHBRii  RPY, rr.	
Li   451  LOUISVILLE & WADLEY BIY. CO.
HDBY.. 455  J1ADISOU- BiY, .CjO. ,_IUC*	
ttEC  456  flAIHE CENTBAL BB CO..
BNML 457 JDBLINGJIOH_HOaTiIE£JL-lflJLlLI10£Al_LIflIflLEJl_
NJ    459  HANOFACTOBEBS* JUNCTION BIY. CO.
   ~~~
MCEB  461_HiSSACHOSEETTS CENTBAL
KPA  ~463  MABYIAND 6 ""PENNSYLVANrA BE .CO.
H6B   464  HUNCIE 6 WESTEBN BB CO.
HD "  465  aUNICIPAL'DOCKS
HCB_466  HC CLOUD BIVEB BB CO.
H1C      "
HB1 _468 HAEIANNA S BLOUNISTOHN BE CO.
HAYM  469 HAYHCOD"e SUGAlf CBEEK"
CHP _470 fEEBEOCABBIL CHIHOAHUA AL EACIPICO,  £.A.
US IB "47-TTHE" BASSEKA 1 EfiHlN AL"BB ' "CCT"
HC    472 CCNSCLIDATED BAIL COBP.
FIBA  473 PEBECCAfiBIL DE" HINATITAN JL CABMEN
HINE_474 aiNNEAPOLIS_EASTEBN BSY. CO.
»NJ  "475~flIDDi2TOBS 6'NEB JEBSEY fill. CO., XNC. .
HIDH  479 HIDDIETOSN &_HUH«ELSIO»N_5^B_CO.
HNS   480" HINNEAPOLIS, NOBTHFIELD 6 SO'UTHEBN BIZ. .
SOO   482 SCO IINE BB CO.  ___
MTFB  484 "THE «INNESOTA"TBANSFEJa BIY. CO.
MSLC_486_HINNISOTA SHOBT_LINES CO.
LHT   488 LOUISIANA 'MIDLAND' TBANSECBI
HKT _490 MISSCUBI-KANSAS-IEJCAS BB CO.
HP    494 HISSCU£l"PACiFic BB CO."
HGA   497 THE CONOKGAHELA BIY. CO
    "     "
HCBB 498  THE KOMONGAHELA CONNECTING BB CO.
HIGN 50L  MICHIGAN NOBTHEBN BHY. CO., INC.
M1B "500"MCNTCUB SB CO.
MISS 502  MISSISSIPPIAN    	
HSV"'503  MISSISSIPPI 6 SKUNA VALLIY BB CO.
HSE  506  MISSISSIPPI EXPOBT BB CC.

1.  Uniform Aloha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                      F-8

-------
 tttfS  5G7 MOSHASSUCK  VALIEI BE CO.
 FBL_ 508_FEDEBAL  EARGE LINES    _
 MB" "509 HoSTEELiEB"VBABBE"BB COT
 HDi. _510 MINNESOTA,  DAKOTA & BESTISH  EBY.  CO.
 ME"  51l"HCBBISTOiN"&" EBIE'fiB CCU
 I AT  513 IOHA TEHIHAL BB CO.       __
 HI   515 HISSCORI-1LLINOIS BB~CO.
 H1W __520 HARIKETTE,  TOHAHAWK S_HES1EBB BB _
 HIR  522~~aiNNEAi;OLIS INDUSTRIAL's'llY. ~CO.
 HETH 523J10HICIPALITI OF EAST TBOY, MISCOMSIJi
     "                       "
 NAP "525 THE  SARBAGANSETT "EIEB BB CO., I.HC.
 NN   530 NEVADA  NCBTHEBN BHY. CO.
 NJII 533 N.J., INDIANA 6 ILLINOIS BB  CO.
 NLC  53U NEH  CRLEAUS 6 LOHEB COAS1 BB CO.
 NOPB 536 NEH  CBLEiKS  POBLIC BELT fi£
 NEZP 537 NEZPIBCE  BB  CO.  	   	
 NIAJ 538 CONSCLIEAT£D"BAiL"COBP.
 NYLB 539 CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBP.	
 HYD  5U2 NEH  IOBK  DOCK BHY~.
 NYSH 5U6 N.Y. ,SOSQDEHANNA_6 BEST. BB  CO.  (HALIEB G. SCOTT,TBOSTEE)
 KCSA 5U8 BOSCCH/ "CAflDEN 6 SAN "ADG'OS'iiHE  BB
 NPB  519 NORFOLK 6 POBTSHOUTH BELT LINE  BB CO.	
 NN   550 NOBFCLK & VESTEBN BWY. CC.  (S & W DIST.)
 NS   551 HCBFCLK SOOTHEBS fiHX. CO.	
 MH552 HCUNI  HOOD BHY. CO.
 NLG  553 NOBTH  LOOISIANA G GOLF BB_CO.	
 NB "" 55U NCETEAHP10N  AND^BATH Bfi"CC.
 NHP  559 NCKTHRESTERN PACIFIC BB CC.      	  	
 NJ   562 NAPIEBVILLE JDUCTIOS BWY. CO.
 NAB  563 NOBTHEBN ALBEBTA BAILiAYS C0._       	
 HBST 567 THE  Bli  EBAONFELS & SER₯TEJ SB' CO.
 NSBC 570 NOB1B STEATFOBD Bfi CCBP.
 NSS  577 THE  HEHBUBGH 6 SODTH..SHQE:E_BiIA_C:Q«	
 SOB '578 SON  CIL  CO..OF PENNA.
 AD   580 NOBFCLK,  FRANKLIN 6 DAH7IILE BAILWA7 CO.
 MHM  581 CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBP.
 NFD  582 NOBFCLK,  FBANKLIN fi. DANVIlLE..BH.I,.jCpj,___
 HKC  583 MCKEESPOBT CONNECTING BB CO.
 HHCO 58U MARQOETTE & HURON BIN. BBL CO.^ IWC,	
 NHIB 585 NEH  HOPE £ IVYLAND BB CO.
 OTB  586 TE OAKLAND TEBHINAL.BHY,_	.	
 OCIB 587 OCTOEAEO EHY.  INC.
 NOKL 591 NORTEMESTEBN OKLAHOMA BB_CO._.	
 ONBI 592 OGCEHSBUIG BBIDGE & POST AOIHOBITY
 PFE_595 PACIIIC  FBUIT. EXPRESS _CO.__
 OHH  596 OBEGCK &  HOETHWESTEEN BB CO.
 OPE  597 OBEGCN, PACIFIC. 6. EASTEBH_.BSI..._JCQ.	
 OLB  598 OMAHI, LINCOLN & BEATBICE  BiY.  CO.
 OE_ 600 OREGCN ELECTBIC_RHY.._QO.	
 OT   601 OREGON 1EONK BAILHAY
 OCE__603 OBEGCN, CALIF.J,_6_EASTJE8H_BSXt_Cft,	
 OB   60U OHASCO BIVEB
 PET  606 PABR  IEBHINAL BR	
 PAd  607 PITTSBURGH,  ALLEGHENY 6 BCKEES  BOCKS BB CO,
 PBB  609 PATAESCO_6.BACK..BiyEBS.JB.B_COJ!_
 PS "  610 THE  CHESAPEAKE S OHIO BJI.  CO.  (PEBE aABQOETlE DIST.
 PI	61ft PAEOCAH  & ILLINOIS BB

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                  F-9

-------
 PAE  615 CONSOLIDATED  BAIL COBP.
 POT	616__PITTSEUBGH_G_OHIO JTALI,EY_S1IJ. .-j
 P1H  619 PORTLAND  IEBHIHAL CO.   (HE.)
 PC /622 CCHSCLIDATBD  BAIL COBP.
 BDG / 623 CONSOLIDATED  BAIL COBP.
 PICIL.624...THE_EICKEHS BB. CO.	
 PLE  626 THE  EITISBORGH  G  LAKE EBIi BB CO.
 PS	627.THE. EITTSBUBGH_G_SHAHHOT_EB CO,	
 PCX  629 PI1TSBUBGH, CHABTIEBS 6 YCOGHIOGHENX BiY. .CO.
 PF	63P_THE  EIOBEEB^FAYETTE_BAIIBC.AD_C_0«	.
 PH   631 PBOVIDEHCE &  HOBCESTIB CO.
 PBTD.632_PQBTIAMD TBACIION^CO. _fPCETlAHD BB & TEBBTHAT Dig.)
 PH»  634 THE  EBESCOTT  &  NOBIHHESTEBH SB CO.
 Pfi^_636_PEABL-.BIVEB_VALLEX_.BB_CO.	
 PSB  639 PETAiaaA & SANTA  BOSA BE CO.
 PUS	640 PHILADEimA_.&^NOBFCLK..SlIAHSHIP_
 PVS  644 THE  EECOS  VALLEY  SOOTHEBH BUY. CO.
 PPO.__645_PEOBIA G_PEKIW_0BIQtt_&HXfc_CJl,	
 PIC  646 PEOBIA TEBHINAL CO.
 PHD  647 POBT..flUBON_AD_DETBOIT.__BR_CCU	
 PJB  648 POBT JERSEY
 BFCF 650 BBEMEBIOH  FBEIGH1_CAB FEBBX	,	
 PCK  651 PCIK1 COaFOBT  &  HOETBEBH Eil. CO.
 QBE  656 QDINCY EB CO.
 QC   658 QUEBIC CESTBAL  BAILHAY CO. .    ..  _.
 PBNE 659 PHILA.,  BETHLEHEM  G  M£H ESGLAND BE CC.
 BSB	662 BCCH1STEB. SOBHAY	
 BFP  663 BICHEOND, FBEDERICKSEOBG G PCTOHAC HE CO.
 BY	664_BAHEAX._?ALLEi_B.,E.	BAHBAt VM.T.ET en.
 BT   665 THE BIVEB TEBHINAL  BAILBAX CO.
 B1M. . ^66-JTHE..BAILHAY...!CBAHSrEB_ CQ^Or TE CITT OF HTT»PB*?OT,IS
 BS   669 THE EOBEBVAL AND  SAGOEHAX BHY.  CO.
 SB	671 BIRT^AK  ETVRS BATL  SQ>n CC.	
 ESP  673 BOSCCE,  SNYDEB 6  PACIFIC Mt.  CO*	
 ESS  ~675"BOCKEALEi SANDOB"  6" SOOTHEBM BB  CO.
 BCB  676 BCCKTCN  G BOM BIY.	
 PBVR 677 "THE EOBT BIESVILLETfi
 SEN  678 SAEIBE BIVEB G HOBIHEBH BB CO.	
 SSDK 679 SAVAKNAH STATE DOCKS"BB CCi
 SJB	680 SI. JOSEPH BELL EHY._CO.	
 SC   681 "SOMTEB'G CHOCTAil  BHY. CO"^
 SB   682 ST.MAEY'S EB CO.
 SJT  683"Si," JOSEPfl"TEBHiMAL BB  CO.
 SJBT_685 ST. JOHMS BIVEB TEBBIHAL	
 SBC  "686~S1BA£BOBG BB CO.
 SCH  687 SIBOODS CBEEK G HODDLETY  BB__	
 SLGi'690 SALT LAKE, "GAJEiELD'G  lESTIflS BHY. .CO. .
 SAH  691 SANDIBSVILLE BB CO.
 SLSF 693 SI."lOOlS-SAH FBAHCISCO  BBY.  CO.
 SSi  694 ST. LOUIS SOCTHMESTEBH BHY. CC.
 SLC ' 696 THE "SAM"LOIS CEMTEAL  BE  CC.
 SH   697 SACRAMENTO MOBTHEBH BUY.
 SDAE 702" SAN IIEGO'G" AEIZOSA  HASTEES BiY.  CO.
 SSH _704 SODTE SHOES	-   '	
 SLAi 70S SI. iXWEEMCE" BB, DIV.  Of  EAT'L. .BHY.  OTILIZATOH COBP.
 SSLV_706 SODTHEBH SAH LOIS VALLEY  EB CO.	
 SS   707 SAHD SffilHGS BBY. CO.
 TSO  709 TOLSA-S&EOLPA ONIOH  BHY.  CO.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                  F-10

-------
  12             3
 DVB  711 CAPE EEE10N DEV.  COBP. "fCCWTbLV.)
 SCL _712 SEABCAEC COAST_LINE BE  CC.
 S1L " 71C SEATJBAIN LINES, INC;
 SEBA_716 SIEBEA BAILROAD CO.
 SBK  718 SOOTH BBCOKLYK
 SIND 720 SOOTHEEN IHDItNA  BUI., INC.	
 SP   721' SCl)TBEEN FACIFXC" TSAHSPOBI4TIOH CO.
 SOD  724 SOOTBEEB BBX.  SYSTEK
 SI   727 SEOKAKE "iNTEBNAliOHAi KB COl	~
 SIBT_729 THE STEHAETSIOWN  SB CO,	
 SON  73ft SONSET RAILWAY  CCU    ~"	—
 SCI  735 SIOOX CUT TEKHlHAL_Bir.
 SOPB 736 SCOTS PIERCE Efi  "~                      		
 FCP _738 FEBBCCAEBIL DEL PACIFICO, S. A. DE C. V.  (PAC  1C DEL P)
 S1E  739 STCCKIGN SEEHINAL'fi IASTlEF~BB          	
 SKV  7t1 SANTA fl&BIA MLIBr  BE CO.
 TEXC 750 T£XA£ CEMTfiAL BJB  COT
 OKI   751* OBTAFIO HOBTHLAHD  SSY.	  	
 TAG  ~755 TENNESSEE, ALABAHT 6 GA7~EHY. CO^	
 TRP.A 757 TfEMISAL KE ASSOC._OI SX._LOUIS	
 TASD 758 ~TEEHIKAL"fiWr; ,~"iLABAB4 "SS4i"E~DO"CKS
 TfiBL 759 1ACOKA flONICIFAL BEX1 LIKE BWX.	
 TP    760 MISSCOBI PACIFIC BE CO.
 TCI   761 1EXAS CI1I TEEttlNAl B»Y.  CO.
 1'fl    762 THE TEXAS HEXICAN  BHX.  CC."    "~    	
 TPMP 763 TEXAS PACIJflC-HISSOOBI PACIFIC TEEHJRALfiE Of N. OKLEAS
 TOE   764 TEXAS, OKLAHOMA &  IASTEBK""BB-CO;
 TSE   765 TIXAS SCOIH-EASTEEN BE CC.	,_ _
 TENN 767 IEHNISSEE BAILHAX  CO.                     "  ~   ~	
 TPH   769 TCLECO, PEOfilA 6 HESIEBH  FB CO.	
 IT    771 THE 3CLEDO TEBMIHAL BB CC.
 TBB   77U_THE ICBONIO,  HAKILTCH S  EDEFALO EBY.  CO.	
 IPX   778 CCNSIIDAIED BAIL'COBE.
 TEC   779 TBOHA BiY. CO.  	
 TOV  ~782 TCOEIE 71LLEY BHY.  CO,                                  "
 ICG   783 lOSCCBf._jCpBNELIA_fi^GILA EtHD BB CO.	
 IS  _ 781*.TIDEI'ATEB "SOD1HEBM  BBY. CC.
TAi  785  IDE ICLECC, ANGOLA 6 WESIIBS  BBJ.  CQ.
rna	788 .izxAf-KFi MEXICO BHY._CO,«	
SB   791  SCOTB BUffALO BAILBAY CO.
SOT ._ 792  SOOTE OHAHA TEBKINAL BHX._CQ«	
SJL  793  ST.  OOHNSBOBX 6 LAHOILLE CIY.  BB.
SSA..J794  SAN HAHUEL ABIZONA BB_CC.	
TN   795  TEXAS 6  KOBTflEBN SHY. CC.
TIC  796  TYLSBDALE CONNECTING	
8BWK 797  HABHICK  BHX.  CO.
TB   798  TilN EEAKCH BB CO.
SH   799 STEEITON  & HZGHSPIEE BE CC.
OP . . 802 ONION PAC. . Bfi_ CO. (OBEGOH SHOBT  LINE; CE 3,-HASE BB 6 NAVIGAT.).
0KB  803 ONION fifi  CO.  (PIT1SBOBGH, PA.)
OBY	80U._OSION BY.  OF  HEHPHIS	
OHI  805 UNITY BHYS. CO.
OT	807. ONION TEfifllNAL BUY.... (Of ST. JOSEPH,  MO.)	
08P  808 OEPEE  HEEION  & PLYHOOTH BB CO.
OTB._ 809 .OSIO.H  TBANSPOBTATION
OTAH 811 UTAH BWX.  CO.
VALE_814 _THB VALLEY_Bfi_CQ.	
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company  Name

                                   F-ll

-------
VAflD
yso _
Vlfi
VBB _
VC
VCY_
VNOB
VE ._
RHV
HAB
HS
HOV_
HYS
HIM_
HSB
HYT
HAL
HLO._
HHHN
HBBC.
HH
HP ....
HA
HHN ...
HC1B
HPY
HSYP
RBSC
HAG
815
316
817
819
320
821
822
824
826
827
828
.829
830
831
832
833
834
835
837
838
839
840
841
842
844
845
846
847
848
          VIRGINIA & HABYLAND BB
          VAIDCSTA SODTHEBN_BB	
          VEBHCNT BRY. .INC.
          VIRGINIA. BLUE  BIDGE_BHY«_
          VIRGINIA CENTRAL  BHY.
          VENTCRA CTY. BHY.  CO,	
          VEEHCN1 NOBTHEEN  BR CO.
          VISALIA . ELECTRIC_RB_CQ«_
          HAILA HAILA VALLEY BHY.  CO.
          HARBENTOB BB CO.	
          HABE SHOALS BB C.
          HARREN.& QUACHITA  VALLEY BHY. CO.
          HYANCOTTE SOOTHEEEN  BB C..
          HASBINGTCN,_IDAHQ  &  MONTANA BHY. CO.
          HABREN & SALINE  BIVEB BB CO.
          HYANCCTTE TERMINAL.. BB_CO,	
          RESTEBN ALLEGHENY  BB CO.
          _HATEELOO_BR.CO.	
          THE  HEATHERFOBD,  HINEAL HELLS & NORTHWEST EN BHY. CO,
          HESTEBN  BAIL  ROAD CQ.	
          HESTERN  HABYLAND  BHY.  CO.
          THE  SESTEBN_PACIFIC_BB_ CC.	
          THE  HESTEBN BHY.  OF ALABAMA
          CONS CLIO AIBD . BAIL ..CQfifi.	
          HCTU BHY. CO,
          HHITE PASS &  YUKON BOD1E	
          HHITE SOIPHOB SPBINGS  & YELLCHSTONE BHY. CO.
          HHITE MOONTAIN SCENIC..BB	
          HELLSVIL1E, ADDISON 6  GALETON BR CORE.
      850 WINCHESTER & HESXEEN BB CC.
          THE  STMFTET.D PP  C0«	
HH
HH*^
HNFR 852 HINFEEDE  BB  CO.
HSS  854 BISSlQM-SALEtt  gOnTHBODHD EHT- CQ.
W10H 865 RESTIBN OHIO BR CO.
HVN	fl66-R£ST-YIBGIHIA-NOBIHEBN .BB C.	
 HBTS 867 HACO,  BEAUHON1,  TBNITY & SABINE BHY CO.
 iLFB. 869 .J01EEBOBO BBL._CO.,_UIC.	
 XVI  872 YAKIBA VALLEY  TRANSPOBT1TION CO.
 JCI	873 THEK1  BESTF.BH  BB CO.	
 YS   875 YCONGSIOSN & SOUTHEBN EHY. CO.
 YA8  876~YANC£Y BB Ci
 YN   877 THE  SOONGSTOtfN 6 NOETHEBE BB CO.	
 B1CO"950 BCSICN TEBHINAL  COi
 COST 951 CHICAGO UNION  STATION CO.	_^^
 FSOD" 952 FORT saBEET""UNION DEfOI^CC.
 JICO 953 JACKSONVILLE TERHINAI CO. 	
 LAP! 954105"I»GElES~UNlON"PA"SS~EilG~iB TERHINAL"
 H1CO 955 MACOH  TERHINAL CO. 	
 OORD 956 THE  CGDE8 UNION  BHY.  G DEfCT CO.
 SPOD 957_S1.  EAOL ONION DEPOT  CO.	
 TOST~958 TEXAfiKAilA ONION  STATION l£OST
 DDIC 959 DALLAS ONION TERHINAL	
 NOT  960 NEH  CBLEANS TEBMiNAL
 HCSC 961 HEHPHIS ONION  STAIICN CO.	
"HIBC~96"2~Hl7~TiASllINGTON~RHYT~CO;            ~
 HPf  964 PORTLAND TERMINAL BB  CC. (OBI.)
"BCOiTSS? BRITISH COLA.  BHY. CO.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                   F-12

-------
AA   010 ANN ARBOR
ABB  002 THE AKRON £ BARBERTCN BELT PAILRGAO CCMFANV	
ABCK 017 ALASKA BF1TISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATICN CCKPANY
ABL  014 ALAMEDA EELT LINE                    _  __	
AC   008 ALGCPA CENTRAL RAILWAY
ACBL 007 AMERICAN COMMERCIAL  EARGE LINESt INC.  _  _    	
ACY  003 THE AKRON, CANTON £  YCUNGSTCfcN PR CO.
AD   580 NORFCLKi FRANKLIN £  DANVILLE RAILWAY CJD.	
ACN  021 ASHLEY, CREW £ NCRTHEEERN RAILWAY CO.
AEC  031 ATL. £ EAST COAST RAILWAY CC.            _   	  	
ACS  029 THE ALABAMA GREAT SCL'THEPN RAILRCAD CO.
AHT  039 ALASKA HYDRO-TRAIN                       __
AHh  033 THE AHNAPEE £ WEST.  RWY.  CC. CIV. OF MCCLCLC  RIV. RR CO.
AL   046 ALMANOR FAILRCAD CO.                  	
ALM "016 ARKANSAS £ LOUISIANA MISSCUPI  RWY. CC.
ALQS 018 ALIQLIPPA £ SOUTHERN RAILPCAC  CC.	
ALS  032 THE ALTON £ SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
AMC  019 AMAOCR CENTRAL RAILRCAD  CC.       _    __  	
AMR  020 THE ARCATA AND MAD  RIVER  RAIL  ftCAD CC.
AN   012 APALACH1CLA NCRTHEFN RR  CC.	
ANR  035 ANGELINA £ NECHES RIVER  RP CC.
APA  Oil THE APACHE RAILWAY  COMPANY       		
APO  043 ALBANY PCRT DISTRICT
AR   009 ABERDEEN £ ROCKFISH RAILRCAC  CO.      ..		
ARA  013 ARCADE ANC ATTICA RALRCAC CCRP.
ARC  049 ALEX/NOEER RALROAC  COMPANY     	 	
ARR  005 THE ALASKA RAILRCAO
ART  051 AMERICAN REFRIGERATOR TRANSIT  CO.    .    	
ARk»  036 THE  ARKANSAS  WESTERN RAILhAY  CC.
AS   001 ABILENE  £  SOUTHERN  RALWAY CC.            	
ASAB 042 ATLANTA  £  SANT  ANCREUS E/Y R/ILWAY CC.
ASDA    ASBESTOS  £ DANVILLE                 	
ASML    THE  /TLANTA  STONE  MTN. £ LITHCNIA RWY. CO.
ATCO 048 U.S.  ENEfGY  RESEARCH fi DEV.  ADPIMSTFATCN	__,
ATSF 022  THE  ATCHISON, TOPEK* £ SANTA FE RhY. CO.
ATh  025 ATLANTIC  £ WESTERN   RAILWAY CC.          	
AUG  044  AUGUSTA  RAILROAD CO.
 AOS_     AUGUSTA  £  SUMMERVILLE P-AUFC/C CC.	
 AVL  "038  APCCSTCOK VALLEEY RALRCAC CC.
 AUP  023  ATLANTA  £ WEST POINT PAILFCAC CO. 	  	^	
 AHH  004  ALGESt WINSLOW £ WESTERN FAILWAY CO.
 AYSS     ALLEGHENY £ SOUTH SICE              „..   	
 BAP  078  BLTTE, ANACONDA £ PACIFIC RAILWAY CO.
 BAR  056  BANGCR AND AROCSTCOK P-AILFOAD CC.	
 BCE """"  BRITISH COLUMBIA HYCPC £ FOV.ER ATHORITY
 BCK  059  CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CCRPCRATON_ __	
 BCCL 997  BRITISH COLA. RWY.  CC.
 BCRR     BCYNE CITY RAILROAD CO.	
 BE   052 CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.
 BEOT 091 BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL	
 BEEM 060 BEECH MCLNTAIN RAILRCAC  CC.
 BFC  054 BELLEFONTE CENTRAL  PR CO.   		
 BFCF 650 BREMERTON FREIGHT CAR FERFY
 BH   079 BATH £ HAMMONDSPORT RR CC.
 BLA  053 THE  EALTIMORE £ ANNAPCLIS PR  CO.
 BLE  061 BESSEMER £ LAKE ERIE RR  CC.   _  	
 BLKM 063 BLACK MESA £ LAKE  POkELL
 BM   069 BCSTCN £ MAINE CCRP.	
1.  Uniform Alnha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                  F-13

-------
 BME   073  BEAVERt MEADE £  ENGLEhCUC
 BHH       BEAUFORT  £ MOOREHEAC  RR  CC.
 BML   087  BELFAST £ HOOSEHEAO LAKE PR CC.
 BUS _ 073  BEERLIN MLLS                   	
 BN    076  BURL1NGTCN NORTHERN CO.
 BNHL  457  BURLINGTCN NORTHERN (MANI1CEA) LIMITED.	
 BO    050  ThEE  BALTIMORE £ CHIC RR CC.
 BCCT  064  Tt-E EALTIMORE £ OH 1C  CHICAGC TERM. RP  CC._
 BRC   083  THE EELT  RAILWAY CO.  CF  CHICAGO
 BRFO  088  BPANFORO  STEAM RAILRCAO   _      	
 BRR   207  BELTCN RR CO.
 BRh   066  BLACK RIVER £ WESTERN CORF.    	
 BS    065  B1RMINGTCN SOUTHERN RR CC.
 BTCO  950  BCSTCN TERMINAL CO.            		
 BVS   055  BEVIER £  SOUTHERN PR  CC.
 BXN   084  BAUXITE 6 NORTHERN RAILWAY CC._  _  	
 CACV  114  CCOPERSTCWN C CHARLOTTE  VALLEY RR COFP.
 CAC_092  CADIZ RR  CO.	
 CAGY  177  CCLUPBUS  £ GREENVILLE RWY. CC., INC.
 CARR  113  Tl-E CARRCLLTON RR.
 CBC   104  CARBCN CCUNTY RWY. CC.
 CBL   215  CCNEfAUGh £ BLACK LICK RR CC.  _	
 CCC       CLINCHFIELO RR CO.
 CCR   201  THE CORIMH £ CGUNCE  RR  CC.
 CCT   112  CENTRAL CALIFCRNIA TRACTICN CC.
 CEI   129  MISSCURI  PACIFIC RR CC.               	
 CF    099  CAPE  FEAR RAILWAYS, INC.
 CGA	    CENTPAL CF GEORGIA RAILRC/C CC.	
 CGT   115  THE CANACA £ GULF TERMINAL RAILWAY CC.
 CHH_142  OEShICK  £ HARMAR                  _    	
 CHP   470  FEERFCCARRIL CHIHUAHUA AL FACIFICC, S.A.
 r.HR   117  CHESTNUT  RIDGE RAILWAY CC.
 ChTT  139  CHICAGO i-ElGHTS TERMINAL TRANSFER RR CO.
 CHV   124  ChATTAHOCCHEE VALLEY RKY. CC.
 CHh   179  CHESAPEAKE WESTERN RAILWAY
 CI    101  CAMBPIA E INDIANA RR CO.             _  	
 CIC   111  CEOAP RAPIOS £ IOWA CITY FAILWAY CO.
 CIL   137  LCUISVILLE £ NASHVILLE RR CC.  (CHIC.  INDIAN. £ LCUIS.)
 CIM   130  CHICAGO £ ILLINOIS MIOLAhC PViY. CO.
 CINO  116  CCNSCLIOATEO RAIL CORP.        _	
 CIRC  185  CENTFAL IOWA TRANSP. COOF. CBA CENT.  IQhA FHY. CC.
 CIRR  222  ChATTAHOCCHEE INDUSTRIAL PR     	
 CIW   150  CHICAGO £ ILLINOIS hESTEFiv RR
 CKSO  107  CCNDCN, KINZUA £ SCUTHERU PR CC.  _   _ 	
 CLC   163  CCLA. £ COWITZ RWY. CO.
 CLCO  188  CLAREMONT £ CCNCORO RWY. CC.,  INC.	
 CLIF  181  CLIFFSICE RR CO.
 CLK  093  CADILLAC  £ LAKE CITY RWY. CC.	
 CLP   169  THEE CLARENDON £ FITTSFCPC PR CO.
 CMER  180  CURTIS, PILBURN £ EASTERh PR CO.	
 CN    103  CANACIAN  NATIONAL RAILWAYS
 CNJ   119  CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CCRP.       	
 CNL   159  CCLUfBIAt NEWBERRY £ LAUPEKS RR CC.
 CNOR  167  CINCINNATI NORTHERN		
CNTP  153  TI-E CINCINNATI, NEW CRLEANS £ TEXAS PACIFIC PhY. CO.
CNV»   131  CHICAGO £ NORTH WESTERN TFAKSP._CC.	
 CNYK  151  CENTRAL' NEW YORK RR CCRP.
CO    125  THE CHESAPEAKE £ CHIC RWY. CC.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                F-14

-------
CCLI 164 COLONELS ISLANU
CCP  166 CITY OF PRINEVILLE RWY.	
CP   105 CP RAIL (CANADIAN PACIFIC LTC.l
CPA	CLCUCERSFCRT £ PORT ALLEGHANY			
CPLJ     CAMP LEJEUNE RAILRCAC CO.
CPLT 141 CAMINO, PLACERVILLE £ LAKE TAHOE RR CO.
CPTC 149 CHICAGC PRODUCE TERMINAL CC.                      ~~~
CR   190 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP.         __        	
CRE  189 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP.  (EASTERN DISTRICT!
CRI _143 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CCRP.         	
CRN  106 CAROLINA £ NORTHWESTERN  PhY.~ CC.
CRP      CENTRAL RR OF PENNSYLVANIA	
CS   157 THE COLORADO £ SCUTI-ERN  FfcY. CO.
CSL  147 CHICAGC SHORT LINE RWY._  CC.	
CSP      CAHAS PRAIRIE RR CO.
CSS  168 CHICAGC SCUTH SHORE £ SOL!>_ BEND RR	
CSSL 090 CANACA STEAMSHIP LINES
CTN  097 CANTCN RAILROAD CO.             	   	
CLR8 184 CLRTIS BAY RR CO.
CUST 951 CHICAGO UNION STATION CO.       	    	
CUVA 186 THE CIYAHCGA VALLEEY RWY. CC.	"
CV _ 120 CENTRAL VEERMCNT RWY. CC.	
CW   158 THE COLORADO £ HYCMING RhY. CC.
CWC_ 095 SEABCARC COAST LINE RR (CHARLESTON & WEST^C/RCL INA)
Chi  132 CHICAGO £ WESTEN INCIANA PR CC.
CV»P_ 172 CHICAGO, WEST PULLMAN £  SCITHERN RR CO.	
CWR ~100 CALIFORNIA WESTERN RP            	'
CZ       CCAHLLIA £ ZACATECAS RW.    .      _               _
DA   209 CP RAIL (CANADIAN PAC. LTC.XCCM. ACL. RWY. CO.)
DC   196 DELRAY CONNECTING PAILRCAC CCfPANY
DCI  362 DES ^CINES £ CENTRAL ICKA RAILWAY CO.	~
DH  _195 DELAWARE £ HUDSON RAILWAY CC.   	
DKS  2lO DCNIFHANt KENSETT S SEARCY RV»Y.
OLC      DRUH^CND LIGHTERAGE           .  .    _  	:.		
DH " 204 DETRCIT £ MACKINAC RWY.  CC.
DMIR 213 CLLUTH, MISSABE £ IFCN RANGE  RWY. CO.
DMM  220 ThE CANSVILLE AND MClNT  f'CRRJS  RR CO.
OHU_.202_DES ^CINES UNION RWY. CC.     	            ______
ONE  212 OULUTH £ NORTHEASTERN RR CO.
DCE  200 CE QLEEN £ EASTERN RR CC.             _     	
OR   191 DARDANELLE £ RUSSELLVILLE RR CO.
DRGW 197 THE CENVER £ RIO GRANGE  hESTEN  RR CO.
DRI  192 CAVEENPOPT, ROCK ISLAND  € NCPTWESTEEN  RWY. CC.
OS   217 DLRH/M £ SOUTHERN RWY. CC.        	
OT   219 OETRCIT TERMINAL RR CO.
DTI  208 OETRCIT, TOLEDO £ IRCNTCN PR  CO. _		
DTS  205 THE CETRCIT AND TCLECC SHCRE  LINE RR CO.
DLTC 959 DALLAS UNION TERMINAL
DVR  711 CAPE BRETON DEV. CORP. (CCAL  OIV.) OEVCC  RVY.
DVS  193 DELT/ VALLEY £ SOUTHERN  RhY.  CO..	
DH       DETRCIT fi WESTERN
DWML     DUE WEST MOTOR LINE             	
DWP  216 DLLUTH, WINNIPEG £ PACIFIC PWY.
EACH 242 EAST CAMCEN £ HIGHLAND RP. CC.         	
ECW  247 EL DCRADC £ WESSON RWY.  CC.
EEC  229 EAST ERIE COMMERCIAL RR

I.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name


                                F-15

-------
EJE  238 ELGIN* JCLIET £ EASTERN PkY. CO.  (CHIC, fi CUTER BELT)
EJR  245 EAST JERSEY RR AND TERMINAL CC. 	
EL   240 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CCRP.
ELS _241 ESCANABA £ LAKE SUFERICR PR CC.    _    	   _
EM       ECGEfOOR £ HANETTA RUY.
EN   246 ESCUIMALT £ NANAIMO RWY. CC.  	
ETL  228 ThE ESSEX TERHINAL RhY. CC.
ETWN 234 EAST TENNESSEE £ WESTERN N.C. RR CO.	
EV   231 THE EVERETT RR CC.
FBL_508 FEDERAL EARGE LINES        _	   	
FCON     FERRCCARRIL OE NACOZARI, SCT.
FCIN 272 FRANKFCRT £ CINCINNATI RR CC.  .	
FCM  275 FERRCCARRIL MEXICANC (MEXICAN)
FCP  738 FERRCCARRIL DEL PACIFICOt S.A.  OE C.V._(PAC_ _FC_DEL PJ	
FCOH 266 CHIC. £ NW TRANSP. CC. (FT. CCDGE,OES MCINES C SOUTH'RWY.)
FCHA 473 FERRCCARPIL OE MINATITAN AL_CARMEN     	
FEC  263 FLCRIDA EAST COAST RWY. CC.
FERR__   FELICIANA EASTERN RP CC.  __	
FJG  264 FCM04* JCHNSTOhN £ GLOVER5VILLE RR CC.
FLT	_FCSS LAUNCH £ TUG	
FMS  276 FCRT MYERS SOUTHERN RR CC.
FOR  282 FCRE RIVER RR CORP.             _     _    	
FP   265 FCROYCE £ PRINCETCN RR CC.
FPE  260 FAIRFORT, PAINSVILLE fi EASTERN RWY._CO.	
FRON 273 FEROINANC RR CC.
FSLO 952 FCRT STREEET UNICN DEPCT CC.   	
FSVB 279 FT. SMITH £ VAN BUPEfv RWY. CC.
FhB  277 FT. UORTH BELT RWY. CC.           _	
FKO  268 FT. fcGRTh £ DENVER RkY. CC.
FWU__274 FT. ViAYNE UNION	
GA   299 GECRGIA PR CO.
GANG 298 ThE GECRGIA NORTHERN RWY. CC.	
GBh  312 GREEN BAY £ WESTERN RR CC.
GC   289 GRAH/H CTY. RR CO.                 __	
GCW  287 ThE GARDEN CITY WESTERN PkY. CO.
GE1Y_294 GETTYSBURG RR CO.	
GFC      GRANC FALLS CENTRAL RHY. CC.. LTD.
GHH  293 GALVESTOIW HOUSTON £ hENCESCK RR CO.	
GJ   321 GPEEKhlCH £ JOHNSCNVILLE PKY. CC.
GM   290 GAINSVILLE MIDLAND RR CC.
GMO  317  ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR CC. (GULF, POBLE £ ChIO RR CO.)
GMRC 314  GPEEN «TN. RR CORP.      __   	
GNA  307  GRAYSCNI/. NASHVILLE~'£ ASVcChN RR CO.
GNHR 320  GENESEE £ WYOMING RR CC.   	
CRN  306  GREENVILLE £ NCRThEPK PWY. CC.
GRNR 322  ThE GRANC RIVER RWY. CC.     	
GRR  302  GECRCETCkN RR CO.
GSF_ 300  GECRGIA SOUTHERN £ FLORICA J»WY_. CC.	
GSW  305  GREAT SCUTHHEST R.R., IKC.
GTC _     GC'LF TRANSPORT               	
GTW  308  GPANC TfiLNK WESTERN PR CC.
GU	323  GPAFTON £ UPTON RR CC.	
GhF "303  GALVESTOK WHARVES
GVIN_319  GCODUN PR INC.	
GWR  311  ThE GREAT WESTERN RWY. CC.
HB  _330  HAMPTON £ BRANCHVILLE RR CO.   _ 	
HBS  329  HCBCKEN SHORE RR

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                             F-16

-------
  12            3
 H8T  342 HCLSTOM tfcLT £ TERMINAL PV.Y. CG.
 HCRC 326 HILLJDALE CTY. RhY. CO., INC.
 HDH __    HtCSCN fi MANHATTAN
 HE   328 HCLLIS £ EASTERN RR CO.
 HI.  ^339 HCLTCN INTER-URBAN RUY. CC.
 HLNE 338 HILL5BCRC £ NORTH EASTERN RWY. CO.
 HMR _335 HCEOKEN MANUFACTURERS
 HN   332 THE HUTCHINSON fi NORTHERN RKY. CO.
 HPTD_366 .HIGH PCINT, THOMASVULE 6 CENTON_RR CC. 	
 HRDL     HLDSCN RIVER DAY LINE          ~
 HRT	334 .HARTfcELL RWY. CO.	
 HS   336 HARTFORD £ SLOCOWfi" RR CO.
 HSU  331 HELENA SOUTHWESTERN PR CC.
 HI       HGhAFD TERMINAL
 HLBA     HtjOSCN BAY
 IAT  513 ICKA TEMINAL  RR CO.
 IBT	358 THE 1NTENATONAL BRIDGE 6  TERMNAl  CO.	
 1C   351 ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR  CC.  (ILLINOIS  CENTRAL)
 ICG_350 ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR  CC.	
 IGN      INTEFNATIONAL-GREAT  NORTHERN
 IHB  357 INDIANA HARBOR BELT  RR CC.	__
 INT  361 INTESTATE RR  CO.
 IRN _364_CCNSCLIDATEED RAIL  CORP.      _  	
 ISU"  ""  ICWA SOUTHERN UTILITIES TSCITHERN  INC.  RR,  INC.J
 I1B_      ISLAND TUG AO BARGEE	
 ITC  354 ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CG.
 !<•  _353_ INCIANAPCLIS  UNIICN               		
 JE   "    JERSEYVILLE G EASTERN
 JGS	JAPES GRIFFITHS £ SCNS        	
 JSC      JCHNSTCMN £ STCNY CREEK PR CC.
 JTCO  953 J4CKSCNVILLE  TERMINAL CC.          _ 	
 KC   410 ThE KANAliHA CENTRAL  RWY.  CC.
 KCC _    K^NS^S CITY CONNECTING RR  CC.
 KCMC      KANS/S CITY,  MEXICC  £ CRIENT
 KCNW  411 KELLEY'S CREEK £ NORTHWESTERN RR CO.	
 KCS  400 ThE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN  Fh.  CO. "  ""
 KCT  401 KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RWY.  CC.      	.  _  _    __
 KCWB      KANSAS CITY WESTPCRT BELT
 KENN  403 KENNECOTT COMPANY RR
 KIT  402 KEENTUCKY £ INDIANA  TERMINAL  RR  CC.
 KM   414 ThE KANSAS £  MISSOURI RWY. £  TERMINAL CC.	
 KNC  412 KINGCOME NAVIGATION
 KNCR      KLAMATH NORTHERN RWY. CC.
 KT   405 KEENTUCKY £ TENNESSEE RWY.
 LA   441 LCL'ISIANA £ ARKANSAS RWY.  CC.
 LAJ  428 LCS ANGELES JUNCTION RWY.  CC.
 LAL	398_LIVCMA, AVON £ LAKEVILLE  PR  CORP.  		
 LAPT  954 LCS ANGELES UNION PASSENGER TERMINAL
 LASB  409 LACKAkAXEN £  STOURBRICGE  FR CCRP.
 LAHV  437 THE LCRAIN £  WEST VIRGINIA RViY.  CC.
 LER  447 THE lOhVILLE  £ BEAVER RIVER RR CO.
 LC   426 LANG/STEER £  CHESTER RWY.  CC.
 LCCE      LEE CCUNTY CENTRAL  ELECTRIC         _
 LORT  407 THE IAKE FRONT DOCK  £ RR  TEPMNAL  CO.
 LDTC  439 LAWNCALE TRANSPORTATCN CC.
 LE       LCLISIANA EASTERN RR
 LEE  406 THE LAKE ERIE £ EASTERN PR CC.

1.   Uniform Alpha Code

2.   ACI  Code

3.   Railroad Company Name

                           F-17

-------
LEF
LEFH
LEN
LhR
LI
LH
LMT
LN
LNAC
LNE
LNG
LNW
LCAH
LP8
LPN
LPSG
LRFA
LRS
LSBC
LSI..
LSO
LSTT
LT
L1C
LLN
LV
LW
LkV
MAA
MAYH
HB
MBRR
HBT
HC
HCER
MCR
HCRR
NCSA
HO
MCP_
HORY
MOVi_
ME
MEC_
MET
HETH
MF
M6
MGA
M6RS
MH
MHCO
MHM
MI
MID
MIOK
MI6N
423
424
42L
429
436
127
488
444
446
413
434
442
448
443
450

435
427
420
425
445
417
404
422
430
431
451
419

469
509

468
472
461
466
498
548
465
285
455
510
511
456

523
497
292
552
584
581
515

479
SOL
 LAKE  ERIE* FRANKLIN  £ CLA8ICN RR CO.
 LAKE  ERIE £ FT. WAYNE RR  CC.    	
 ThE LAKE ERIE £ NCRThERN  FfcY. CO.
 CCNSCLICATEO RAIL CORP.           _   	
 ThE LCNG ISLAND RR CC.
 LITChFIELD £ MADISON (Ch.IC. £ N.H.  TPANSP. CC.)_
 LCUISIAN/ MIDLAND TRANSPCPT
 LCUISVILLE £ NASHVILLE RF CC.       _   	
 LCUISVILLE, NEK ALBANY £  CCRYCGN PR CO.
 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CCRP.                	
 LAONA E NORTHERN RWY. co.
 TI-E LOUISIANA £ NCRThHEST RP CO.     	
 LOUISIANA MIDLAND RHY. CC.
 ThE LOUISIANA £ PINE BLUFF PWY. CC.   	
 LCNGVlEWt PORTLAND £ NCRThEPN RHY.  CC.
 LIVE  OAK, PERRY £ S. GECFCIA-RHY. CO,	
 LITTLE RCCK PORT RR
 LAURINBURG £ SOUTHERN RR  CC.      _    	  	
 ThE LA SALLE £ BUREAU CTY. PR CO."
 LAKE  SUPERIOR £ ISHFEHINC PR CO.	
 LOUISIANA SOUTHERN RV«Y. CC.
 LAKE  SUPERIOR TEMINAL £ TRANSFER RWY. CC.	
 ThE LAKE TERMINAL RR CC.
 LAFFERTY TRANSPORTATION          	  	
 LIOUGTON £ NORTHERN RWY.                  "   "	
 CCNSCLICATEO RAIL CCRP. _ 	 	
 LCUISVILLE £ WADLEY  PHY.  CO.
 CCNSCLICATED RAIL CCRP. __    _   	  	
 HAGHA ARIZONA RR CO.
 MAYHCOO £ SUGAR CREEK       _            	    	
 MCNTFELIER £ BARftE RR CO.
 MERICAN C BIGBEE RR  CO.	
 MARI/NNA £ BLCUNTSTChN RR~ CC".
 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CORP.   _	
 MASS^CHLSEETTS CENTRAL
 MC CLCUD RIVER RR CO.                         	  	
 TI-E K3NONGAHELA CONNECTING PR CO.
 MCSCCk, CAMOEN £ SAN AUGLSTINE RR 	   	
 MLNICIPAL DOCKS
 MEXICANN PACIFIC RR CO., IHC. JFERRQCARRIL .fLE>.QEL_PA.QIFICOi
 MADISON PHY. CO., INC.
 MINNESOTA, DAKOTA £ WESTERN RHY. CO. 	
 MCRRISTOkN £ ERIE RR CC.
 MAINE CENTRAL RR CC.      _ _   	 	
 MCCESTO £ EMPIRE TRACTION CC. ~"
MUNICIPALITY OF EAST TROY, >ISCONSJN	
MIDDLE FCRK
 ThE MOBILE £ GULF RR CO.                	
 ThE fONONGAHELA RHY, CC.
 FERRCCARRILES NACIONALES CE MEXICO  (NATU. RfcVS OF MEXICO)
 MCLN1 HCCO RhY. CO.
MARQIETTE £ HURON MTN.  RR CC., INC.	
 CCNSCLIDATEO RAIL CCRP.
MISSCURI-ILLINCIS RR CC.  _   	
MIDWAY
MIDDLETOkN £ HUMMELSTCV>N FR CC.	
MICHIGAN NORTHERN RWY.  CC., INC.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                           F-18

-------
MILW 140 CHIC/GO, MILWAUKEE, ST. PAUL £ PAjCIFI(L_R.fL_CC ,. _
MINE 474 MINNEAPOLIS EASTERN PWY. CC ,
MIR  522 MINNEAPOLIS INDUSTRIAL RWY. CC.      „   ___  ____
MISS 502 KISSISSIPPIAN
MJ __ 459 MANUFACTURERS' JUNCTION FVY. CO.  _  ___
MKC  583 MCKEESPCRT CONNECTING RR CC.
MKT  490 MISSCURI-KANSAS-TEXJS PR CC.     ___   _______
MLO      MIDLAND
MLST     MILSTEAD                        __     ___________
MNJ  475 MICDLETCWN £ NEW JERSEY FV»Y. CO. , INC.
MNS _ 480 MINNEAPOLIS, NCRTHFIELD € JCLTHERN. JtV.Y. __ „ _
MOT      MARINE CIL TRANSPORTATION
MCTC__   MCNTFEAL TRAMWAYS       _______
MCV  507 MCSH/SSUCK VALLEY RR CC.
MP   494 MISSCURI PACIFIC RR CO.   _   ___
MPA  463 MARYLAND £ PENNA. RR CO.
MRS_460 MANUFACTURERS RWY. CC.  ___
MSE  506 MISSISSIPPI EXPORT RR CC.
MSLC 486 MINNESOTA SHORT LINES CO.  „ _  __
MSTR 471 THE fASSENA TERMINAL RR CC.
MSV _5.03 MISSISSIPPI G SKUNA VALLEY_RR .CD._
MIC  467 MYSTIC TERMINAL CC.
MTCO 955 MACON TERMINAL CC.
MTFR 484 THE MINNESOTA TRANSFER RUY. CC.
MTR  500 MCNTCUR PR CO.                  _____
MTW  520 MARINETTEt TOMAHAWK £ WESfERN~RR
MUSC 961 MEMPHIS UNION STATCN CC.       __________
MVT      MT. \ERNCN TEMINAL
MWR  464 ML'NCIE C WESTERN RR CO.              _ ____________
MWRC 962 MT. kAShlNGTON RWY. CC.
NAP  525 THE NARRAGANSETT FIER RR CC.,  INC. __________
NAR  563 NORTHERN ALBERTA RAILWAYS CC.'
NB  _ 554 NORTHAMPTON AND BATH RP CC.          ___    _____ __
N8ST"567 THE NEW 6RAUNFELS E SERVTEX RR CO.
NC   449 LCUISVILLE £ NASHVILLE RR CC.  CNASHVLE, ChJT/NOOGA  £ _ST_._ LOUIS) _
NCAN 356 INCAN SUPERIOR LTC.
NCM  286 FERRCCARRILES NACIONJLES CE KEXCNATL .RVIVS_.CF MEX.KCARS  MKD.NDEH)
NCT  291 FEPPCCARPIL NACICNAL DE TEhUANTEPECC fEHUAKT E'FE'C KAT'L.)
NEZP 537 NE2PERCE RR CO.             '      ____ __
NFO  582 NCPFCLK, FRANKLIN £ DANVILLE RWY. CO.
NHIR 585 NEh HOPE 6 IVYLANC RP CC .           _____________
NIAJ 538 CCNSCLIOATEO RAIL CCRP.
NJ   562 NAPIERVILLE JUNCTION RWY. CC.   ____________
NJII 533 N.J., INDIANA £ ILLINCIS FR CC."
NLC  534 NEW CRLE/SNS £ LOWER COAST RR CC. __________
NLG  553 NCRTH LCLISIANA £ GULF RR CC.
NN   530 NEVACA NCRTHERN RWY. CO.            _        _____ ______
NCOM     MEXICC NORTHWESTERN
NOKL 591 NORTHWESTERN OKLAH.OHA RR CC.   _ _______ _  ______
NOPB 536" NEW CRLEANS PUBLIC BELT PP
NCRM     NCRMETAL                          _  _       ______   ______
NCT  960 NEW CRLEANS TERMINAL
NCTM     NEW CRLE/NSt TEXAS £ MEXICC
NPE  549 N.CRFCLK £ PORTSMOUTH BELT LINE RR CO.
NPT_964 PORTLAND TERMINAL RR CC. (CPE.) ______ _
NS " 551 NCRFCLK SOUTHERN RWY. CC.
NSC _    NEWTEX S.S.                      ___________
NSCT     NIAGARA, ST. CATHARINES £ TCFCNTO
     570 NCRTH STRATFORD RR CCRP.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3 .  Railroad Company Name

                                 F-19

-------
     "stt Iht IvtWbLRfcH I SLUTh SUCRE RWY. CO.
NW __550 KCRFCLK £ WESTERN RHY. CC. (N 6__W_OIST.L	
NWP  559 NCRTHWESTERN PACIFIC RR CC.
NYCN     NEW YORK CONNECTING RR	
NYD  542 NEW YORK DOCK RHY.
NYLB 539 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CORP.              _ _  	
NYSW 546 N.Y. .SUSCUEHANMA £ WEST. FR CC. (WALTER ~G.  SCOTTtTRUSTEE)
OCE  603 CPEGCN, CALIF., 6 EASTERN FWY. CO.	
OC1R 587 CCTOPARO RWY. INC.
OE   600 OREGCN ELECTRIC RWY. CC.            	
OLB  598 OfAH*. LINCOLN £ BEATRICE RWY. CO.
OKLP     OHIO MIDLAND LIGHT £ PCWEF               _	
CNRY 592 CGCENSBUFG BRIDGE fi PERT JU1HCRITY"
ONI  754 CNTAFIC KCRTHLANO RWY.            __    	
ONW  596 CPEGCN £ NORTHWESTERN RR CC.
OPE  597 CPEGCN. PACIFIC 6 EASTERN RWY. Cr.                    	
OR   604 CWASCC RIVER
OT   601 CPEGCN TFUNK RAILWAY
OTR  586 TE 0/KLANO TERMINAL RWY.
OURO 956 THE CGDEh UNION RWY. C DEFCT «.0.	
PAE  615 CCNSCLIOATEO RAIL CCRP.
RAM  607 PCH., ALLEGHENY £ MCKEES PCCKS RR CO. _  _	
PW     CCNSCLIOATEO RAIL CCRP.
PEL      T»-E PHILADELPHIA BELT LINE RR CO.
P8\E 659 PHIL*., BETHLEHEM £ NEW ENGL/ND RR CC.
PbH_609 PATAFSCO fi BACK RIVEPS RP CC.           	
PBVR 677 THE FORT BIENVILLE RR
PC _ 622 CCNSCHOATED RAIL COPP.	
PCN  651 PCINT CCMFCRT £ NCFTHERN FkY. CO.
PCY  629 PGh., CMRTIERS £ YCUGHICChEKY RWY. CO.	
PER      PCRT EVERGLADES RWY.            	"
PF   630 THE FICNEER £ FAYETTE RAILRCAC CO.	
PFE  595 PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS CC.
PHQ_647 PCRT HURCN AD DETROIT RR_ CC.	
PI   614 PACUCAH £ ILLINOIS RR
PICK 624 ThE FICKENS RR CC.                   	
PJR  648 PCRT JERSEY
PLE__626 ThE PITTSBURGH £ LAKE ERIE FR CO._  	
PH   610 ThE CHESAPEAKE £ OHIC RWY. CC. (PERE MARCliETTE DIST.)
P^KY     PITTSBURGH, MCKEESPCRT £ YCLCHOGHEN_Y	
PNS  640 PHILADELPHIA £ NORFOLK STEAMSHIP
PNW _634 TI-E FRESCOTT £ NOFTI-WESTEFh RR CC.	
POV  616 PITTSBURGH £ OHIO VALLEY FWY. CO.
PPBO _   PCRT OF PALM BEACH DISTRICT  	  	,	
PPU  645 PECRIA £ PEKIN UNION RWY. CC.
PRSL 027 CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.    _  	
PR1  606 PARR TERMINAL RR
PRTQ 632 PORTLAND TRACTION CC. (PCPTLAND _RR_ £ JEPMJML QO_.J	
PRV  636 PEARL RIVER VALLEY RR CO.
PS _627 ThE FGH. £ SHAWMUT PR C0.__	
PSFL     PLGE1 SOUND FREIGHT LINES
PSR__63? PETALUMA £ SANTA ROSA RR CC.	
PST      PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN TRANSPORTATION
PSTB _ _ PLGET SOLND TUG £ BARGE       _   	   	
PT       PENINSULA TERMINAL CC.
PJC_646 PEORIA TERMINAL CC.	
PTM  619 PCRTLANO TERMINAL CC. (ME.)
PTRR     PCRT TCWNSEND RR, INC.         	
PLCC     PCRT UTILITIES

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                 F-20

-------
PVS  644  ThE  FECOS VALLEY  SCUThERN  RhY.  CO.    _   	 	
PW   631  PROVIDENCE  £  WORCESTER  CC.
QAP__655  QL'ANAh. ACME  £  PACIFIC  RK.  CC.      	
CC   658  CIEBEC CENTRAL  RAILWAY  CC/
QRR  656  QIINCY RR CO.	
RC        RCSSLYN, CONNECTING  PR  CC.
RCG  623  CCNSCLICATED  RAIL  CORP.                   	     	
RFP  663  RJCH*ONOt FREDERICKSEURG  £  FCTOMAC  RR CC."
RI__145  CHIC/GCf ROCK  ISLAND G  PACIFIC  R_R_tO.	
RCR  676  RCCKTCN £ RON  RWY.
RR   671  RARITAN FIVER  RAIL RCAC CC.         	
RS   669  ThE  FOBERVAL  AND  SAGLENAY  RWY.CO.
RSB  662  RCCHESTER SUBWAY                        	
RSP  673  RCSCCE, SNYDER  £  PACIFIC  FhY. CO.   "
RSS  675  RCCKCALE, SANOOW  C SOUTHERN RR  CO.	   	
RT   665  ThE  FIVER TERMINAL RAILWAY  CC.
RTM  666  Th£  RAILWAY TRANSFER CC.  CF TE  CITY CF  MINNEAPOLIS	
RV   664  RAHWAY VALLEY  R.R. RAHWAY  VALLEY CO.. LESSEE
SAN  691  SANOERSVILLE  RR CO.
SB   791  SCLTh BUFFALO  RAILWAY CC.
SBC__.283  FERRCCARRIL SONORA EAJA CALIF., S.A.  DE C.V.
SBK  718  SCUTh BRCCKLYN  RWY.  CO.
SBM.	ST.  LOUIS,  BROWNSVILLE  £  MEXICO
SC   681  SLMTER £ CHOCTAW  RWY. CC.
SCL__712__SEAeCARO COAST  LINE  RR  CC. _
SCM  687  STROLDS CREEK  £ KUODLETY  FR
SCT  735  SIOUX XITY TERMINAL  RWY.
SDAE 702  SAN  CIEGG £ ARIZCNA  EASTEFN FhY. CO.
SEE _281  FERFCCARRILES  UNICQS DEL JLRESTE, S.A.  CE C.V.
SERA 716  SIEPFA RAILROAD CO.        	
SFPP      SPRUCE FALL PCWER £  PAPEF    	       	
SH   799  STEELTON £ HIGHSPIFE RR  CC. " "
SI   727  SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RR  CC. _  _ 	     	
SIND 720  SCUTI-ERN INDIANA RWY.,  INC.    " "       "            ~~
SIRC      THE  STATEN  ISLAND RF CCRF.	
SIRR 367  SCUThERN INDUSTRIAL  PR  INC.   "
SJB_ 680  ST.  JOSEPH BELL RWY.  CC.              	
SJL  793  ST.  JOHNSBURY  £ LAMCILLE CTY. RR.
SJRT 685  ST.  JOHNS RIVER TERMINAL                 	
SJT  683  ST.  JOSEPH TERMINAL  RR  CC.              "	"""
SLAW 705  ST.  LAWRENCE RR, CIV. OF NAT'L. _RWY^. _UTJ UZATCN_^pRP,
SLC  696  ThE  5AN LUIS CENTRAL RR CC.
SLGW 690  SALT LAKE, GAFIELC £  WESTERN PHY. CO.	
SLS       SEA-LAND SERVICE,  INC.
SLSF 693  ST.  LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO PhY. CO.      	
SM   682  ST.N/RY«S RR CC.
SMA  794  S/lN  MANUEL ARIZONA PR CO.	
SMV  741  SANT/ MARIA VALLEY RR CO.
SN   697  S/CR/MENTC NORTHERN  RWY.                     	
SNBL      SIOUX CITY £ NEW CRLEANS EARCE  LINE
SNCO      SEAPCRT NAVIGATION
SOO  482  SCC  tINE RR CO.
SCFR 736  SCUTh PIERCE RR	
SOT  792  SCLTh OMAHA TERMINAL RWY. CC.
SOU  724  SCUThERN PWY.  SYSTEM
SP   721  SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPCRTATICN CO.
SPUD 957  ST.  PAUL UNION  DEPCT CO.
SRC  686  STRASBURG RR CO.
%RN.  678  SAEINE RIVER £  NORTHERN RP  CC.

1.  Uniform Alpha  Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                  F-21

-------
 12                3
SRN  678 SAEINE RIVER £ NGRT1-ERN RP CC.	
SS   707 SAND SPRINGS RHY. CC.
SSOK 679 SAVANNAH STATE DOCKS RR CC.         	
SSH  704 SCUTI- SHORE
SSL      SKANEATELES SHORT LINE RF CCPP.  __	
SSLV 706 SCUTI-ERN SAN LUIS VALLEY fP CC.
SSt»  694 ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RhY. CC.	i
SI       SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RHY. CC.  (VERMONT)
STE  739 STOCKTON TERMINAL £ EASTERN FR_   	
S1L  714 SEATRAIN LINES, INC.
STRT 729 TI-E STEhARTSTOhN RR CG.
SLN  734 SUNSET R/ILWAY CC.
SLR _578 SLN CIL CO. OF PENNA.       	
TAEA     TANGIPAHCA £ EASTERN
TAG  755 TENNESSEE, ALABAHA £ GA. PhY.  CO.  	 	
TAS      TA*PA SCUTHERN RR
TASD 758 TERMINAL RWY., ALABAMA STATE CCCKS
TAM  785 TI-E TOLEOC, ANGOLA £ WESTERN PWY. CO.
TB   798 TUN BRANCH RR CO.               	
TCG  783 TISCCN, CCRNELIA £ GILA BENC RR CO.
TCT  761 TEXAS CITY TERMINAL RHY. CC.
TEM      TEMI SHAMING £ NORTHERN CNTARIC
TENN 767 TENNESSEE RAILWAY CC.
TEXC 750 TEXAS CENTRAL RR CO.
THE  774 ThE TCRONTO, HAMILTCN £ ELFF/LG RHY. CO.	
TM   762 ThE TEXAS MEXICAN RUY. CC.
TMBL 759 T*CCJ-A MUNICIPAL BELT LINE  RhY.      	
TN   795 TEXAS £ NORTHERN RWY. CC.
TNM  788 TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RteY. CO.
TOE  764 TEXAS, OKLAHOMA £ EASTERN RR CO.
TOV	782 TCOELE VALLEY RWY. CC.          _   	 	
TP   760 MISSCURI PACIFIC RR CC.	
TPMP 763 TEXAS PACIFIC-MISSOURI PACIFIC TERMINAL RS  OF N. QRLEAS
TPT  778 CCNSLIDATED RAIL CORP.
TPh  769 TCLECC, PEORIA £ WESTERN FR CO.     	
TRC  779 TRCNA RHY. CO.
TRRA_757 TERMINAL RR ASSOC. CF ST. LCUIS	
TS   784 TICEkATER SOUTHERN RkY. CC.
TSE  765 TEXAS SOLTH-EASTERN RR CC. _   	
TSU  709 TLLSA-SAPULPA UNION PHY. CC.
TT   771 THE TCLECC TERMINAL RR CC.      	
TTR      TIJUANA £ TECATE RWY. CC.
TLST 958 TEXAPKANA UNION STATICN JFLST	
TYC  796 TYLEPDALE CONNECTING
UCR      UTAH COAL ROUTE                _  	
UCP  808 UPPEF MERION  £ PLYMOUTH RP  CC.
UNI  805 UNITY RWYS. CO.                     _	
UQ       UNICN RR CF CREGCN
UP   802 UNION PAC. RR CO.(CREGON ShCRT LINEjCRE.-fcASh RR £ NAVIGAT. I
URR  803 UNICN RR CO.  (PITTSBURGH, PA.)
URY  804 UNION RY. CF  MEMPHIS     _           _ 	
UT   807 UNION TERMINAL RWY. (OF SI. JCSEPH,  M3.)
UTAH 811 UTAH RWY. CO.                                      	
UTR  809 UNION TRANSPORTATION   ~             ""   "- '
VALE 814 THE VALLEY RR CO.     _   	  	
VAMO 815 VIRGINIA £ MARYLAND RR
V8R  819 VIRGINIA BLUE RIDGE PHY.	
VC   820 VIRGINIA CENTRAL RWY.
VCY  821 VENTLRA CTY. RKY. CO.  	 .	
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company  Name


                                 F-22

-------
 12             3
Vt    tit* V15AL1A ELECTRIC RR CC.
VNCR 822 VERMCNT NCRTHERN RR CO. _    	
VS        VALLEY AND SILETZ RP CD.
v
-------
                  APPENDIX G
FINANCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS BY RAILROAD COMPANY

-------
     This appendix contains the results of the macroeconomic
modelling efforts that estimate the changes in price, demand and
employment related to each railroad company studied.  A computer
printout is presented which displays these results along with addi-
tional information that links the model outcomes to a particular
railroad company and key parameters, specifically unit price, ton-
miles and existing number of people employed. • The data shown
pertains to the year (1976) and the analysis results relate to the
identical year.  As described in Section 7, two L   levels are
used, specifically L, 70 and L  65.  Related to each analyzed regu-
                    dn        dn
latory study level are two price elasticities of demand; these are
-0.93 and -1.41. or a given L   value and price elasticity of
                             dn
demand, three specific results are calculated from application of
the model; these are (a) the percentage price increase,  (b) the
percentate ton-miles decrease and  (c) the employment decrease or
number of employees idled.  Hence, there are a total of  2 groups
of 3 results each computed for a specific L   regulatory study
                                           dn
level.
     The legend  for class/region is as follows:
          000 =  Class II/region, not specified
          Oil =  Class I/Eastern region
          012 =  Class I/Southern region
          013 =  Class I/Western region.
     When an asterisk appears in a given row or column,  this means
that the data was not available about the  firm  for  which the cal-
culation was attempted or  the information was not available  in  the
existing literature.
                                   G-l

-------
                    Legend
1.  Class Region

2.  ACI Code

3.  Uniform Alpha Code

4.        1976 Data
      (a)
 Unit Price
 <:/ ton -mile
    (b)
                              (c)
Ton-miles  Existing
   106    Employment
             Level


(a)
% Price
Increase
Ldn 70 dBA
ed = -0.39
(b)
% Ton-miles
Decrease


(c)
Employment
Decrease
          (a)
       % Price
       Increase
          (a)
       % Price
       Increase
 8.
           (a)
       % Price
       Increase
 Ldn  70 dBA
 ed = -1.41

      (b)
 % Ton-miles
  Decrease

 Ldn  65 dBA
 ed = -0.39

      (b)
  % Ton-miles
  Decrease
      65
     = -1.41
      (b)
  % Ton-miles
   Decrease
   (c)
Employment
 Decrease
    (c)
Employment
 Decrease
    (c)
Employment
   Decrease
                       G-2

-------
o
1
flflrt "
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
,
2
•J
2
1 1
10
9
4
21
20
19
18
Ib
14
13
12
65
6U
19
U2
J4
35
J2
31
23
201*
^02
201
200
196
iyj
192
191
188
1Mb
1B1
i/y
177
169
168
1bb
165
16J
158
1bJ
150
11 /
101
139
130
1
* *
* *
* *
* " ""*•
* *
.
* *
* *
•-• • - *•- 	 * •
* *
* • 	 *"•'
* *
~ 	 •* ~ 	 *• •
* *
* " '*
* *
* *
' " * 	 «r
* *
* * ""
* *
	 *"••• "* '
* *
•* *
* *
0. 0.0 0.
* *
* *
. .... . *. _ * 4
* *
* *
* * 1
0.2 0.1 0. 	
6
(a) (b) (c)
0.6 0.8 2. "i
* *
	 *~ 	 * " - 	
0.1 0.1 0
' * •- 	 * • - 	 ••
* *
.# _.% .. ... _
* ik
» * " ' " •• -—
* 4i
_
* — * -•• • • ••
* *
* *
t- ^ , ,. .^ 	 .... J
* *
* •" "*"" ' " ~ '
* * *
•• • '* 	 *•••• 	 -•*• -
* * *
* " * ••*-• -
* * *
* * '* * "'
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * '* 	
* * *
"" "' *' 	 * " * ' • "
* * ik
V •" ' * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
0.2 0.3 0.
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
_0.2 	 0.3 0.
7
(a) (b) (c)
5.5 2.1 5.
* * *
.. . M .. ^ 	 ^ . ..
4.7 1.8 0.
- 	 — * 	 * --
* *
	 ~ ' 	 "*" • *--
* *
* 	 " "* —
* *
* ~~- »"-
* *
'•'"*' — 	 * "
* *
" ' 	 — * 	 ~- ..^. -.-
* *
- - ^ ...^ ..
ifc *
- ' •* ' 	 * ••-
* *
* *
* *
- 	 Tt" ~ *'
* *
' 	 	 *" " "ik-
* *
	 * '- 	 • 	 "*" —
* ik
-" ""• '"* 	 * •-
* *
" ' # *
* *
41 ' 	 * '
4) *
* * *
* * *
* ' * * *
* * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
0. 0. T 0.
* *
* *
* 
-------
O
1
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000!
000^
ooo;
000
000
000
000
ooo:
000;
000'
000
000
000 ;
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
000
000
000
2
117
11U
113
112
111
109
108
106
104
103
101
100
99
97
92
91
87
66
8H
83
81
79
78
877
876
875
873
872
851*
851
850
8U9
8«6!
8U1
839'
833
832
831
830
829
828
826
817
815
811
809
808
807
803
799
1
3
CHB
CACV
CARE
CCT
CZC
*
CRN
CBC
CM
ci
CVB
CF
CTM
CAD
DBDT
B«L
X
BXN
BBC
*
BH
BAP
YH
YAH
YS
YK
YVT
WSS
«NF
WW
WAG
WSYP
WA
URRC
WYT 	
MSB
Kin
WYS
WOT
WS
«WV. H
VTR '
VAHD ...
UTAH
OTB
OBP
UT
URR
SH 	
4
(a) „. (b) 	 IG) 	
" * 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
0. 7. 1
0. 46.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 0. 1
0. 82256. !
0. 106.
	 0. 55. i
	 (J

""*""*


0. 0.
. 	 	 	 0. 	 .186. . 	 	
0. 0.
0. 118.
0. 30.
0. 0.
0. 35.
* 0. 998.
* 0. 0.
, * o. o.
* 0. 1U5.
	 * ._ 0. 0.
* 0. 0,
.....*.. .0. 18.
* 0. 8.
__ * 0. 0,
U.I 15<». 63.
„.„..* 	 	 0. 	 	 5,
0.
* 0. 0.
. * 	 0. 0,
* 0. 3,
	 *. .. 0... 166.
* 0. 0.
.,_...,.*.. .... 0. _ 35. „
* 0. 12.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 8.
... «... 	 	 o. 	 .0. 	
* 0. 0.
* 	 o. . . .0. 	 „


* 0. 8
-------
un
1
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
oco
oco
oco
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooc
000
000
000
000
000
000
2
795
79"
793
788
785
78U
783
782J
7791
771
767
765
761
760
759
75a
757
755
750
7U6
7U1
739
730
727
720
719
718
716
709
707
706
705
702
700
697
696
691
690
663
692
678
675
673
671
665
66U
659
656
655
651
3
TN
SMA.
SJL
TUB .....
TAW
TS .. ..
TCG
TOY
TRC
TT 	
TENN
TSE
TCT
TP i
TMBL i
.TASD.J
TRRA
TAG ...
TEXC
*
SHV
STE
A
SI
SIND
*
SDK
SERA
TSU
S3
SSLV
SLAW
SDAE
*
SN
SIC
f SA N
SLOW
' SJT
: sti
: SRN
RSS
' RSP
: RR
; ET
: RV
PBNE
QRR
QAP
PCN
s 4
(a) (b) (c)
* 0. 15U.
* 0, 0.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 16.
* 0. 6.
* ... 0. 0. ...._
* 0. 25.
* 0. 0.
* 0. U6.
* 0. 109.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 38.
* 0. 98.
* 0» 0.
* 0. 0.
* 0 0.
* 0. 2200.
* 0 0.
* 0. 0.
* 	 	 0. ..... 12. 	
* 0. 0.
* 0. 58.
4U.1 U. 0.
* 0. 123.
* 0. 0. ""
* 0. 0.
-• * 	 "o. ' " 	 o. 	
* 0. 45.
•~'* 	 o; 	 ' "o. " ""
* 0. Hit.
	 * - 	 0. 	 ~ 2. 	
* 0. 0.
"*• 	 0. '- 	 125.- 	
* 0. 0.
" *"" 0. 0.
* 0. 9.
— * 	 o; o.
* 0. 8.
	 *' 	 " 0. 	 50.
* 0. 36.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
' *" 0. 42.
* 0. 0.
* 	 o. o.
* 0. 0.
'"" * 	 0. 	 " " 0."" "
* o. d.
* 0. 21.
* 0. 0.
5 6 7
(a) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (a) (b)
********
****** *
****** *
****** *
******! *
****** *
******! *
****** *
******; *
******* *
****** *
* * . * , * .. ..* 	 ...* . . * 	
****** *
****** *
* * * | * * * *
* * * j 	 * * * *
****** *
****** *
***;*** *
* * * ! * * * * *
********
********
O.i» 0.2 0. 0.5 0.7 0. 1U.2 5.5
********
	 * — — 	 * -••- 	 t •*-•• •• *•" •• "• * • 	 •••*•• 	 * *
* * * *-* * * *
	 *•• 	 -••# 	 * — r •• *•- 	 * * * *
********
• — 	 *• - -*- •••••*• "| 	 — *• — *- * " * "*
********
, — ..^_ — -a 	 ^ ..*-.. 	 ^ .... ...#.._. „, ...... ... „, . -- * • •
* * * * * * . * *
— • 	 *•- 	 * 	 * — "*"• "* ~* 	 * *
********
• 	 -•* — •-••* — •• *• "~i "* ••"••* •- * * *
********
"r 	 	 *-~~ "• •*- 	 * 	 * 	 	 " * " " * * *
* * *:* * * * *
'• 	 * 	 " •—*- 	 * 	 T' "* " * * "* *
* * ** * * * *
- 	 * 	 — *• * — ~* ' "•* •*" '* '*" '
********
••' 	 *— 	 '*•••" 	 f '• * " ""* ~ 	 * * *
********
-" - * 	 * •- • ' *— 	 *- ' •""*•••• 	 *' '" * 	 	 *"
****** *
	 * 	 "' * ' * ' * "*' * *
****** *
	 * 	 -.-A- 	 4-- - •+ „ * *
. * * * . * * * 1 *
.1 	 _ 	 	 — ••-- ' ••• -- 	 -v- 	
8
(c) (a) (b) (c)
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
_. ^.... _. .. ^ . . .^ .. ,^.
* { * * *
* * * *
* * * *
__ ^ _ ...
* i * * *
* * * *
* »_ * * *
* | * * *
* L * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* I * * *
* * * *
0. 25.9 36.5 0.
* * * *
* j * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* j * * *
* ' * * *
* * * *
• — *- 	 	 * 	 *•- 	 *-
* * * *
.... ^ , — - ^ ^ ^
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
— ^ — . 	 „. a-
* * *
i . —

-------
CTi

1
000
000
ooo
000
000
000
000
000
"000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
2
6U8
6U7
6U5
6UU
63«
632
631
629
627!
619
616
603
587
586
"582
577
561
560
55U
553
552
551
5U9
5U8
5«7
5«6
5«2
537
53*
530
525
52«
523
515
513
511
510
509
'507
:506
!502
500
193
U97
U93
JU8U
JU80
1*75
1*71
U66
3
PJB
PHD
PPU "
PVS
PNH'
PRTD
PS
PCT
PS
PTB
POV 	
OCE
OCTB
OTR
H'FD "~
HSS
*
*
NB
HLG
HH
HS
SPB
BCSA
*
UYSV
N?D
NEZP
NIC "
«v
N4P
*
HBTH
MT
IAT
HE
BDW
H8
nov
M e 0
HISS
HTB
HCRH
NGA _
*
HTPH
HNS
«NJ ...._
KSTH
BCR. ._
4
(a) (b) (c)
* -- o. ••" 	 o.
* 0. 36.
"'* 	 0. " 398.
* 0. 17.
-• * 	 0. 22. •" "
* 0. 0.
- * - 0. 	 92.
* 0. 68.
~ * 	 o, 	 o. "
* 0. 27«.
•* 0. ••"" 29.
* 0. 0.
""•*- " o. 	 o.
* 0. 0.
"""* 	 " '"0. "~ 103.
* 0. 172.
"" * 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
* " 0. " 0.
* 0. 67.
" * 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0,
* 0, 7.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0.
	 * 	 0. '" 	 71." ""
* 0. 0.
* "~ 0. 6.
* 0. 65.
* 0. ' 0.
* 0. 0.
.. 	 	 	 "*. 	 • •• 	 -
* 0. 0.
* 0 107.
* 0. 0.
* 0 35.
* 0. 8«.
* 0 0.
* 0. 7.
* 0 70.
* 0. 20.
* 0. 102.
* 0. 424.
* 0 0.
* 0. 6.
* 0 113
* 0. 151.
* 0 C
1 _ U. 	 — V« 	
* 0. 9.
* 0. 69.
5
(a) (b) (c)
•• 	 * •- 	 *" *
* * *
--- 	 * 	 - •* 	 "" *—--
* * *
	 * •— 	 -* 	 - ' *-
* * *
	 ^ 	 t 	 ^ .
* * *
	 * 	 - * "' 	 v
* * *
	 * 	 * *
* * *
	 * • 	 * 	 - "*
* * *
-- 	 *-— -'* 	 *' '
* * *
* * *
* * *
	 *•" 	 * 	 •-> —
* * *
• — ~#-~ * . * ^
* * *
• 	 * 	 ••-*•- 	 *"••
* * *
	 ~ * 	 •••••* 	 *
* * *
* * *
* * *
" 	 — -*•" •-- * «
* * *
-~ 	 * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
..... ...... _ _ . ^ - ^
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* + *
* * *

6
(a) (b) (c)
* * *
* * *
• 	 * ' * • *
* * *
• ••* * #
* * *
	 -* •- — *•- - * - •
* * *
* * • - *
* * *
* * *
* * *
, 	 -tf_. . .f . ,- -
* * *
i 	 »- • - •» *
* * *
* * *
* * *
""•* 	 * 	 " *
* * *
* * *
* * *
	 *• 	 ~ ' "~* '*"""'
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* , * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * »
* *• *
* * *
* * *

7
(a) (b) (c)
• * '
*
*
4C
* *
* *
* *
* ' ' *
* *
	 -•• ifc *
* *
- - — 	 •••* 	 	 *""• •
* ik
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
	 ^ ^ -
* *
'" 	 * *
* *
" * *
* *
	 •""* " *
* «
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
" " " ~ ' ~ * *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* 4>
* *

8
(a) (b) (c)
•' " * * K
* * *
* * *
* * *
* « *
* f *
* * *
* * *
* * «t
* * *
* * *
* * .«
* * *
* » *
* * *
« 4r *
* * *
* * *
w « ft"
* * *

-------
o

123
000 U62 *
000 U60 HRS
000 U59JHJ
000 453 *
000 451 LH
000 450 LPN
000 447 LBR
000 UU6 LNAC 	
000 445 ISO
000 443 LPB
000 442 1NW
000 441 LA
000 i»30 LUN
000 428 LAJ
000 427 LRS
000 426 LC
000 1*25 LSI
000 424 LEFH
000 423 LEF
OOC 420 LSBC
000 417JLSTT
000 407 LDRT
000 404 LT
000 U03 KENN
OCO 402 KIT
OCCJ401J KC1
OCOJ398JLAL
000 366i HPTD
000! 359 *
000.357 1KB 	
000; 352 *
000:341 * 	 _,
OOC 340J*
OOOJ337 * .....
000 334;HRT
00 0 331 HSV .....
000 329 HBS
OOOi 328 HE 	
000! 324 *
000i323 GU 	 .,
000 321JGJ
000 320IGNWB..
000, 319 GHIN
000' 314 GHRC
000 312 GBH
000, 31 1 GWR
OOC 307! GNA """
000: 302J GRR
OOC. 298 GANO


4
_ (a) (b) (c)
0. 75.
... .. 	 	 0. 	 	 0.. .
0. 13.
.... 	 	 0. 8.
0. 3.
	 	 o. 	 o. ...
0. 0.
	 	 	 ... 0. 	 10.
0. 0.
	 0. 0.
0. 54.
_ 	 o. 	 	 o. ...
0. 0.
	 .0... . . .0. .,.,
0. 23.
0. 26.
0. 302.
0. H.
0. 25.
	 	 	 	 _0.__. 0,
0. 53.
. _ 	 o._ o.
0. 400.
	 	 o.._ 	 o. ...
0. 512.
... 	 -- 	 0,. 	 326.__
0. 0.
	 0. 21.
0. 0.
	 0.. 0,
0. 0.
	 	 0.... 	 	 0.
0. 0.
	 	 0. 	 ..0.
0. 8.
. . 	 	 0. 	 	 . 0, 	 ._
0. 0.
-..0. 0.
0. 0.
	 	 0... 	 9.
0. 9.
	 __.. 0 	 . 69. .
0. 0.
0. 0.
0. 367.
0. 49.
0. 21. '
0. 0.
. 	 	
w U. 0.
* 0. 0.


5
(a) (b) (c)
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* • * * [
* * * r
* * *
* * * :
* * *
* * * ;
* * * ;
* * * j
* * *
* * * ;
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
r * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
# * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * i
1
* * * 1
1

6
_.(aX ... (b) (c)
* * *
* * *
* * **" 	
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* "* "~ 	 *"
* * *
* • * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * ;
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * * •
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
.-...£.. — ..... t 	 ^.... ..
* * * _|
* "* * "1
*
	 (_

7
(a) 	 (b-) 	 lc)
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
ik *
* *
* *
* ik
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* 	 ~ ' * * —
* * *
.. t ....... # _ ^ .,
* * *


8
(a)A (bj (c|
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* » *
* * *
<• *> *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * «
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
' * * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *
* * *


-------
1
000
ooc
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooc
000
000
ooc
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
0111
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011^
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011
011.
2
293
290
287
282
277
273
265
264
260"
2t*8
247
2U5
242
241
234
222
220
219
217
215
208
238
2UO
308
354
364
413
419
429
436
431
456
550
626
623
622
663
839
105
120
119
125
129
1431
195
205'
27
50
"59
56]
3
GHH "
Gfl
GCW
FOB
FWB "
FBON
FP
FJG
FPE 	
«t
EDW "
EJB
EACH"
ELS
ETWH 1
CIRB
DMH
DT
DS
CBL
DTI
EJE
El
GT»
ITC~"
IRH
LNE '
1WV
LHB
»-
HEC 1
NH
PLE
RDG
PC, j
RFP
wn \
CP
cv
CNJ '
CO
CEl" ";
CRI
DH
DTS
PBSL "
BO
BCK .
BRH ;
4
(a) (b) (c)
0. 50.
0. 16.
0. • 5. 	
0. 0.
	 0. 	 8.
0. 0.
o. " 	 2; 	
0. 10.
0. '" 	 54. ' ~\
0. 0.
0. "20. ?
0. 0. i
•'•" 'o. o. "•;
0. 28.
0. ' " 0. ""
0. 0.
0. 13.
0. 189.
~" " " '" 0. 	 ~ 43." "'
0. 0.
3.7 ' 1224. ~ 0.
10.8 940. 3051.
" 3.0 9562. 10874.
4.6 3333. 4094.
	 3.9 574. 	 561."""
* 0. 0.
* 0. 0. '
* 0. 9.
* " 0. '-' 0. '
453.0 29. 6732.
' 1.9 " 3603. 	 2645. " ",
4.5 821. 1222.
2.3 48648. 24557.
4.2 1347. 0.
4.4 3136. 5756.
2.8 78115. 79503.
	 3.0 1033. 	 1040.""
2.8 2575. 1336.
2.3 50042. 0.
4.3 270. 411.
7.8 599. 0.
2.4 26227. 18690.
* 0. 0.
* 0. 228.
2.2 3482. 2138.
5.4 228. 276.
* 0. 0.
2.7 24941. 16164.
0. 95700.
3.9 508. 702.
5
(a) (b) (c)
. ., . 4 	 ^ 	 ^ —
* + *
^ 	 .% 	 % 	
* * *
. ....... ^ 	 ^ ._ — .<|.,.
* * *
' • * 	 * "" " * "
* * *
-••- "» 	 * 	 • -•*•—
* * *
	 ^ .... . ^.. 	 % —
* * *
* ' * - - * -
* * *
' * 	 * ""* ~
* * *
* ' * ~ J~ *
* * *
* 	 *"" "«"•
* * *
0.3 0. f 	 0.
0.1 0.1 1.
0.1 	 0.0 3""
0.1 0.0 1.
'0.2 ~ '0.1 	 0.
* * *
* • ' • * 	 - *" "
* * *
* ' ' * '" 	 * ' "
0.1 0.0 3.
"" 0.2 "0.1 "'2".
0.1 0.0 1.
0.1 0.0 4.
0.2 0.1 0.
0.1 " 0.0 3.' ~
0.1 0.0 21.
0.3 0.1 	 '1.'"~
0.2 0.1 1.
0.0 0.0 0.
0.4 0.2 1.
o. 1 " " o.c 	 o. 	
0.1 0.0 4.
* * , *
* * *
0.2 "" 0.1 i."~
0.5 0.2 0.
.. . ^ . ^ 	  ' *" - 	 '«""
* * *
" ' * 	 * "'~ •-•£•••-
0.0 0.1 8.
O.T~ 0.4 8."
0.1 0.2 2.
0. 1 0. 1 '" 	 21.
0.2 0.3 0.
0. t "0.2 10."~
0.1 0.1 88.
-o."6 0.9" "s:~
0.3 0.4 4.
0.0 0.0 0.
0.4 0.6 2.
0.1 	 0.1 'o. "
0.1 0.1 19.
+ * *
* * *
0.2 0.3 6.
0.8 1.1 2.
... .^.. . . . ^- .....^
0.1 _ 0.2 21.
# ~* i~ +
0.3 0.4 2.
7
(a) (b) (c)
._..... „, ,w.— — -u, ..,..,.._._. uj,....
* *
-» — --•*- - -* -
* *
1 	 ~ •• "* 	 #•
* *
* *
* *
' " ' " " 	 4c 	 	 - •"»'-
* *
J ~"~J~ » ' ' " ' #
* *
* *
* 	 * ' '
* *
' ' ' * 	 ' * 	 *"
* * *
	 * 	 * 	 	 A ""
* * *
2.7 1.1 0.
1.1 0.4 10.
-2.4 	 1.0 	 92. ~
1.9 0.7 24.
"3.9 "" 1.5 " 7; "
* 5 ... ,Q^,
1.6 2.3 52.
•"2V 9 	 T.1 	 395."
2.6 3.6 117.
5.5' 7.8 35.
* * *
* • *•••- - •*•
* * *
* ~ * >k
0.2 0.3 34.
-5:5 	 7.8-— 1747
2.1 3.0 33.
2.8 3.9 654.
2.3 3.2 0.
2.1 2.9 156.
2.4 3.3 2331.
'5. 'ft 	 ""7.6- 	 47;
3.3 4.6 46.
""o.o" -"o.o 	 o."
5.4 7.7 30.
2.3 "3. 2 0.
2.6 3.7 529.
* # *
* * *
.-3_7 ^2 g.6._
3.9 5.5 11.
* * *
3.6 5.0 602.
.... ^ „.
3.6 5.1 34.

-------
1
011
011
012
012
012
012
012
012
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
013
2
61
69
712
724
U44
350
263
299
268
213
216
400
482
559
490
494
721
693
694
762
769
802
840
22
197
145
131
140
157
76
3
B-E
BH
SCL
SOD,
Lt)
ICG
FEC
GA
FWD
DHIR
DWP
KCS
soo
NWP
HKT
HP
SP
SLSF
SSW
TH
TPW
OP
WP
ATSF..
DRGH
RI
GNU
MILW
CS
BN
4
(a) (b) (c)
3.6 2223. 1482. """
4.1 2466. 3061.
2.3 31720. 19342.
3.7 27987. 20830.
1.7 39169. 15209.
2.1 28874. 18610.
2.8 1923. 997.
2.0 769. 460.
1.8 2302. 991.
3.3 2093. 1708.
2.0 1179. 422.
2.1 6877. 3110.
2.0 9396. 4472.
3.0 469. 0.
2.1 4859. 2363.
2.1 37030. 19370.
2.2 63653. 4730S.
2.2 14564. 8359.
2.1 9312. 3705.
5.3 154. 295.
3.0 688. 420.
2.1 56528. 25103.
2.2 4999. 2800.
2.2 52223. 31319.
1.9 8745. 3481.
2.4 14350. 8516.
2.3 22969. 13233.
2.4 19140. 11876.
2.2 2072. 552.
1.8 84739. 44269.
5
(a) (b) (c)
0.1 0.1 "1.
0.2 0.1 2.
0.1 0.0 4.
0.1 0.0 3.
0.1 0.0 3.
0.1 0.0 4.
0.2 0.1 1.
0.3 0.1 0.
0.3 0.1 1.
0.2 0.1 1.
0.2 0.1 0.
0.1 O.G 1.
0.1 0.0 1.
0.3 0.1 0.
0.2 0.1 1.
0.1 0.0 3.
0.0 0.0 7.
0.1 0.0 2.
0.1 0.0 1.
0.5 0.2 0.
0.2 0.1 0.
0.0 0.0 3.
0.1 0.0 1.
0.0 0.0 5. i
0.1 o.o 1. ~T
0.1 0.0 3. i
0.1 0.0 3.
0.1 O.C 4.
0.3 0.1 0.
0.1 O.fl 9.
6
(a) (b) (c)
0.2 0.3 3.
0.2 0.3 8.
0.1 0.1 21.
0.1 0.1 17.
0.1 0.1 14.
0.1 0.1 20.
0.3 0.5 3.
0.4 0.6 2.
0.4 0.6 4.
0.2 0.3 4.
1.9 2.7 2.
0.1 0.2 5.
0.2 0.2 7.
0.4 0.5 0.
0.2 0.3 5.
0.1 0.1 16.
0.1 0.1 33.
0.1 0.2 11.
0.1 0.2 5.
0.6 0.9 2.
0.3 0.5 1.
0.1 0.1 15.
0.1 0.2 5.
0.1 0.1 21.
0.1 0.2 5.
0.1 0.2 12.
0.1 0.1 16.
0.1 0.1 15.
0.3 0.5 2.
0.1 0.1 39. !
7
(a) (b) (c)
1.2 	 0.5 5.
2.5 1.0 25.
1.8 O.T 104.
1.0 0.4 61.
1.4 0.5 63.
2.0 0.8 115.
1.6 0.6 5.
2.1 0.8 3. ,
2.5 1.0 7.
1.3 0.5 7.
0.5 0.2 0.
1.4 0.6 13.
2.4 0.9 29.
2.2 0.8 0.
2.7 1.1 20.
1.2 0.5 66.
0.8 0.3 116.
1.6 0.6 39.
1.2 0.4 13.
4.9 1.9 5. !
1.6 0.6 2.
0.8 0.3 57.
1.2 0.5 12. T
1.1 0.4 115. ;
0.8 0.3 8.
2.2 0.9 60.
2.8 1.1 114.
2.4 0.9 112.
1.6 0.6 3.
1.5 0.6 216.
3
(a) (b) (c)
"1.7 2.4 26.
3.0 4.3 112.
"2.7 " 378" 549T
1.6 2.2 331.
1.9 2.7 317.
2.7 3.8 562.
2.3 3.3 21.
2.9 4.1 15.
3.6 5.1 38.
1.7 2.4 32.
1.9 2.7 2.
2.0 2.8 68.
4.2 5.9 183.
2.6 3.7 0.
3.8 5.3 99.
1.8 2.6 363.
1.1 1.5 558.
2.3 3.2 203.
1.6 2.2 6U.
6.8 9.6 23.
2.4 3.4 10.
1.1 1.5 291.
1.5 2.2 51.
1.5 2.1 528.
1.2 1.7 43.
2.9 4.1 285.
3.8 5.4 570.
2.4 3.4 407.
2.1 3.0 13.
2.0 2.8 1015.

-------
          APPENDIX H
DERIVATIONS OF THE GENERALIZED
    MICRO-ECONOMIC MODEL

-------
                          APPENDIX H
        APPLICATION OF A MICROECONOMIC MODELING TECHNIQUE*
    TO ESTIMATE PRICE INCREASE RESULTING FROM COMPLIANCE WITH
           POTENTIAL NOISE STANDARDS BY RAIL CARRIERS
Objective of the Model.

     The effect of a noise emission standard on the railroad industry
is to impose variable financial and economic impacts on firms in the
industry.  The impact varies from firm to firm since it represents
the cost to comply with a noise abatement regulation on railroad property
owned and operated by individual firms.  To cover the compliance cost
imposed by such a regulation, individual railroad firms have but one
option to recover such costs directly, assuming they do not abosrb
the costs through profits and that no Federal subsidy is available .
This option is to petition the ICC for a freight rate change which can
be expressed as a unit price increase for the commodities the firms
transports by rail.  The objective of the microeconomic price model
is to analyze the size and relative effect of a price increase on
each railroad firm which must comply with a noise emission regulation.
The model analyzes only the compliance impacts of the imposition of
the noise standard and appropriately excludes from consideration the
normal dynamics of the industry and transportation markets.

Assumptions

     To model the effect of a price increase, the following
assumptions are made:

     1)  The changes in price and demand are small,  so that a
         constant price elasticity of demand can be  used to
         relate these changes:
*  The microanalytical model  concepts  and derivation of the
   principal equations incorporated in this  section are based
   directly on the models  derived by E. J. Battison, Senior
   Economist, Energy & Environmental Sciences  Group, Science
   Applications,  Inc.  (currently associated  with NUS Corpora-
   tion,  Gaithersburg, MD.)
                                H-1

-------
     where e
-------
      Price  and Income Compensated Path
                       After Regulation
                           Before Regulation
FIGURE H-l:  PRICE-DEMAND RELATIONSHIP
                 H-3

-------
demand are available at the level of individual rail  carriers as
reported previously in another section of this report; however, two
values of price elasticity of demand, specifically,  e^ = -0.39 and
£3 = -1.41, have been used to represent the range of  elasticities
for the entire industry.

The Price Model

     The model uses comparative statics as the approach for estimating
the increases in prices and revenues necessary to comply with a noise
standard by individual rail carriers.  The case of constant net income
after regulation is discussed and explained here.  Before  regulation,
the total revenue is pq and the total expense is cq,  therefore the
net income, which is the difference between the total revenue and the
total expense, is (p - c)q.  After regulation, assume that there is a
price increase of ^p and a total compliance cost of  OC.  The total
gross revenue is (p+4>)(q-Aj) and the total expense  is c(q-Aj)+CC, since
the demand after imposition of the regulation is (p+^?-c)(q-Aq).
Assuming that the railroad operator can retain the same net income
after regulation, the following equation must hold:
     Net Income            Net Income         _
     After Regulation   -  Before Regulation
i.e., (p+/p-c)(q-Aq)-CC -  (p-c)q = 0
Using the elasticity relationship  (1), this equation can be simpli-
fied to:
     ed <&>)2 +  OdtP-cJ+P]  (4P> - -2|p = 0                       (3)

Referring to Figure H-2, the net income before  regulation  is repre-
sented by the shaded area KLPB and the net income  after regulation is
represented by the shaded are FOTA.  The increase  in net income,
(p-c)flq, is represented by the shaded area MNPB.   Therefore, equations
(2) and (3) are equivalent to equating the areas:
     Area FGHA - Area KLPB - 0                                      (4)
                               H-4

-------
p+Ap
c+cc
                    Price and Income Compensated Path
                            After Regulation
                     N
                                        Before Regulation
                      k\\YOO
\
    \
                                     \
                    q-Aq
        FIGURE H-2: NET INCOME BEFORE AND AFTER REGULATION
                            H-5

-------
Equation (3) is a quadratic equation of the price increases, Ap«
The coefficients of this equation are known since e
-------
If employment is directly proportional to adjusted revenue (i.e.,
revenue less compliance cost), the decrease in employment, E, is
related to the decrease in adjusted revenue by:
     AE = 3  e(j >-1.00), total revenue increases when
         price increases.  If additional  labor  inputs are
         associated with the price increases, an  increase in
         employment may accompany the  rise  in price.
      2.  Noise regulation could effect a  change in railroad
         services, and the labor/adjusted revenue mix may
         increase.  This is likely to  occur for the  more
         stringent regulations, L^ 65 and  L^n  60, when
         a change in operations is necessary to meet these
         regulations.
     The decreases  in  employment  estimated here  do not consider
either of these possibilities.  Moreover,  the  increase in employ-
ment caused directly by  compliance  activities  is not calculated.
                                H-7

-------
The Analytical Derivation of the Generalized Microeconomic Model* To
Forecast Price Increases Resulting From Compliance With Noise Standards.
Derivation of Basic Equations

          Let p be the unit price before regulation and p + Ap be the
unit price after regulation.  Hence Ap is the price increase after
regulation •  Let q be the output (production) level before regulation
and q - Aq be the output level after regulation.  Hence, Aq is the
decrease in output level after regulation.

          Assuming that they are small, Ap and Aq are related by:
where €
-------
          A rail carrier may pursue any policy to cover compliance costs
and protect its market position after  regulation.  The following three
policies are studied:
           I«  Constant Profit Margin.  To maintain the same profit
              margin  (i.e., net  income per unit  sale) before and
              after regulation.

          II.  Constant Net Income.  To maintain  the same net income
              before  and after regulation.

         III.  Increased Net Income.  To  increase the net income by
              an amount  [ p - c{q}] Aq after  regulation.

Estimation of the price increases in the main text  (Section 7) is based
on  the policy of increased net income.

I.  Constant Profit Margin

           To maintain the same profit margin, a  rail carrier needs to set
Ap  such  that
            q    q-Aq
Using  (2) and  (3)  the  above equation becomes:
          p _  C{q} = p +Ap - c{q  -Aq}  -  cc
i.e.,     Ap = cc +  c{q +edq£|-  cfq)                        (5)
                                   H-9

-------
II.  Constant Net Income



          To maintain the same net income, a rail carrier needs  to  set

Ap such that:



          YB - YA                                               (6)



Using (2) and (3), the above equation becomes:



           [p - c{q>]q =  [p + Ap - c{q -Aq}- cc] (q - Aq)



i.e.      [Ap - cc - c{q -Aq}+ c{q}Jq -  [p +AP  - c {q -Aq}-  cc] Aq = 0



Using (1) and rearranging terms yields:
          ed(A?)2 +  [ed[p - cc - c|q +  edq     j. + p] (Ap)
                  -[cc + c{q + edq A£ }  - c{q}]p  =  0                (7)
III.  Increased Net Income



          To increase the net  income by an  amount  (p-c)Aq  after

regulation, a rail carrier needs  to set Ap  such  that:



          YB +  IP - c{q}]Aq =  YA                               (8)



Using  (2) and (3), above equation becomes



          [p - c{q}]q + [p - c{q}]Aq =  [p + Ap  -  c {q -Aq}- cc] (q -Aq)



i.e.,     [Ap -  c{q -Aq} + c{q> - cc]q -  [2p +Ap  - c{q -Aq)  - cjq>- cc]Aq ™ 0



Using  (1) and re-arranging terms  yields:



          ed(Ap)2 +  (edl2P - c
-------
Cost Function Approximations

          Although equations (5), (7) and (9) can be solved in principle
for any cost function c}ql using an approximation to simplify the cost
function can reveal a great deal about the qualitative behavior of Ap
under different market conditions.  A first order approximation of c{qj
can be obtained by using only the first order term in the Taylor series
expansion about q:
          c{q -Aq} = c{q|
                                                       (10)
This approximation is good for sufficiently small changes in price
and output.  An increasing return to scale is associated with a positiveY
and a diminishing return to scale is associated with a negative Y-
Using the first order approximation (10), (5) becomes:
         Ap = cc - yedq
                  cc
Using the first order approximation  (10),  (7) become:
ed(Ap)2 + [ed[p - cc - c {q }
                                                + P] CAp) -  [cc - Yed
                                                                           = 0
%>)(Ap)2
p
                    ted[p - cc - c{q)
                                                       pi 
-------
Using the first order approximation (10), (9) become:
       ed(Ap)2 + [ed[2P - 2cM +Yed  iAP ~ ccl + p] (Ap) - tec -yed
                                       P                              P
i.e.    [ed(l +Yedi  )]<&p)2 + [ed[2p - 2cjq| - cc +yq] + p] (Ap) - (cc)p = 0   (13)
                  P

          Assuming that the return to scale is constant, then Y= 0 and

       c{q -£q( = c|q| = c                                                      (14)
Therefore, with the constant returns to scale cost function, the price
increase for the constant profit margin policy is:

       Ap = cc                                                                  (15)

The price increase for the constant net income policy is given by roots
to the equation:

       ed(Ap)2 + (ed [p-cc-c] + p)(Ap) - (cc) p = 0                             (16)

The price increase for the increased net income policy is given by the
roots to the equation:

       fd(Ap)2 + (fd [2p-2c-cc] + p)CAp) - (cc) p = 0                           (17)

This is the model used in the main text (Section 7) to estimate price
increases after regulation.
                                   H-12

-------
Existence of Real Solutions for the Increased Net Income Case with
Constant Cost

          The price increase for the increased net income case with
constant cost is given by the roots to equation  (17):

           ed(Ap)2 +  (ed[2(p-c) - cc] + p)(Ap) -  (cc).p = 0.

The roots are:
          An =  -fii  V(B2 - 4AC)
                         2A

                where A = ed

                B = ed[2(p-c)  - cc] + p

                C = -  (cc).p

Real roots exist if and only if B2 - 4AC _>  0.

Since 4AC - -4ed ccp > 0,the real roots,  if exist,  are both positive (if  B>0)
or both negative (if B<0).

Let y(Ap) be  a quadratic function of Ap  such that


         y(Ap) = ed(Ap)2 +  (ed[2(p-c)  -  cc] + p]  + p) (Ap)  - (cc)*p

i.e.     y(Ap) = A(Ap)2 + B(Ap) + C
                                   H-13

-------
Since C - -(cc).p < 0,  four cases may occur:
          B2-4AC X),  B>0.
          Two real positive roots exist.
ii)
iii)
iv)
B2 -4AC X), B<0.
Two real negative roots exist.
B2 -4AC <0, B>0.
No real root exists.
Adjusted profit maximization gives
positive solution.
B2 -4AC <0, B<0.
No real root exists.
Adjusted profit maximization gives
negative solution.
                                                                   Ap
-~Ap
 -ccp
                                                                 -ccp
Under normal economic market conditions, only
cases i and iii would be considered.
                                   H-14

-------
The condition B>0 is satisfied if and only if

          fd  [2(p-c)-cc] + p > o.

i.e.,     _E + cc >2(p - c)


If f(j  is in the order of 1 and p-c is of a lower  order  of magnitude,
then the above condition holds and BX).  Thus,  the real  roots,  if  they
exist, are positive, and the adjusted profit maximization solution has
a positive solution.  This is almost always the case  with the levels of
values, compliance costs, and price increases postulated for regulatory
impact analysis.
                                     H-15

-------
              APPENDIX I
ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY RAILROAD COMPANIES

-------
     Contained in this appendix is a computer printout of 5 financial
ratios that were described previously in Section 7.  The results of
each ratio calculated are displayed as decimals in groups of three,
based upon (a) no regulation, (b) estimated noise abatement pro-
cedural costs to comply with an L  70 regulatory study level and (c)
                                 dn
estimated noise abatement procedural costs to comply with an L  65
                                                              dn
regulatory study level.  For example, the ratio net operating revenue
divided by gross revenues for a given railroad company has 3 results
displayed in a row; these are followed in the same row by the remain-
ing ratios in groups of three.
     Preceding the ratio data, information is provided to indicate
the class and region associated with the listing by ACI and uniform
alpha code designation of each railroad company analyzed.  The
legend for road class is as  follows:
          00 = class II
          01 = class 1.
The legend for region is as  follows:
           0 = not specified
           1 = Eastern
           2 = Southern
           3 = Western
     When a 99.00 is displayed in the printout, this means that the
data were not available from the data sources used in  this study
such as  the ICC's  'R1 reports and Moody's Transportation Manual.
                                  1-1

-------
                    Legend
1    Class

2    Region

3    ACI Code

4    Uniform Alpha Code

5    Net Operating Revenue
        Gross Revenue
      (a)       (b)      (c)
     No Reg.   70dB    65dB

6    Net Operating Revenue
        Total Assets
     (a)      (b)        (c)
    No Reg.   70dB     65dB

7    Gross Revenue - Total Assets
      (a)         (b)         (c)
     No Reg.    70dB        65dB

8    Current Assets - Current Liabilities
      (a)           (b)           (c)
     No. Reg.     70dB          65dB

9    Current Assets - Total Assets
        (a)          (b)         (c)
      No Reg.      70dB       65dB
                      1-2

-------
1234
00 0 13 AkA
00 0 12 AN
00 0 11 AFA
00 0 10 AA
00 0 9 AH
00 0 4 AHVi
00 0 3 AC If
oo o — 2"Anr •-
00 0 49 AKC
OC 0 42 f,£AB
00 0 38 AVL
00 0 35 AtlH
00 0 32 AIS
00 0 31 AEC
CO C 23 AhF
00 0 • 21 AON
00 0 20 AMh
00 0 19 A;;C
00 0 16 AICS
00 0 16 AIM
00 0 14 A3L
00 0 196 DC
00 0 193 DVS
00 0 192 Ctfl "•"
00 0 191 DR
00 0 168 CICO
00 0 186 CUVA
00 0 181 CLlt "
00 0 179 CHH
00 0 177 CAGY
00 0 169 CIE
00 '0 168 CSS ""
00 0 166 CCP
00 0 165 *•
00 0 163 CLC
00 0 158 CH
00 0 153 CtTP
OC 0 150 C1H """
00 0 1U7 C3L
00 0 1U1 C?1T
00 0 139 CHTT
00 0 130 CICf
00 0 124 CHV
00 0 118 CGA
iOO 0 117 CHB
00 0 11U CACV'
oo o 113 cAcn
!00 0112 CCT
•00 0111 CIC
,00 0 109" *
;00 0 108 *
00 0" 106 CBN
00 0 104 CBC
5
(a) (b) (c)
-0.12 -0.15 -0.51
0.37" '0.37 0.35
0.51 C.50 0-46
-0.25-0.25 -0.3C
0.18 0. 18 0. 17
95.03 99. OC 99. OC
0.10 0.05 0.0«
-0.62" -0.53— -o;8e~
99.00 99. CC S9.0C
0.39 0.39 0.34
99.00 99.00 99. OC
0.19 C.15 -0.3E
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 ' 99.00 SS.OC
0.23 0,23 0.22
0.53 "0.53 0.5:
O.U6 0.146 0.44
99.00 99.00 99. OC
0.15 0.15 0.14
0.36 " 0.38 " " 0.35 	
99.00 99.00 59. OC
S9.00 95.00 " 99.00
0.0 -0.04 -0.11
99.00" 99.00 99.00
0.55 0.55 0.54
[99.00 99. CO "59.00
0.16 0.15 0.15
0.17 "0. 12 0.05
0.46 0.46 0.45
99.00 "99. OC" 59. CC
-0.22 -0.27 -0.82
0."34 "0.33 	 0.32"
0.28 0.27 0.21
99.00 99.0C~"S9.0C
95.00 S9.0C 59. OC
0.40 0.40 0.39
0.41 0.4C C.4C
-0.63 -0.63 -0,68
0.41 0.41 0.38
•0.26 -0.3C "-0.41
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.12 "0. 12 O.CS
0.38 0.37 0.26
0.26 0.26 0.2E
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 99. OC S9.0C
0.26 0.27 0.26
0.20 """ 0.2C" 0. 17 "
99.00 99.00 S9.CC
99.00 99.06 95.00
95.00 99. OC 59. OC
0.26 "0.26 0.26"
99.00 99. OC 59. OC
6
(a) (b) (c)
-C.08 -0.10 -C.1S
C.12 0.12 C.11
o.4i 0.41 c.:-7
-0.09 "-0.09 -C. 11
C.08 O.C8 C.C8
99.00 99.00 SS.CO
c.o« 0.04 c.c;
-0.15" -0.15 ™-C." 17"
95.00 99. JO SS.CC
C.21 0.21 C.17
99.00 99.00 55. CO
C.C1 0.00 -C.C1
99.00 9*. 00 55. CO
55.00 59.00 SS.CO
0.15 0.1U 0. 1"
C.42 0.42 ' C.lC "
C.J6 O.J5 C.24
55.00 °S.OO SS.CO
C.23 0.23 C.22
"0.28 0.28"" €.;<•""'
55.00 99.00 SS.CO
S9.00 99.00 5S.CO
C.O -0.03 -C.C8
99.00 99.00 SS.CO'
1.23 1.18 1.16
99.00 ' 9'9.00 9S.CO "
C.23 0.23 C.i1
0.09 0.06 C.C2 	
0.21 0.21 C.il
'SS.OO " 99.00 55. CC "
-0.06 -0.07 -C. 14
"C. 18'~~" 0.18 	 c."ie""~
C.14 0.14 C. 10
59.00 99.00 55. Cd
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.19 0.19 C. 18
C.24. C.24 C.i4
-0.03 -0.03 -C.C4 ~
0.23 0.2H C.I4
-c.ro " -0.11 '"~c. "is 	
99.00 99.00 95. CC
0.05 "0.05 """ C.C4""
C. 16 0.15 C. C9
C.1C C.1C C.10
55.00 99.00 SS.CO
95.00 99.00 SS.CO
0.07 0.07 C.C7
0.08 O.C8"" l.Cf
55. OC 99.00 SS.CC
59.00 99.00 "SS.CO"
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.18 0.18 " C. 16 	
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
7
(a) (b) (c)
0.71 0.68 0.37
0.32 "' 0.31 0.31
0.82 0.82 0.77
0.38 " 0.38" " 0.37
0.45 C.45 C.45
59.00 99.00 99.00
0.41 0.41 0.39
"0.24 	 - OV25 	 O."20"
59.00 b9.0C 99. CO
0.53 0.53 0.50
99.00 95.00 99.00
' 0.03 C.03 "• "O.C3
99.00 99. OC 99.00
S9.00 " 95.00" 95.00
0.64 0-63 0.63
' c.ao "c.ec 0.77'
0.78 0.77 0.77
59.00 99.00 05.00
1.56 . 1.55 1.53
' 0.7 4"- -"0.7 3* 	 0'.69~
99.00 99. OC 99.00
59.00 99.00 99.00
0.82 C.77 0.77
99.00 99. OC """99. 00
2.22 2.16 2.16
99.00 SS.OO" 99.00
1."7 1.47 1.43
"0.52 "" 0.4 9 6.49
0.46 0.4b O.U6
59.00 99.00 '"9 9. "CO""
0.26 0.25 0.17
0.54 0.54 0.54
0.52 0.52 0.47
59.00 " 99.00 " 99.00 "
59.00 99.00 99.00
0.47 0."7 O.u6
0.59 C.59 0.59
0.05 '0.05 0.05
0.69 0.65 0.64
"6.28 	 0.37 0.37""
S9.00 99.00 99. CO
0.44 	 0.4U 0.43
0.41 0.41 0.36
0.39 0.39 0.39
59.00 99.00 99.00
59.00 "99. OC 99.00"
0.25 0.25 0.25
O.J8 0.38 0.36
SV.OO 99.00 99.00
59.00 99.00 99.00
55.00 99.00 99.00
0.70 0.70 0.70"
S9.00 99. OC 99.00
8
(a) (b) (c)
5.08 2.62 0.88
"T.77— 	 1Y7-5 -"1.B8"
0.47 0,46 0.44
" 0.97 	 0."9"6 	 0.3"2"
1.64 1.62 1.60
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
0.84 C.83 0.75
-'0751 	 OVSS "-"' O.'UB"
99.00 95.00 SS.OO
1.13 1.12 1.00
99.00 95.00 SS.OO
" 1.22 1.21 1.11
99.00 95.00 55.00
"59. 00" 95.00 "59.00
1.13 1.17 1.14
" "1. 1C " 1. 10" 1.08
1.12 1.09 1.05
95. 00 	 95.00" "99.00""
1.64 1.64 1.59
"' 21 "85" T."0"0" 2 .39""
99.00 99.00 95.00
"99. 00 "" 9S.OO SS.OO
1.07 C.98 0.96
1"."26 'i.Tsi I.Ot"
0.79 0.75 0.69
95.06" 95.00 99.00
1.44 1.43 1.39
~6."4"4' 4.56" "~ 3.d«"
1.19 1.16 1.12
99.b'C' 95.00 99". 00"
4.29 3.34 0.9d
2.19 2.19 2. Id
2.82 2.70 1.83
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
99.00 99.00 99.00
1. 19 1.13 1.15
1.71 1.70 1.69
1.74 1.74 1.7J
3.24 3.20 2.84
"0."3" 	 0.43"" 0.4j "
99.00 95.00 SS.OO
"1.86" "1.05 " 1.70 !
4.49 4. 32 3. 1 1
3.^9 3.21 2.75 |
99.00 99.00 9S.OO
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
1.23 1.21 1.18
1.01 1.0C 0.95
59.00 99.00 95.00
99.00 55.00 55.00
99.00 99.00 99.00
1.01 "" 1.01 1.01
99.00 95.00 SS.OO .'
9
(a) (b) (c)
0.30 0.29 0.15
" 0."23' 	 "C.2l 0.22'
o. m 0.14 0.13
'•" O.'1f"~ 0.11 O'.fl"
0.31 O.J1 0.31
"99.00 99.00" "95.00
0. 14 0. 14 0.1*
'"OYT 0" IT. 1"0" OIcT
99. OC SS.OC 55.00
0.24 0.2^ ' 0.23
99. CO 59.00 59.00
0.19 0.19 0.13
99. CO SS.OO SS.CO
99.00 99'.00""'S9.00~
0.21 0.20 0.20
0.56 	 C.56 "0'.55"
C.30 0.30 0.30
"95. CO "59.00 99.00
0.3U 0.34 0.33
~ 0'. 3 C ~"" C . 30 0"."2T
99.00 95.00 99.00
99.00 SS.OO"" 55.00
0.39 0.36 0.26
"""0. 14"" C.'l"'4 U.~13"
0.18 0.17 0.17
99.00 95.00 99.00
0.39 C.39 C.38
~"0".36 O.Ju" "0".34"
O.CS C.09 0.09
"95. 00""" 9"V. 00 ~"99".00
0.20 0.19 0.13
0.36 C.36 0.36
0.18 0.17 0.16
yg.oo 95. oc ss.oo
99.00 99.00 59.00
0.25 0.24 0.24
0.15 0.15 0.15
0.30 C.30 C.29
0.54 0.53 0.50
T6. 46 ""16. 0"2"" 16.02
99.00 SS.CC 59.00
0. 29""*0."29 "0.29"
0.51 C.51 0.44
0.07 0.07 0.07
99.00 SS.CO 59.00
99. CO 99.00 99.00
0.11 0.11 0.11
0.18 C.18 0.17
99.00 99.00 95.00
99.00 SS.OO '55.00
99.00 95.00 99.00
O.C6 0.06 ' O.C6
99.00 99.00 99.00

-------

1.23 4
00 0 103 CM
00 0 101 Cl
OC 0 100 CKfi "
00 0 9«? Ct
00 0 97 CIS "
00 0 92 CAC
00 0 91 BECI
00 0 87 Efll
00 0 86 *
OG 0 84 BXN
00 0 83 BBC
00 0 81 *
00 0 79 BH
00 0 76 SAP
00 0 " 05 DS "
00 0 64 BCCI
00 0 877 XN
00 0 B76 KAN
00 0 075 KS
00 0 673 YI»
00 0 d72 VV1
00 0 854 WSS
00 0 «51 VNF
00 0 850 KV
00 0 64ti WAG
00 0 84f> KSiP
00 0 841 VIA
00 0 HiP W&RC
00 0 833 m
00 0 832 KEG
00 0 831 Kit
00 0 830 VYS _
)0"0 829 KCV"
00 0 82P US
CO 0 826 fctiV
00 0 .617 VIP
00 0 815 VAMO
00 0 811 U1AU
00 0 809 U1R
00 0 808 Uflf
00 0 807 VI
00 0 803 DEB
00 0 799 SI!
00 0 795 IN
00 0 794 SHA
00 0 793 SJL
00 0 788 TKfi
00 0 785 SAM
00 C 784 1£
00 0 783 ICG
00 0 782 ICV'
00 0 779 TEC
5
(a) (b) (c)
0.05 " 0.05 0.05
0.32 O.J2 0.31
-0.25" -0.25 ""-0.32"
59.00 99.00 59. OC
0.30 	 0.3C 0.26
0.22 U. 17 0.1C
0.13 0.13 0.12
0.18 0.17 0.09
99.00 99.00 S9.0C
0.34 0.33 0.33
0.18 0. 17 "0.14
95.00 99.00 99. QC
99.00' 99.00 99. OC
0.30 0.29 0.22
0.27 "0.27 0.25
0.24 0.24 0.21
99.00 " 99.00 "99.00
99.00 95.00 S9.0C
C.01 -0.04 -0.33
0.11 0.1C O.C7
SS.OO 99.00 =9.00
0,45 0.45 0.42
-1.05 -1.21 -1.5C
99.00 99.00 99.00
35.00 '55.00 SS.OC
-0.52 -0.60 -0.73
' C.25 0.25 " 0.23
SS.OO 99. CC SS.CC
0.41 0.40 0.37
0.12 0.10 0.06
99.00 99.00 99.00
59.00 99.00 S9.0C
"SS.OO" 99.00" 	 99.00
-0.01 -0.09 -0.86
55.00 99.00 S9.0C
99.00 99.00 59.00
99.00 99. OC S9.0C
0.02 0.01 0.01
59.00 99. OC SS.CC
0.16 0.16 0.12
-C.09 -0.09 -0.16
.0.24 C.24 0,22
59.00 99.00 59. OC
C.46 0.46 O.U6
99.00 99.00 99. OC
59.00 99.00 S9.0C
0.39 0.38 0.38
-6.75 -7.21 -8.C1
99.00 99.00 99.00
-0.02 -0.02 -0.03
99.00 59.00 95. OC
0.52 0.52 0.52
6
(a) (b) (c)
0.03 0.03 O.U
C.12 0.12 C.11
-0.07 -O.oa " -C.C9 '
99.00 99.00 SS.CO
C.25 C.25 C.22
0.16 0.12 C.C7
C.16 " 0.16 C. 13
0.11 0.10 C.C"
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.34 U.J3 C.3J
C.07 0.07 C.C6
SS.CC' 99. CO 9S.CO
9S.OC 99.00 SS.CC
C.18 0.18 C.13
0. 18 " O.ld """C. 16
C.12 0.12 C.1C
9S.OO 99.00 SS.CC
SS.OO 95.00 SS.CO
0.00 -0.02 -C. 12 '
C.03 O.C3 C.C2
S9.00 "V9.0J 'SS.CC
0.32 0.32 C.J8
-C.19 -0.21 -C.;«
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
-0.09 -0.10 -C. 12
C. 16 0.16 " C. is""
59.00 99.00 SS.CO
0.53 0.52 C.«2
C.12 O.C9 C.C6
95.00 99.00 SS.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
95.00 S9.00~~ S9.CO
-C.01 -0.05 -C.iC
SS.OO 99.00 95. CO
99.00 99.00 SS.CC
SS.OC 99.00' SS.CC
C.01 . C.01 C.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.18 . 0.18 C. 12
-C.C4 -C.CU -C.C7
C.20 0.20 C. 18
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
C.15 C.15 C.15
95.00 99.00 SS.CC™
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.22 0.22 C.i1
-C.15 -0.16 -C.17
95.00 99.00 'SS.CO~
-C.01 -0.01 -C.C1
59.00 95.00 SS.CO
C.54 C.5U C.53
7
(a) (b) (c)
0.49 O.aS 0.49
0.37 0.37 0.37
0.30 ~ 0.30 0."28
; 99.00 9S.OC 99.00
i 0.83 ' O.S3 0.79
0.75 C.70 0.70
1.22 1.22" 1.16
I 0.61 0.60 0.51
i 59.00 95.00 99. CO
1.00 0.99 0.9V
0.42 0.42 0.41
99.00 99.00 99.00
S9.00 95.00 " 99. CO
0.60 0.60 0.57
0.6b' 0.66 0.64"
0.4S C.U9 C.48
59. 00' '99. 00 9V. "00
SS.OO 99. OC 99. CO
0. '48 0.44 ' 0. 36
0.29 0.28 0.28
S9.00"~99.00 "99.00
0.71 0.71 0.68
0.16 0.17 0.17
SV.JO 99.00 99. CO
SS.OO 99.00' 95.00
0.16 0.16 0.16
0.65 0.64"""0."64~
99.00 99.00 99.00
1.31 1.3C 1.12
0.98 0.94 0.94
S9.00 "99.00 " 99.00
S9.00 95. OC 99.00
59. 0'0 99.00 59.00"
0.63 C.57 0.23
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 .99.00 _99.00
S9.00 99.00 "99.00
0.38 0.38 0.3d
S9.00 99.00 95.00
.1.15 ... 1.15 1.00
0.48 0.48 0.43
0.05 0.85 0.82
S9.00 99.0C 59'. 00"
0.32 0.32 0.32
S9.00 99.00 59. CO
S9.00 95. OC 59.00
0.56 0.56 0.56
0.02 0.02 O.C2
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.41 0.41 0.41
55.00 99. OC 99.00
1.04 1.03 1.C3
8
(a) (b) (c)
1.04" 1.04 1.04
«.16 U.13 3.83
0. 26 0.26 0.25
S9.0C SS.OO SS.OO
1.54 1.53 1.44
0.36 C.J5 C.32
1.76 " "1.75 1.6S
0.56 C. 55 O.ufc
95. CO 95.00 55.00
.0.51 0. 51 0. 51
2.32 i.2-J l.yy
99.00 95.00 9?. 00
99.00 95.00 SS.OO
1.61 1.59 1.25
"0.91 	 0.91 C. K6
1.42 1.41 1. Od
99.00' 95. OC SS.OO
99.00 59.00 SS.OO
-1.37 - 1. 16 -0. 57
10. o4 • S. 72 6.4f>
VJ.OO '99.00 	 95.00
0.96 C.93 0.>)j
2.22 1.9 1 1.54
99.00 55.00 59.00
99. OC SS.OO 59.00
	 0. 16 	 0. 1t> 0. 15
1.72~ 1.0 a 	 1.53
99.00 99. OJ SS.OO
6.27 5.96 3. d4
0.6C C.S9 0.55
99.00 '99.00 " SS.OO
_9.9.0C SS.OO SS.OO
"99. do"~95. b'6 	 SS.OO "
1.98 1.61 C.53
99.00 99.00 9S.OO'
99.00 9S.OO SS. 00
99.00 99.00 9S.OO
4.94 U. U7 li. 6S
59.00 95.00 SS.OO
0. 7.9 0. 73 0.65
0. 1 1 "C. 10 C.C8"
__1..5o 1.57 1.43
95.00 ~9S.OO fs.Oo"
13.33 18.29 17.39
99.00 SS.OO 9S.OO
99.00_. 95.00 9S.OO
2. 11 2.07 1.99"
2.00_. 1.64 1.26
59. 00~ "55. 00"" SS.OO
4,ee 4.6? 4.40
95.00 99.00 9S.OO
1.8C 1.79 1.77
9
(a) (b) (c)
0. 13 0.13 """ O.U
0.26 C.26 0.25
O.C9 "0.09 O.Od
99.00 SS.OO 9S.OO
0.34 C.-4 0.32
0.25 C.24 0.24
0.41 J.41 0.3^
C. IB C.lH 0.15
59. CC 9v.OO »V.CO
0 . "« 2 ^ \j c;>
V.«A V.^. V.J.&
0. 16 0. 1*i 0 . 1 i
i?.00 95. OU VV.OO
S9.00 SS.OC ' SS.CO
0.25 0. 2'j 0.24
0.20 " "C. 20" 0.19
0. 08 0. OT 0.07
yy.co 95.00 ""'59.03'
55.00 ..99..00._.S9.00
-0.16 -0.14 -0.12

95.00 ~"S 9". 00 S9 .' dT
0.15 0. 15 C. 14
0.42 0.3'9 	 ""6.1,'j
99.00 SS.OO SS.OO
SS.OC 99.00 ' 59.00
O.Ob 0.05 'o.OS>
O.iC C.2C C . 1 '5"
99.00 .55.00.. 59.00
O.tie C.48 	 0 . u 2
0.36 O.j5 O.J5
95.00 SS.CO"""S5.00"
.99.00, .5 5. 00 99. 00
95.00~ "9 9 , 0 U S S ."dd"
0.94 0. d5 C .2 4
yy. oo 95.00 " ss .06
99. CO SS.OO S^.OO
99.00 55.00 95. OU
oir P^Q r?<3
. V..Xif, 	 .V ...ST..? 	 V.. <•.?..
99.00 yy.OO 95.03
0. 17 0.17 0.15
O.C1 0.01 0.01
0.26 0.2Ci 0.25
95.00 SS.OO SS.OO
_.p._7g 	 0.7 9 	 0.7^
ss.od "ss.oc 59.00"
.99.00 ,95..00 	 55. CO
0, 10 C. 10 0.10
0.05 0.09 0.09
. • -- *. ** -; .. __ .. V." ** '
99.00 55.00 S9.00
0.1-0 0.30 0.3y
55.00 59.00 SS.OO
0.17 C.47 C.47

-------

123 4
OC 0 771 11
00 0 767 1ENH
00 0 765 1SE
00 0 761 TCI. .
00 0 760 IP
00 C 755 1KEL
00 0 758 1ASD
OC C 757 IbbA
00 0 755 TAG
00 0 750 IEXCL
00 0 7U6 *
00 0 7U1 SCV
00 0 735 S1I
00 0 -730 *
00 0 727 SI
00 C.,720 SIND,
OC C 719 *
OJ 0 71U SEN
00 C 716 StP.k
OJ C 70" 1£U
OJ C 707 SS
00 0 706 S£IV
CO C 705 SIA&
00 0 702 SCAE
OC 0 700"*" 	
00 0 697 SK
00 C 69b SLC
00 0 691 SAN
:00 C 690 SIGW ""
00 0 683 SJ1
ooo fi A 'j <; N
\J \J \J \j \j f, «J CT
00 0 678 SEM
;00 0 675' RSS '
00 0 673 hSP
JOO 0 671 KK '
00 0 fc65 HI
lOC 0 66U I. V
00 0 659 PENE
oc o 65t- tr.r.
00 0 655 QAP
OC 0 651 PCN '
JOO 0 t46< PJK
00 0 647 PUD "
00 0 61! 5 PFU
00 0 6^4 PVS
00 0 634 PUN
00 0 632 PtiTD'
00 0 631 PS
00 0 625 PCY ' 	
00 0 627 PS
00 0 619 Pin
00 0 616 PC V
5
(a) (b) (c)
-0.03 -0.04 -0.11
99.00 59.00 SS.OC
0,.iu C.34 0.27
0.16 0.16 0.14
59.00 99. OC 59.00
95.00 59,00 _ 99.00
99.00 99. OC 59. OC
6
(a) (b) (c)
-C.01 -0.01 -C.C2
SS.OO 95.00 SS.CC
C.16 0.16 C.1i
. C.05,. , 0.05 C.C4 j
55.00 95. Ou SS.CO
99.00 99.00 SS.CO
55.00 99.00 SS.CC
0.19 _ 0.19.. 0.17 | 0.12 	 0.12 	 0. 11
99.00 99.00 59.00
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
S9.00_..59.0C._S9,OC ,«9.0g 99.00 55. Qp
-0.25 -0.29 -0.35 [-0.05 -O.C6 -C.C7
. 0.36 .. O.J5_. .0.24
0.46 0.48 0.46
0.19 0.15 0.07
0.56 0.55 0.52
... C.21_._ 0.21 .. C.13
1.16 1.15 C.S4
0.04 ..C.CU .C.CJ
C.29 0.29 C.I7
55.00 	 99. 00.._.S5. CC j 59.00 99. 00 SS.CC
95.00 59.00 59. OC
iS.OO 99. OC S9.CC
99.00 99.00 SS.CO
SS.CC 9S.OO SS.CO
0.1S 0.18 0.37 0.05 C.C5 C.C4
SS.OO 99.00 99.00 SS.OO 95.00 SC.CO
0.48 	 0.48 "0.47 0,25 0.23 C.i5
0.41 O.JO -0.9C | C.25 C.16 -C.15
7
(a) (b) (c)_
0. 17 0.17 0. 16
SS.OO 59. OC 59.00
0.47 0.<«7 C.43
...0,30 . C.jC 0. 30
SS.OO 99.00 99.00
SS.OO 99.00 59,00
59.00 99. OC 99. CC
. 0..67 ... 0.67__ 0.65
99.00 99.00 95.00
_-S.s..q,q__ 99,0.0 ,,..59..oo_
0.20 0.2C 0.20
.-.Q.5.8_... 0.5.8 . _. 0.52
2.41 2.39 2.05
-..Q..22 	 C.22_- 0.21
0.53 0.52 0.51
.55,00 .__ 9 9. 00 	 99.,. .OQ..
99.00 95.00 99.00
55.00 99. OC 99.00
0.26 0.26 0. 26
SS.OO 99,00 99.00
0.52 " 0.52" 0.52
0.60 0.53 0.17
99.00 99.00 99. OC JS9.00 99.00 SS.CO 59.00 99.00 99.00
0.17 0.17 0.16 C.03 0.03 C.C3 0.19 0.15 0.15
59.00""- 95."00" 99.00~t9g.00~- S9-"00" SS.CO" "9?.00"'99."OC — 9 0. 13 O./M 1.04 1.C4 1, Cj 1.40 1.39 1.39
9S.OO 99.00 99.00 199.00 99.00 SS.CO 9S.OO 99.00 9°. 00
99.00 59.00 59.00
SS.OC 99.00 SS.CC 1 55. 00 "99.00 	 59.00"
0-09 0.08 O.Oe C.04 O.C" C.C3 j 0.47 0.17 0.45
99.00 " 99.00 59. OC :SS. 00 95.00 SS.CC 59.00 99,00' 95.00'
0.28 0.28 0.24 ; C.24 C.24 C.iC 0.86 C.86 0.82
"99.00 " 95.00 """9'9.0'C
59.00 59.00 59. OC
95.00 	 99.00 " 99. OC
0.30 0.3C 0.26
95.00 55.00 59.0C
95.00 99.00 SS.OO
C.51 "- 0.51 	 0.43
O.^U 0.24 0.17
0.19 0. 18 0. 16
0.53 0.53 0,43
S9.CO 95.00 59. OC
-0.21 -0.21 -0.27
"0.36 " 0.36 	 0.24~"
55,00 99. OC 99. CC
99.00 99.00 SS.OC
0.11 0.41 0.38
SS.OO 99.00 	 59.CC""
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
95.00 59.00' SS.CO
C.06 0.05 C.C5
SS.OO 59.00 ; 95. CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
C.30"" 0.29 ""C. 24 '
0.15 0.15 C.10
C.05 O.OU C. C4
O.U4 O.u2 C.i7
SS.OC 99.00 SS.CO
-0.08 -0.08 -C.C9
"C. 37~ -0,36 	 Ci20 -
SS.CC 99.00 SS.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
C.83 0.01 C.65
'59.00 "" 99;'0 C 59'."00"^
S9.00 99.00 99.00
95.00 99.00 	 99.00 	
8
(a) (b) (c)
0.04 O.d3 0. 76
,9.9,-OC. 	 9S.OO aS.Oi)
2.01 1.99 1.82
_.] » J d_ 	 i . 2M 	 .1.55
99.00 55. 00~ 59.00
?9..t,C 	 SS.OO., ..99.00
99.00 9S.OO SS.OO
_.0..55 _ 	 0..55 .._. 0.51
59.00 55.00 95.00
li,JUL__S.S . 0 J 	 19 .. 0.3.
0.77 C.76 0.73
_<2.A8 	 2.45. 1.9JO
0.32 C.j* 0.30
0.51 C.r'C 0.31
0.97 C.9J 0.77

59. 00 99.00 "59.00
V9.CO 99.00 '^9.00
" 0.87 " C.t35 0.83 "
99.00 99. OJ 5S.OO
"1.96 	 1.95 " 1.93""
2.89 2.27 &.o9
59.00 " 55.00 " 9S.CO
0.5S C,59 0.5B

99.00 95.00 SS.OO
0. 29 0.29 0.20'
99.00 SS.OO SS.OO
" 3."48 "' 	 3.09' "" 2. 58"
1.41 1.35 0.5C
1.2o 1.22 '" 1.21 "
99.00 99.00 99.00
9"9.00"""$S.O"fl'-"$'SYO'iT'
6.01 5.90 4.92
9.00"' 9S.OO""SS.OO'"
1.45 1.45 1.32
9TO '0"~ 9"9. 0 0~"~9"5". 0 6"~
99.00 9S.OO 59.00
7. 86 	 6.2 1 U.S7 "
0.18 0.1t 0.18 0.98 C.96 C.09
59.00 99.00 '99.00 "99.00 99. OJ 99.00'
59.00 99. OC 99.00 59.00 SS.OO S5.00
" 0. 57 	 0.57 ~ 0.55"T 3. 55 2"."52' 2. TS~
0.64 0.64 0.59
0.23 	 0.23 ""0.23 ""
0.82 0.81 0.63
59.00 99.00 99.00
O.J6 0.36 0.35
1.02 	 "1.02 " 	 0.62"""
99.00 99.00 99.00 <
£9.00 99.00 99. CO
1.99 ' 1.97 1.65
1.84 1.t)2 1.39
17.70" 15. 75 " U. 25
2.36 2.20 1.26
i9. 00 99.00" 95.00"
O.t'8 0,68 C. 6U
"1.5^ "1.90 1.03"
39.00 9S.OO 9S.OO
3.59 3. 56"' 2.db ""
2.U? 2.J7 1.Q5
9
(a) (b) _ (c)
0.11 0.11 0.10
95. CC ... SS. 00.. ._ SS.OO.
0. f> 2 0.62 0.56
0. CS C.09 COy
»....-M.Jl.M .V_W__^.W *. " J-- | -,- VI *.W. £„
99.00 SS.OO S9.00
.55.00 ....S 5.0.0. 	 SS...JOO.
55. CO SS.OO 99.00
.0.06 	 C.C6 	 C.06.
95.00 95.00 95.00
. j a . .o o 	 r).$*3.Q 	 S3,, o a.
0.24 C. 2-t C ,2u
...O.a £4_ 	 C. 54 	 .0 .<-.SL
o.i9 c.ia o.io
0. 02 	 0.02 	 0.02.
0.06 0.06 O.Oo

C9.00 it. 00 5C-.CJ
^ 5 . 0 0 V ; . rj 0 *1' 00
0. 10 "C. 1C — C. 1 j"
99.00 9S.JO 59.00
0. 4 1 " C. 4 1 O.1* 1
0.71 0.62 0. 20
55.00 S9.00"" 55. Oo'
0.06 0.06 0. Oft
59 . CO — T?';"00 — 59'1 00
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.07 0.07 C.07
9?. 00 Ss.OC 95.00
0. 09 J". 05 O."09
0. 14 C, 1u C.12
0.47 0.^6 0. ^6
95.00 95.00 9S.OO
S 9 . 0 0 "' 5 S ". 0 C 5 5V"6 0"
0.38 O.J7 0.36
99.00 ""'55'. 00 	 55,00
0.43 O.U3 O.yj
55. 0 C"" SS.OO 5S.O"0'
99.00 59.00 S9.0J
O.CU C.04 C.C4
99.00 ""99. 00 S'5.00
99.00 SS.OO S9.00
Ol 5 S " 0 . 58" C 1 . 5 h
0.26 C.26 C.2U
0 . « 2 0 '. 4"2 6 . 4 2
0.2« 0.2t> 0.19
9 9 . C 0 "" S'970 0 "55 . 00
0.21 0.21 "0.21
0.26" "0.26 6.21"
5.00 9'J.OO SS.OO
0.^4 " 0 . 14 it 0 . U 2


-------
123 4
00 0 603 OCE
00 0 587 OCTB
00 0 506 C1F~
00 0 582 HID
cinn f>^^ »««
00 0 561 *
fin (i *ihn * '"" '
00 0 554 NE
00'0'lilil'lltc""
00 0 552 BH
00 0 55 1 'US '
00 C 509 NFE
00 0 54B NCSA
00 0 547 *
00 0 546 NVSH"'
00 0 542 NYU
00 0 537 NiZP
00 0 531 !iLC
00 0 5JO UN
00 0 525 NAP
00 0 VJU *
00 0 522 BETH
00 0 515 (II
00 0 513 IU
00 0 511 HE "
CO 0 510 HtH
00 0 509 MB
00 C 507 MCV
00 0 506 fiSE
CO 0 502 1ISS
,00 o 500 tnfi
oo o «<3f3 ncBfi
00 C"4Q7 HGA ~
00 0 493 *
oo o 484 MIFB"
00 0 480 Hits
00 0 475 HHJ
00 0 471 «STB
00 0 462 * !
00 0 460 (1SS
00 C 459 ilJ
00 0 453 *
00 0 <*51 I,'.
00 0 450 L P B '
00 0 447 1EB
00 0 446 LKAC
00 0 U45 I,SO
00 0 443 LtB
00 0 4U2 LNfc
00 "0 441' I. «
00 0 U30 LUN
5
(a) (b) (c)
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 99. OC 99. OC
~99.00™~S9.00 "99.0C
0.39 0.39 0.35
1 V< »«.<• U. /I U. /C
: 99.00 99.00 99. OC
S3.UU 77. UU T7.UC
I.?9-00...5.9-00 59.00
SS.OO 99.00 99.00
-1.11-1.12 -1.2C
99,00 99. OC S9.0C
0-64 ~ 0 ou""~ — h 'nil
0.15 0.15 0.13
99.00 99.00 '99. OC
0.19_ 0. 18 0,11
••O.faa" »-l) on . i no
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99.00 S9.0C
0.27 0.26 0.23
99.00 99.00 99.00
-0.86 -0.8B -1.02
0.20 0.2C 0,1S
99.00 99.00 99. OC
0.42 0.10 0.37
0.09 O.C7 O.CE
-0.1U -0.15" -0.16
	 0.15.. 0.15 0.15
0" U V "" " lY il "•» *" t \ 1 Q '"
.0.22 -0._19__-O.SC
0.28 0.27 0.22
VS. 00 "99.00 99. OC
.-0.1!>__-0. 10 . -0.43
9S.OO 99.00 99. 0 C
0.4S 0.48 0.47
99.00 99. CC S9.CC
0.51 0.50 0.5C
0.45 ' 0.44" 0.13
_ C.30_ 	 0.26 C.1S
,'j'j.CO 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99,00 99. OC
99.00 ""99.00 S9.0C
99.00 99. OC 99. GC
99.00 Vj.OO 99.00
0.25 0.25 0.25
(i.20 """0.20" " 0.18 '
99.00 99.00 99. CC
6
(a) (b) (c)
95.00 99.00 9S.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
S9.00" "99.0"0 '~SS. CO
C.26 0.26 C,i2
0. 13 0. 18 0. 15
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
S9.00 $9.00 SS.CO
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
C.J1? 0.37 C.26
99.00 99.00 9S.CO
. 18 0. 18 C. 17
-0.61 -0.61 -C.61
C. 06 0 .06 C. CE
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
0.16 0.16 C.12
9S.OC 99.00 SS.CO
0.07 0.07 C.CU
— U. lo —0.18 ~t.^0
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
9S.OO 99.00 SS.CC
C.07 O.C7 C.C6
99.00 99.00 SS.CO
-C.21 '-0.21 -C.J2
0.12 0.12 C.12
95.00 99.00 SS.CO
C.17 0.16 C. 15
0.22 0.22 C. 19
C.06 O.C5 C.C3
-0.05 -0.05 -C.C6
0.13 0.13 C.13
0. 19 0 . 1cJ C. Ifc
C.OC -;0.00 -C.C1
o.do O.QJ -c.ci
0.1« 0.1J C. 10
SS.OO 99. CO SS.CC
-o.oj -o.oj -c.ce
SS.OO S.9.00 SS.CO
0.36 0.36 C.J5
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
0.55 0.5U C.S3
0.20 0.20 C. 1S
C.eo o.ay c.j2
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
SS.OC 99.00 SS.CC
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CO
SS.OC 99. 00 SS.CC
SS.OO S9.00 "SS.CO
C.2C C.20 C.1S
0. U 0.13~ C.12 	
SS.OO 99.00 SS.CC
7
(a) (b) (c)
99.00 99.00 99.00
S9.00 9S.OC 99.00
99/00"" 99.00 "99.00
0.65 0.65 0.62
0.75 0.75 0.73
59.00 9S.OO 99. CO
S9.00 $9. CO 99.00
99.00 jS.OO 99.00
6.86 C.86 0.86
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.70 0.7C 0.69
0.5« 0.5<* 0.51
0.24 ti.2J 0.23
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.25 0.25 0.24
1.05 1.04 O.S6
S9.00 "99.00 99.00
0.36 0.36 0.33
0.21 0.20 0.19
S9.00 99. OC 99. CO
SS.OO 99.00 99.00
9?. 00 99.00 99.00
0.26 ' C.26 "" 0.26
59.00 99.00 99.00
0.24 '0.24 ' 0.21 '
0.61 0.61 0.61
59.00 99.00 99. CC
0.40 0.40 0.40
0.69 0.69 0.66
0.69 C.67 0.67
0.38 0.37 0.37"
o.ae 0.06 o.85
6.43 0.42 0.41
0.01 O.dl O.C1
i). 06 6,06 6.05 1
0.49 0.40 0.47 .
99.00 9S.OC 99. CO '
0.17 0.17 0.15
S9.00 99. OC 99. CO .
0.76 0.76 0.76 '.
S9.00 99.00 99. CC;"
1.0H 1.07 1.07
0.45 0.45 0.45
2.00 1.70 1.70 !
Sy.OO 99. OC 99. CO r
S9.00 59.00 99.00
S9.00 99.00 	 99.00 "r"
S9.00 99. OC 99.00
S&.OO "99.00 ' 99.00 "
0.70 0.78 0.78
0. 67"~ O.fc7 "o."66""
i9j.OO 99.00 99. CO .
8
(a) (b) (c)
99.00 "SS.OO 9S.OO
99. OC SS.OO 99.00
99 . 0 0 S 9 . 0 J 9 S ." 00"
0.60 0.60 0.5u
1.63 1.62 1.41
99. OC 9S.OO SS.OO
99.00 ST9. 03 99.0(3
99.00 9S.OO 99.00
0.41 C.41 C.41
99.00 99.00 95.00
1.01 1.00" C.85
1.87 1.05 1.45
r 2.68 2.33 1.91
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.30 C.JO 0.27
0.75 C.74 0.68
99.00" 9S. 00 "95. OJ
1.J3 1.30 1.02
«. 39 6.00 5.42
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
99.00 99.00 9S.OO
.99.00 SS.OO SS.OO
"1.05 "1.02 0.84
99.00 9S.OO 9S.OO
0.54 C.54 	 C.50
1.01 1.00 1.00
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
3.80 3.65 3.41
2.72 2.69 2.4'j
1.06 1.02 0.94
-1.34 -1.33 -1.17
1.60 1.60 1.57
1.32 1.30 1.11
18.00 6.30 2.98
5.46 5.34 4.32
2.77 2.71 2.25
99.00 S9.00 "9^.00
1.22 1.15 0.71 ,
1". 15 1. 14 1.0J :
1. 15 1.15 1.13 f
99. OU 9S.OC SS.OO r
5.70 5. «5 5.07
2.S4 2.H8 " ?.7V "
0.26 0.22 0.17
99. OC 99.00 95.00
.99.00 99.00 S9.00
2.85 2. 82 ' 2.flO
99. CC SS.OO 99.00
23.33 1C. 4 2 5.35~"
3.39 3.33 3.22
1.46 1.43 "1.27""
99.00 SS.OC SS.OJ
9
(a) (b) (c)
99.00" S9. 00 ""99.00
99.00 9V. 00 9S.Ok
"99/bo ss'^'oo "s's.oo
0. 15 0. 15 C.14
0.27 0.27 o:2b"
99.CC SS.CO SS.OO
"99.00 99.00 "S9.00"
SS.CO SS.OO S9".00
0.25 0.25 0.25
99.00 SS.OO SS.OO
O.C6 0.06 0.06
0.30 0.30 0.2S
0.10 C.1C 0.10
99.00 SS.OO S9.00
O.C6 0.06 0.06
0.22 0.22 0.20
99. CO 99.00"" SS.OO"
0.12 0.12 0.11
0.64 0.64 0.58
99.00 SS.OO SS.OO
99.00 99.00 SS.OO
°9.CO 95.00 SS.OO
0.04 O.C4 0.0-."
9V, 00 SS.OO 59.00
0.26 0.26 ' 0.23"
0.27 0.27 0.27
99.00 SS.OC SS.OO
0.64 0.63 0.63
0.43 C.43 0.41
0.26 0.25 0.25
-O.C7 -0.07 -C.06"
0.29 0.28 0.20
0.14 0.14 0.13
O.C6 C.C6 C.06
0.20 CJ.2U 0.2C
0.35 0.34 0..~3
99.00 95.00 "SS.6o"
O.OL1 C.Oa C.07
" 0.24 	 uV24" 0.22~
0.01 0.41 0.41
9V. OC S9.00 95. CO
0.59 0.59 0.59
0.46 0. 4fc ' O.lib
0.11 0.0° 0 09
~9"o ". c" o 	 s s".' oo" 9 s"l 6 "d~
99.00 99.00 S9.00
0.69 C.f,9~ "" O.cY
99.00 99.00 99.00
0.46 	 0.43 C.4-3
...0...33 	 0.33 0.33
6.06 0.0'i 0.09~
99.00 S9.00 99.00

-------
H
 I
-J
1234
00 C U2fa LAJ
00 0 427 LES
00 0 426 LC
00 C 425 LSI
00 0 424 tElv"
CC 0 423 LEF
00 0 i*20 LSDC
00 0 417 LSI!
00 0 1407 LCET
00 C 404 L7
oo o 403 KBNS"
00 0 402 KI1
00 C 401 KC3
00 0 39b LSI
00 C i66 HI ID
00 0 359 *
OC 0 357 IHD
00 0 352 *
00 0 3 41 *
00 C 340 *
00 0 337 *
OC 0 .334 HB3
CO 0 331 HSK ""
00 0 329 HBS
00 0 328 HE
00 0 324 *
OC 0 323 GU
00 0 321 GJ
00 0 320 GNHE
00 0. 319 GUIN
00 0 314 GHHC
00 0 312 GEK...
00 0 311 GViR
00 0 307 GNA
00 0 302 GEE
00 C 300 GSt
00 0 298 GANG
00 0 29J U»il
00 0 290 G«
00 0 287 GCVi
00 0 282 FCR
00 0 277 FfcB
00 0 273 F5CH
00 0 265 IP
00 0 264 FJG
00 0 260 FFE
00 0 213 *
,00 0 247 ECU
00 0 245 EJR
00 0 242 EACH
5
(a) (b) (c)
U-3G 0.36 0.31
0.23 0.23 0.22
O.i!« C.24 0.23
0.26 0.26 0.23
' "0.20 ~" 0. 16 0. 10
0.55 0.55 0.54
99.00 " 39.00 "59. OC
99.00 99.00 99. OC
0.83 "" 0. 82' ' 0.82
0.39 0.39 0.36
"99.00 "99.00"" 99. 00
-8.60 -tf.61 -9.17
0.01 0.01 -0.05
99.00 99. OC S9.CC
0.31" " 0.31 0.25
99.00 99. OC S9.0C
0.18 6.18 6.15
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99. OC " 99. OC
9S.OO 99.00 95.00
" 99.00 99. CC S9.CC
0.21 0.14 -0.59
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99.00 99, OC
99.00 V9.00 99. OC
-0.08 -0.12 -C.tfE
0.4t 0.44 0.23
O.jO 0.30 0,28
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 99. OC 99. OC
0.15 0.14 0. 1C
0.41 0.1.0 0.37
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99.00 99.00
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99,00 99. OC
99.00 99.00 99. OC
' 0.45 0.45" 0.44
0.54 0.53 0.5C
99.00 99.00 99. OC
0.12 G.11 0.06
'•'99.:00"~'""99. 00 '"99. OC"
0.10 0.03 -0.1C
-0.06 -0.06 -0.29
0.34 C.33 0. U
99.00 "99.00 99. OC
0.66 0.65 0.6C
"'95.00 99. OC 99. OC
99.00 99.00 99. OC
6
(a) (b) (c)
C.21 0.21 C.17
0.05 0.04 C.C"
C.C2 0.02 C.C2
0.1C 0.10 C.C9
0.12 0.09 C.C6
C.36 0,36 0.35
SS.OO 99.00 S9.CO
99.00 '99.00 55. CO
0.05 0.05 C.C5
C.44 C.43 C.-9
7
(a) (b) (c)
0.5H 0.50 0.56
0.20 0.20 0.20
0.1C ' C.10 " 0. 10"
O.uO . 0.39 0.38
0.58 0.56 0.56
0. b5 0, t,5 . 0.65
59.00 99.00 99. CO
59.00 99.00 99.00
O.Ob 0.06 0.06
1.13 1.13 1.C9
S9.0U 9S.OO 55. CO 59. Ou 99. OC 99.00
-C.69 -0.69 -C.£(3 U.OC 0.08 0.07
0.00 ' 0.00 -C.CO 0.06 0.06" 0.06"
99.00 99.00 55. CC ^ 99. 00 9S.OC 99. CC
C.20 0.2C C.Vi*" 6.64 	 0.03 0/56"
99.00 99.00 99. CO 99.00 99.00 99.00
C.19 0.18 C.15 1.04. 1.0U 0.99
99.00 99.00 99. CO 99.00 99.00 99. CO
S9.00 99.00 SS.CO '99.00 99.00 99.00"
99.00 99.00 9S.CO 9P.OO 99.00 99.00^
99.00 "99.00 	 '99. CC 99.00 "99. OC 	 99. CO
C.12 0.08 -C.14 i 0.60 0.55 0.23
95.00 99.00 99. CO
59. OC 99.00 S5.CC
9S.OO 99.00 59. CO
59.00 99.00 S9.CC
-C.02 -0.03 -C.C9
0. 1 ; 0.16 C.C7
0.11 0.10 C.10
99.00 99.00 ?5.CO
59. OC 99.00 S5.CC
C.06 O.C7 C.C5
0.17 0.17 C.15
55. OC 99.00 55. CC
95.00 9S.OO 55. CO
59.00 9S.OO SS.CO
59.00 59.00 SS.CO
99.00 99.00 99. CO
C.41 0.1*0 C.tO
C,25 O.^U C.23
59.00 59.00 cc.cc
C.CU C.C3 C.C3
"95.00— 99.00" 	 S5.CC
C.06 0.01 -C.C6
-0.01 -0.01 -O.Ci*
C.25 C.21 t.CS
95.00 9S.OO 95. CO
C.33 0.33 C.27
59.00 ""99.00 95. CO
55.00 99.00 59. CC
SS.OO 59.00 99.00
59.00 99.00 99. CO
59.00 99.00 99.00
. 59.00 99.00 . SS.OO
"0. 26 "" 0.25 0.19"
0.37 0.37 0.29
0.35 0.35 0.3U
99.00 9?, 00 99.00
59.00" 99.00 99. CO
... 0 ...5 3 	 0_, 52 	 .0 , 5 1 ..
0.43 O.U3 0.40
59.00 99. OC 99rOO
59.00 99.00 99.00
59.00 99. OC 99.00
59.00 99.00 99.00 '
9<>.00 99. DC 99.00
0.90 ' C.5C C.SO '
O.U6 O.U5 0.45
55.00 99.00 95. CC
0.31 C.31 0.31
59.0CT' 9 9. "00 '""5'9'. 00"
0.61 0.55 0.55
0.17 0.16 0.15
D.6U 0.614 0.56
59.00 99. UO "99.00"
0.50 C.50 0.45
9S.OO" 9 9. CO" '""9 5. 00"
59.00 99.00 99. OC
^8 __
(a) (b) (c)
2.67 2.64 1.96
	 0. 42 _ .0.«2. 	 0.42
1.UU 1.4U 1.i*3
1.24 1.22 1.10
1.78 1.26 C.84
1.74 1.71 1.67
99. OC 95. OC 55.00
2.58 2.37 0.63
1.16 1.16 1.16
1.69 1.88 1.U7
99. OC 99.00 99.00
2.07 2.0U 1.43
2.05 2.04 1.S6
99.00 S5.0U 55.00
b.ts " 0.45 O.U2
99.00 99.00 59.00
0.94 C.94 C.87
99.00 95.00 55.00
99.00 95.00 5S.OO
5S.OO 99.00 59.00
99. OC 99.00 55.00
U.*i3 3.55 1.00
99.00 95.00 99.00
_99.00 99.00 55.00
99.00 S5.00 55.00
_9.,9-I). C ..._5 5. QO_.._S_9. 00 ..
O.f.7 0.64 C.<*1
0.78 C.77 C.65
1.75 1.75 1.70
.9.9.».00_,._.95..00 	 19.0.0 ..
99.00 95,00 55.00
r-l.Jfe. 	 1..15 	 1.03 . .
1.45 1.44 1.J6
1,54 1, 52 1..50
r99.00 99.00 55.00
99.00 95.00 95.00
99. 00""' 95, 00 'C5.00 "
2.21 2, 13 O.S1
"1.07 	 1.06"" ' 1."05""
3.5fa 3.20 2.70
99.00 55.00" =9.00 "
1.26 1. 16 1.02
9'9.TTO 	 9"5.(;iI-"55.0J""
21.00 ".45 1.90
0.&1 0.90 C.B1
1.72 1.7C 1.13
99/00 99'. 00 55.00
3.53 3.48 3.02
S9."00 '9"5. 00"""S-9.00 "
99.00 95.00 55.00
_ 9
(a) (b) (c)
0.24 0.^4 0.23
0. 18 C.1H 0.18
0.21~ " 0.2l" 0.2f
0.13 C.13 C.12
O.C9 0.08 0.08
0.21 0.21 0.21
99.00 55/00 59.00
0.17 0.17 0.14
O.z8 G.2tl 0.2d
0.23 0.23 0.22
99. CC 59.00 59.00
0.21 0.21 0.2C
0.17 0.17 0.17
95. CC 59.00 99.00
0.22 0.22" 0.19
99.00 99.00 9S.OO
0.37 0.37 0.35
99.00 99. OC 55.00
99.00 99.00 99. CO
5' .9. 00 .55.00 	 5.9.00.
99.00 95. OC 95.00
.JU 6J..._... 0 ^S6 	 0 , 2JL
99.00 59.00 99. CO
..99, OQ.. .99..C0..9..S..OO.
99.00 95.00 59.00
.5.9. CO., 	 9.5..t.QO... , 5 S .QQ.
0. 1 1 0.10 0.08
0.32 0.32 C.25
0.42 0.42 0.41
?.5..QO.._..99.00_._..S.i..QO.
99. CO 55.00 59.00
.0.21 	 0.2.1 	 4L.2&
O.uc C.40 0.-6
0.57 0.57 _ 0.57
99.00 55. CC 55. OJ
59.00 99-00 59.00
9?. CC " 55.00" ~ 5V. CO"
0. 12 0.12 0.11
O'.'jii 0.34 0.34
0.17 0.17 C.17
09. CO 	 59.00 "'""95. CJ"
0.07 0.07 0.07

-------
1234
00 0 241 hLS
00 0 234 E1WN
00 0 222 CIHC
oo o 220 IKK
00 0 219 Dl •
OC 0 217 US
00 0 115 CBL
00 G 20<4 CK
00 0 202 D;iU
00 0 201 CCE
00 0 200 CCE '
01 1 205 CIS
01 208 D7I
01 23b EJE
01 240 El "
01 308 G1U
01 35" I1C "
01 364 IBM
01 413 IKE
01 1*19 LrfV
01 429 LilG
01 136 LI
01 1.31 LV""
01 «56 MEC
01 550 NH
01 625 BEG
01 622 ec
01 626 PIE
01 663 UfP '
01 839 Wn
01 61 DIE
01 59 3CK
01 56 DAE
01 69 DM
01 105 CF
01 125 CO
01 120 CV
01 119 CNJ
01 129 CEI
01 143 CBI
01 195 DH "
01 27 PESL
01 50 DC
01 2 712 SCI
5
(a) (b) (c)
-0.01 -0.01 -0.11
S9.00 99.00 99.00
9S.CO 99. Ct 99. CC
O.U3 0.42 0.29
' 0.15 ' 0.15 ~" 0.12
0.20 0.19 0.17
99.00 "99.00 99. OC
0.18 0.18 O.OS
99.00 99.00 ' 99. OC
95.00 99.00 99. CC
' 0.15" 0. 15 •"- 0.14
0.27 0.27 0.25
~ 0.22 0.22 0.2C
0.26 0.26 0.2S
0.12 0. 12 0.1C
0.21 0.21 0.19
0.21 ' 0.2C" 	 0.17"
99.00 99.00 99. OC
99.00 99.00 99. CC
-2.62, -3.47 -16.67
99.00 '99. OC S9.0C
-0.72 -0.72 -0.73
' 0.16 "~0. 16" ~ 0. 12 "
0.11 0.11 0.09
" 0.32 0.32 0.3C
O.Ob 0.08 0.06
0.12 " 	 0.12 ' 0.1C
0.06 0.05 O.CU
~ 0.41" 0.4T ~0.4C
0.25 0.25 0.23
0.25 0.25 0.24
0.03 0.03 0.03
0.04 " " 0.04' 0.01
0.14 0.1i* 0,12
0.04 "0.04 0.04
0.2r"""d'.'5o~
2.32 2.27 2.12
"99.00 '9S.CC "9S.OU
1.00 0.99 0.75
"1.81 "^ 1.79" 1.31
99.00 95.00 99.00
_.. 0.^Q.i| c^ .(..c ym9-(f-
1.56 1.53 1.U1
1.21 1.20 1. 13
1.07 1.06 1.04
0.90"" 0.89 0.81"
1.04 1.04 C.98
*• Q'.VT •0."97"~"C".88~
99.00 99.00 9S.OO
99.00 '99.00' SS.OO"
0. 18 0. 18 C. 14
99. 00 '-99:00 9S.OO
0.85 C.85 O.UJ
•~"0. 96 0. 9 5"~~ 0. 83"
1.05 1.04 C.99
" 1.60 	 1.59 " 1.'51'
0.75 C.75 0.71
~0."91 " C. 91 "C.85"
1.14 1. 13 1.06
2.25 i.24'^'2.14
2.55 2.53 2.3«
' 1.50 '"1.49 ""l.'4i.
C.98 C.S3 0.96
0.99 C. 98 """" C.b9
1.04 I.Qj 0.94
99. 00 &S. 00 95.00
1. 17 1. 17 1. Ili
" 1.78 1.75 1.U8
0. 5b C. 58 O.£M',
S9.0C SS.JJ V9.0»
1.72 1.71 1.31
1.20 ""1.20 "1.0S"
0.17 C.17 0.17
1.28 1.28 1.19
1.36 1.J6 1.27
9
(a) (b) (c)
" 0.05"~ 0.05" 0.05
99.00 SS.OO 59.00
"W. 00" "5V. 00" 9^.00
O.fcC C.59 C.50
u.26 0.2b' 6.2i
0.2J 0.23 0.23
' 99.00 "" SS.OC "99.00
0.09 0.0V 0.08
' 0. 18 ""0. Jfi "Q". 17"
99.00 99.00 99.00
	 0138 	 C"."38 C.J8"
0.21 0.21 0.20
0.22 0.21 0.21
0.25 0.25 O.i5
'0.12 0."12 " C.K
0.16 0.16 0.16
0. 19 0. 19 0. Itt
99. CO SS.OC 59. OC
"99.00 99. 00" S9. 00"
O.C3 C.C3 0.02
'99. 00"" 99. 00 '99.00
0.13 C.13 C.1J
""6.09 0.09"" "C"."09"
0. 14 0. 1« O.li
" 0.17' "0.17 	 0.17"
0.09 C.C<< 0.09
' 0. 12" 	 O.T2" 0.12"
0.07 0.07 0.07
0.2i 0.22 C.22
0.26 0.2*i 0.26
"0.21 "'C.i'l 0.2C'
0.32 O.ji O.ii
0. C9 C.O'j " O.OS"
0.12 0,12 0.11
9i>.00 ri"^.00 99.00
U.13 C.1J C.13
0. 15 C. 15 "" C.15
0.11 C.11 0.11
99.00 ^9.00""59.0u
0. 12 1. U C.1^
'0.21 O'.tl "0.^.1
0.3; C.J3 C.jl
0.15 '0.15" "0.15
0.11 0.11 0.11

-------
1234
01 2 724 SOU
01 2 444 LN
01 2 J50 ICG
01 2 29? Gfl
01 2 263 *JC
01 3 268 FUD
01 3 21b DViF
01 5 21 -J UMIB
01 3 197 CfcGh
01 3 400 KCS
01 3 482 SCO
01 3 490 HK1
01 3 49U ME
01 3 721 SE
01 3 693 SL2F"
01 3 €91 SSH
01 J 559 t!HP
01 3 840 Kt
01 3 762 TM
01 3 769 1FH
01 3 802 Ut
01 3 22 A1SF
01 3 145 El
01 3 1"0 PilLil
01 3 157 CS ' ~"
01 3 131 CNH
01 3 76 Eli
5
(a) (b) (c)
0.27 0.27 0.27
0.23 0.23 0.22
0.20 O.iC 0.18
0.22 0.22 0.2C
0.26 0.26 " '0.24
0.24 C.24 0.22
"0.75" 0.75 0.74
0.^0 0.19 0.16
" 0.25 	 0.25 ' 0.25
0.
-------
                 APPENDIX J
CONRAIL:  BACKGROUND AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS

-------
                            APPENDIX J
             CONRAIL:  BACKGROUND & ECONOMIC IMPACTS

BACKGROUND

     The bankruptcy of the Perm Central Railroad and the poor financial
condition of other railroads in the Northeastern United States resulted
in Congress passing the Regional Rail Reorganization  (3-R) Act of
1973, which established the United States Railway Association  (USRA) to
plan and oversee the financing of the reorganization  of the bankrupt
northeastern railroads.

     The Congress originally authorized $2.1 billion  to assist the
new corporation in rehabilitating its facilities and  upgrading services.
The Consolidated Rail Corporation was established to  operate the
bankrupt railroads and to consolidate and restructure them.  On April
1, 1978, CONRAIL began operations as a private  rail carrier.

     Seven bankrupt railroads operating in  the  Northeast  and Midwest
were combined into the Consolidated Rail Corporation.  CONRAIL was
created under a series of Congressional Acts.   The  new company was
comprised of the properties of the Penn Central, Erie Lackawanna,
Central of New Jersey, Lehigh Valley, Lehigh and Hudson River, and
the Ann Arbor Railway Company.

     CONRAIL is by far the  nation's largest railroad  company.  It
is also a carrier with severe  and  continuing financial difficulties.
Over the past two years  CONRAIL  lost  $560 million,  an amount which
to a considerable extent exceeded  expectations.  In 1977 CONRAIL lost
about  $100 million more  than  anticipated.   CONRAIL1S  losses are,
both directly and indirectly,  made up by  Federal  government subsidies.

     CONRAIL's business  plan  for 1978-82  foresees  revenues, costs,
and  efficiency  levels  that  will  require  Federal assistance beyond
the  $2.026 billion  already  appropriated.   CONRAIL anticipates  that
freight volume between  1978 and 1982  will be 10 percent below the
                               J-l

-------
previous forecast and that operating efficiencies will improve some-
what more slowly than envisioned.  The result is that CONRAIL's net
income for the period will be an estimated $1.5 billion less, and that
it will require $1.3 billion more in Federal funds than has been
appropriated to date.

     CONRAIL's need for subsidy may be even greater.  Small changes
in the margin between revenues and costs have a very large impact
on CONRAIL's need for Government assistance.  A 1 percent shortfall
in revenue between 1978 and 1982 would require increases in Federal
assistance of $189 million, or 15 percent more than CONRAIL's $1-3
billion estimate.

     The 1978-82 business plan assumes a dramatic turnaround of CONRAIL's
recent declines in traffic volume and revenue, along with substantial
cost savings based on significant increases in efficiency. If this
assumption holds and is accompanied by extremely favorable economic and
operating conditions, the business plan indicates that CONRAIL could
require a little less than the estimated $1.3 billion in additional
Federal assistance.  Under this optimistic case, CONRAIL would be
self-sufficient by 1982.  On the other hand with unfavorable conditions,
CONRAIL could need as much as $3.8 billion in additional government
funds during the next 5 years.  This pessimistic case would also require
a continuing need for government investment beyond 1982.

     Based on CONRAIL's performance to date, the railroad's 1978-82
forecasts appear very optimistic, with a significant likelihood that
more tha $1.3 billion in additional Federal assistance will be required.

     Serious deficiencies in efficiency, service and revenues became
evident during 1977.  It has become clear that there had been a
"degradation" of service.  CONRAIL service qulaity continued to deterior-
ate until February 1978, when a low point was reached.  The service
situation was so serious that CONRAIL's service affected the entire
nation's car supply.  If these trends are not reversed quickly and
convincingly, CONRAIL's 1978-82 business plan will be far too optimistic.
                                   J-2

-------
     CONRAIL's need for additional funds has resulted from:
     •  Lower than anticipated freight revenues/ and
     •  Greater than anticipated costs for maintaining
        equipment, and for equipment rental and related
        expenses•
     CONRAIL's 1977 freight revenues were $317 million short of
expectations primarily because its volume of traffic had declined
steadily.

     The economic health of the nation, particularly the Northeast,
is an important determinant of the volume of freight carried by CONRAIL.
CONRAIL's service area is not growing as fast as certain other regions,
but it is experiencing absolute growth and the demand for freight
services has been increasing.  Nevertheless, total rail carloadings,
particularly CONRAIL's, declined in 1977:
     Change in carloadings, 1976 - 1977
     United States                         -0.7%
     Eastern District                      -4.3%
     CONRAIL                               -5.5%
     It is apparent that CONRAIL lost some of its share of the rail
market:
                                     CONRAIL's SHARE
     MARKET                        1976           1977
     United States                22.7%         21.6%
     Eastern District             39.3%         38.8%
     CONRAIL's diminishing freight volume reflects two major
problems:
1.   CONRAIL has provided poor service, and its customers have
     turned to competing rail carriers as well as other modes.
     A key measure of service performance — the proportion of
     loaded cars which arrived no more than one day behind
     schedule — had deteriorated substantially since CONRAIL
     began operations.  For the year 1977 CONRAIL's performance
     deteriorated some 5 percent compared with  1976.
                                 J-3

-------
2.   CONRAIL faced a series of unpredictable external crises in 1977:
     two harsh winters; coal, iron, ore, and dock strikes; and the
     Johnstown flood.  These reduced the demand for CONRAIL services and
     delayed some freight movements. Revenue lost in 1977 from these
     factors is estimated at $119 million.
     CONRAIL has experienced equipment costs higher than anticipated
for two principal reasons:
     •  The physical plant, particularly the car fleet, conveyed to
        CONRAIL was in worse shape than anticipated,
     •  CONRAIL has a major problem with its car utilization.
     Labor productivity in CONRAIL is low.  CONRAIL's labor costs
now exceed 60% of revenues, which exceeds the cost/revenue ratio of
any other railroad.  The management of CONRAIL has alos been criticized.
In a recent GAO report, managment was criticized for poor equipment
utilization.  CONRAIL had failed in its efforts to bring car utilization
up to the 1973 Penn Central rate.

     The overall prognosis for CONRAIL does not appear to be good.
Its revenues are dropping as shippers seem to be increasingly diverting
their business to competing modes of transportation. CONRAIL continues
to lose what would otherwise appear to be its projected share of a
growing market in the Northeast.

Economic Impact

     Because of its size and location, the expense of a noise regulation
can be expected to fall heavily on CONRAIL.  CONRAIL has a large number
of railroad yards, many of which are in areas of high population density.
CONRAIL operates about 790 yards based on information compiled by the
Federal Railroad Association of the Department of Transportation.
Although CONRAIL has the largest number of yards, the number is not out
of proportion to its size. Relative to its size (measured in revenues),
the number of yards can be considered as average.
                                  J-4

-------
     In absolute terms CONRAIL's yard properties and operations are
extensive.  CONRAIL's yard switching operations far exceed those of
any railroad company.  About 30 percent of the nation's total yard
operations are being carried out by CONRAIL.

     Listed below are the estimated costs for each of four noise control
regulatory study levels in terms of capital investment and annualized
costs.  The cost elements comprising the various study levels have
been previously presented in detail in Section 7 and, therefore, the
data indicated for CONRAIL are shown as totals for these study levels
along with the total number of yards affected at each level.
Study Level
     1
     2
     3
     4
Number of Yards
     223
     522
     789
     789
      Estimated Costs
   (millions of dollars)
  Capital       Annualized
  5,707.3
  6,790.3
125,050.7
188,097.2
 2,144.6
 2,626.5
66,726.2
91,494.1
     A comparison was made between CONRAIL and the total number  of
Class I line haul roads (1976-1977 list of Class  I railroads  in  accordance
win the ICC classification system) in respect to  the categories  of
interest, namely the number of yards and estimated costs for  each study
level.  The results of this comparison are displayed below in terms of
percentages to show CONRAIL's portion of the total number of  yards
and estimated costs for Class I roads only to meet the various regulatory
study levels..
                         Percent of Total  for  Class  I  Roads  Only
Study Levels
     1
     2
     3
     4
    Number of
     Yards
       19
       22
       21
       21
     Estimated Costs
 Capital       Annualized
   14
   14
   22
   23
   16
   17
   21
   22
                               J-5

-------
     As an example, an examination was made to determine the impact
on demand if CONRAIL is allowed to pass on all of the costs required
to meet particular noise regulatory levels.  For the least stringent
study level (study level 1) there would be a decrease in demand of less
than 0.05 percent.  For one of the more stringent study levels (level 3)
the decrease in demand would range from 0.8 to 3.6 percent.

     CONRAIL employed approximately 95,000 persons as of March 1977.
If we assume that the number of employees will decrase in the same
proportion as the decrease in adjusted revenues derived from rail
services, employment would decrease from about 30 to 120 employees
to implement study level 2 and from about 700 to 3100 employees to
implement study level 3.  This is the worst case situation and does
not take into account the increased employment that will be required
to install and operate the required noise abatement technology.

     In 1977 CONRAIL planned to spend $640 million on capitalized
maintenance of way expenditures, additions and improvements, nonrevenue
equipment and revenue equipment.  Capitalized expenditures required
for study levels  1-4 range from 0.4 percent to 13.6 percent of this
planned capitalization expenditure.

     In 1977 CONRAIL had total operating revenues of $3,219 million.
Total capital costs for study levels 1-4 range from $5.7 million to
$188.1 million.  This is about 0.2 percent to 5.8 percent of total
revenues.  Annualized costs for study levels 1-4 range from $2.1 million
to $91.5 million. This is approximately 0.07 percent to 2.0 percent of
total operating revenues.

     Recent studies have shown that partial price elasticities of demand
weighted by railroad revenue shares range from -0.39 to -1.41.  From
these estimates gross estimates of ranges on the demand for rail
transportation and employment can be calculated.

     If CONRAIL is not allowed to raise its prices, the cost to meet
the noise regulations will have an effect on the demand for rail
service.
                                  J-6

-------
                         REFERENCES

1.    Report to Congress on CONRAIL Performance, 1977, United States
     Railway Association, Washington, D. C., May 31, 1978.

2.    C&D 78-174, CONRAIL Faces Continuing Problems, U. S. General
     Accounting Office, Washington, D. C., October 6, 1978.

3.    Other materials from trade press such as  Railway Age and
     newspaper articles.
                                     J-7

-------
     APPENDIX K
INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA

-------
             TABLE K-l
LOCOMOTIVE AND FREIGHT CAR INVENTORY
 CLASS I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS  (1976)



ROAD
EASTERN DISTRICT
BALTIMORE S OHIO
BANGOR & AROOSTOOK
RESSEMER & LAKE ERIE
BOSTON S MAINE
CANADIAN PACIFIC - IN MAINE
CENTRAL VERMONT
CHESAPEAKE S OHIO
CHICAGO S ILLINOIS MIDLAND
CONRAIL
DELAWARE S HUDSON
DETROIT S TOLEDO SHORE LINE
DETROIT, TOLEDO S IRONTON
ELGIN, JOLIET S EASTERN
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN
ILLINOIS TERMINAL
LONG ISLAND
MAINE CENTRAL
NORFOLK & WESTERN
PITTSBURGH S LAKE ERIE
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG S POT.
WESTERN MARYLAND
TOTAL EASTERN DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
CLINCHFIELD
FLORIDA EAST COAST
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF
LOUISVILLE S NASHVILLE
SEABOARD COAST LINE
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
TOTAL SOUTHERN DISTRICT
WESTERN DISTRICT
ATCHISON, TOPEKA S SANTA FE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
CHICAGO S NORTH WESTERN
CHICAGO, MILW. , ST. PAUL S PAC.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC
COLORADO S SOUTHERN
DENVER S RIO GRANDE WESTERN
DULUTH, MISSABE S IRON RANGE
DULUTH, WINNIPEG S PACIFIC
FORT WORTH S DENVER
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS
MISSOURI PACIFIC
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN
SOO LINE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN
TOLEDO, PEORIA S WESTERN
UNION PACIFIC
WESTERN PACIFIC
TOTAL WESTERN DISTRICT
NUMBER OF LOCOMOTIVE UNITS

YARD
SERVICE

143
3
1
61
1
2
90
8
1,856
39
6
21
ROAD
FREIGHT
SERVICE

800
32
62
104
20
14
874
13
2,898
125
10
50
58 45
91
20
26
17
319
78
15
1
2,856

12
10
7
165
154
213
193
754

163
516
168
217
151
13
32
36
3
6
77
47
260
0
92
71
55
544
6
4
247
12
2,720
TOTAL UNITED STATES 1 6 • 33°
92
15
23
50
1,190
22
26
116
6,581

91
47
26
884
838
1,087
1,115
4,088

1,552
1,644
707
535
433
92
197
35
36
14
136
119
822
50
358
190
172
1,599
•j

27
1,171
134
10,030
20,699
\
ROAD
PASSENGER
SERVICE

o
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
165
0
0
0
0
3
0
40
0
2
2
0
0
215

1
0
0
25
0
0
17
43

0
21
58
22
27
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
0


0
0
158
416


FREIGHT CARS ON LINE


73,896
3,850
3,821
6,870
21
505
70,811
765
218,179
7,827
1,008
5,642
12,490
15,527
1,935
1,235
3,492
103,917
16,670
1,290
3,460
558,211

4,310
2,952
2,769
62,752
74,017
76,957
79,056
302,813

76,909
119,250
48,223
40,295
33,530
2,969
9,117
8,572
780
2,178
6,454
10,213
66,305
1,120
22,597
10,034
14,802
87,029
558
889

67,944
5,372

635,140
1,496,164

                    K-l

-------
               TABLE K-2





CLASS I SWITCHING AND TERMINAL COMPANIES
Uniform
Alpha Code

ALQS
ALS
BOCT
BRC
BS
CBL
CUVA
HBT
1KB
IU
KCT
KIT
LT
MCRR
PER
PBNE
PTM
SB
TRRA
TPMP
URR
Uniform
Alpha Code

URR
(1977)

Aliquippa and Southern RR Cd.
Alton & Southern RR Co.
Baltimore S Ohio Chicago Terminal RR Co.
Belt RR Co. of Chicago
Birmingham Southern RR Co.
Conemaugh & Black Lick RR Co.
Cuyahoga Valley RR Co.
Houston Belt & Terminal RR Co.
Indiana Harbor Belt RR Co.
Indianapolis Union
Kansas City Terminal RR Co.
Kentucky & Indiana Terminal RR Co.
^•ake Terminal RR Co.
Monongahela Connecting RR Co.
Patapsco & Black Rivers RR Co.
Philadelphia, Bethlehem & New England RR Co.
Portland Terminal Co.
South Buffalo RR Co.
Terminal RR Assoc. of St. Louis
Texas Pacific - Missouri Pacific Terminal RR Co.
of New Orleans
Union RR Co.
(1978)

Union RR Co.
                K-2

-------
    Table K-3.  TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES, IN-
                CLUDING ICC CLASS DESIGNATION, REGION
                AND DISTRIBUTION OF YARDS BY TYPE
Legend:

   IRR

   ARR
  AC I  Code

  Uniform Alpha Code
        E  1 if Class I

           0 if Class II
                 (1976/77)
     R  =  Region for Class I:  1 if Eastern

                                2 if Southern

                                3 if Western

   NHM  E  Number of Hump Yards

   NFC  E  Number of Flat Classification Yards

   NFI  E  Number of Flat Industrial Yards

   NFS  E  Number of Flat Small Industrial  Yards

ITOTAL  E  Total Number  of  Yards
  o
r— ca
2 g
IRR
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
ARR
ABB
ACY
AWU
AR
AA
APA
AN
ARA
ABL
ALM
ALQS
AMC
AMR
ADN
C R
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
                               NUMBER  OF YARDS

                          NHM  NFC NFI  NFS   ITOTAL
                                                   2
                                                   3
                                                   2
                                                   1
                                                   4
                                                   1
                                                   1
                                                   1
                                                   2
                                                   2
                                                   1
                                                   1
                                                   1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
2
1
2
0
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
t
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
                          K-3

-------
          f- O
                           NUMBER OF YARDS
 IRR ARR   C  R
                   NHM  NFC NFI  NFS  I TOTAL
  22
  23
  27
  31
  32
  35
  38
  42
  49
  50
  56
  59
  61
  64
  65
  69
  76
  78
  79
  81
  83
  84
  86
  87
  91
  92
  97
  99
100
101
103
104
105
106
108
109
111
112
113
114
117
 ATSF
 AUP
 PRSL
 AEC
 ALS
 ANR
 AVL
 ASAB
 ARC
 BO
 BAR
 BCK
 BLE
 BOCT
 BS
 BM
 BN
 BAP
 BH
 *
 BRC
 BXN
 *
 BML
 BEDT
 CAD
 CTN
 CF
 CUR
 CI
 CN
 CBC
 CP
 CRN
 *
 *
 CIC
 CCT
CARR
CACV
CHR
 1  3
 0  0
 1  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 1  1
 1  1
 1  0
 1  1
 0  0
 0  0
 1  1
 1  3
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 O  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 1  1
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
0  0
0  0
0 0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
60
3
0
4
3
0
7
89
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
37
1
4
0
0
1
0
3
0
51
2
1
2
4
4
16
85
0
1
0
3
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
4
2
1
0
1
1
78
1
10
2
0
1
1
1
2
63
1
0
0
2
2
2
113
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
173
2
14
2
2
2
1
5
2
181
6
1
6
9
6
26
297
4
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
10
2
1
1
1
1
                       K-4

-------
IRR  AKR   C R
                           NUMBER OF YARDS
                   NHM   NFC NFI  NFS   I TOTAL
118
119
120
124
125
129
130
131
139
140
141
143
145
147
150
153
157
158
163
165
166
168
169
177
179
181
186
188
191
192
193
195
196
197
200
201
202
204
205
208
213
CGA
CNJ
CV
CHV
CO
CEI
CIM
CNW
CHTT
MILW
CPLT
CRI
RI
CSL
CIW
CNTP
CS
GUI
CLC
*
COP
CSS
CLP
CAGY
CHW
CLIP
CUVA
CLCO
DR
DRI
DVS
DH
DC
DRGU
DOE
CCR
DHL)
DM
DTS
DTI
DMIR
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
1 1
1 1
0 0
1 3
0 0
1 3
0 0
1 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
 1  1
 1  1
 1  3
1
0
0
0
5
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
2
3
2
0
46
7
2
62
1
47
0
2
27
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
3
0
0
1
2
0
3
3
8
7
3
1
30
3
2
52
1
42
0
3
34
1
1
2
4
2
1
1
1
0
1
3
0
0
1
1
0
2
0
11
2
6
0
1
0
2
1
6
4
19
3
1
1
32
3
2
39
2
53
2
0
40
0
0
1
6
0
0
3
0
1
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
1
3
0
20
2
0
0
0
0
3
2
30
13
6
2
113
13
6
154
4
145
2
5
103
1
1
3
12
2
1
5
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
r
2
1
23
2
30
2
1
1
4
2
13
9
                        K-5

-------
         2 a:
IRR ARR   C  R
                 NUMBER OF YARDS

             NHH  NFC NFI  NFS  I TOTAL
215
216
217
219
220
222
234
238
240
241
242
245
247
248
260
263
264
265
268
273
277
282
287
290
293
298
299
 300
 302
 307
 308
 311
 312
 314
 319
 320
 321
 323
 324
 328
    CBL
    DWP
    DS
    DT
    DMM
    CIRR
    ETUN
    EJE
    EL
    ELS
    EACH
    EJR
    EDW
    FPE
    FEC
    FJG
    FP
    FUD
    FRDN
    FUB
    FOR
    GCU
    GM
    GHH
    GANO
    GA
    GSF
     GRR
     GNA
     GTU
     GUR
     GBU
     GMRC
     GUIN
     GNUR
     GJ
     GU
     *
     HE
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
 1 2
0 0
 0 0
 1 3
 0 0
 0 0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 1  2
 0  0
 0  0
 0  0
 1  1
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
26
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
2
0
0
12
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
1
0
4
35
1
0
1
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
11
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
5
28
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
5
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
5
2
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
1
3
2
1
2
1
13
91
1
1
1
1
1
2
9
1
1
10
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
7
4
1
1
24
1
5
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
                        K-6

-------
         vO —
         l~~ O
         O> UJ
IRR  ARR   C R
                       NUMBER OF YARDS

                   NHM  NFC  NFI  NFS   I TOTAL
329
331
334
337
340
341
350
352
354
357
359
364
366
398
400
401
402
403
404
407
413
417
419
420
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
436
441
442
443
444
445
446
HBS
HSW
HRT
*
*
*
ICG
*
ITC
IHB
*
IRN
HPTD
LAL
KCS
KCT
KIT
KENN
LT
LDRT
LNE
LSTT
LUV
LSBC
LEF
LEFW
LSI
LC
LRS
LAJ
LHR
LUN
LV
LI
LA
LNU
LPB
LN
LSO
LNAC
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
 1 0
0 0
 1 0
 1  1
 0 0
 0 0
 0 0
 1  2
 0  0
 0  0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
47
0
4
4
1
0
0
0
8
1
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
7
1
3
0
0
28
0
0
1
0
1
1
3
0
48
1
2
4
3
0
1
1
8
0
3
2
0
0
2
0
2
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
14
2
2
0
0
54
0
0
0
1
0
0
4
1
33
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
9
0
3
1
1
25
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
1
132
1
6
12
4
1
1
1
28
1
5
2
2
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
34
4
8
1
1
111
1
1
                        K-7

-------
         r*. o
         — of
IRR  ARR   C R
                           NUMBER OF YARDS
                       NHM  NFC  NFI  NFS  I TOTAL
447
450
451
453
456
459
460
462
466
471
475
480
482
484
490
493
494
497
498
500
502
506
507
509
510
511
513
515
523
524
525
530
534
537
542
546
547
 548
 549
 550
LBR
LPN
LU
*
MEC
MJ
MRS

MCR
MSTR
MNJ
MNS
SOO
MTFR
MKT
*
MP
MGA
MCRR
MTR
MISS
MSE
MOV
MB
MDU
ME
IAT
MI
METW
*
NAP
NN
NLC
NEZP
NYD
 NYSU
 *
 MCSA
 NPB
 NU
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         1 1
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         1 3
         0 0
         1 3
         0 0
         1 3
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0 0
         0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          0  0
          1  1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
20
0
13
0
34
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
70
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
11
1
3
0
30
5
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
3
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
54
1
1
1
1
3
1
0
4
0
0
1
2
13
0
17
1
68
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
3
1
1
0
1
4
1
1
49
1
2
1
1
8
1
1
4
1
1
1
4
44
1
33
1
135
6
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
1
4
2
1
1
3
5
1
3
180
                        K-8

-------


IRR
551
552
553
554
559
560
561
577
582
586
587
603
616
619
622
623
626
627
629
631
632
634
644
645
647
648
651
655
656
659
663
664
665
671
673
675
678
682
683
690
691


ARR
NS
MH
NLG
NB
NWP
*
*
NSS
NFD
OTR
OCTR
OCE
POV
PTM
PC
RDG
PLE
PS
PCY
PW
PRTD
PNU
PVS
PPU
PHD
PJR
PCN
GAP
QRR
PBNE
RFP
RV
RT
RR
RSP
RSS
SRN
SM
SJT
SLOW
SAN
0
i»» 3
0t Ul
^M flC
C R
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
    NUMBER OF YARDS




NHM   NFC  NFI  NFS   I TOTAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
*•»
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
144
7
4
1
1
2
2
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
221
10
7
1
2
0
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
•o
»~
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
1
2
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
188
27
5
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
•?
1
0
1
0
•p
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
1
9
1
2
1
7
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
2
576
47
16
4
3
2
2
1
1
5
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
1
5
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
 K-9

-------
         r- o
         
-------
«A
U  X
   o
          
-------
  Table K-4.  TABULATION OF RAILROADS WHICH CHANGED ICC
              DESIGNATIONS BETWEEN 1976/77 AND 1978
Class I  1976/77
Class II  1978
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
1.
2.
3.
4.
UNIFORM
ALPHA
CODE
BAR
CP
CV
CEI
DTS
DWP
GA
ITC
MEC
NWP
RFP
TM
TPW
Class II
UNIFORM
ALPHA
CODE
ACS
CGA
CNTP
LA
ACI
CODE
056
105
120
129
205
216
299
354
456
559
663
762
769
1976/77
ACI
CODE
029
118
153
441
RAILROAD NAME
Bangor & Aroostook
Canadian Pacific
Central Vermong
Missouri Pacific
Detroit & Toledo Shore Line
Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific
Georgia
Illinois Terminal
Maine Central
Northwestern Pacific
Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac
Texas Mexican
Toledo, Peoria & Western
-> Class I 1978
RAILROAD NAME
Alabama Great Southern
Central of Georgia
Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific
Louisiana & Arkansas
                            K-12

-------
                               APPENDIX L
             REFINEMENT TO COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR REGULATORY
                         OPTION DECISION PROCESS

     In Section 7, compliance cost estimates were developed for various
regulatory study levels.  The cost estimates to achieve the regulatory
levels were developed from an analysis of each noise abatement procedure
to establish an appropriate unit cost.  Capital costs and annualized
costs were derived from an inventory of facilities and equipment that
required noise control and the estimated unit costs to obtain the needed
noise reduction using best available technology. These costs were
generated on the basis of typical types of facilities and equipment and
aggregated to reach the total estimated compliance costs for the various
regulatory levels analyzed.  Based on the preliminary analyses and cost
estimates made on curtailment of nighttime rail yard operations, further
refinement of the cost data for this noise abatement procedure was
warranted.

     The data presented in Section 7 on night operations curtailment
considered the suspension of rail yard activities from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.
Activities which normally v;ould have taken place during this time period
were assumed to be rescheduled for the  two daytime shifts.  Personnel
performing operations involved in such  facilities would be  reassigned and
provided the additional equipment, etc., to facilitate their normal
operations.  A cost savings in wages would be realized resulting from
suspension of the night shift.  The estimated costs presented in
Section 7 concerning night operations curtailment focused on the capital
costs for the purchase of additional switching  locomotives  and the
annualized costs, including capitol recovery, as well as operation and
maintenance costs of the additional equipment.  It was assumed that  the
typical yard required a 50 percent increase in  the number of its
switching locomotives in order to provide  the adjusted daytime shift
manpower the capability to handle  the  traffic through  the yard.
                                   L-l

-------
     Since a refinement to this previous cost analysis was warranted to
obtain a more realistic picture of yard operations and costs, additional
information was collected and analyzed from several sources.*  The
information focused upon refining the estimated costs to accommodate
the additional switching locomotives and additional through capacity
required by suspending night operations in typical yards.  Refinement
of the estimated costs consist of the following items:
        Acquisition of additional land related to existing flat
        yards to accommodate the through capacity required by
        nighttime operations curtailment.
        Acquisition and installation of slow trackage and
        switches to accommodate and facilitate flat yard
        operations resulting from curtailment of night
        operations.
     The estimated costs to expand yard land areas and lay additional
track are based upon the assumption that receiving and classification
areas would increase by 33 percent while the departure area would
increase by 100 percent.  For the cost calculations, all yards of a
given type were considered to be medium activity, however, different
yard geometries were assumed for each yard type as explained in Section
6 of the Background Document.  The land values are identical to those
used for estimating land acquisition costs in Section 7.  The derivation
of the land cost data is presented in Appendix D.  The unit costs for
additional track and switches along with estimated new track and switch
requirements are indicated in Table L-l.

     Table L-2 shows the revised annualized cost estimates that incorpor-
ate the refineuent to costs associated with curtailment of nighttime
activities.  Costs for new track and land were annualized over a 30 year
period.  Maintenance costs for the additional land and equipment have also
been included in the cost estimates.  The total annualized costs for each
type of rail yard are shown in Table L-2 also.  They were calculated by
multiplying the estimated cost for each type of yard by the total number
of each yard type.  The total number of yards by type are listed below.
   Based upon personal communications via telephone contact with
   Engineers at the RF&P yard in Alexandria, Va., and Gellman
   Research Associates, Jenkinsville, Pa.
                                  L-2

-------
u>
                                                       TABLE L-l




                                       ADDITIONAL TRACK AND SWITCH  REQUIREMENTS

Yard Type
Hump Classification
Flat Classification
Industrial
Small Industrial
No. of
Tracks
-
12
10
7
Length
of Track
-
4300
4300
3300

Cost/ft.
-
$50
$50
$50
No. of
Switches
-
12
10
7
Cost/ Switch
($103)
-
25
25
25
Total Cost
C. »
($106)
-
11.8
2.5
1.4

-------
                                              TABLE L-2

                   REVISED ANNUALIZED COST ESTIMATES BY YARD TYPE AND STUDY LEVEL
Yard Type
Hump Classification
Flat Classification

Industrial

Small Industrial
Cost ($000)
Level 1
Per Yard Total
29
5

-

-
3 ,600
5,600




Level 2
Per Yard Total
35
5

5


4,400
5,600

6,900


Level 3
Per Yard Total
231
4,637
7,013*
807

438
28,600
5,161,000
7,806,000*
1,115,000

679,000
Level 4
Per Yard Total
1,005
**
31,832*
**
12,075*
**
124,600
**
35,429,000*
**
16,676,000*
**
*   Estimated costs include land acquisition to extend property line to achieve the regulatory study
    level and assumed noise abatement technology has achieved a property line of an Ldn 70.

**  Denotes that estimated annualized costs would include Level 3 costs plus  purchase of land for
    buffer zone to achieve this level (Level 4).

-------
             Type of Yard                   Total Number of Yards
          Hump Classification                         124
          Flat Classification                        1113
          Industrial                                 1381
          Small Industrial                           1551
          GRAND TOTAL                                4169

The estimated capital costs  to achieve  the  regulatory study levels by
type of yard are summarized  in Table L-3.

     Based upon the refined  capital and annualized cost estimates to
achieve the various regulatory study levels, several  time-phased
regulatory levels were considered as potential options.  Table L-4
summarizes the key variables employed in  the decision process.

     The proposed regulations could directly affect  two employment
sectors:  the railroad industry and suppliers of noise abatement
materials and equipment.  The railroad industry could experience a
decrease of up to fourteen hundred employees.  This decrease accounts
for anticipated changes in the total operating revenues of railroads
resulting from the estimated compliance costs to meet the regulation
proposed.  The suppliers on  the other hand  could experience an increase
of up to two hundred employees.  This increase takes  into account the
average employment change resulting from  the procurement and fabrica-
tion of the noise control materials and equipment.  The overall or net
employment effect is, then,  estimated to  be an approximate twelve
hundred worker decrease.

     An analysis of economic impact of bankrupt roads as well as those
recently reorganized to form the Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)
was conducted as well.  The bankrupt roads  included Boston and Maine;
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific;
and MOrristown & Erie.  The  estimated net employment decrease for these
roads totals about 400 workers, with over 300 workers related to those
firms comprising Conrail.  (This net employment decrease is included in
the overall employment impact total shown above for the proposed
regulatory levels.)
                                  L-5

-------
                                TABLE L-3

          ESTIMATED CAPITAL COSTS BY YARD TYPE AND STUDY LEVEL
Yard Type
Hump Classification
Flat Classification
Industrial/
Small Industrial
Cos
Level 1
122
18
-
ts (thousar
Level 2
148
18
6
ids of dolla
Level 3
470
36,583*
2,790*
rs)
Level 4
2,441
**
**
 *  Estimated capital costs include all noise abatement procedures and
    the refined costs to achieve this regulatory study level.

**  Indicates that costs for Level 4 would be greater than those of
    Level 3 because of need to acquire buffer land.
                                  L-6

-------
                                            TABLE L-4


                                      COMPARISON OF OPTIONS
OPTIONS
Ldn Level
in dBA

(1) 75
(2) 75
70
V (3) 70
-j
(4) 70
65 (Hump
Yards
Only)
(5) 70
65

Lead Times
in Years

3
3
6
3

3
6


3
6
Average
Annual! zed
Benefits
AENI 103
62.8
214.0

242.3

278.7



584.8
(584.8)

Annualized
Costs
$ x 106
8.1
11.9

13.6

27.3



4030.6
(5568.6)
Ratio
Average
Benefit/
Cost
7.8
17.9

17.8

10.2



0.15
(0.11)
End- Year
(2000)
Benefits
AENI 103
72.8
280.6

280.6

330.6



751.6
(751.6)
Capital
Investment
Costs
$ x 106
37.8
51.1

51.1

91.0



35,790. 5a
(56,522. 0)b
NC = Non-compatible Land Use, Residential/Commercial.
 a = Transfer of nighttime activity to day time.
 b = Purchase of buffer land to achieve a 5 dBA reduction in noise from Ldn 70 to Ldn 65.

-------
     In Section 6, railroad noise propagation and health and welfare
models were described.  There has been considerable debate as  to what
role, if any, health and welfare are to play in  the agency's decision-
making analysis for railroad noise regulations.  The Association of
American Railroads has argued that health and welfare are  to be
totally absent from the agency's consideration because  there is no
mention of health and welfare, per se, in Section 17 of the Act.
Ue do not share this view.

     The Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. 4901 et seq., which
places the duty upon EPA to regulate noise, states "the policy of  the
United States to promote an environment for all  Americans  free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare".  42 U.S.C. 4901.
Section 17 of that Act, which requires standards on the facilities
and equipment of interstate rail carriers, directs EPA  to  set
standards that reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable
through application of the best available technology taking into
account the cost of compliance.  42 U.S.C. 4916(a).  While that charge
does not include a specific balancing of the needs of public health
and welfare, it is manifest that the standards cannot and  should not
be set in a void of information concerning those needs.

     First, it is not possible to assess the best available noise
reduction technology without having as a guide a noise  control objec-
tive.  There must be a target noise reduction criterion in order to
assess how effective technology is in accomplishing its objective.
Since the reason that noise is sought to be reduced by  any level of
government is to prevent the impingement on health and  welfare that
caused citizens to complain, it is reasonable*that the  noise des-
criptor used be one that relates best to health  and welfare.   For
this reason, EPA has used L^ as the descriptor  to assess  the
effectiveness of various types of available technology  and to
identify the "best".

     Second, it is not possible to meaningfully  take into  account
the cost of compliance without having an objective toward  which  those
                                L-8

-------
costs are imposed.  The very best available technology is not always
affordable.  By the same token, the greatest reasonable cost that
could be imposed is not always justifiable by the objectives of the
regulation.  Yet the Noise Control Act does not say that no costs
should be imposed upon the industry.  Rather, it is inherent in
Section 17(a) that the costs that are imposed for noise control must
be reasonable.  The only means of judging whether they are reasonable
is to scrutinize what they purchase, and the only utility of noise
reduction is the protection of health and welfare.

     An additional way in which public health and welfare must affect
cost determinations is in selecting the  types of controls that the
agency will require.  If EPA, for instance, were to determine  that
the railroad industry could expend "X" million dollars per year for
noise control, it would be irrational public policy to require that
these funds be spent in areas where no one would benefit from  them,
if there was another way to benefit "Y"  people by spending the same
"X" million dollars per year.

     In summary, EPA has concluded that  public health  and welfare
plays an important role in setting standards under  Section 17  of
the Noise  Control Act.  It is not within the purview  of  the  Act  for
the agency to set standards at costs  that  are unreasonable just
because  the public health and welfare would be served; for this
reason,  the standards proposed in  this regulation do  not  require
abatement  to  the  levels necessary  to provide  total  protection  to
the public health and welfare.  Howver,  in assessing  what  available
technology can accomplish in  terms of meaningful noise reduction,
in determining the limits beyond which costs  should not  be  imposed,
and in selecting  the  types of controls  that  should  be imposed  at
that level of expenditure, consideration of  the  effects  of noise
reduction  on  public health and welfare are within the intent of
the Act.

     Table L-5  lists  the variation of  rail yard  noise impacts  for
several  of the  alternative  reglatory  levels  (Options  1 through 5).
                               L-9

-------
                              TABLE L-5

               VARIATION OF RAILYARD NOISE IMPACT WITH
                    ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY LEVELS
     Maximum Allowable Noise Level
         at Kailyard Boundary


   BASELINE (without noise regulation)

OPTION 1

   All rail yards: L<3n = 75 dB
   by January 1, 1982.

OPTION 2

   (a)  All rail yards:  Ldn =  75 dB
        by January 1, 1982; and

   (b)  All rail yards r  L^ =  70 dB
        by January 1, 1985.

OPTION 3

   All rail yards:  L^ = 70 dB
   by January 1, 1982.

OPTION 4
   (a)   All rail yards:  L^n = 70 dB
        by January 1, 1982; and
   (b)   Hump Classification yards only
        at Ljjn = 65 dB by January 1,
        1985.
OPTION 5
   (a)  All rail yards:  L^ = 70 dB
        by January 1, 1982; and
                                            Population
                                             Exposed
                                             To Ldn
                                             > 55 dB
3,946,490



3,754,880




3,754,880


3,260,900




3,260,900




3,260,900


3,115,400
   (b)  All rail yards:  L^ = 65 dB
        by January 1, 1985.
3,260,900
2,010,700
Equivalent
Number of
 People
Impacted
  (ENI)

1,116,410
1,078,690




1,078,690


  880,830




  880,830




  880,830


  830,810
  880,830
  409,800
                                 L-10

-------
The baseline level indicates the population exposed to railroad
facility and equipment generated noise equal to or greater than a
day-night average sound level of 55 dB and the corresponding equiva-
lent number of people impacted by this noise.  The baseline level
represents the unregulated case.  The information shovm for Options 1
through 5 illustrate the change in population exposed and impacted
from railroad yard generated noise as a  result of the time-phased
regulatory levels.
                               L-ll

-------
                               APPENDIX II
                       FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE
     An integral element of an environmental noise assessment is to
determine or estimate the distribution of  the exposed population to given
levels of noise for given lengths of  time.  Thus, before implementing a
project or action, one should first characterize  the existing noise
exposure distribution of the population  in the  area affected by estimating
the number of people exposed to different  magnitudes of noise as described
by metrics such as the Day-Night Average Sound  Level  (l^dn)'  Next, the
distribtuion of people who may be exposed  to noise anticipated as a result
of adopting various projected alternatives should be predicted or
estimated.  We can judge the environmental impact by simply comparing
these successive population distributions. This  concept  is illustrated
in Figure 1 which compares  the estimated distribution  of  the population
prior to inception of a hypothetical  project  (Curve A) with  the
population distribution after  implementation  of the project  (Curve B).
For each statistical distribution,  numbers of  people  are  simply  plotted
against noise exposure where L^^  represents a  specific  exposure  in
decibels  to an arbitrary unit  of noise.   A measure  of  noise  impact  is
ascertained by examining the shift  in population distribution  attributable
either  to increased or  lessened  project  related noise.   Such  comparisons
of population distributions allow  us  to  determine the extent  of  noise
impact  in terms of changes  in  the  number of people  exposed to  different
levels  of noise.

      The  intensity or  severity of  a noise impact may be evalutaed by
comparing the degree  of noise  exposure with suitable noise effects
criteria, which exist  in the  form of dose-response or cause-effect
relationships.  Using  these criteria, the probability or magnitude of  an
anticipated effect can be  statistically predicted from knowledge of the
noise exposure  incurred.   Illustrative  examples  of the different forms
of noise effects  criteria  are graphically displayed in Figure 2.  In
general,  dose-response functions are statistically derived from noise
                                   H-l

-------
       •o
       8
       o
       ex
       K
       UJ
        .

       I
       |
                 Magnitude or Level of Exposure. Li in dB
FIGURE  1.   EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION OF THE  NOISE DISTRIBUTION OF

            POPULATION AS A FUNCTION OF  NOISE EXPOSURE
                             M-2

-------
effects information and exhibited as linear  or  curvilinear  relationships,
or combinations thereof.  Although  these  relationships  generally represent
a statistical "average" response, they  may also be defined  for any  given
population percentile.  The statistical probability  or  anticipated  magni-
tude of an effect at a given  noise  exposure  can be  estimated  using  the
appropriate function.  For example,  as  shown in Figure  2  using the  linear
function, if it is established  that  a  number of people  are  exposed  to a
value of L^, the incidence of a specific  response occurring within
that population would be  statistically  predicted at  50  percent.

     A more comprehensive assessment of environmental noise may  be  per-
formed by cross-tabulating both indices of  extensity (number  of  people
exposed) and intensity  (severity)  of impact.  To perform such an assess-
ment we  must first  statistically estimate the given level,  Li5  by
applying suitable  noise  effects criteria.  At each level, Lit the impact
upon all people so  exposed is then obtained by simply comparing the
number of people  exposed with the magnitude or probability of the antici-
pated  response.   As illustrated in Figure 1, the extent of a  noise impact
 is  functionally  described as  a distribution of exposures.  Thus, the
 total  impact of all exposures is a distribution  of people who are affected
 to  varying  degrees.   This may be expressed by  using an array or matrix in
which  the severity of impact  at each LL  is plotted against the number of
 people exposed at that level.  Table 1 presents  a hypothetical example
 of  such  an  array.

                                 TABLE  1
          EXAMPLE OF IMPACT MATRIX FUR  A  HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
                                           llagnitude  or Probability
     Exposure        Number of  People        of  Response in  Percent
       Li                1,200,000                       *
       Li+1               900,000                      10
       Li+2               200,000                      25
       Li+3
50,000                     50
       L.+n                  2,000
                                    11-3

-------
   8

   S
   ex
   0

   TJ


   2

   C
cr


 -
                         LI
                                Li
FIGURE 2  EXAMPLE OF  FORMS OF NOISE EFFECTS CRITERIA:


           (a) Linear,  (b)  Power, (c) Logarithmic.
                          M-4

-------
     An environmental noise assessment usually involves analysis,
evaluation and comparison of many different planning alternatives.
Obviously, creating multiple arrays of population impact information is
quite cumbersome, and subsequent comparisons between complex data
tabulations generally tend to become somewhate subjective.  What is
clearly required is a single number of interpretation  of noise environ-
ment which incorporates both attributes of exteusity and intensity of
impact.  Accordingly, the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on
Bioacoustics and Biotaechanics  (CHABA) has recommended  a procedure for
assessing environmental noise impact which mathematically  takes  into
account both extensity and intensity of impact  (1).  This  procedure, the
fractional impact method, computes  total noise  impact  by simply  counting
the number of people exposed to  noise at different  levels  and statis-
tically weighting each person by the intensity  of noise impact.  The
result is a single  number value  which represents  the  overall magnitude
of the impact.

     The  purpose of the fractional  impact  analysis  methods is  to
quantitatively  define  the impact of noise  upon  the  population  exposed.
This,  in  turn,  facilitates  trade-off  studies  and  comparisons of  the
impact between  different projects or  alternative  solutions. To  accom-
plish  an  objective  comparative  environmental  analysis, the fractional
impact method defines  a  series  of "partial noise  impacts" within a
number of neighborhoods  or  groups,  each of which  is exposed to  a
different level of  noise.   The  partial  noise  impact of each neighborhood
is determined by multiplying the number of people residing within the
neighborhood by the "fractional impact" of that neighborhood,  i.e.,  the
statistical probability  or  magnitude  of an anticipated response as
functionally  derived from relevant  noise effects  criteria.  The total
community impact  is then determined by  simply summing the partial
 impacts  of all  neighborhoods (1).

      It  is quite possible,  and in some cases very probably, that a large
 proportion of  a noise impact may be found in subneighborhoods exposed  to
 noise levels  of only moderate value.   Although people living in proximity
 to a noise source  are generally more severely impacted than those people

                                   11-5

-------
living further away, this does not imply that the latter should be totally
excluded from an assessment where the purpose is to objectively and
quantitatively evaluate the magnitude of a noise impact.  People exposed
to lower levels of noise may still experience an adverse impact, even
though that impact may be snail in magnitude.  The fractional impact
method considers the total impact upon all people exposed to noise
recognizing that soue individuals incur a significantly greater noise
exposure than others.  The procedure duly ascribes more importance to
the more severely affected population.

     As discussed previously, any procedure which evaluates the impact of
noise upon people or the environment, as well as the health and behavioral
consequences of noise exposure and resultant community reactions, must
encompass two basic elements of that impact assessment.  The impact of
noise may be intensive (i.e., it may severely affect a few people) or
extensive (i.e., it nay affect a larger population less severely).
Implicit in the fractionalization concept is that the magnitude of human
response varies proportionately with the degree of noise exposure, i.e.,
the greater the exposure, the more significant the response.  Another
major assumption is that a moderate noise exposure for a large population
has approximately the same noise impact upon the entire community as
would a greater noise exposure upon a smaller number of people.  Although
this may be conceptually envisioned as a trade-off between the intensity
and extensity of noise impact, it would be a misapplication of the
procedure to disregard those persons severely impacted by noise in order
to enhance the environment of a significantly larger number of people
who are affected to a lesser extent.  The fact remains, however, that
exposing many people to noise of a lower level would have roughly the
same impact as exposing a fewer number of people to a greater level of
noise when considering the impact upon the community or population as
a whole.  Thus, information regarding the distribution of the population
as a function of noise exposure should always be developed and presented
in conjunction with use of the fractional impact method.
                                  M-6

-------
     Because noise  is  an extremely pervasive pollutant,  it may adversely
affect people  in  a  number of  different ways.  Certain effects are well
documented.  Noise  can:

     o  cause  damage  to  the ear  resulting in permanent
        hearing loss.
     o  interfere with spoken communication.
     o  disrupt or  prevent sleep.
     o  be a source of annoyance.

Other effects  of noise are less  well documented but  may  become increas-
ingly important as  more  information is gathered.   They include the
nonauditory health  aspects as well as  performance and learning effects.

     It is important  to  note, however, that  quantitatively documented
cause-effect relationships which functionally characterize any of these
noise effects  may be  applied  within a  f ractionalization  procedure.  The
function for weighting the intensity of noise impact with  respect to
general adverse reaction  (annoyance) is displayed in Figure 3 (1). The
nonlinear weighting function  is  arbitrarily  normalized to  unity at
L^dn = 75 dB.   For convenience of calculation, the weighting function
may be expressed as representing percentages of impact in  accordance with
the following  equation:

                          [3.364  x  10~6]  [10°-103  Ldn]
 "(Ldn) =       [oTzj  [100-03 Ldn]  +  u.43  x 10-4]  [100.08 Ldn]

A simpler linear approximation that  can be used with reasonable accuracy
in cases where day-night  average sound levels range  between 55 and 80 dB
is shown as the dashed line in Figure  3 and  is defined as:
                                     dn         „                 (2)
                                     for Ldn  <  55
                                  M-7

-------
              FIGURE 3.  WEIGHTING^FUNCTION FOR  ASSESSING
                         THE GENERAL ADVERSE  RESPONSE  TO NOISE
Using the fractional impact concept, an  index referred  to  as  the  Equivalent
Noise Impact (ENI)* may be derived by multiplying  the nunfoer  of people
exposed to a given level of traffic noise by the fractional or weighted
impact associated with that level as follows:
            W(Ldni) X P±
                                         (3)
where ENI^ is the magnitude of  the impact on  the population  exposed at
^dn** w(Ldn*) ^ tne fractional weighting associated with  a  noise
exposure of L^n1' an(^ **i ** t*ie number of people exposed to  Ldn1*
     Because the extent of noise  impact  is characterized  by a distribution
of people all exposed to different levels of noise,  the magnitude  of  the
total impact may be computed by determining the partial impact  at  each
level and summing over each of the levels.  This  may be expressed  as:
     ENI
W(Ldni) X
(4)
   Terms such as Equivalent Population  (Peq),  and Level-Weighted
   Population (LWP), have often been used interchangeably  with  ENI.
   The other indices are conceptually identical  to  the  ENI notation.
                                  M-8

-------
     The average severity of impact over the entire population may be
derived from the Noise Impact Index (Nil) as follows:
    »"

In this case, Nil represents the percentage of the total population who
describe themselves as highly annoyed.  Another concept, the Relative
Change in Impact (RCI) is useful for  comparing the relative difference
between two alternatives.  This concept takes the form expressed as a
percent change in impact:
     Rf'T —
     RC1 ~
                ENI±
where ENI^ and ENI^ are the calculated impacts under  two different
conditions.

     An example of  the fractional  impact  calculation  procedure is
presented in Table  4.

     Similarly, using relevant criteria,  the  fractional impact procedure
may be utilized to  calculate  relative changes in  hearing damage  risk,
sleep disruption, and speech  interference.
 1.  Guidelines  for  Preparing Environmental Impact Statements  on  Noise.
    National Academy  of  Sciences,  Committee on Bioacoustics and
    Biomechanics  Working Group Number 69, February 1977.
                                   M-9

-------
                               REFERENCES
(Adapted,  in part, from Goldstein, J.,  "Assessing the Impact of
Transportation Noise:   Human Response Measures", Proceedings of the 1977
National Conference on Noise Control Engineering, G. C. Haling (ed.)»
NASA Langley Research Center, Haupton,  Virginia, 17-19 October 1977,
pp. 79-98.)
                                  M-10

-------
                              TABLE  4
EXAMPLE OF FRACTIONAL IMPACT CALCULATION FOR GENERAL ADVERSE RESPONSE
(2)
       (3)
(4)
(5)
                                                                (6)
                                                                                (7)
Exposure Exposure
Range Range
(Ldn> 
55-60 57.5
60-65 62.5
65-70 67.5
70-75 72.5
75-80 77.5
pi
W(Ldn) W(Ldn)
Pj_ (Curvilinear) (Linear approx.)
1,200,000 0.173 0.125
900,000 0.314 0.375
200,000 0.528 0.625
50,000 0.822 0.875
10,000 1.202 1.125
2,360,000
ENIi
(Curvilinear)
(Column (3) x (4))
207,600
282,600
105,600
41,100
12,020
648,920
ENI.j_
(Linear)
(Column (3) x (5))
150,000
337,500
125,000
43,750
11,250
667,500
            ENI   (Curvilinera = 648,920
            ENI   (Linear)  = 667,500
            Nil   (Curvilinear)  = 648,920 *  2,360,000 = 0.27
            Nil   (Linear)  = 667,500 * 2,360,000 = 0.28

-------
                              APPENDIX N
                  HAIL CAR COUPLING NOISE MEASUREMENTS

1.   Introduction

     One of the major source of noise in railroad yards is the coupling of
rail cars during routine classification operations.  However, the data
base on the noise levels generated during such operations is not very
extensive — particularly in terms of the effect of various parameters
on the resulting noise level, such as the car-coupling speed, the types of
cars involved in the coupling, their weights, whether they are loaded or
unloaded, etc.  For this reason, a limited series of experiments has been
conducted to obtain measured noise levels during a variety of controlled
car couplings.

     The tests were conducted at the DARCOM Ammunitions Center in
Savanna, Illinois, on 6 December 1978.  The tests were designed primarily
to investigate the effect of speed and car type and weight on the noise
level generated during the car coupling.  Noise levels were measured for
six speeds between two and eight miles per hour, for each of five
different configurations of rail cars.

     This Appendix documents the results of these  tests.  In the next
section the test procedure and measurements are provided and discussed
in the third section.

2.   Experimental Design

     A total of 34 tests were conducted.   Each  test consisted of a  single
"test car" coupling with a string  of one or more  "buffer  cars".  For  the
first three sets of measurements,  five  empty  box  cars were used as  the
buffer cars; one empty box car,  one fully-loaded  box  car, and one fully-
loaded coal car were  individually  used  as  the test cars.  For the next
two sets of measurements,  the fully-loaded coal car served as  the buffer
                                   N-l

-------
car, with one empty box car and one fully-loaded box car being  used as
the test cars.  For these five configurations,  tests were conducted for
each of the following (nominal) speeds:  2, 3,  4, 5, 6 and 8 miles per
hour.

     The final configuration involved one empty box car coupling with four
empty box cars at a nominal speed of 4 miles per hour.  Four tests were
conducted:  one test with the buffer cars stretched apart so that  there
was no slack in any of the couplers; one test with the buffer cars pushed
together for maximum coupler slack; and two tests with the buffer  cars
having random slack.

     Each test proceeded as follows:  The switch engine pushed  the test
car toward the buffer cars.  When the engine and rail car had achieved
the proper speed and were close enough to the buffer cars, the  engine
was braked, causing the test car to uncouple from it and proceed alone
toward the buffer cars.  Just before coupling with the buffer cars the
speed of the test car was measured.  As the test car coupled with  the
buffer cars, noise levels were measured at several locations nearby.
After the test was concluded, the engine recoupled with the test car and
pulled it and the attached buffer cars back so  that the buffer  cars were
in  their original position.  The buffer cars were then uncoupled from
the  test car, and the engine and test car would retreat.

     The speed of the test car immediately prior to coupling with  the
buffer cars was measured by timing the period between the closure  of two
switches located 11 feet apart on the track as  the test car passed by
the switches.  These speed measurements were performed by the DARCOM
Center staff and reported immediately after each test.

     Uoise data were collected at three locations (A, B, and C) as
shown in Figure 1.  At each of these locations  for each test the noise
was recorded on magnetic tape using the measurement instrumentation
shown in Figure 2.  In addition, at location A  a sound level meter was
                                  N-2

-------
Test Car
                                                   Buffer Cars
                         25'
                              25
                                 -,—I
                     100'
                  300'
                        Figure 1.  NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
                                             N-3

-------
           GENRAD
           1562A
           Calibrator
          GENRAD 1560-9522
          Windscreen

          GENRAD 1962-9610
          1/2" Electret Microphone  (5 Ft.  Above  Ground)
          GENRAD 1560-9642
          Preamplifier
                                               NAGRA
                                              IV STS
                                             RECORDER
                   GENRAD
                    1982
                     SLM
                (Location A
                   Only)
Figure 2.  SCHEMATIC OF NOISE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION
           AT LOCATIONS A, B, AND C
                           N-4

-------
     NAGRA
     IV  STS
   RECORDER
                                      GENRAD
                                       1982
                                    SOUND LEVEL
                                      METER
                                     BBN 614
                                      NOISE
                                     MONITOR
Figure 3.  SCHEMATIC OF DATA PROCESSING INSTRUMENTATION
                          N-5

-------
                                                           TABLE  1
                                   MEASURED A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS1  DURING COUPLING TESTS
Test
Number
C

2
3
•J
4
5
6
Coupling
Speed ,
mph
Position A
Lmax Lmax SEL
Slow Fast
Position B
Lmax Lmax SEL
Slow Fast
)NE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FIVE EMPTY BOX CARS
2.71
3.17
3.93
5.38
6.33
8.21
80.1 85.9 77.2
80.3 86.0 77.0
85.1 92.9 86.0
(88. 2)5
(90. 4)5
(96. 3)5
93.7 100.5 94.3
94.2 102.1 94.8
98.4 108.0 98.2
99.6 107.6 100.1
101.9 110.1 102.3
107.6 115.3 108.0
Position C
Lmax Ljnax SEL
Slow Fast

90.2 97.3 87.1
90.2 97.9 87.7
95.2 104.3 95.6
96.9 105.7 98.6
98.9 107.7 100.3
105.6 115.2 106.6
Position
A D
Slow3 Fast3

(80. 6)5 68.3
80.7 70.2
85.6 74.9
88.7 76.7
90.9 81.0
96.7 88.0
ONE LOADED BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FIVE EMPTY BOX CARS
7
g
9
10
11
12
2.35
3.28
4.40
5.49
6.34
8.19
80.9 88.7 78.3
84.2 90.7 85.5
89.1 95.9 94.0
91.9 99.0 95.7
93.8 99.9 96.8
96.1 102.8 98.5
91.7 101.5 92.4
95.6 103.9 95.8
99.1 107.3 99.7
102.1 110.5 102.1
104.3 112.0 104.4
106.9 114.3 106.6
90.6 101.3 88.1
94.6 103.7 95.0
98.0 106.5 99.7
102.1 111.7 103.1
103.9 112.3 105.0
106.3 114.9 106.6
80.4 72.0
85.1 75.0
/-
(89.8)b 79.9
92.6 82.7
94.5 85.4
96.0 87.4
ONE LOADED COAL CAR COUPLING WITH FIVE EMPTY BOX CARS
13
14
15
16
17
18
2.11
2.87
4.00
5.18
6.48
8.33
81.6 88.1 81.1
85.2 92.0 86.2
90.3 96.9 92.2
92.5 99.2 94.5
95.6 102.3 97.1
99.5 105.7 103.1
93.4 101.4 93.0
95.3 103.8 95.4
100.1 107.5 101.6
103.0 111.5 103.6
106.4 114.3 106.5
109.7 117.1 104.6
90.3 101.5 87.9
95.1 104.5 96.0
99.6 108.9 100.8
102.6 112.7 103.6
105.8 115.9 106.1
110.2 119.5 110.4
82.0 73.4
85.7 75.3
90.1 81.3
93.1 82.4
96.1 87.3
98.8 89.6
2
CPi

-------
                                                       TABLE 1   (Continued)
Test
Number
Coupling
Speed2
mph
Position A
kmax kmax SEL
Slow Fast
Position B
^max kmax SEL
Slow Fast
ONE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH ONE LOADED COAL CAR
19
20
21
22
23A
23B
24

25
26
27
28
29
30
2.30
3.06
4.24
5.11
-
6.34
8.04
ONE LOADED
2.01
3.07
4.04
5.08
6.14
8.17
82.0 88.9 82.0
(83. 5)5
86.8 95.3 88.2
88.3 95.2 89.9
91.8 99.2 94.2
91.8 99.3 94.4
96.3 102.5 98.3
95.7 102.3 96.0
96.0 104.5 96.0
99.6 108.7 99.9
101.7 110.7 102.7
104.5 112.0 105.1
104.7 114.2 105.1
107.7 114.5 108.1
BOX CAR COUPLING WITH ONE LOADED COAL CAR
79.2 89.2 76.4
84.7 92.4 86.1
87.0 94.5 89.1
93.1 102.5 95.1
94.6 103.6 96.3
96.4 105.2 98.5
92.3 102.5 90.9
97.7 106.6 97.1
98.7 107.0 99.1
106.5 117.9 105.1
107.1 117.1 106.3
107.9 118.2
Position C
Lmax Lmax SEL
Slow Fast

90.3 100.4 89.9
90.7 100.4 90.3
94.7 104.8 95.5
96.1 105.2 97.8
99.3 108.1 100.2
100.0 112.2 100.8
102.4 111.9 103.2

87.5 100.6 91.2
92.0 101.0 92.0
94.2 104.4 95.0
100.5 112.8 100.0
101.6 113.6 101.3
102.3 114.4 102.1
ONE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FOUR EMPTY BOX CARS
31
32
33
34
4.11
4.04
4.15
3.91
87.4 94.6 89.5
86.1 93.8 88.2
88.8 97.3 91.0
87.5 94.3 89.5
98.9 106.3 99.7
99.0 106.2 99.9
99.8 106.2 100.6
98.8 105.9 99.5
95.2 103.7 96.3
94.8 103.3 95.9
96.5 104.8 97.8
96.1 104.7 97.2
Position
A D4
Lmax Lmax
Slow^ Fastd

83.1 73.2
83.9 75.7
87.3 79.0
88.1 78.7
91.9 83.2
91.9 83.0
96.1 86.1

78.7 68.5
84.7 74.7
86.5 76.2
92.8 80.4
94.4 83.6
96.3 85.0

86.9 77.2
86.1 76.8
88.8 79.7
87.6 76.7
a
i
         1.  All noise levels are in units of dBA.
         2.  Coupling speeds were measured by DARCOM Center staff.
         3.  Noise levels in last two columns were read directly in the field; all other levels were determined
             from recordings.
         4.  Noise levels at Position D were masured by EPA Regional staff.
         5.  These noise levels were estimated from the levels read directly in the field.
         6.  These noise levels were estimated from the recorded noise data.

-------
105-
100--
 95--
90--
 85--
 so-1-
      O Empty Box Car —
      D Loaded Box Car -
      O Loaded Coal Car
      • Empty Box Car —
      • Loaded Box Car -
 5 Box Cars
•  5 Box Cars
•*- 5 Box Cars
 Coal Car
•  Coal Car
            a
                                                         O
                                                                 D
                                                                 O
                                                                                                            00
                                                                                                            z
 75 .,
                                        I            »    	--1-
                                       4            56
                                     Car Coupling Speed, MPH
                                                   ..+	
                                                    8
                                                                                          10
              Figure 4.  MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS VS. SPEED  (Slow Meter Dynamics)

-------
as
                 110 (
                       Q Empty Box Car —
                       D Loaded Box Car -
                       OLoaded Coal Car
                 105 4_ *Empty Box Car
                       • Loaded Box Car
                 100--
               CM
                id 95 ^
 5 Box Cars
•  5 Box Cars
•*• 5 Box Cars
 Coal Car
-  Coal Car
                  90
85 ,
                                                D
                                     O       O
                                           I
                                           3
                                                                                  D
                                                                        O O
                                                               D
                                                         O
                I
               4
-t-
 5
-4
 8
1 --------- 1
9    10
                                                     Car Coupling Speed, MPH
                        Figure 5.  MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS VS SPEED  (Fast Meter Dynamics)

-------
included to provide a direct reading of the maximum level occurring during
the test*  Two additional sets of measurements were obtained by EPA
personnel, one at location B and one at location D as shown in Figure 1.

     During the measurements, calibration signals were applied at regular
intervals to provide a standard for the measured data and to check the
operating stability of the instrumentation.

     At regular intervals, the temperature and wind direction and magni-
tude were measured as well.  During the day of testing the temperature
varied from 19 to 22°F, and the wind varied from calm to 8 mph (with
gusts to 12 mph).  The sky was generally overcast, and the ground was
snow-covered.

3.   Measurement Results

     The recorded noise levels at each measurement location (A, B, and C)
were played back into a sound level meter to obtain the maximum A-weighted
sound level for both slow and fast dynamic response and into an integrat-
ing sound level meter to obtain the sound exposure level (see Figure 3 for
a diagram of the playback instrumentation).  Table 1 lists these  two
maximum values (L^-m slow and fast) and the sound exposure level  (SEL)
for each measurement location for each of the 34 tests.  Also shown on the
table are the maximum levels read directly in the field at location A as
well as the maximum levels read directly in the field by EPA personnel at
location D.  The car-coupling speed measured during each test by  the
DARCOM Center personnel is listed on the table as well.

     For the five test configurations for which the noise level was
mcsured at each of six different speeds (tests 1 through 30), Figure 4
shows the maximum A-weighted slow noise level plotted as a function of
speed.  Figure 5 is a similar plot, for the maximum A-weighted fast noise
level.  These two figures clearly show that the maximum noise level is
a strong function of car—coupling speed.  The maximum level can be
expressed as a function of speed, V, as follows:
            A + B log V,
                                  N-10

-------
where the quantities  "A" and "B" are constants.   "B",  the slope of  the
line through the data points,  is on the  order  of  30  for  both Figures 4 and
5.  "A" will vary with  the car configuration.

     For the first  three configurations  in which  different  test cars
coupled with five empty box cars,  the maximum  noise  level at any speed
appears to increase with the weight of the  test car  (Table  2 lists  the
weights of all test and buffer cars used during the  measurements).  For
the two configurations with the loaded coal  car as  the buffer  car,  the
noise levels for several tests are near  the  levels  measured when the
buffer cars are the five empty box cars  (particularly  for the  slow  data).
Since the weight of the loaded coal car  is nearly identical to the  weight
of the five empty box cars, the noise level  appears  to be more a function
of weight than of buffer car type  or configuration.  The highest overall
noise levels generally occurred when the loaded coal car coupled with  the
five empty box cars.

     Even though the variation of  level  with car  weight  can be seen from
the data in Figures 4 and 5, the actual  range  in  levels  at  any given speed
is not very large:  5 to 7 dB  at the lower speeds and  2  to  4 dB at  the
upper speeds.  This implies that for other  configurations with different
cars than those measured under these tests,  if the  weights  are comparable
the noise levels will probably lie within the  same  general  range.

     By examining the average value of the differences between two  sets
of data, and the associated standard deviation about that average,  con-
clusions can be drawn concerning the relationships  between  the two  data
sets.  Table 3 lists such averages and standard deviations  for a variety
of sets of data.  First, differences between the  levels  measured at
locations B and C are examined.  The noise levels (slow) at location C
are consistently lower than at location  B, with an  average  difference  of
more than 3 dB.  This implies  that the maximum noise during the coupling
activity is generated at the coupler itself, and  not from any  secondary
radiation from the car body.
                                   N-ll

-------
     Comparison of Che 100 and 300 foot slow noise data  shows an  average
difference of 9.8 dB.  For a point source, one would expect  a change  in
level of 9.5 dB between measurement positions located  100  and 300 feet
from the source.  This is indeed shown to be the case  for  car-coupling
noise.

     Comparison of the maximum levels determined using fast  versus  slow
dynamic response of the sound level meter shows an average difference of
8.5 dB.  Based upon the fast and slow dynamics, this implies that the car-
coupling noise has a typical duration on the order of  1/10 of a second.
The small standard deviation (1.5 dB) also implies that  one  can estimate
the slow level from measurement of the fast, and vice  versa, with
reasonable accuracy.

     Similarly, the small standard deviation in the difference between
the SEL values and slow max levels also indicates  that estimates  of one
quantity based upon measurements of the second can be  made with reasonable
accuracy.  This is of particular interest since measurement  of the  maximum
level is generally less costly to obtain than measurement  of the  SEL
value.  Estimation of the SEL can also be based on measurement of the fast
max levels, but with somewhat lower accuracy (since the  standard  deviation
is higher).

     With regard to the last four measurements (tests  31 through  34),
Table 1 shows that there is minimal difference in  the  noise  level gener-
ated when the buffer cars are compressed versus stretched  versus  randomly
positioned.  Although the number of measurements is in reality too  small
to draw statistically significant conclusions, the condition of the
buffer cars with regard to being stretched or compressed does not appear
to be an important variable in influencing the coupling  noise level.

     Comparison of the maximum levels measured at  location B for  the  last
four tests, all conducted at the same nominal speed, indicates that there
is a rather small variability (1 dB) in repeat runs of the same  (or
nearly the same) configuration.  At location A the variability is some-
what higher; this may be due to meteorological effects which would  be more
pronounced as the distance from the source to the  microphone increases.
                                  N-12

-------
                           TABLE 2
              WEIGHT OF RAIL CARS USED  IN TESTS
         CAR(S)
     Empty Box Car
     Loaded Box Car
     Loaded Coal Car
     5 Empty Box Cars
     4 Empty Box Cars
                WEIGHT, POUNDS

                     44,100
                    140,774
                    220,000
                    227,900
                    184,000
                            TABLE  3
           ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN  SETS  OF
                  CAR COUPLING NOISE  LEVELS
DATA SETS

Lmax at Location B

     at Location C

   (slow)
   AVERAGE
DIFFERENCE, dB
   3.1
  STANDARD
DEVIATION, dB
  2.1
HO. OF
SAMPLES
35
Lnax at Location A
Lmax at Location D
   (slow)
   9.8
  1.1
                                                           35
     Fast -

     Slow
   8.5
                                             1.5
                101
Liaax Slow ~
  SEL
     Fast -
   SEL
 - 0.6
                             7.9
                                             1.6
                    2.4
                100
                100
                               N-13

-------
                             REFERENCES

1.    Bolt Beranek and Newnan, Inc.; Report Ho. 3b73, 1978, Cambridge,
     Ilassachusetts.
                                    N-14

-------
             APPENDIX O


     U.  S.  COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
 _ Notice:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
 in the Federal Reporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested
 to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be
•made before the bound volumes go to press.
                States (Emiri  at
          FOB THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                     No. 76-1353

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, CHESAPEAKE AND
  OHIO RAILWAY COMPANY,  CHICAGO AND NORTH WEST-
  ERN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,  AND SOUTHERN RAIL-
  WAY COMPANY, PETITIONERS

                          v.

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE  ENVIRON-
  MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
  PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS

          THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, INTERVENOR
         Petition for Review of an Order of the
           Environmental Protection Agency
                  Argued 7 June 1977

                Decided 23 August 1977
Jud«aent entared
    this data
Bills of costs must be filed •within 14 days after entry of judgment The
court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs oat of time.

-------
  Richard J. Flynn,  with -whom Lee  A. Monroe  and
Joseph  B. Tompkins,  Jr., were on the  brief,  for peti-
tioners.
  Erica L. Dolgin, Attorney, Department of Justice, with
whom  Peter R.  Taft,  Assistant  Attorney General  and
Jeffrey  0.  Cerar,  Attorney, Environmental Protection
Agency, were on the brief, for respondents.
  Russell R. Eggert was on the brief for intervenor.
  Before  TAMM  and WILKEY, Circuit Judges, and WIL-
          LIAM B. JONES,* United States Senior District
          Judge for the United States District Court for
          the District of Columbia
  Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILKEY.
  WlLKEY,  Circuit Judge:  In this  petition for review,1
the Association of American  Railroads5  (AAR) chal-
lenges the validity of the action of the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) in promul-
gating Railroad Noise Emission Standards limited to rail
cars and  locomotives  operated  by surface  carriers en-
gaged in interstate commerce by railroad.1 These regula-
tions  were  promulgated pursuant to  Section 17 of the
Noise Control Act of 1972 (the Act) which requires the
Administrator  to establish emission standards for noise
"resulting from operation of the equipment and facilities"
of interstate rail carriers.*  The petitioner does  not chal-
lenge the  validity of the noise emission standards set for
  * Sitting: by designation pursuant to Title 23, U.S.C. § 294
 (c).
  1 This petition for review is properly before the court pur-
suant to 42 U.S.C. § 4915.
  1 The State of Illinois was allowed to intervene as a party
respondent by order of'this court on 18 May 1976.
  s The regulations are stated at 40 C.F.R. §§ 201.11, 201.12,
201.13.
  «42U.S.C. §4916.

-------
rail cars and locomotives; rather, the AAR contends that
the Administrator has interpreted the mandate embodied
in Section  17 of the  Act unlawfully in  failing to estab-
lish standards for all of the "equipment  and facilities"
of interstate rail carriers. The EPA, on the other hand,
argues that the Act vests the Administrator with discre-
tion to determine which sources of  railroad  noise are to
be regulated at the federal level.
  After  carefully reviewing  the language of the  Noise
Control Act and its legislative history, we conclude that
the EPA has misinterpreted the scope of the mandate
embodied in  Section  17 of  the Act through  its  arti-
ficially narrow  definition of  "equipment and facilities."
Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the  Administra-
tor to limit the scope of the  Railroad  Noise Emission
Standards  and remand the case to  the EPA with  direc-
tions  to  promulgate noise  emission  standards in a man-
ner not inconsistent with this opinion.

              I.  STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

  The requirements for the regulation of railroad noise
are contained in Section 17 of the Act.  In pertinent part,
this Section of the Act provides that:'
       (a) (1)   Within nine  months  after  October 27,
     1972,  the Administrator shall publish proposed noise
    emission  regulations for surface carriers engaged in
    interstate  commerce  by  railroad.  Such  proposed
     regulations  shall include noise emission standards
     setting such limits on noise emissions resulting from
    operation  of the equipment and facilities of surface
     carriers  engaged  in  interstate commerce by rail-
     road  which  reflect  the  degree of  noise reduction
     achievable  through the application of the best avail-
     able technology,  taking  into  account  the  cost of

-------
    compliance.  These regulations shall be in addition
    to any regulations that may be proposed under sec-
    tion 4905 of this title.
       (2)  Within  ninety days after the publication  of
    such regulations as  may be  proposed  under  para-
    graph  (1)  of this subsection, and subject to the pro-
    visions of section 4915 of this title, tie Administra-
    tor shall promulgate  final regulations.  Such regula-
    tions may  be revised, from  time to time, in accord-
    ance with this  subsection.
                    •     »     »    »
       (c) (1) Subject  to  paragraph  (2)  but  notwith-
    standing any other provision of this  chapter after
    the effective date  of  a regulation under this section
    applicable to noise emissions resulting from the op-
    eration of any equipment or facility of a  surface
    carrier engaged in interstate  commerce by railroad,
    no State or political  subdivision thereby  may  adopt
    or enforce  any standard applicable  to  noise  emis-
    sions resulting from the operation of the same equip-
    ment or facility of such carrier unless  such stand-
    ard is identical tc a  standard applicable  to noise
    emissions resulting from such operation prescribed
    by any regulation under this section.
       (2)  Nothing in  this section shall  diminish or en-
    hance the rights of any State or political  subdivision
    thereof to establish  and enforce standards  or con-
    trols on  levels  of environmental noise, or to  control,
    license, regulate, or  restrict the use,  operation,  or
    movement of any product if the Administrator, after
    consultation  with  the  Secretary of Transportation
    determines that such standard, control, license, regu-
    lation, or restriction is necessitated  by special local
    conditions  and is  not in conflict with  regulations
    promulgated under the section.
  There are three  points  concerning the  language  of
Section 17  which deserve  mention at this  point; an ex-
amination of these three points will serve  to focus the

-------
analysis on the precise issue that forms the basis of the
controversy in this  case.  There is a particularly strong
need  in this  case to focus  the  discussion  at  an early
stage since the parties,  both in their briefs and at oral
argument, have devoted  much  attention to issues which
are either beyond peradventure  or are not germane to
the case in its present posture.*

  First of  all, it is clear from the language of Section
17(a) (1)  and  (2)  that the Administrator is under a
mandatory duty to establish noise emission  standards for
interstate rail carriers.  The word "shall" is the language
of command in a  statute/ and  there is  no doubt that the
Congress  has  commanded the Administrator of the EPA
to promulgate railroad noise emission standards. In Sec-
tion 17(a)(l),  however,  Congress went  beyond  com-
manding  the  Administrator to establish standards  and
sought to specify the subject matter to be regulated.  In
so specifying  the  subject matter, Congress  also used the
language  of  command—the  regulations  "shall include"
standards  setting limits on  noise  emanating from "the
equipment and facilities" of interstate  rail carriers.8  In
this sentence the phrase "shall  include"  refers to  and
incorporates  the  phrase "equipment and  facilities"  as
  * For example, the petitioner devotes substantial energy to
the question of whether the Act has preemptive effect See
Brief of  Petitioners at 9-32. The Act clearly has such an
effect; see text at notes 10, 35, and 36, infra,.
  The respondents focus on the issue of whether the -EPA has
exercised its discretion in a reasonable manner; see Brief for
Respondents 26-37.  The  discussion  by respondents assumes
that discretion is vested in the EPA; we have concluded that
it does not and, therefore, this discussion of the reasonable-
ness of the exercise of discretion is not relevant.
  T See,  e.g., Boyden  v. Comm.  of Patents, 441 F.2d 1041
(D.C. Cir. 1971).

  •42U.S.C. §4916(a)(l).

-------
                           6

the subject matter which must be included in the manda-
tory regulations.  Thus, both  'the obligation to promul-
gate regulations and the subject  matter to  be  regulated
are dictated by the statute.  Although there is  a manda-
tory  duty relative  to "equipment and facilities,"  the
statute does not attempt to define the phrase "equipment
and facilities" beyond the use of the words themselves.
  Given this strong mandatory language in the statute,
we can brush aside subsidiary  and diversionary  issues
to formulate the issue under review in  this case as sim-
ply: with respect  to the subject matter  to be regulated,
what  is  the  scope  of the Administrator's mandatory
duty?1
  The second point  to be made concerning  the  language
of Section 17 deals  with the issue of preemption.  It is
clear that, under the Supremacy  Clause of the  Constitu-
tion,  federal law can  preempt state law in a particular
subject area.™ Congressional intent to preempt state and
local  regulation  must at  times  be  inferred  from  the
overall structure of  regulation found  in the federal stat-
ute;  such a need to  infer  is not  present  in  this case.
Section 17 (c) (1)  of the Act constitutes an  explicit and
direct preemption clause.  Under the  terms of  this sub-
section, noise  emission regulations relative to "the  opera-
tion of any equipment or facility" of an interstate rail
carrier will preempt  state  or local regulations dealing
with  the same sources of  noise.   In  addition,  the scope
of the preemption provision appears clear; all regulations
promulgated pursuant to Section 17(a) (1)  and (2)  are
to have preemptive  effect.  That is,  if a regulation comes
   * We emphasize that the question as to the degree of regula-
 tion, to be applied to various noise sources is not before us in
 this case.  The sole issue which we address concerns the ques-
 tion as to w fiat is to be regulated.
   M See, e.g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul,
 373 U.S. 132 (1963).

-------
within the scope of the mandatory duty specified in Sec-
tion 17(a) (1)  and  (2), the regulation  then  displaces  in-
consistent state or local laws.
  Thus,  the existence and scope  of  federal preemption
are not directly at issue in this case;  the former  is  be-
yond doubt,  while the latter is  dictated by  the scope of
the  mandatory  duty to establish standards  (which is
the focus of this case).
  The third and final point to be made concerning  the
language of Section 17  at this  time  concerns the  provi-
sion for local  variances  under  Section 17 (c) (2)  of  the
Act.  Under this provision the Administrator may,  after
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,  allow
states or localities to establish  and enforce  standards if
such  standards  are  "necessitated  by special local  condi-
tions and  [are]  not in  conflict  with  regulations promul-
gated under this section.""  This  provision  for  local
variances  has no  effect  on the scope  of the mandatory
duty outlined in Section  17(a),  nor does it alter the pre-
emption provisions  of  Section 17(c)(l);  in  fact,  the
nature of this  provision would  seem  to confirm preemp-
tion. Section 17(c) (2)  performs  a valuable function in
its recognition  that local conditions may  dictate  some
degree of flexibility in  the  approach to noise control.
The  provision does not,  however,  limit the  scope of  the
Administrator's mandatory duty or the preemptive  effect
of  the regulations issued pursuant to that duty.
   In summary,  by virtue  of  the language  and structure
of  Section 17  of the Act,  the "relevant question for pur-
poses of this analysis concerns the scope of the mandatory
duty to regulate railroad noise. In particular,  this scope
is  to be  defined by reference to  the phrase "equipment
and  facilities" in Section  17. Before  turning  to an  ex-
position of  what  we believe  to have  been  the Congres-
   "42U.S.C. §4916(c)(2).

-------
                          8

sional intent behind this phrase,  we  shall examine  the
definition provided by the Administrator during the course
of the rulemaMng proceedings here under review.

             II.  PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

  The first formal step taken by EPA to implement Sec-
tion  17 was  the  issuance of an  advance notice of pro-
posed rulemaking, which announced  EPA's intent to de-
velop regulations  and invited the participation of all in-
terested parties." The comment period was subsequently
extended to 1'June 1973." On 3 July 1974 EPA issued
a notice of proposed rulemaking in which the  agency  an-
nounced its  intention to regulate rail  cars and locomo-
tives but  not other  railroad equipment  or  facilities."
The  Administrator  provided  the  following rationale  for
so limiting the regulations: '•*

     Many railroad  noise problems can best be controlled
     by measures which do not require national  uniformity
     of  treatment to facilitate  interstate commerce at
     this time. The network  of railroad operations  is
     imbedded into every corner of this country, including
     rights-of-way,  spurs,  stations,  terminals,   sidings,
     marshaling yards, maintenance shops, etc.  Protection
    of the environment for such a complex and pervasive
     industry is not simply a problem of modifying noisy
     equipment, but get down into the minutiae of count-
     less daily railroad operations at thousands'of loca-
     tions  across the country. The environmental impact
     of a given railroad operation will vary depending on
     whether  it takes place, for  example, in a desert or
     adjacent to a residential area. For this reason, EPA
  » 38 Fed. Reg. 3086.

  " 38 Fed. Reg. 10644.

  "39 Fed. Reg. 24580.

  M Id. at 24580-81.

-------
    believes that State and local authorities  are  better
    suited than the Federal government to consider fine
    details such  as the  addition of sound insulation or
    noise barriers to particular facilities, or the location
    of noisy railroad equipment  within  those facilities
    as far as possible  from  noise-sensitive areas, etc.
    There is no indication,  at present, that differences in
    requirements for such measures from place to place
    impose any significant burden upon interstate com-
    merce.  At this time,  therefore,  it  appears that na-
    tional uniformity of treatment of such measures  is
    not  needed  to  facilitate  interstate  commerce and
    would not be in the best interest of environmental
    protection.
      The national effort to control noise has only just
    begun, however, and it is inevitable that  some pres-
    ently unknown problems  will  come to  light  as the
    effort progresses.  Experience  may teach  that there
    are  better approaches  to  some aspects  of the prob-
    lem  than those which now appear most  desirable.
    The situation may change so as to call for a different
    approach.  Section 17 of the Noise Control Act clear-
    ly gives the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
    tection Agency authority to set noise emission stand-
    ards on  the operation of all types of equipment and
    facilities  of interstate  railroads.  If in  the  future
    it appears  that a different approach is  called for,
    either in regulating more equipment and facilities,
    or fewer, or regulating them  in  a different  way  or
    with  different  standards  consistent with  the cri-
    teria set forth  in Section  17,  these regulations will
    be revised accordingly.
  After  publication  of-the proposed  regulations, EPA
made available  a detailed  "Background  Document" for
the regulations; this document  is. significant for  the
candor and frankness with which it explains the agency's
decision  to limit its regulation."   After this, a  public
  w The document is reproduced in the Joint Appendix (J.A.)
at 28-51. See also text and notes at notes 45 to 48, infra.

-------
                          10
hearing was held and  further written comments  were
solicited  and  received."  The AAR submitted  written
comments on 27 August 1974 in which the organization
put forth  the  same  arguments  being pursued  in this
appeal.1*  The EPA  rejected these arguments and  pub-
lished the final, but limited, regulations on  14 January
1976. This petition  for review of the final  regulations
was then timely filed on 14 April 1976.19
  There are two major themes in the EPA's justification
for limiting its regulation which should be identified  at
this point  The first concerns the issue of timing;  EPA
has repeatedly stated that it is limiting the subject  mat-
ter of its noise standards "at this time." The agency has
during the course of  its administrative proceedings spe-
cifically reserved  the option  to regulate all aspects  of
railroads "equipment  and facilities" in  the future.
  The second theme  is related to the first; while declin-
ing to regulate additional equipment and facilities at this
time, the Administrator explicitly or impliedly encouraged
state and local jurisdictions to adopt noise emission stand-
ards for  some types  of equipment  and  facilities. As
EPA stated,"
      "Although the  EPA does not currently propose to
    regulate retarder noise, it does recommend that local
    jurisdictions  establish regulations which require rail-
    roads to utilize barrier technology where  needed and
    where both practical and feasible . . .
      "They [local  and state jurisdictions]  may adopt
    and enforce noise emission standards on other pieces
    of equipment not covered by EPA regulations,  such
    as retarders and railroad construction equipment. . .
  "39 Fed. Reg. 24585.
  "JJL at 117-160.
  »S««42 U.S.C. §4915.
  *» See J.A. at 18, 24-25.

-------
                          11

      "State  and  local governments may  enact  noise
    emission standards for facilities which EPA has not
    regulated.  However,  . .  . 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 regulation may  or  may not be  preempted . . .
      ". . . EPA believes that design or equipment stand-
    ards on federally regulated equipment—viz., locomo-
    tive and rail cars—are preempted. Design or equip-
    ment standards on other pieces of equipment  such
    as  retarders  or cribbing  machines,  are not  pre-
    empted.  Similarly, design standards on facilities not
    federally regulated are not  preempted,  even though
    locomotives and rail cars may operate there, because
    they do not require the modification of locomotives
    or rail cars. An example of this type  of regulation
    would  be a local ordinance  requiring that noise bar-
    riers be installed along the rights of  way  running
    through that  community."
Thus, although  EPA recognized the  need for additional
regulation,  the agency did not take it upon  itself to meet
this need through  EPA-sponsored regulations.  In addi-
tion, the encouragement of local  regulation was subject
to tie EPA's reservation  of power to regulate  in those
same  areas in  the  future.  This facet of the  agency's
position will assume a prominent role in  our, analysis in
Part in, infra.
  In summary, the administrative process described above
resulted  in standards regulating noise from only three
sources: 1) locomotive operation under stationary  condi-
tions;"  2)  locomotive operation  under moving  condi-
tions;- and 3) rail car operations.13  No other  types of
    40 C.F.R. § 201.11.

    Id. at § 201.12.

    Id. at § 20L13.

-------
                          12

railroad  equipment and no railroad facilities at all  are
within the coverage of the promulgated  standards. Spe-
cifically,  the following "equipment and facilities" are ex-
cluded from federal regulation: horns,  bells, whistles  and
other warning devices;  respair  and maintenance shops,
terminals, marshalling yards, and rail car retarders; spe-
cial  purpose equipment, such as  cranes,  derricks,  and
other types of maintenance-of-way equipment;  and track
and  rights-of-way."  The propriety of  excluding these
sources of noise from regulation in light of the statutory
mandate in Section 17(a) of the  Act will now  be  ex-
amined.
                    m.  ANALYSIS

A.   Statutory Langiuige

  1.  Section 17(a)(l).  The starting point for an analy-
sis of the scope of the subject matter to be regulated
pursuant to the Administrator's mandatory duty to pub-
lish  noise emission regulations must be the language of
Section 17(a)(l). As  noted previously, "shall include"
refers to "the equipment and facilities" in this context;:s
the  definition of the latfor phrase dictates the scope of
the mandatory subject matter. We believe that the refer-
ence to  "the equipment and facilities"  is  unambiguous.
The plain meaning of this phrase yields a definition that
would, in the absence  of any contradictory  evidence, sub-
sume  all such equipment and  facilities.  There is abso-
lutely no indication in Section  17 (a) (1)  that Congress
intended to vest discretion in the EPA to decide which
   «* This listing is not meant to be an exhaustive compilation
 of the subject matter included  within the phrase "equipment
 and facilities." The definition of this term must be made by
 the agency with a realistic reference to the definition of the
 term customarily employed in the railroad industry. See text
 and notes at notes 45 to 43, infra.
   M See text and notes at notes 7 to 8, supra.

-------
                          13

of the equipment and facilities would be subject to regu-
lation.  Nothing in the  statute  diminishes  or qualifies
the generality of these two key words—equipment and
facility.  Nothing in the  statute states  that only certain
kinds  of  equipment or facilities need  to be  regulated.
The plain and natural meaning of the phrase "the equip-
ment and  facilities" is that the power of the EPA is
plenary with respect  to  those  objects  and  places cus-
tomarily thought  to be included in the  definition of the
phrase. To read this  language  otherwise  would  be  to
distort a relatively clear  signal from the national legisla-
ture.  Indeed, in the context of this case, the EPA chose
not to regulate any "facilities" at  all; this  action  in
effect reads  this word  out of the statute.  We are not
prepared  to label this  word as being superfluous to the
statutory mandate.36
  The EPA presents only one argument with  respect to
the statutory language  in Section 17(a) (1).  The agency
contends that "[i]f Congress had meant to require  EPA
to regulate all  equipment and facilities it could  easily
have said so by using the word 'all' rather than the word
'the.' " "* This is perhaps the weakest of all statutory con-
struction  arguments,  particularly  where, as  here,  the
proponent  of the argument puts  forth alternative lan-
guage which Congress  should  have used which has sub-
stantially the same meaning as the language which Con-
gress did  employ. The principle  being  contended for  by
the EPA  with respect  to  the language  of Section 17(a)
(1) has no limits; it is the last refuge for those who find
themselves in the unenviable position of having to  argue
  *• Of course, the EPA has reserved the option to regulate
"facilities" in the future (see note 15, supra). The EPA thus
believes that  it can choose the timing of its regulations, a
proposition with which we disagree.  See text and  notes at
notes 49 to 50, infra.
  * Brief for Respondents at 10.

-------
                          14

against the plain meaning  of  statutory  language.  Al-
though EPA can draw no support from the language of
Section 17(a) (1), the agency  seeks  to establish  the ex-
istence of discretion to choose  among various equipment
and  facilities by reference to  the language  of the pre-
amble of the Act28
  2.  The Preamble.  The  EPA makes much of the fact
that  the preamble to the Act states that
     while primary responsibility for control of noise rests
     with State and local  governments, Federal action is
     essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce
     control of which require  national uniformity of treat-
     ment.1"
EPA would  have us read this language as if it said that
the Federal  government can regulate only "major noise
sources."
  The  EPA argument based on the language in the pre-
amble  is based on an erroneous perception of the opera-
tion  and significance of such language.  A  preamble no
doubt contributes to a general understanding of a  statute,
but it is not an operative part of the statute and it does
not enlarge  or confer powers on administrative agencies
or officers.30  Where the enacting or operative parts of a
statute are unambiguous,  the meaning of the statute can-
not  be controlled by language in  the  preamble.   The
operative provisions of statutes  are those which prescribe
rights  and  duties and otherwise declare  the legislative
  M Respondents refer us to other statutory language in vari-
ous subsections  of Section  17; see Brief for Respondents at
12-14.  We find  these arguments to be clearly frivolous and
insubstantial and therefore do not address them in detail in
this opinion.
  "42U.S.C. §4901 (a) (3).
  "•See, e.g., Yazoo Railroad Co. v. Thomas, 132 U.S.  174,
188 (1889).

-------
                           15

will.  In the context of this case, the operative provisions
of the  statute which declare the will of Congress with
respect to railroad noise emissions are those contained in
Section  17  of the Act.  We find  the reference to "the
equipment and facilities" in  Section  17(a) (1)   to  be
unambiguous  and, therefore,  do not look to the preamble
for guidance as to the legislative intent.

B. Legislative History

  Our conclusion  that the language of Section 17 (a) (1)
itself is an unambiguous reference  to all "equipment and
facilities" forecloses  the necessity of looking to the legis-
lative history for  resolution of this issue. In  the interest
of thoroughness, however, we have scrutinized the legisla-
tive  history  and  believe that  it is consistent  with our
reading of the language of the Act. In addition, the leg-
islative  history provides an  important insight  into why
the justification offered by the EPA for the  narrowness
of the scope of its  regulations is incorrect.

  The only legislative Committee Report to touch  on the
provisions relating  to railroad noise regulation  is the
Report of the Senate Committee on Public  Works."  The
Report of the House  Committee on Interstate and Foreign
Commerce,  accompanying  the House noise  control bill
 (H.R.  11021),"   contains no mention of railroad noise
emissions because the  House-bill  did  not contain a sec-
tion  on railroad  noise  either  as  introduced  or as  first
passed by the House.

   The Senate Committee Report summarized  the railroad
section of the law as  follows:53
   31 S. Hep. No. 92-1160, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
   » H. Rep. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972).
   « S. Rep. No. 92-1160, supra, note 31, at 18-19.

-------
                          16

     "Part B—Railroad Noise Emission Standards

       This part (Sections 511 through  514)  provides a
     Federal regulatory scheme for noise emissions from
     surface  carriers engaged in interstate  commerce by
     railroad. The Administrator  of the Environmental
     Protection  Agency is required  to publish  within 9
     months  after enactment and  promulgate within 90
     days after  publication noise  emission standards for
     railroad equipment and facilities involved in interstate
     transportation,  including  both  new  and   existing
     sources. Such standards must be established on the
     basis of the reduction in noise  emissions achievable
     with the application of the best  available  technology,
     taking into  account the cost of compliance.

       Standards take effect after  the period the Admin-
     istrator determines  necessary to develop  and apply
     the  requisite technology,  and are implemented  and
     enforced through the safety inspection and regula-
     tory authority  of the Secretary of Transportation,
     as well as through Title IV.

       Based on the interrelationship  between  the need
     for  active regulation  of moving noise sources  and
     the burdens imposed on interstate carriers by differ-
     ing  State and  local  controls,  the Federal  regulatory
     program for railroads under this part completely pre-
     empts the authority of  State and local governments
     to regulate such noise after the effective date of ade-
     quate Federal standards, except where  the Adminis-
     trator determines it to be necessitated by special local
     conditions or not in conflict with regulations under
     this  part"

  Although the  language in the report offers  no insight
into the  meaning of the  phrase "equipment  and facili-
ties," it  does provide evidence as  to the  major policy
justification for the broad preemptive effect accorded to
the  railroad noise  emission standards.   Congress  was
clearly concerned about "the burdens imposed on inter-

-------
                           17

state carriers by differing State and local controls	"
This  concern was  expressed repeatedly in  the Senate
debate on  the Act.  Two excerpts from this debate serve
to illustrate this concern:
Senator Randolph:
       "I also  bring to the  attention of the Senate  the
     provisions in title V  of  S. 3342, which establishes a
     regulatory   framework  for noise  from interstate
     trucks and  buses  and the  operations of railroads.
     Here, as well as in the  area of product noise emis-
     sion standards,  the transportation industry is faced
     with the prospect  of  conflicting noise control regula-
     tions  in every  jurisdiction  along their routes.  It is
     completely  inappropriate for  interstate carriers or
     interstate transportation to be burdened  in this way.
     The committee met the need for active legislation on
     moving noise sources by requiring  controls  on noise
     from  all interstate trucks  and buses  and railroads,
     including existing equipment which would not other-
     wise be subject to produce noise emission standards
     under title IV and the patterns of operations of  such
     carriers.  After the   effective   date  of an  adequate
     Federal regulation program,  the authority  of State
     and local  governments to  regulate  noise from inter-
     state  trucks and  buses  or trains is completely  pre-
     empted, except  where the Administrator determines
     it would be necessitated by special local conditions
     or in no conflict with the Federal requirements." **
                      »    »    »     •
       "Mr. HARTKE.   Mr. President,  one of  the basic
     purposes of title  V  of  this bill,  as  explained in the
     committee report, is to assure the maximum prac-
     tical  uniformity in regulating the  noise characteris-
     tics  of interstate carriers such as  the railroads and
     motor carriers which operate from coast to  coast and
     through all the States, and  in hundreds  of communi-
     ties and localities.
   ** 118 Cong. Rec. 35412  (1972)  (Remarks of Senator Ran-
 dolph).

-------
                          18

      "Without some degree of uniformity, provided by
    Federal  regulations   of  countrywide   applicability
    which will by statute preempt  and supersede  any
    different State and local regulations or standards,
    there would be great confusion and chaos.  Carriers,
    if there were  not Federal preemption, would be sub-
    ject to a great variety of differing and perhaps  in-
    consistent standards and requirements from place to
    place. This would be excessively burdensome  and
    would not be in the public interest." w
This concern for "maximum practical uniformity" is cer-
tainly consistent with a broad  definition of "equipment
and  facilities."  But  the  EPA has put forth  a curious
notion as to which equipment and facilities are in need
of such  uniform treatment with  respect to noise emission
standards.
  EPA  justifies its narrow view of equipment and facili-
ties by arguing that if a source  of noise is subject to  the
regulation of only one jurisdiction, there is no need  for
national uniformity.  EPA believes  that national uni-
formity is needed only in those situations in  which  the
noise source is potentially subject to noise regulation by
more than one jurisdiction (such as locomotive  or rail
cars) .*•  This view ignores the fact that, although a physi-
cal source of  noise—for  instance, a particular  yard or
terminal  ("facilities")—may be permanently  located in
only one jurisdiction, the railroad that 
-------
                          19

pie exposure  could easily create the type  of burdens
which Congress sought to avoid in the Noise Control Act
By giving the phrase "the equipment  and facilities" its
natural meaning, nationally uniform regulations will ex-
tend to the various elements subsumed in this phrase, in
furtherance of this major policy underlying  the Act.
  We emphasize that the discussion in this section of the
opinion concerns a  policy justification underlying the Act
and does not  focus on  the statutory language. There is
no  language in Section 17 which mandates that the Ad-
ministrator regulate only those equipment and facilities
in need of national uniform treatment. But this question
of  uniformity is supportive of  our  reading  of the con-
tested phrase,  and  the manner in which  the  Administra-
tor applied the uniformity concept  is important  to an
.understanding of the EPA's earlier,  limited action.  It is
for these reasons that we have discussed this  issue.

C.  Other Arguments

   The analysis thus far in Part II has focused  on the
•statute itself and the legislative history.  We  now address
several additional  arguments  raised by  the  EPA.
   The EPA argues that its  interpretation of  the Noise
Control Act should be accorded deference by  a reviewing
court because it is  the agency charged with administering
the Act/T  While it is an  established principle of adminis-
trative law that reviewing courts  will  generally  "show
'great deference to the interpretation given [a]  statute
by the officers or  agency  charged  with  its  administra-
tion,' " M this principle has no application where, as here,
the agency has  misinterpreted its  statutory  mandate."

   " See Brief for Respondents at 7-8.
   » Udall v. Tollman, 380  U.S. 1 (1965).
   "See, e,g., Freeman v.  Morton, 499 F.2d 494  (D.C. Cir.
1974).

-------
                          20

In such cases of misinterpretation, it is our duty to cor-
rect the legal error of the agency as we have done here.
In  this regard, we  also  note  that the Interstate  Com-
merce  Commission,  the Department of Transportation,
and the  Department of Commerce—three  federal agen-
cies which can all  lay claim  to  considerable  expertise
relative to the railroad industry and its role in interstate
commerce—all  strongly disagreed  with the EPA's deci-
sion not  to regulate all "equipment and facilities" of  in-
terstate  rail  carriers.40  We point to  this  as  additional
evidence  that our failure to defer  to the agency decision
in this case is not unwarranted.
  The EPA argues quite  strenuously that "practical fac-
tors"  compel  the conclusion that Congress did not  intend
all  railroad  equipment and facilities  to be regulated."
EPA  contends  that  "[i]t is inconceivable  that  Congress
intended EPA  to investigate and  control every inconse-
quential  piece of railroad equipment. ..."** EPA then
proceeds to  list  a  variety  of  sources  which it believes
would be encompassed by  the AAR's position in  this case.
EPA  raises the specter that it will have to regulate e*e-
vators, air conditioners, typewriters, telephones, parking
lots, and delivery vans because these sources  are sub-
sumed under a strict, literal interpretation  of the phrase
"equipment and facilities."4*
  We  do not find this argument convincing.  The  courts
are, of course,  concerned with the consequences  of the
decisions which they render;-they will examine these con-
sequences as a factor in determining  whether to grant
the relief requested by the complaining party in  a par-
ticular case.  The consequences of the position we take in
  ~See JJL at 214-16, 210, 189.
  u Brief for Respondents at 22.
       at 22-23

-------
                           21

this case are not of the variety that  cast doubt  on the
wisdom  of  the decision, however.  This  is  because the
position  advocated by EPA counsel in this case is an arti-
ficial one; the AAR has not contended that the EPA must
thrust its presence into every minute detail of railroad
office buildings,44 nor is such a position required by what
appears to be the customary definition  of "equipment and
facilities" in the railroad industry.

  The EPA itself (as opposed to EPA counsel in this case)
has shown that it is capable of  defining "equipment and
facilities" in a realistic and reasonable manner.  In Sec-
tion 5 of its "Background  Document  for  Railroad Noise
Emission Standards,"  the EPA has identified broad cate-
gories of railroad noise sources  in  order "to identify
[the] types  of equipment and facilities requiring national
uniformity  of treatment." 43 The agency then proceeds to
list the following categories: office buildings; repair and
maintenance shops;  terminals, marshalling yards,  hump-
ing yards, and railroad retarders; horns, whistlers, bells,
and* other warning Devices; special purpose equipment
(listing  nineteen  pieces of such equipment;  track and
right-of-way design;  and  trains  (locomotives  and rail
cars).48  As noted previously, the EPA chose to regulate
only this last  category  relating to locomotives  and rail
cars.4T With respect to each of  the additional categories
of railroad  equipment and  facilities that  generate noise,
the EPA declined to regulate but reserved the option to
establish standards in the future.4*
  ** Reply Brief of Petitioners at 3-5.

  48 Background Document, J.A. at 37.

  «• Id.. J.A. at 37-44.

  «T See text at notes 14 to 19, supra.

  48 See note 46, supra.

-------
                          22

  Two points of significance emerge from the foregoing
discussion. First, the EPA has  demonstrated that it is
capable of denning the phrase "equipment and facilities"
in a  manner consistent  with customary usage  of the
phrase in the industry.  Congress often does not  specify
in detail phrases that have an established meaning within
a particular industry; such definitions are best developed
with reference to the actual context of the regulated in-
dustry in question.  We stress that the task of defining
"equipment and facilities" is a matter to be accomplished
within  the  structure  of  the EP.Vs  rulemaking  proce-
dures; we do not undertake to provide a detailed defini-
tion in this opinion.  We do,  however, conclude that the
EPA has interpreted its statutory mandate too narrowly
in  regulating  only locomotives  and  rail cars,  and  no
facilities at all. The EPA counsel have offered us an ex-
treme definition  of "equipment  and facilities" in an at-
tempt to have us reject  the AAR's  position.  The  EPA
itself has shown that it can bring a measure of reason
.to a discussion of this definitional issue; on this on re-
mand we rely.
   The second point concerns EPA's insistence that it has
the option to regulate the enumerated "equipment and
facilities" in the future.  In our view, the EPA has vir-
tually admitted  the error of its interpretation   of Sec-
tion  17 in  making  this  argument  Section 17(a) (1)
makes no provision for a "phasing in" of  the required
regulations over a period of time; the provision does not
have a temporal element  in which the agency determines
when to initiate the federal regulatory machinery. There
is a temporal  element in Section 17 (a) .(2); this provi-
sion states that  "such regulations may be revised, from
time to  time. . . ." *'  In  this context, "such regulations"
refers to the mandatory  regulations prescribed  in Sec-
tion 17(a) (1). Section 17 (a) (2) therefore provides for
   "42U.S.C. §4916 (a) (2).

-------
                          23
the "fine tuning" of the mandatory regulations; there  is
no provision for a delay in the  timing of the original
issuance of the mandatory standards themselves.
  Therefore, if  a certain subject matter is properly in-
cluded within the  term "equipment and facilities," the
EPA has jurisdiction over the subject matter.  If the EPA
has  such jurisdiction,  it must exercise it  in  accordance
with the mandate  of  Section  17 (a) (1).  In  its "Back-
ground Document" the EPA has claimed future jurisdic-
tion, over a. broad range of "equipment and facilities,-" 50
this claim  in effect admits that the phrase properly en-
compasses  a much broader range of  objects and places.
This admission in turn dictates  the  conclusion that the
original regulations were much too narrow  in scope.
  In its construction of Section  17 (a) (1), the EPA has
attempted  to secure for itself the best of both  worlds;
that is, to limit  current  regulation while  reserving
plenary power to regulate in the future. This is perhaps
an  understandable  effort to introduce an element of flexi-
bility  into the promulgation of noise  emission standards.
It is not,  however, for us as a  reviewing court to add
this dimension of flc-:ability to the statutory framework.
Congress has dictated that the EPA regulate  "the equip-
ment and  facilities" of interstate rail carriers.  Congress
has not provided the  agency with  the type of discretion
it evidently desires and  contends for in this case. We are
bound to effectuate the legislative will and  we perceive it
to  be  unambiguous in this context.  If the EPA desires
an  element of flexibility  in its operations,  the agency
must look  to the Congress and not  to the courts.
   In  addition to  the arguments already  presented,  we
perceive a highly unfavorable  consequence  of EPA's posi-
 tion that  it can refrain  to regulate  at this  time while
 reserving  the option to  regulate in the future.  As noted
 previously, the EPA has encouraged local jurisdictions to

   M See note 46, supra.

-------
                          24

regulate particular noise sources  which it  (the  EPA)
chooses not to regulate at this time. If the localities take
this suggestion seriously, they may well invest consider-
able resources and time in developing and promulgating
local noise ordinances. But the EPA claims the authority
to issue regulations covering the same noise sources at
any time  in the  future.  It is  clear that these EPA-
issued regulations would, under Section 17 (c) (1)  of the
Act, preempt the locally  developed standards. Thus, the
localities could not be sure when and if a federal regula-
tion would displace their own and with it the time and
resources devoted to the promulgation of the  local stand-
ard. We believe that  the structure of Section 17  of the
Act comprehends some consideration for the localities in
this regard.
  If the federal  level issues all of its regulations con-
cerning "equipment and facilities" at one time; the locali-
ties can plan  their own  activities in the area of  noise
regulation with increased certainty and confidence that
their- efforts will  not  go for  naught. Also,  once the fed-
eral regulations are issued, the localities will  be  able to
discern whether or  not they should attempt to trigger the
variance provisions found in Section 17 (c) (2) of the Act.
Therefore,  we believe that our decision in this  case is
consistent  with the overall  structure of the  Ace as it
applies to railroad  noise emission standards.
  Section 10 (e)  of the Administrative  Procedure  Act
states that"
    [t]o the extent necessary to decision when presented,
    the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions
    of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provi-
 . « 5 U.S.C. § 706.

-------
                          25

     sions,  and determine the meaning of applicability of
     the terms of an agency  action.  The reviewing court
     shall—
         (1)  compel  agency action unlawfully withheld
             or unreasonably delayed.
                     •    *-•»••»
Having concluded  that  the  Administrator of the EPA
misinterpreted the clear statutory mandate to regulate
"the equipment  and facilities"  of interstate rail carriers,
we direct that the Administrator reopen  the  considera-
tion of Railroad Noise Emission Standards and  promul-
gate standards in accordance with the statutory mandate
as  interpreted herein.  Several  observations concerning
the nature of the inquiry on remand are  in order.
  Although the Administrator construed the term  "equip-
ment and facilities" in  a narrow and  artificial manner,
we do not in this opinion dictate what we believe  to be a
proper definition of the  term.  Rather, we  believe that
Congress intended  for this definition to be developed by
the agency in a mz.jner that is  consistent with the cus-
tomary usage of  the  phrase in the railroad  industry."
The EPA has shown that it has a realistic understanding
of what is included within railroad "equipment  and facili-
ties," and we would expect them to apply this same realis-
tic approach on remand.  This does  not mean that they
must adopt the precise  definition outlined in  Section 5
of  the Background Document;  it  does  mean that the
realities of the railroad  industry must  govern  the defini-
tion, not the predilections of the agency as to  what it is
prepared to regulate.
  Second, nothing we do herein affects the degree of regu-
lation  which the Administrator deems desirable in a par-
ticular context.  We are  concerned at this point only that
the Administrator broaden the scope of the subject matter
    This definition will, of course, be reviewafale in the courts.

-------
                          26

regulated so as to bring: the coverage of the regulations
in line with the Congressional mandate  in Section 17 of
the Act.  The particular manner in which the "equipment
and facilities'* are regulated is a matter which rests, in
the first instance, with the Administrator. This action is,
of course, reviewable, but under a different standard and
at a future date.
  Third, there is the matter of the time within which the
Administrator must promulgate the regulations concern-
ing "equipment and  facilities."  The original statutory
command was  that the  Administrator publish proposed
regulations within nine months from 27 October 1972,;"
these proposed  regulations were then to be promulgated
as final regulations within ninety  days after the publica-
tion of the proposed  regulations." We believe that this
original timetable evidences a Congressional concern that
the regulations be issued expeditiously.  Accordingly, we
believe that our mandate should embrace this concern for
a prompt treatment of  the noise emission  standard.-.
Therefore, we  direct that  the consideration on remand
proceed as promptly as possible and,  in any event, that
the final regulations be issued within one year from the
date on which  the mandate in this case is issued.
   Fourth, and  finally, our holding in this case does not
affect the validity of the individual Railroad Noise Emis-
sion Standards already  issued.  These may continue in
effect Our sole  directive  is that  the EPA  broaden the
scope of its regulations  by defining  "the equipment and
facilities" of interstate  rail carriers in  a  manner con-
sistent with  the  usual  and customary understanding of
the phrase in the railroad industry.
                                           So Ordered.
  "42U.S.C. §4916(a)(l).
  «*/
-------
                                 APPENDIX P
      FINANCIAL ANALYSIS/IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED REGULATORY OPTIONS
                   PART A:  Financial Impact Analyses
INTRODUCTION
     This analysis examines the potential financial  impact on individual
railroads of proposed noise abatement regulations.   For each of more than
50 railroads the present value of  future cash flow  (net income plus de-
preciation) is compared with the present value of future abatement costs
plus net worth.  For those railroads where the costs plus net worth are
greater than or only slightly less than cash flow, or where abatement costs
appear large relative to cash flow,  it may be concluded that the cost of
compliance of the proposed regulation could  impose  some hardship on the
companies.

Results
     Based upon  the  results  of the analyses,  the followingd  observations
are made:
     1.  Several railroads appear  to be in financial difficulty, even
before considering the costs of noise abatement.  Six railroads  show
negative net worth as  of December  31, 1977,  and eight additional railroads
experienced a  negative cash  flow over the 1975-77 period.

     2.  In no instance was  the present value of noise abatement costs
greater than  the difference  between cash flow and net worth.  Thus, the
costs attributable noise to  the proposed regulations should  not  shift any
railroad from a  positive difference (between cash flow and net worth plus
cost) to a negative  difference difference.

                              P-l

-------
     3.  Generally, abatement costs are small relative to cash flow or

net worth.  However, for a few railroads the estimated costs seem signifi-

cant. This is particularly true for the major switching and terminal

companies, where yard operations represent a significant part of total firm

activity.  A separate discussion of the impact of the proposed regulations

on switching and terminal companies appears in Part B of this Appendix.

DISCUSSION

     This analysis assesses the potential financial impact of the revised

noise abatement regulation on individual line haul railroads and switching

and terminal companines. The nationwide regulations considered in this

analysis require a staged reduction of noise levels for three types of

railroad yards—hump, flat classification and flat industrial.  The time-

table used in this analysis for these reductions is as follows:

                  Regulations Announced January 1, 1980

           Facility             Standard, dB         Effective Date

    All Yards                     L,   70            January 1, 1982
    Hunp Yards Only               LjJ  65            January 1, 1985

The abatement cost estimates for each yard type, separated  into capital

and operations and maintenance (O&M) components, are displayed in Table

P-l.

     Included in this analysis are all Class I line-haul railroads and

switching and terminal companies (according to the ICC classifications

after 1976) and Class II line-haul roads which operate hump yards.  Fifty-six

railroads companies were analyzed.

METHODOLOGY

Overview

     The methodology used to assess each railroad's financial condition

was  to compare the present value (PV) of its twenty year (1980-1999)  stream

of cash flow to the PV of noise abatement costs for the same period,  plus

                                  P-2

-------
                                TABLE P-l

                         ESTIMATED QUIETING COSTS
                   CAPITAL AND OPERATING &  MAINTENANCE
                              RAILROAD YARDS
                                            Capital Cost       Annual Maint.
Study Level & Yard ^Type        # Yards     Total    Avg/Yd     TotaT    Avg/Yd
                                         OTJOJ             ($000)


  Ldn  70

   Hump                           124    18,352   148.000     1,304    10.516
   Flat-Classification         1,113    19,990    17.960     3,324    2.987
   Flat-Industrial             1,381     8,772     6.352     3,891    2.818


  Ldn  65

   Hump                           124    58,312   470.258    19,158   154.500
                                      P-3

-------
its current net worth.  Cash flow equals the sum of net  income after



interest and income taxes, plus depreciation and amortization.  Net worth



equals the difference between assets and liabilities and  is composed of



stock and retained earnings.  The noise abatement costs  for capital and O&M



are estimated for each railroad from the data  shown in Table P-l.  The



present values are then analyzded to assess financial health and  impact of



noise abatement costs.





Data Sources



     The individual railroad financial data were gathered from the reports



submitted annually by each railroad to the ICC.  Data were gathered for



three years—1975, 1976 and 1977.  The reports used were the R-l  (for Class



I railroads) and the R-2  (for Class II railroads).  The  net worth data were



taken from the Comparative General Sheet  (Schedule 200)  and represent total



shareholders' equity.  Net  income is from the  last line  of Schedule 300,



Income Account.  Depreciation and amortization expenses  were  found  in



Schedule 309, Statement of Changes  in Financial Condition.



     The estimated cost for each type of yard, as derived from Table P-l



and explained below, was multiplied by the number of each type of yard



owned by individual railroads.  Yard ownership data are  found  in  Appendix E



of this Background Document.



     The cash flow and net worth data were averaged over the  1975-77



period, generating a single estimate.  This "smoothing"  technique reduced



the prospect of choosing  an unrepresentative base period from which  the



20-year projections were  derived.
                                   P-4

-------
Present Value Analysis

     Assumptions
     1.  Horizon equals  20 years  (January 1,  1980  to  December 31,  1999).
     2.  Annual  inflation rate  equals  6%.
     3.  Discount rate for present  value analysis  equals  10%.
     4.  Marginal tax rate equals 50%.
     5.  Noise abatement equipment  and materials depreciated over  ten years
         by straight line, with salvage value equal to zero.

     Computations
     1.  Cash Flow  - The 1975-77 average is assumed to be the  first  obser-
vation  in  the annual stream  beginning  January 1, 1980.  For each railroad,
the cash flow average was  inflated by  6% per year, discounted  by 10% and
sunned  to  derive a  net present  value of the 20-year stream of  cash flows.
This is equivalent  to a  present value  of annuity calculation.
     2.  Net Worth  - the 1975-77 average was assumed to be the net worth  as
of January 1,  1980.
     3. Noise Abatement Investment -  For each type of yard,  the capital
investment requirements  in 1983 and 1986 were generated by inflating the
appropriate investment data of Table P-l by 6% per year from January 1,
1980,  then discounting  this investment back to January 1, 1980, using  a 10%
discount rate.
     4. Operating & Maintenance -
         a.  Annual Expenses - The annual operating and maintenance ex-
penses for each  type of yard, as shown  in Table P-l, were converted to a
present value as of January 1, 1983 or January  1,  1986, using the inflation
                                  P-5

-------
and discounting technique for an annuity described above for the cash



flow calculation.  The 1983 or 1986 present values were then discounted



to 1980. These totals were then multiplied by  .5, yielding an effec-



tive after tax O&M abatement cost.



         b.  For each investment (as of January 1, 1983 or January 1,



1986), ten-year depreciation expense streams were computed (one-tenth of



capital required).  These series were then converted to an after tax basis



and discounted to the appropriate investment date, then discounted to 1980.



         c.  Present Value-O&M—For each effective control date (January 1,



1983 or January 1, 1986), the present value of after tax depreciation costs



was subtracted from the present value of O&M costs, thus recognizing the



cash-saving nature of depreciation.  These new totals were then discounted



to January 1, 1980.



     5.  Compute the NPV - The present value of abatement costs (capital



plus O&M) was added to the net worth.  This sum was subtracted from the



present value of cash flow.



     Table P-2 lists the financial characteristics and their treatment in



this analysis.





ANALYSIS OF RESULTS



     The basic analysis concentrates on the difference between the present



value of cash flow and the present value of net worth plus abatement



costs.



     1.  If this difference is negative (or if the net worth or the present



value of cash flow is negative), the individual railroad may be in finan-



cial difficulty and may be trouble financing or implementing the changes



specified by the noise control regulations.





                                   P-6

-------
                   TABLE P-2
SUMMARY OF THE TREATMENT OF FINANCIAL ITEMS
Item
Net Income
Depreciation
Net Worth

Implementation
Costs:
Capital

QSM


Years
Covered
1980-89
1980-89
1980

1983 Hump
Flat
1986 Hump
flat-class.
flat-indus.
1983-85 hump
Flat-cl
1986-99 hump
flat-cl.
flat-ind.
Averaging
Applied
Yes
yes
yes

None

None


Discount
Rate
Applied
107o
10%
None

107o

107o


Inflation
Rate
Applied
67o
67o
None

None

67o


Rate Tax
Applied
None
None
None

507o on
deprecia-
tion

50%


Comments
Already reflects tax
Already reflects tax
Net worth treated as one
year cost
Depreciation is by straight-
line method and 10 yr. life

Depreciation expense (above)
subs tr acted from O&M expense



-------
     2.  If the difference is positive, but relatively small, potential



financial difficulty may be present.  For this analysis, relatively small



is interpreted to mean a different positive, but less than 10% of net



worth.



     3.  For railroads with a positive difference greater than 10%, further



analysis is suggested only if abatement costs appear unusually large



relative to other data. This is the case for a few railroads, notably



switching and terminal companies, as discussed below.



     4.  For the remaining railroads, no further analysis is suggested.



However, this should NOT be interpreted as conclusion that these remaining



railroads are financially healthy and will not be impacted by the proposed



action.  The limitations in this analysis prevents a broader conclusion.



For these latter railroads, it can only be concluded that this specific



analysis fails to uncover potential financial weaknesses.





Individual Railroad Results



     The computations described above were completed for each of the



railroads under consideration.  An analysis of the results of these cal-



culations lead to the following grouping of railroads:



      I.  Railroads with negative net worth.



    II.  Railroads with negative present value of cash  flow.



   III.  Railroads with negative difference, although cash flow and net



         worth both positive.



    IV.  Railroads with difference positive, but less than 10% of net



         worth.



      V.  Other railroads.



      The results of the analysis for the above five groups of railroads are



shown in Table P-3.  These tables show the present value of cash flow,





                               P-8

-------
the net worth, the present value of abatement costs, and the difference.
Also, shown for each railroad are  two percentages—the difference as a
precent of net worth, and total abatement costs  as a percent of cash flow.
Examination of these results suggests the following (no significance should
be attached to the following order of presentation):
     1.  A number of railroads appear to be in  serious financial difficulty
before considering potential costs of noise abatement.  While abatement
costs undoubtedly will  add  to their difficulty,  the underlying weakness  is
already present and cannot be attributed to noise  regulation.
     2.  Each of those  railroads  for which  the  difference  is negative
would continue to show  a negative in the absence of abatement.  Thus
noise abatement regulations did not change  any  railroad  from a posi-
tive difference to a negative difference.
     3.  Three of the railroads  in the  negative cash  flow group are
presently  in  a Section  77 Trusteeship.   These are  the Boston and Maine,
Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific, and Chicago,  Milwaukee,  St.  Paul and
Pacific.  While Section 77 Trusteeship  is  short of outright bankruptcy,
trustees have been  appointed  to manage  the assets  of  the three rail-
roads.  The trustees do have  the  power  to  restructure the debt of  these
firms,  which  likely will amount to consolidation and  lengthening  of
outstanding bonds  and  other loans.
     4.  A number  of  the railroads appearing in these lists are sub-
sidiary of other  roads, parts of  larger railroad systems, or  subsid-
 iaries of  other  corporations.   Thus it  is possible that the individual
 firm's financial position should  not be analyzed independently but instead
considered as a part of the overall organization of which the company
 is a part.   To gain insight into  this  issues, and to sunnarize the results,
 the information in Table P-4 has  been  prepared.
                                 P-9

-------
     The railroads in this list are from the following groups:  negative



net worth, negative cash flow, negative difference, difference positive,




but small, and other.  This latter group includes  four railroads which seem



financially strong, but whose noise abatement costs appear significant.



     Included in Table P-4 for each railroad is:   the name of the parent



corporation; the number of yards owned, by yard type, data on abatement



costs, costs as a percent of cash flow, and difference as a percent of net



worth, all taken from Table P-3; sales and income  data for the firm and for



the parent; and Moody's bond rating for parent company issues.



     Before exanining individual railroads and their ownership patterns,



it is appropriate to consider why parent firms would maintain or subsidize



financially unhealthy subsidiaries or affiliates.  Several explanations are



possible:



     1.  Tax considerations—Circumstances unique  to the firm, its parent



or the industry may offer significant tax incentive to maintaining the



operations of an apparently unprofitable or unhealthy subsidiary.  Aspects



of the tax law make this general statementd particularly applicable to the



railroad industry.



     2.  Nature of subsidiary operation—Many of the railroads examined



here are not independent entities, but instead are integral parts of a



larger operation.  Examples include:  Terminal Railroad Association of St.



Louis and the Belt Railway of Chicago are owned by groups of line-haul



railroads and provide diverse and essential services to their owners in the



respective cities.  The Duluth, Missabe and Iron Range is an integral part



of U.S. Steel's iron ore mining and transportation system in the upper



Great Lakes.  In these cases, it is difficult to analyze the railroad



separately from the broader operation of which the railroad is a part.



     3.  Riture potential—The parent may have expectations of eventually



turning the unprofitable subsidiary into a profitable operation.





                                 P-10

-------
                                           TABLE P-3, CON'T
    Railroad
Duluth, Missabe &
 Iron Range

Bangor & Aroostook

Colorado & Southern

Burlington Northern
 SUMMARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS

             0.1 > DIFF : NW > 0
                  $(000)


   Net Present Value  '
Cash
Flow 21
(1)
85176
39779
81153
1927097
Net
Worth
(2)
84085
36905
74863
1757820
Abtmnt
Capital
(3)
120
108
88
8438
Cost
O&M
(4)
74
47
68
6935
NW +
Cost
24-344
(5)
84279
37060
75019
1773193
Diff
1-5
(6)
897
2719
6134
153904
Abtmnt
Cost 70
CF
(344) /I
(7)
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.8
Diff
NW
6/2
(8)
1.1
7.4
8.2
8.8

-------
                                                      TABLE P-3, OON'T
i—>
to
                Railroad
Boston & Maine

Indiana Harbor
 Belt

Chicago, Rock
 Island Pacific

Northwestern
 Pacific

Long Island

Chi., Milw.,
 St. Paul Pacific

Delware & Hudson

Detroit, Toledo &
 Ironton
                                          SUWARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
                                         CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS
                                          NEGATIVE CASH FLOW
                                                $(000)

                                              Net  Present  Value
                                                                            I/
Cash
Flow 2/
(1)
(141932)
(13662)
(308635)
(41707)
(1672764)
(112111)
(45870)
Net
Worth
(2)
48597
13144
143335
21007
113048
304135
37968
Abtmnt
Capital
(3)
828
1676
2084
38
552
3280
354
Cost
O&M
(4)
783
1637
1679
20
553
2439
209
NW +
Cost
2+344
(5)
50208
16457
147098
21065
114153
309854
38531
Diff
1-5
(6)
(192140)
(30119)
(455733)
(62772)
(1786917)
(421965)
(84401)
Abtmnt
Cost 7»
CF
(3*0/1
(7)
(1.1)
(24.3)
(1.2)
(0.1)
(0.1)
(5.1)
(1.2)
Diff I
Ntf
6/2
(8)
(395.4)
(229.2)
(318.0)
(298.8)
(1581.0)
(138.7)
(222.3)
                                  (22394)
44374
640
621     45635    (68029)    (5.6)
(153.3)

-------
                                          TABLE P-3,  CON'T
   Railroad
                             SUMMARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
                            CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS
       NEGATIVE NET WORTH
            $(000)


           Net Present Value
                                                                I/




Central Vermont
Missouri, Kansas
Texas
Grand Truck
Western
Conrail
Cash
Flow 2/
(1)


13135
(44634)
19598
(7540800)
Net
Worth
(2)


(12068)
(27903)
(109192)
(26595)
Abtmnt
Capital
(3)


82
512
450
24162
Cost
O&M
(4)


54
105
228
21945
NW +
Cost
2+3+4
(5)

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Diff
1-5
(6)


N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Abtmnt
Cost %
CF
(3+4) /I
(7)
1.0
(1.4)
3.5
0.6
Diff
NW
6/2
(8)

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Youngstown &
 Southern               9654

Terminal Railroad
 Association of
 St. Louis              9258
 (113)      508      519     N/A
(1651)      602      601     N/A
N/A    10.6       N/A
N/A    13.0       N/A

-------
                                                        TABLE P-3, CON'T
                                           SUMMARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
                                           CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS
                                           CASH FLOW-(NET WORTH + ABTMT COST) > 0.1
I—«
-(^
           Railroads
Elgin Joliet & Eastern  (EJE)
Norfolk & Western  (N&W)
Baltimore & Ohio (B&O)
Missouri Pacific (MOPAC)
Kansas City Southern
Denver & Rio Grande Western
Duluth Winnepeg & Pacific
Toledo Peoria & Western
Texas Mexican
Chicago Illinois & Midland
Western Maryland
Union Pacific
Chesapeake & Ohio
Richmond Fredericksburg
 & Potomac
Louisville & Nashville  (L&N)
Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe
Illinois Terminal RR
NET WORTH
($000)
NET PRESENT VALUE1/
Cash
FlowZ/
(1)

154692
2252003
1016671
1502371
167411
358401
78629
14175
9709
39127
119462
2507155
1638449
154361
891272
1776854
20153
Net
Worth
(2)

71797
1074400
694061
539492
118757
195279
14252
10129
4280
19010
82704
1300444
651176
79287
526721
1337992
21864
Abtmnt
Capital
(3)

628
6120
5782
2792
304
640
6
38
64
76
706
3210
4192
1048
3252
3982
140
Cost
Q&M
(4)

593
4830
4724
2189
162
621
13
20
13
40
572
2703
3306
1044
2997
2936
54
NW +
Cost
24-3/4
(5)
73018
1085350
704567
544473
119223
196540
14271
10187
4357
19126
83982
1306357
658674
81379
532970
1344910
13058
Diff%
 1-5
 (6)
  81674
1166653
 312104
 957898
  48188
 161861
  64358
   3988
   5362
  20001
  35480
1200798
 979775

  72982
 358302
 431944
   7095
                                                                                                          Abtmnt
                                                                                                           Cost7o
                                                                                                            CF
                                                                                                      (7)
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.02
0.4
0.8
0.3
1.1
0.2
0.5

1.4
0.7
0.4
1.0
                                                                                                                Diff
                                                                                                                 NW
                                                                                                                6/2
                                                                                                                (8)
                   113.8
                   108.6
                    45.0
                   177.6
                    40.
                    82.
                                                                                                                        .6
                                                                                                                        .9
                   451.6
                    39.4
                   125.0
                   105.2
                    42.9
                    92.0
                   150.0

                    92.0
                    68.0
                    32.3
                    55.2

-------
                                                        TABLE P-3 CON'T
           Railroads
                                          SUMMARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
                                          CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS
                                          CASH FLOW-(NET WORTH + ABTMT COST) > 0.1

                                                           NET WORTH
                                                             ($000)
               NET PRESENT VALUE1/

Cash         Net       Abtmnt    Cost
Flow2/      Worth      Capital   O&M
(1)          (2)         (3)     (4)
                                                                                NW +
                                                                               Cost
                                                                               2+3/4
                                                                                (5)
Diff
 NW
6/2
(8)
Seaboard Coast Line
Florida East Coast
Bessemer & Lake Erie
Soo Line
Southern Pacific
Detroit & Toledo Lake Shore
St. Louis - Southwestern
St. Louis - San Francisco
Alton & Southern
Belt RR of Chicago
Pittsburgh & Lake Erie
Southern
Chicago & Northwestern
1452910
112375
197786
302565
2028918
17707
723160
366142
36663
9126
202086
1899164
205181
1126293
94675
93009
159149
1513066
11036
286542
225094
20386
6201
163271
1028221
14345
3012
114
140
706
5340
508
834
1674
508
1066
170
5312
2804
2954
61
54
251
5134
535
598
1409
519
1086
121
5004
1636
1132259
94820
93203
160136
1523540
12079
287974
228177
21413
8353
163562
1038537
18785
320651
17555
104583
142429
505378
5623
435186
137965
15250
773
38524
860627
186396
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.3
0.5
5.9
0.2
0.8
2.8
23.6
0.1
0.5
2.2
28.5
18.5
112.0
89.5
33.0
51.0
151.9
61.3
74.8
12.5
23.6
8.4
129.9

-------
                                              TABLE P-3, OON'T
    Railroad
Ft. Worth & Denver

Illinois Central
                              SUMMARY OF RAILROAD FINANCIAL CONDITION
                             CASH FLOW, NET WORTH AND ABATEMENT COSTS

                                         COST + NW > CASH FLOW
                                               $(000)
27837
Net Present Value
                                                  I/
Cash
Flow 2/
(1)
Net
Worth
(2)
Abtmnt
Capital
(3)
Cost
O&M
W
NW +
Cost
2+3+4
(5)
Diff
1-5
(6)
Abtmnt
Cost %
CF
(3*0/1
(7)
Diff %
NW
6/2
(8)
32888
160

1
h-1
ON
Gulf
Maine Central
Western Pacific
518544
31047
119656
678252
39828)
123380
3824
108
196
                       32    33080      (5234)   0.7       (16.0)


                     3040   685116    (166572)   1.3       (24.6)

                       48    39984      (8937)   0.5       (22.4)

                      114   119966       (310)   0.3        (3.3)

-------
                                        RAILROAD AGREEMENT COST,  FINANCIAL IMPACT OWNERSHIP SUMMARY

                                                                  TABLE P-4

                                          ABATEMENT COST       NET CASH   FIRM

                                      Present Value                         Net                  Net
          FIRM/NAME      No. Yards         ($000)      I PV of    Flow as %  Income  Sales   M%  Income
Class    PARENT/NAME     H  PC  FI    Capital  C&M   Cash flow    of NW     ($ M)   1977        ($ M)
                                                                                                        Sales
                                                                                                        1977
                                                  MOODY's


                                              M%   Bond
                                                   Rating
      NEGATIVE NET WORTH

I     Conrail/USRA     32 191  299    24,162  21945     1
i
i—"
—i
      Terminal RR
      Assn. of St.
      Louis/Various     125

      Youngstown &
      Southern/Montour
      RR/Pittsburg/
      & Lake Erie RR/
      Penn Central Co   1   0    0

I     Grand Truck Wes-
      tern/Grand Truck
      Corp./ Canadian
        Nat'l Ry.       0  12   11

I     Missouri, Kansas
      Texas/Katy In-
        dustries        0  13    3

      Central Vermont/
      Grand Truck
      Corp./Canadian
        Nat'l Ry.       023
          1976 data

      & line 501, R-l
                                          602    601     13
                                          508    519     11
                                          450    228
                                           82     54
N/A   (631.352)  3086.06  N/A   N/A



N/A       .615    41.594  1.48  N/A
N/A         .122  555.587    .02
N/A       1.711  174.94  0.97
                                                                                                           11. 7
                                             2162^  ll£
                                          512    105    (1)        N/A     (5.572)  117.19  N/A         12      176
N/A
                                                                                 176     13.27  13.26

-------
                                 RAILROAD AGREEMENT COST,  FINANCIAL IMPACT OWNERSHIP SUMMARY

                                                         TABLE  P-4,  CON'T

                                   ABATEMENT COST        NET CASH   FIRM
                                                                                        MOODY's
          FIRM/NAME      No. Yards
Class    PARENT/NAME     H  FC  FI

       NEGATIVE NET WORTH

 I     Illinois Central
       Gulf/I C Indus-
         tries, Inc.     4  47  48

 I     Western Pacific/
       Western Pacific/
         Industries      056

 I     Ft. Worth &
                               Present Value                          Net                   Net
                                    ($000)     % PV of     Flow as 7.  Income   Sales  M%  Income   Sales   M7o   Bond
                               Capital  OSM   Cash flow     of NW      ($ M)   1977        ($ M)   1977         Rating
Colorado & South-
ern/Burlington
  Northern        0
                                 3824   3040
                                  196    114
00

I


I

I


I

uenver / uuor aao
& Southern/Bur-
lington Northern 0
Maine Central/
Greyhound Corp. 0
0.1 > (Net CF : NW)
Burlington North-
ern/Independent 10
Duluth Missable
& Iron Range/
U.S. Steel 0
Bangor & Aroostook/
Independent 0

5

3
> 0

89


3

3

0

2


85


4

2

160

108


8438


120

108

32

48


10935


74

47

1

1


1


-

-
2   4
                                          88     68
                                       (25)      3.339   671.871  0.50  78.5   1873     4     A
                                        (3)     4.814   127.237  3.78
                                                             (16)      2.146    52.266  4.11     61    1677
                                                             (22)       .803   41.555  1.93   82.5    3852     2     Ba
                                                                     74.903  1677.86   4.46
                                                              1      (2.861)  46.745  N/A    138    9609      1      Aa
                                                                     1.081    19.583 5.52
8      5.222   53.856 9.70   138   9609     1     Aa

-------
          FIRM/NAME      No. Yards
Class    PARENT/NAME     H  PC   FI

       NEGATIVE NET WORTH
       Chicago Mil-
       awkee St. Paul
       & Pacific RR/
         Independent
       Chicago Rock
       Island & Pacific/
         Independent

       Indiana Harbor
         Belt/Conrail

       Boston & Maine
         Bomaine

       Detroit, Toledo
       & Ironton/Penn
         Central

       Long Island RR/
       MTA of NY
2  27  34


344


1   7  16



1   3   6


1   1   2
       Delware & Hudson/
       Dereco-Norfolk &
         Western         0   9  11

       Northerwestern
       Pacific/Southern
         Pacific         Oil
                                         RAILROAD AGREEMENT COST, FINANCIAL  IMPACT OWNERSHIP SUMMARY

                                                                     TABLE P-4, CON'T

                                           ABATEMENT COST        NET CASH   FIRM
                                                                                             MOODY's
             Present Value                          Net                  Net
                  ($000)      % PV of    Flow as I  Income   Sales  M%  Income   Sales    M%   Bond
             Capital  O&M    Cash flow    of NW     ($ M)   1977         ($ M)   1977          Rating
3  47  42      3280   2439      (5)
2084   1679     (1)
1676   1637    (24)
 828    783     (1)
 640    621     (6)
 552    553      0
                354    209     (1)
                 38     20
                           (139)    (36.247) 444.50  N/A
(318)   (34.834) 362.97  N/A
(229)    (3.233)  44.987 N/A
(395)     5.614   85.54  N/A   5.6     85     7
(153)      2.259)  62.08  3.4
                                                                  (1581)   (121.566)  135.16  N/A
                          (222)    (12.028)   89.10  N/A  103    1241     8     Aa
                            299     (2.68)    14.88  N/A 79.5    1560     5

-------
          FIRM/NAME
Class    PARENT/NAME
                        No. Yards
 I


 I


 I

PV Abtmt Costs :
PV Cash Flow x 100>2

Chicago & North-
ern/Independent   1  62  52

Belt Ry. of
Chicago/Various   213

Detroit & Toledo
Shoreline/Norfolk
& Western & Grand
Truck Western/
Canadian Nat'l
  Ry.             101
      Alton & Southern/
      St. Louis South-
      western &
      Missouri Pacific/
      Southern Pacific
      Trans. Co. (St.
        Louis Only)     100
      Union RR Co./
        U.S. Steel
                         1   3   2
                                 RAILROAD AGREEMENT COST, FINANCIAL  IMPACT OWNERSHIP SUMMARY

                                                      TABLE P-4, CON'T

                                   ABATEMENT COST        NET CASH    FIRM

                               Present Value                         Net                  Net
                                   ($000)     % PV of    Flow as %   Income   Sales  M%  Income   Sales
                        H  FC   FI    Capital  O&M   Cash  flow    of NW     ($ M)    1977
                                                                                          ($ M)    1977
                                                                                                                    MOODYfs
                                                             Bond
                                                             Rating
                                        2804   1636


                                        1066   1086
20


29
                                        508    535
   1976 - Canadian National, Parent of Grand Truck Western

— Norfolk & Western

3£Line 562, R-l

U- Line 501, R-l
1299


  13
                                                                    51
508 519
676 702
3
3
75
13
(.46)   562.7   N/A


 .582    18.496 3.15
                    .818   13.1846.2   11.7^2162^  l±L

                                       103.^L  124 &
                                                                    1.913


                                                                    1.935   69.140 2.8

-------
                      PART B:   Impact  Assessment  of
                    Switching  and  Terminal  Companies

     There are approximately  80 railroad switching and terminal companies
in the U.S. railroad  industry.  Only  5  of  these  80 companies operating
huuip classification yards can be  expected  to  incur significant noise
abatement costs, resulting  from the imposition of the proposed regulatory
level or standard.  These companies also operate flat classification and
industrial yards which within the noise standard.

     The 5 switching  and terminal companies  that can be  expected to incur
significant noise abatement expenses  are the  following:

     - Indiana Harbor Belt  Railroad Company
     - The Alton and  Southern Railway Company
     - Terminal Railroad Association  of St. Louis
     - Union Railroad Company (Pennsylvania)
     - Belt Railway Company of Chicago.

     A preliminary assessment of  the  impact on each of these companies
is described below.

Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad  Company  (IHB) is the largest of the rail-
road switching and terminal companies.  The company operates 3 hump
classification yards, 4 flat  classification yards and 4  industrial
yards.  Assuming that the company would incur the estimated annualized cost
of $231 thousand to quiet a typical hump classification  yard, and $5
thousand each to quiet a typical  flat classification yard and an
industrial yard.  The company's total cost to comply with the regula-
tion would be $733 thousand.

     In 1977 (the latest data appearing in Moody*s Trasnportation Manual)
the company handled 1.24 million  cars.  Allocating the increased cost
according to the number of cars handled results  in a per car increase in cost
of 59 cents for noise abatement purposes.  According to  Moody's Transpor-
tation Manual, total  operating expenses for car  handling incurred by the
                                   P-21

-------
company amount to approximately $34 per car.  Adding the 59 cents in
expenses amounts to an increase of 1.7 percent.

     In considering whether the company is able to afford even this rela-
tively modest increase in cost, it must be noted that Indiana Harbor Belt
Railroad Company has been operating at a deficit in regard to its transpor-
tation operations since 1972.  Furthermore, company deficits for railway
operations have been increasing since 1972.  In 1977, the deficit for
railway operations reached $3.3 million.

     In summary, although the cost impact appears to be modest for the
Indiana Harbor Belt Railroad Company, it is impacting on a company that is
already experiencing difficulty in covering its railway operating expenses.

The Alton and Southern Railway Company (ALS) operates 1 hump classifica-
tion yard.  If this company increases the amount of expenses estimated to
be typical for hump yards to comply with the noise regulation, it would
incur an additional annualized expense of $231,000.

     Fifty percent interest in the Alton and Southern Railway Company was
acquired in 1973 by the St. Louis Southwestern Railway Company.  The other
fifty percent interest in the company was acquired earlier by the Missouri
Pacific Railroad Company (MOPAC).  Inasmuch as the Alton and Southern
Railway Company is owned by these two other companies, its operating and
financial data are included with those of the parent companies.  This
prevents identifying the number of cars handled by the ALS yard.  Never-
theless, assuming that the average car handling of hump classification
yards applies, the ALS yard can be estimated to handle about 600,000
cars per year.

     A pro-ration of the yard noise abatement costs would result in an
added cost of 26 cents per car handled for the company.  This added
expense would represent an increase in the total cost of car handling by
about 1 percent per annum.
                                   P-22

-------
     As mentioned earlier, ALS is owned by two Class I line-haul railroads;
namely, MOPAC and the St. Louis  Southerwestern Railroad Co.  Both of these
parent companies are in relatively sound financial condition.  The net
operating income of MOPAC has increased steadily over the past five years,
according to the most recent edition  (1978)  of Moody's Transportation Manual.
Since  1972, MOPAC's net operating income has increased from $60.5 million
to $150.9 million in 1977.  MOPAC bonds are  highly rated at Aa, indicating
a secure financial position.  The financial  situation of the St. Louis
Southwestern is also relatively  sound.  The  company's net operating income
over the past five years has fluctuated somewhat, around $33 million per
annum.  The Company's bonds have also been  assigned high ratings  (A-Aa),
indicating a relatively secure financial position.

Terminal Railroad Assocation of  St.  Louis  (TRRA)  operates 8 yards that  are
estimated  to require noise  abatement expenditures.  These 8 yards are
comprised  of 1 hump classification  yard,  2  flat  classification yards and
5 industrial yards.  Assuming  that  these yards are  typical in terms of  the
expenditures estimated  for  noise abatement, the  hump  yard would  cost
$231,000,  and the  others, at  $5,000 each, would  cost  $35,000.  The  total
estimated  annualized  cost would  be  $266 thousand.

      The TRRA is owned  by the  railroad  companies which  it  serves, including:
           Baltimore  and Ohio  Railroad
           Burlington  Northern,  Inc.
           Chicago  and  Eastern Illinois  Railroad
           Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific  Railroad
           Illinois  Central  Gulf Railroad
           Louisville  and Nashville Railroad
           Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad
           Mssouri Pacific  Railroad
           Penn  Central System
           St.  Louis  Southwestern Railway
           St.  Louis-San Francisco Railway.

      TRRA provides diverse services  to line-haul companies which makes it
 difficult to isolate classification  and industrial yard operations.  Its
 facilities include St. Louis Union  Station,  two bridges across  the
 Mississippi River, engine terminals  and 100 miles of main line,  in  addition
 to its yards.
                                    P-23

-------
     Resorting once again to national averages, it can be estimated that
the TRRA yards handle approximately 1.5 million cars per annum.  The
estimated annualized compliance costs by the company amounts to $266,000.
On a per car basis, therefore, the added cost of noise abatement amounts
to 18 cents per car handled.  Although car handling costs cannot be
separately identified for TRRA on the basis of data from other companies,
it can be estimated that the added cost should amount to less than 1 per-
cent of the total TRRA cost of car handling.

     Since TRRA is owned by the companies that it services, the company's
ability to assume the added expense essentially derives from the financial
condition of the owning companies.  As listed above, there are eleven
owning coupanies, some of which are having financial difficulties.
Various company bonds are guaranteed by the owning companies.  These
bonds have been rated Aa in Moody's Transportation Manual, indicating a
relatively high security for the bonds.

The Union Railroad Company (PA) operates 16 yards comprised of 1 hump
classification yard, 3 flat classification yards and 12 industrial yards.
The company's estimated annualized expenditure requirements to comply with
the proposed noise regulation would amount to $306 thousand.

     Utilizing national averages for the types of yards owned, it can be
estimated that the FA yards handle approximately 2.2 million cars per
year in total.  Expressed on a "per car handled" basis, this represents
an added expenditure of 16 cents annually per car handled •  Assuming
that the total costs of car handling incurred by the PA are comparable
to those incurred by other railroads, the added costs of noise abatement
would add less than 1 percent to the total cost of car handling.

     The PA is relatively profitable.  Its operating ratio (operating
expenses divided by operating revenues) was 77.3 percent.  Total earnings
for the company in 1977 were $42.3 million.  Over the period reported in
Moody's there has been a gradual increase in earnings beginning with $36.7
million in 1971.  The PA is owned by U. S. Steel Corporation.
                                 P-24

-------
The Belt Railway of Chicago operates 6 yards, consisting of 2 hump
classification yards, 1 flat classification yard, and 3 industrial yards.
The company could incur annualized expenses of $482 thousand to
comply with the noise regulation.

     The company handled a total of  1.3 million cars in 1977, while
incurring operating expenses of $16.3 million.  This indicates an average
expense of $13 per car handled.

     The added expense incurred for  noise  abatement purposes, assuming
the typical annualized expenditure of $482 thousand, would be 37 cents per car
handled.  This added expense for noise abatement purposes could increase
total car handling costs by 2.8 percent.

     The company provides car  interchange  services among its proprietor
companies.  The proprietor companies include  the following:
     Atchison, Topeka & Santa  Fe Railway
     Chesapeake and Ohio Railway
     Burlington Northern, Inc.
     Missouri Pacific Railroad
     Chicago, Rock Island and  Pacific Railroad
     Consolidated Rail Corporation
     Grand Trunk Western Railroad
     Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
     Soo Line Railroad
     Norfolk and Western Railroad
     Louisville and Nashville  Railroad.

     The operating agreement of  the  Belt  Railway Company of  Chicago
provides for the division of working expenses and  debt  obligation on a
user basis.  The company's operating earnings have been approximately
steady  at  $1 million per annum since 1971, the  reporting period  covered
by the  current Moody's Transportation Manual.  An  additional $1 million
is earned  as supplemental income.   The  company's debt obligations have
been assigned an Aa  rating,  indicating  a  relatively  secure financial
position for the company.
                                   P-25

-------
                               APPENDIX R
      SELECTION OF SAMPLE  RAIL YARDS AND EXAMPLES OF EPIC ANALYSES

     The random selection  of  120  rail  yards, per the procedure described
in the text of Section 6,  resulted  in  the initial list presented in Table
R-l.  The selection procedure  provided 10 rail  yards of each of 4 types in
each of 3 place size locations for  a total of  120 rail yards.  However, due
to lack of photographic imagery,  many  of the sample rail yards were elimi-
nated from the analyses.   Therefore, a substitute list was generated as
shown in Table R-2.  The final list of the 120  sample rail yards analyzed
is presented in the text of  Section 6.

     The study area boundaries around  two of the sample rail yards are
shown as examples in Figures  R-l  and R-2.  The  corresponding study area
land use analyses by EPIC  are  shown in Figures  R-3 and R-4.  Also, typical
data of rail yard dimensions  and  noise source  locations relative to yard
boundaries are shown in Figures R-5 and R-6.
                                   R-l

-------
                           TABLE  R-l

            INITIAL LIST  OF  SELECTED RAILROAD YARDS

                             CELL #1

YARD TYPES:  Hump Classification  PLACE SIZE:   50k People

STATE    CITY                      YARD                      RR
CO       Grand Junction
IL       Markham
IN       Elkhart
KY       Russell
KY       Silver Grove
OH       Marion
OH       Portsmouth
PA       Coatesville
PA       Morrisville
WA       Pasco
Train
Markham SEND
Robt. P. Young Hump
Coal Class
Stevens
Westbound
W. B. Hump
Coatesville
A
Train BN
 DRGW
 ICG
 PC
 CO
 CO
 EL
 NW
 RDG
 PC
                             CELL 02

YARD TYPE:  Hump Classification  PLACE SIZE:  50k-250k People
STATE    CITY

AR       North Little  Rock
AR       Pine Bluff
CO       Pueblo
GA       Macon
NE       Lincoln
OR       Eugene
PA       Harrisburg
TN       Chattanooga
TN       Knoxville
TX       Beaumont
YARD

Crest
Gravity
Train
Brosnan
E. B. Hump
Train
Enola East
De Butts
John Sevier
Train
 R/R

 MP
 SSW
 ATSF
 SOU
 BN
 SP
 PC
 SOU
 SOU
 SP
                             CELL #3

YARD TYPE:  Hump Classificatiuon  PLACE SIZE:   250k People

STATE    CITY                      YARD                      R/R
FL       Tampa
IL       Chicago
IL       Chicago
IL       East St. Louis
MI       Detroit
OH       Columbus
OH       Toledo
PA       Allentown
PA       Pittsburgh
WI       Milwaukee
Rockport
Corwith
59th Street
Madison
Flat Rock
Grandview
Lang
Allentown E. Hump
Motion Junction
Airline
 SCL
 ATSF
 PC
 TRRA
 DTS
 PC
 DTS
 LV
URR
 CMSPP
                               R-2

-------
                      TABLE R-l (Continued)

                            CELL #4

YARD TYPE:  Flat  Classification   PLACE SIZE:

STATE    CITY                      YARD
IL        Belviderf
IL        Streator
IA        Missouri Valley
MI        Willow Run
MT        Helena
OH        Huron
PA        Sayre
TX        Cleburne
VA        Crewe
WV        Martinsburg
                                       50k People
                         Train
                         Train
                         Train
                         Industrial
                         Train
                         South
                         Sayre
                         Cleburne
                         Train
                         Gumbo
                          R/R

                          CNW
                          PC
                          CNW
                          PC
                          BN
                          NW
                          LV
                          ATSF
                          NW
                          PC
                            CELL #5

YARD TYPE:   Flat Classification  PLACE SIZE:   50k-250k People

STATE     CITY                     YARD                      R/R
CA        Stockton
LA        Shreveport
ME        South Portland
MA        Lowell
MA        Worcester
MI        Bay City
OH        Lancaster
OH        Lorain
TX        Port Arthur
WA        Spokane
                         Mormon
                         Deramus
                         Rigby
                         Bleachery
                         Worcester
                         North
                         Lancaster
                         South
                         Train
                         Yardley  Train
                          ATSF
                          KCS
                          PTM
                          BM
                          BM
                          DM
                          CO
                          LT
                          SP
                          BN
                            CELL #6

YARD  TYPE:   Flat Classification  PLACE  SIZE:    250k  People

STATE    CITY                     YARD                      R/R
AZ
FL
GA
IN
LA
MI
MO
OH
OR
TO
Tucson
Jacksonville
Atlanta
Jasonville
New Orleans
Detroit
St. Louis
Dayton
Portland
Memphis
Train
Simpson
Ho well
Latta
Oliver
Davison Ave.
12th Street
Needmore
Lake
Hollywood
SP
GSF
SCL
CMSPP
SOU
DT
MP
BO
PRTD
ICG
                                R-3

-------
                     TABLE R-l  (Continued)

                            CELL  #7
YARD TYPE: Flat Industrial

STATE    CITY

AL       Ensley
CA       E. Pleasanton
FL       Nichols
IL       Chicago Heights
IN       Burns Harbor
MS       Durant
HE       McCook
NY       Troy
OH       Washington Ct.  Hse
TX       Great Southwest
PLACE SIZE:   50k People

YARD                       R/R
Ens ley
Train
Dry Rock
Heights
Burns Harbor
Durant
Train
Troy
Train
Great Southwest
                          SOU
                          SP
                          SCL
                          BO
                          PC
                          ICG
                          BN
                          PC
                          BO
                          GSW
                             CELL #8
YARD TYPE:   Flat Industrial

STATE     CITY

CT       Stamford
FL       Pensacola
GA       Columbus
IN       Terre Haute
MI       Ann Harbor
MI       Muskegan
NE       Lincoln
OH       Hamilton
OH       Springfield
 OR       Salem
 YARD TYPE:  Flat Industrial

 STATE    CITY

 CA       San Jose
 IL       Chicago
 NY       Buffalo
 NY       New York
 OH       Cincinnati
 OH       Youngstown
 OR       Tulsa
 PA       Philadelphia
 PA       Pittsburgh
 VA       Richmond
 PLACE SIZE:    50k-250k People
YARD

Stamford
Whart
Columbus
Hulman
Ann Arbor
Train
Train
Wood
Int'l Harvester
Train
                           PC
                           LN
                           SCL
                           CMSPP
                           AA
                           CO
                           OLE
                           BO
                           PC
                           BN
                              CELL  #9
 PLACE SIZE:    250k People

 YARD

 College Park
 43rd Street
 Hamburg Street
 28th Street
 West End
 McDonald
 Lafeber
 Midvale
 Neville Island
 Belle Isle
                            SP
                            CRIP
                            EL
                            EL
                            LN
                            YN
                            MIDLV
                            PC
                            POV
                            SOU
                                R-4

-------
                       TABLE R-l (Continued)

                             CELL #10

YARD TYPE:   Small  Industrial Flat  PLACE SIZE:

STATE    CITY                      YARD
               50k People
CA       Martell
GA       Vidalia
KS       Durand
MD       Owings Mills
NY       Clean
PA       Cementon
SC       Hampton
TX       Menard
WA       Gold Bar
WY       Pulliam
Train
Vidalia
Train
Maryland
Train
Cementon
Train
Train
Train
Train
R/R

AMC
SCL
MP
WM
EL
LV
SCL
ATSF
BN
BN
                             CELL #11

YARD TYPE:  Small Industrial Flat  PLACE SIZE:   50k-250k People

STATE     CITY                      YARD                      R/R
AR        Fort  Smith
AR        Little Rock
GA        Macon
IL        Joliet
IL        Rockford
KY        Ownesboro
MN        Duluth
MT        Billings
NC        Durham
PA        Erie
Train
E. 6th Street
Old CG
South Joliet
Rockford
Doyle
Missabi Jet.
Stock
Train
Dock Junction
MP
MP
CGA
ICG
CNW
ICG
DMIR
BN
DS
PC
                             CELL #12

YARD  TYPE:  Small Industrial Flat   PLACE  SIZE:    250k  People

STATE    CITY                      YARD                       R/R
DC        Washington, DC
IL        Chicago
KY        Louisville
LA        New Orleans
MO        Kansas City
NE        Omaha
TX        Austin
TX        Dallas
TX        Houston
UT        Salt Lake City
 Ivy City
 Western Ave.
 Cane Run
 Harahan
 Mattcon
 Freight House
 Train
 Cadiz  Street
 Dollarup
 Fourth South
 PC
 CMSPP
 ICG
 ICG
 MATTS
 UP
 MP
 CRIP
 HBT
 DRGW
                                R-5

-------
                         TABLE R-2

            LIST OF SUBSTITUTE RAILROAD YARDS
CELL "1
CELL "2
CELL 13
CELL f A
CELL  15
 CELL  #6
CELL  #7
 CELL #8
STATE

CA
NJ
NY
IL
MN
MT
MD

VA
VA

NY
MI
TX
WA

CN

IL
BN
NJ
TX
TX

NY
WV
IN
WI
TX

IA
MD
AL

GA
MI
NJ
AZ
VA

TX
MI
PA
    CITY

Bloom ing ton
Canden
Mechanicville
Silvis
St. Paul
Missoula
Eagerstown

Roanoke
Alexandria

Syracuse
Detroit
Fort Worth
Seattle

New Haven
    YARD         R/R

West Colton      SP
Pavonia          PC
Hump             BM
Silvis           CRIP
New              CMSPP
Train            BN
West             WM

Roanoke          NW
Potomac          RFP

Dewitt           PC
Junction         PC
Centennial Hump  TP
Balmer           BN
   (Interbay)
Cedar Hill       PC
Flora
Inner Grove
Port Reading
Gains ville
Vanderbilt
Binghamton
Charleston
Evansville
Green Bay
Amarillo
Des Moines
Baltimore
Mobile
Brunswick
Livonia
Newark
Douglas
Hope well
Abilene
Kalamazoo
Reading
Train
Train
Port Reading
North
Train
YD
Bridge Jet .
Harwood
Train
Train
Bell Ave.
Bayview
Beauregard
Brunswick
Middlebelt
Brills
Douglas
Train
Abilene
Train
East Reading
BO
CRIP
RDG
ATSF
MP
DH
Joint
ICG
CMSPP
CRIP
CNW
PC
ICG
SCL
CO
CNJ
SP
SCL
TP
GTW
PC
                            R-6

-------
                  TABLE R-2  (Continued)
CELL #9
CELL #10
CELL  #11
 CELL #12
STATE

OH
OK
MI
KY
FL
MA
TN
NY
OH

OK
MN
KS
ID
AR

IA
SC
TX
GA
VA
WI
CA

TX
TX
WI
WI
 IN
 NY
 OH
 WA
     CITY

Akron
Oklahoma City
Flint
Louisville
West Palm Beach
Boston
Nashville
New York
Cleveland

Mobile
Sleepy  Eye
Hutchinson
Sandpoint
Camden

Waterloo
Greenville
Lubbock
Savannah
Petersburg
Racine
Modesto

Fort  Worth
Houston
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
 Indianapolis
 Rochester
 Cincinnati
 Seattle
                                                   YARD
R/R
Mill Street
Turner
Torrey
Union Station
West Palm Beach
Yard 8
West Nashville
Westchester Ave.
East 26th Street
Train
Train
Carey
Transfer
Train
Train
South
Lubbock
Roper Mill
Broadway
Junction
Train
Birds
Bellaire
Fowler
Rock Jet .
Car en
Charlotte Dock
Fairmont
House
EL
MICT
GTW
LN
WPBT
BM
LN
PC
PC
SLSF
CNW
BN
UP
SSW
CNW
SOU
FWD
CGA
NW
CMSPP
ATSF
ATSF
SP
CMSPP
CMSPP
PC
BO
BO
UP
                             R-7

-------
                                           3^rxfcT!

                         CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
                          DATUM IS MFAN SEA LEVEL
FIGURE R -1. MILL STREET YARD, AKRON, OHIO, WITH STUDY AREA DELINEATED
          ON U.S.G.S. MAP
                           R-8

-------
,,
       '".'•. FONTANA
M-U.  T':~"'!:-  :.
V'^jjjjgir	:iool
      ":•     '.iNNI III;.  •'•'-
                                          i •  'i
                                          7r f
                                                                     i  ]  -''I
                                                                                "
                                          •«   '. 	J,   •>» 3-""-.       ! "SL.««'J"i -•  •.   • '.-...•   -
                                        h:..:   , -   /,"—,., :      (  "•   j   n«'^;.. -:•  "    j

                                  '      I      D/l          ;'   ••>••         fe      '!   *-

                                         i    XlwC        ':<   §   ^          j    "'f


          '|i.	-. !•'•                    X   .".  ii:-::;':  '  • -.'     j"'"" "        "«•'
•..   ••••„.'!. ••  ; I'':::::::" •> „     !'           ' /        U! •"•;       •     ''."-"
.•:;:•:; '"':••-••-^^ "I    -"-I     u   ,../•     ":i:v:.::::::S:     j     _^	["
         U -
          *

• •"* • .("•• •' i i * L'' ' » ' * i i* *•• '• • f-
! - -•'.'•• "l ' *''* ' •'• • •.-..;" .~i "" '
..;."!; ' .•.::".'.r'Vh1 • ;-W:v--«ir;'~ ''"."'C;:
i j. i — -!7*"~ ; ; '==••;, I! ''•/ H:::i: j-
. " 1 :': ' ; - ' • i if'*' i i . • ) | !»,""

*,1_J 1 	 -". i"'' • M*frYt'V'« .j;/- .'O---; •' ""-/•-':;• v! i1 ':':;;:',^ ' '' ^1"
- ':>^v , ; -•' '"!r".:. .:.;• ••; —^
....._..— -, r ;; .. •; .: -Hi1 '-•'•'•'' '.;•:,
•••••• ••-•'-', • ! •" ?. ;;; ':.. ..:•

i 1^ '•' i - •'•• * • -fci • . .• *'.••.' •'• * :
..-'•-, •*"]., ...* '.,•,..•:-. -....::•. • •..' • ••' • ••.....'.:•••••• '...,. ::
,.,-.. p. , THj;.:-'?' ""*'' '"".'•" '"'"V"a " sll[
"I---*" '-. I ~t. s- i ^1^ : -' I"
.: i | ? „.„ ^ '.o'jc*^!* ri^C;'-:i;h
. .. ' 	 '-• „„, w . : L-r-v- :-%. .', !'v *v.v ;---;l^-: ':X».r::* r:::
: t- .. . '(•• <;•£.
— /_r 	 _, '. . ; : -..,' ,.•: ' sy '
, . • — .i •- -. .:,-. ,:•
', •' ":':- •• • ,
i " ' .'! '• '• '•: •'"* * i ...
...i.-l.!l_L-_:J! ••- 	 :i.»_.i. 	 . j" !': • ( ""•''' '"""*"' ~~~
I , '""",- >'•" ~.~:
;;;;::;;:;: : • •• •• '.• '• . '• .• -. •-.-... «.•• ==
V--J "•' ,f T"

- "V"^"'* /-0" i,,,,
M "••"!' -I'-fT: ' * ' 	
|[... Hh!:'::a/i.- si 	 ,
i • :- ; ;: i : : • ^ ! 	 i
1 ;.-. . ;........ > o ..:::: i
	 — ", 	 '• '.'.'.'.'.' : : i ' :
'"ii i iV^liilllD^OfiM :'::i!).!:~
! ' ' / .j " : "i : T . ', ": ty*lh ''
• \.-''fi ' '• .'; j. i- : : ': i i i • ; *.,
_ ...,-•.•;. .- :.. .• :~-f#. .'• •• • "^
'"Lll:: •"•"•" BLOOMING^Oli * "i, f
•' «~ '• : HTfifJ. ' '' PACIFIC
ll'lfiiii'ei'ci..'- '
	 jl^ 'jar^ , . ' i '
;|Hi.-tini.iKi(Hi '•."""•| '( '^'j
: • i .ir iiitth si ii . • . • "-' . .
: ".-"*.' *
•':.:jlijiii,iviifji:r7:.;' |j ••;
'" J.. |r !•!; II'.
. ••! - ^'{r*-.;^;-* -,;v-~j

•".: : ':
|( rntln.iri- *!;•
Svt S; i] • I 1 •

r::vs-:::r ..::z. ;-.- . ,;
	 '•••.-•'.XT CRESTMORE
: : 	
: 	

—•-•—'



'
•'. J^

• i r

ft
'""•'•.*
,
-i ' -t "
.




.'-21
u.,
•"•'
j;-'

?...

1 ^l'^ 1
" M ' •»,' — . W"^ ' -''•
-•• Jt^;— "1 , r-- -•-'••-•-•-•-- —"4 ( ' 7.
-L--J ,i. — i ""i . •< """ f ^ . • i '"^-'.
^r- -.| ! f 5«
1 ,' " t«t i
j | ; --''tVi \<"""" K" •
•f , j; \MIS,«S ^! '!
I- * * — p ^Hv ('°" ('r""''" I r ^i
f* i ?3 «'•• '.' i " / L » •• *f
.. -•.•" , .-.A ,' •- '. 1. 1 • 1- '•*".. . ""•"}•- ~A ~~
f (:s.j/^j^^ ' '?! *:";= ._Jl_J|^r^r^i^-"--^-!
"'"""^T".' ," ' 1 ...'"' - West '
i, • . ,- 1 ••_.•:—;-.-_- J-°'-">v». i , <' 	 "
'~,''. r.."' !'.'•••',! ;."•*_ '• ""-PV:.
( "'l • • "! •• ' .- ' '' •
,"'! i : • ' it: • •"• • • -' '"*"
'/oj'i ' ' \ J ' " ^~ sCov£. a"' ~"~"~""^~" "*'<'£ '
,:•- i"!v.-' "" • • :
I - '''.r.' :'r'!
f- \P"! . !.. »
	 !' :;-.i- '" '"~ '1^;^
i: .. ( [}'*r'|r';p^
:! . 1 •'.*"' • ^ \* \

;! '• •• - V' ij'fr.****' A fif*'*1 /• -^ \x" 	
" ; •' - • / r i
V1 •' ^ ' i
                                                                        (

                                            Wrr "...  i)





                                                                   1000
                                                                                                                         SCALE 1 24000
                                   .
                                                                                                             jiG-.vel*1  V' * ..-'
                                                                                                                                          ' "    '"" "•''

                                                                                                                           ~=T^             :-,,-'•-
                                                                                                                           i. J -- -
        FIGURE  R-2.   WEST COLTON  YARD,  BLOOMINGTON,  CALIFORNIA,  WITH STUDY AREA  DELINEATED ON USGS MAP

-------
                               SCALE 1:24000
                                     o

        1000     0

              1


 3000     i
	F=    '
_5000             (X) KIT


           1 KIUJMFITR
                       i  ;
FIGURE R-3.   TRACING OVERLAY OF  MILL STREET  YARDS,  AKRON,  OHIO
                                 R-10

-------
                                                                                  SCALE 1 240CO
                                                                                   	^ £=,=^
                                                                         '"1^"""
FIGURE  R-4.   TRACING  OVERLAY OF WEST COLTON YARD, BLOOMINGTON,  CALIFORNIA

-------
    Name  Akron, OH.,  Mill Street Yd., Ind.-Flat

Land Use
    A
    B
    C
    D
    E

Yard Dimensions
           Width B-B
             680'
Boundary

  0%
 90%
 10%
  0%
  0%
        Length

         3080'
                                                       2000'
           Dist. B-R

          XI -  770' (SF)
          X2 - 1100' (SF)
Noise Sources

     Repair Facilities-B

        None
     Master Retarder-B
           None
            No. Retarder Stages
     No. R.E.    Dist. B
                  160'
   Dist. B
No. S.E.    Dist. B.
Dist. B.
    220'
             250'
 150'
      FIGURE R-5.  DATA SHEET FOR MILL STREET YARDS, AKRON, OHIO
                                   R-12

-------
    Name  California  Bloomington,  W.  Colton, Class./Ind.,  Hump

Land Use
    A
    B
    C
    D
    E
                           Boundary
          69%
           6%
          16%
                                                        2000'
Yard Dimensions
                Width B-B
Class.
Receiving
Departure

     Total Length
1680'  (1290'T-T)
 360'
1390'
Length

 5740'
12010'
 5680'
  Dist. B-R

  0' (S.f.) south of  east  of  R.yard
230'(S.f.)  north of west end  of  R.yard
330'(S.f.)  south of departure yard
                   25200'      460'(s.f.) north of central portion
Noise Sources
Repair
Engine 1190
Car 200'
No. R.E.
2
3
2
3
1
1
3
3
7
6
2
33

Facilities-
', 495'
, 1450'
Dist. B
130'
165'
1350'
495'
1390'
1190'
495'
595'
760'
820'
860'
689.39

B


Dist.
200'
200'
360'
1190'
330'
500'
1190'
1120'
960'
700'
860'
815.85

Master Retarder-B
1 - 430', 530'

B No. S.E.
3
3
2
1
1
3
13






No.


Dist. B.
165'
200'
1455'
1390'
1550'
760'
709.62






Retarder Stages

3 & 4 stages
Dist. B.
1550'
1515'
265'
330'
155'
960'
1106.92





      FIGURE  R-6.   DATA SHEET FOR WEST COLTON YARDS, BLOOMINGTOH, CALIFORNIA
                                   R-13

-------
                              APPENDIX S
                      LAND USE DISTRIBUTION DATA

     The percentage distribution of residential commercial, industrial,
agricultural and undeveloped  land uses was calculated from training
overlays (see Figures 6-3 and 6-4) to U.S.G.S. maps.  EPIC had delineated
yard boundaries as well as land use  (per  Standard Land Use Coding System)
within 2000 ft. from yard boundary.

     The percentage land use  distribution adjacent  to each yard was
calculated by using linear distances  intercepted along the yard boundary.
Then these values were  averaged for  ten  yards in each of  the  twelve cell-
groups by place size and yard type as  presented in  Table  S-l.

     The percentage land use  distribution within  2000 ft. from each yard
boundary was calculated by separately adding the  areas of each of  the
five land uses.   Then,  these  values  were averaged  for ten yards in each
of  the  twelve cell-groups by  place  size and yard  type as  presented in
Table S-2.
                                    S-l

-------
                    TABLE S-l

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION, ADJACENT
    TO RAIL YARDS, BY YARD TYPE AND PLACE SIZE
Yard Type
Hump Class-
ification



Flat Class-
ification



Flat Indus-
trial



Small Flat
Industrial



All Yard
Types



Land Use
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Average Percentage Land
Use Distribution
Place Size
(Number of People)
<50,000 50,000 to 250,000 >250,000
17.2
6.7
3.2
40.0
33.0
22.2
11.0
1.8
21.5
43.5
13.0
8.0
8.0
52.0
20.0
12.0
13.0
11.0
36.0
28.0
16.1
9.7
6.0
37.4
31.1
9.2
9.1
11.2
25.4
45.2
12.5
6.5
10.0
44.4
26.6
16.0
10.0
1.0
69.0
5.0
14.5
6.2
3.6
50.2
15.3
13.1
8.0
6.5
47.3
23.0
9
4.7
47.6
8.6
30.2
9.6
12.8
61.1
5.7
11.0
9.0
21.0
0
51.0
9.0
16.0
14.0
0
61.0
10.0
10.9
13.1
27.2
31.6
15.1
All
Population
11.8
6.8
20.7
24.7
36.1
14.8
10.1
24.3
23.9
27.0
12.7
13.0
3.0
57.3
11.3
14.2
U.I
4.9
49.1
17.8
13.4
10.3
13.2
38.8
23.1
                    S-2

-------
                     TABLE  S-2

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION,  WITHIN  2000'
  OF RAIL YARD BOUNDARY BY  YARD TYPE AND PLACE  SIZE
Yard Type
Hump Class-
ification



Flat Class-
ification



Flat Indus-
trial



Small Flat
Industrial



All Yard
Types



Land Use
Classification
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
Residential
Commercial
Agricultural
Industrial
Undeveloped
<50,000
30
5
11
17
37
42
10
16
11
21
22
5
12
30
30
31
14
17
13
25
31
9
14
18
28
Average Percentage Land
Use Distribution
Place Size
(Number of People)
50,000 to 250,000 >250,000
23
10
14
19
35
32
10
15
18
24
49
21
1
21
8
28
12
6
33
21
33
13
9
23
22
28
7
13
24
27
31
13
6
33
17
26
22
0
37
15
25
14
0
46
14
28
14
5
35
18
All
Population
27
7
13
20
33
35
11
12
21
21
32
16
4
30
18
28
14
8
31
20
31
12

25
23
                      S-3

-------
                              APPENDIX T
                          POPULATION DENSITY

     In some cases of yards located in scarcely populated areas, the
study areas were enlarged to include at least one population centroid.
It was indicated by CACI that as long as population within the study
area was 500 or more people, the accuracy of the population estimate
was at least 10 percent.

     The site specific or local average population density is not equal to
true residential density since in  each study area, the land surface area
used to obtain the density value includes the commercial, industrial,
agricultural, and undeveloped land.  However, the local average density
obtained by this procedure reflects more accurately the population impacted
than would be the case if the gross average population density for an
entire urban area were used.  Also, in the health and welfare impact model,
the impact is determined according to an integration of density over area
so that correct local population is accounted for independent of the
micro-distribution of people in the study area.

     Since the number of rail yards were given  according  to 4 yard types
and 3 place sizes, there were 12 cells or groups of yard  samples to be
evaluated.  The local average population density within the selected
study area at each rail yard was calculated, and the resulting density
ranges obtained for the yard types within each  cell and for each place
size class are shown in Table T-l.

     For the 4 cells (or groups of rail yards)  in the small place size
(less than 50,000 people) class, the local average population densities
ranged from 9 to 10,100 people.  The population densities around rail
yard located in the medium place size  and large place size classes,
respectively, ranged from 90 to 8135 people/sq.mi. and from 4 to 21,594
people/sq.mi.

     Evaluation of the density data  indicated  low correlation between yard
type and population density, and a wide distribution of numbers of yards

                                   T-l

-------
                            TABLE T-l
             RANGE OF LOCAL AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITIES
                    AROUND SELECTED RAIL YARDS
                   Range of Population Density*  (People/Sq.Mi.)
                         Place  Size  (Population Range):
Yard Type
l.Less than
   50,000
2.50,000 to
   250,000
3.Greater than
    250,000
Hump Classifi-
  cation
234 to 10,068     90 to 4520
                  377 to 21,594
Flat Classifi-
  cation
  9 to 2,580     127 to 6625
                    4 to 17,507
Flat Classifi-
   cation
143 to 6,833    1285 to  8135
                   39 to 19,604
 Small Industrial      12  to  8,169      549 to 4,581
                                    658  to  17,049
 *Local  Average
                                   T-2

-------
of yards throughout the density range for each cell.  Therefore, in each
place size, the densities for the 40 sample yards were placed into 7
density classes and the number of yards  in each density class was counted.
This distribution is shown  in Table T-2.  A weighted average density was
computed for the rail yards in each of the seven density classes for each
place size category.  The weighted average density for each class was
obtained by summing the corresponding study area and population values
for the yards in each density range and  dividing the total population by
the total area:
     pAVG =
The results are  shown  in  Table T-3.   These weighted  average density
values were used to  represent  the  local average population densities for
the rail yards in each density range.
                                   T-3

-------
                                      TABLE T-2

                            DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE RAIL YRDS
                              BY POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
Population Density
Range (People/Sq.Mi.)
  Place Size
  less than
50,000 people
 Place Size
  50,000 to
250,000 people
  Population
 Density Range
(People/Sq. Mi.)
 Place Size
  Greater
than 250,000
   people
<500
500 to 1000
1000 to 2000
2000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 11000

8
6
13
1
2
2
2

4
5
6
7
10
4
3
TABLE T-3
AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY
<1000
1000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 10,000
10000 to 15000
15000 to 22000

FOR EACH
6
10
13
2
2
3
4


DENSITY RANGE CLASS

Population Density
Range (People/Sq .Mi.)
<500
500 to 1000
1000 to 2000
2000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 11000

Place Size
less than
50,000 people
190
/80
1580
2510
4070
5810
9480

Place Size
50,000 to
250,000 people
230
690
1470
2390
4050
5920
7480

Population
Density Range
(People/Sq. Mi.)
<1000
1000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 10,000
10000 to 15000
15000 to 22000
Place Size
Greater
than 250,000
peop le
420
1480
3880
5750
8540
11700
19540
                                         T-4

-------
                            DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT
                                                                PACE  1
MILL ST. YARD
AKRON, OHIO

           DEC MIN SEC
LATITUDE    41   7  30
LONGITUDE   81  30   0

 4 POINT POLYGON

WEIGHTING PCT   1002


1977
1977
1977


POPULATION
HOUSEHOLDS
PER CAP INCOME
LATEST

3691
1420
$ 3895
CHANGE
FROM 70
-893
-166
$ 1064
ANNUAL COMPOUND GROWTH -3.02
                            1970 CENSUS DATA
POPULATION
TOTAL
WHITE
NEGRO
OTHER

SPAN


4584
3328
1253
3

13


100
72
27
0

0


.02
.6Z
.32
.1Z

.3Z


FAMILY INCOME (000)
$0-5
$5-7
$7-10
$10-15
$15-25
$25-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN


RENT
$0-100
$100-150
$150-200
$200-250
$250 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN
Z RENTER
334
148
259
225
70
4
4
1044

$ 8082
$ 7463



788
162
19
4
1
974

$ 75
$ 62
68.8
32
.02
14.22
24
21
6
0
0







80.
16.
2.
0.
0.
.82
.62
.72
.42
.42







9Z
62
02
42
12
AGE AND SEX
MALE
0-5
6-13
14-17
18-20
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 +
TOTAL
227
320
203
201
388
162
231
273
262
2267
MEDIAN(AGE)

HOME VALUE
$0-10
$10-15
$15-20
$20-25
$25-35
$35-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE $1
MEDIAN $1
2 OWNER



(000)
198
208
34
0
1
0
0
441

0524
0529
31.2


10.
14.
9.
8.
17.
7.
10.
12.
11.

25.

02
12
02
92
12
12
22
02
62

2

FEMALE
234
320
183
177
320
207
196
371
311
2319


10.
13.
7.
7.
13.
8.
8.
16.
13.

27.

12
82
92
62
82
92
52
02
42

9

TOTAL
10. 12
14.02
8.42
8.22
15.42
8.02
9.32
14.02
12.52

26.4

OCCUPATION
44.
47.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.







92
22
72
02
22
02
02







AUTOMOBILES








NONE
ONE
TWO
THREE+
532
760
230
55
33.
48.
14.
3.
72
22
62
52
MGR/PROF
SALES
CLERICAL
CRAFT
OPERTIVS
LABORER
FARM
SERVICE
PRIVATE


EDUCATION
0-8
9-11
12
13-15
16 +













209
56
250
199
404
85
1
275
27


ADULTS







819
653
627
73
76


13.92
3.72
16.62
13.22
26.82
5.62
0.12
18.32
1.82


> 25
36.42
29.02
27.92
3.22
3.4Z


                        HOUSEHOLDS WITH:
HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS
FAM POP     3714  81.02
INDIVIDS     636  13.92
                   5.12
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1
2
3-4
5-9
10-49
50 +
MOBILE
FIGURE T-l.    DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT  OF MILL STREET
               YARDS,  AKRON,  OHIO
803
275
114
81
209
63
0
52.02
17.82
7.42
5.22
13.52
4.12
0.02
TV
WASHER
DRYER
DISHWSH
AIRCOND
FREEZER
2 HOMES
1365
1031
454
56
144
249
49
86.12
65.02
28.62
3.. 5 2
9.12
15.72
3.12
GRP QTRS 234
TOT POP 4584

NO OF HHiS
NO OF FAMlS
AVG HH SIZE
AVG FAM SIZE

1586
1098
2.7
3.4
                                                               CACI.INC
                               T-5

-------
                             DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT
                                                                 PACE  1
 W.  COLTON YARD
 BLOOMINGTON,  CALIF.
 LATITUDE
 LONGITUDE
 DEC MIN SEC
  34   7  30
 117  22  30
  4  POINT POLYGON

 WEIGHTING PCT   100Z
                                                      LATEST
                                                                CHANGE
                                      FROM 70
        1977 POPULATION        8964       317
        1977 HOUSEHOLDS        2821       331
        1977 PER CAP INCOME  $ 4541    $ 2163

           ANNUAL COMPOUND GROWTH   0.52
                             1970 CENSUS DATA
POPULATION
TOTAL
WHITE
NEGRO
OTHER

SPAN


8647
8513
27
107

1318


100
98
0
1

15


.OZ
.52
.32
.22

.22


FAMILY INCOME (000)
$0-5
$5-7
$7-10
$10-15
$15-25
$25-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN


KENT
$0-1 00
$100-150
$150-200
$200-250
$250 +
TOTAL
399
264
535
684
225
27
0
2134

$ 9410
$ 9265



449
171
46
1
0
667
18
12
25
32
10
1
0







67.
25.
6.
0.
0.
.7Z
.4Z
.12
.12
.52
.32
.OZ







32
62
92
1Z
OZ
AGE AND SEX
MALE
0-5
6-13
14-17
18-20
21-29
30-39
40-49
50-64
65 +
TOTAL
493
880
432
182
476
494
497
485
357
4296
MEDIAN(AGE)


11.
20.
10.
4.
11.
11.
11.
11.
8.

24.

52
52
12
22
12
52
62
32
32

0

HOME VALUE (000)
$0-10
$10-15
$15-20
$20-25
$25-35
$35-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVEPAGE
MEDIAN
Z OWNER


214
634
420
169
70
14
7
1528

$15443
$14338
69.6


14.
41.
27.
11.
4.
0.
0.







02
52
52
12
62
9Z
52







AUTOMOBILES
FEMALE
498
808
371
207
572
482
512
499
403
4352


11
18
8
4
13
11
11
11
9

25

.42
.62
.52
.82
.12
.12
.82
.52
.32

.6

TOTAL
11.52
19. 5Z
9.3Z
4.5Z
12. 12
11.32
11. -7Z
11.42
8.8Z

24.9

OCCUPATION
MCR/PROF
SALES
CLERICAL
CRAFT
OPERTIVS
LABORER
FARM
SERVICE
PRIVATE


EDUCATION
0-8
9-11
12















362
181
392
5*2
582
151
52
301
15


ADULTS
1151
1175
1378
13.82
6.92
15.02
22.22
22.22
5.8Z
2.0Z
11.52
0.6Z


> 25
26.92
27.42
32.22
 AVERAGE
 MEDIAN
 Z RENTER
$  88
$  74
 30.4
NONE       166
ONE       1130
TWO        941
THREE+     237
 6.72
45.72
38.02
 9.62
13-15        438  10.22
16 +         142   3.3Z
 UNITS IN STRUCTURE
              HOUSEHOLDS WITH:
 1
 2
 3-4
 5-9
 10-49
 50 +
 MOBILE
2113  85.52  TV
         2359  94.7Z
22
29
18
82
1
206
0.9Z
1.2Z
0.7Z
3.3Z
O.OZ
8.3Z
WASHER
DRYER
D1SHWSH
AIRCOND
FREK/.EK
2 HOMES
1732
811
329
1179
602
37
69. 6Z
32.62
13.22
47.32
24.22
1.52
       HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS
       FAM POP     7996  92.52
       INDIVIDS     449   5.2Z
       CRP QTRS     202   2.3Z
       TOT POP     8647

      NO OF IllltS     2490
      NO OF FAMiS    2127
      AVG 1111 SIZE     3.4
      AVG FAM SIZE    3.8

                       CACI.INC
FIGURE  T-2.
     DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT OF WEST COLTON YARD,
     BLOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA
                              T-6

-------
                              APPENDIX U
                   SOURCE ACTIVITY AND NOISE LEVELS

     1.  Source Activity Levels

     A significant portion of the yard activity data used to provide
input for the rail yard health/welfare impact model was based on informa-
tion presented in a railroad yard survey conducted for DOT in 19765.
In this study, yard activity was presented according to yard type, func-
tion and level of activity for hump and flat rail yards.  These data have
been extracted and presented in Tables U-l, U-2, U-3, and U-4  The activity
data were used to develop the general noise generation and propagation
equations for each source identified.  Stationary sources such as groups
of retarders were modeled as a single virtual source placed at the geo-
metric center of the grouping.  However, since  the EPIC survey of 120
rail yards indicated considerable variation in  the geometric configuration
of the 4,169 rail yards, the exact location for each noise source relative
to its corresponding yard boundary cannot be determined.  However, the
rail yard survey did result in the identification of representative rail
yard dimensions and source groupings.

     Hump yard complexes are typically composed of yard areas with three
separate functions:  receiving,  classification, and  departure.In general,
specific activities and  functions are performed in each component yard
and thus , the different  yard noise sources are  located by function in the
component yards.  These  noise source groupings  and their distribution
within each of the component yards are presented in  Table U-5.

     There is a high degree of uncertainty concerning the location of
individual noise sources such as  idling  locomotives, refrigeration cars,
and load test areas within  the rail yards.  Refrigerator cars and idling
locomotives could possibly be found in all yard areas.  Load test facili-
ties are usually located between  or to one side of the yard areas.

     Classification flat yards also have areas  similar to hump yards which
are differentiated by  the specific function performed.  Except for

                                   U-l

-------
                                     TABLE U-l
        ACTIVITY DESCRIPTORS AND TRAFFIC PARAMETERS FOR HUMP RAILYARDS

     Yard Activity Descriptors                            Yard Activity Level:
                                                          Low   Medium   High

Inbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                            8      14      27
Outbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                           8      14      25
Local Trains Dispatched Per Day                             235
Makeup Train Operations* Per Day                           32      84     150
Number of Classification Tracks                            26      43      57
Number of Receiving Tracks                                 11      11      13
Number of Departure Tracks                                  9      12      14
Capacity of Classification Yard  (Cars)                   1447    1519    2443
Capacity of Receiving Yard  (Cars)                         977    1111    1545
Capacity of Departure Yard  (Cars)                         862     969    1594
No. of Cars Per Classification Track*                     56      35      43
No. of Cars Per Receiving Track*                           89     101     119
No. of Cars Per Departure Track*                           96      81     114
Number of Cars Classified Per Day                         689    1468    2386
Average Outbound Road-Haul  Cars Per Train*                79      75      92
Average Local Cars Per Train                               43      83      63
Hump Engine Work Shifts Per Day                             356
Makeup Engine Work Shifts Per Day                           3        6      11
Local Makeup Train Operations Per  Day*                     2      18      20
Industrial and Roustabout Engine Work-Shifts Per Day       4        3      14
 *  Computed  From Yard  Activity Data.-
                                         U-2

-------
                                TABLE U-2
  ACTIVITY DESCRIPTORS AND TRAFFIC PARAMETERS FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION
                AND CLASSIFICATION/INDUSTRIAL RAILYARDS
     Yard Activity Descriptors                    Yard Activity Level:
                                                  Low   Medium   High
Inbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                     3      6       10
Outbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                    3      7       11
Local Trains Dispatched Per Day                      23        2
Makeup Train Operations* Per Day                    12      28       44
Number of Classification Tracks                     14      20       25
Standing Capacity of  Classification  Yard           653     983      1185
Number of Cars Classification Per  Day             288     711      1344
Switch Engine Work-Shifts Per Day                    4      7       10
Maximum No. of Cars Per Classification Track*      47      49       47
Average Outbound Road-Haul Train Cars Per Day*     73      68       86
Local Train Makeup Operations Per  Day*              23        8
Industrial and Roustabout Work-Shifts Per Day       24        6
   Computed  From Yard Activity Data.^
                                         U-3

-------
                 TABLE U-3
 TRAFFIC PARAMETERS FOR FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARDS
                                               Yard
  Yard Activity Descriptors                  Activity
                                              Level
Inbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                 1
Outbound Road-Haul Trains Per Day                1
Local Trains Dispatched Per Day                  1
Cars Switched Per Day                          140
Switch Engine Work-Shifts Per Day                3
                  TABLE U-4
 TRAFFIC PARAMETERS FOR SMALL  INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARDS
                                                Yard
  Yard Activity Descriptors                   Activity
                                               Level
Inbound Local Trains Per Day                     1
Outbound Local Trains Per Day                    1
Cars Switched Per Day                           30
Switch Engine Work-Shifts Per Day                1
                  U-4

-------
retarders, which are not usually found in flat yards, the distribution of
source groupings is similar to that shown for hump yards in Table U-5.
However, the other flat yards do not perform all of the functions per-
formed in the classification yards and the noise source types and source
groupings will be distributed differently. Discussion with rail industry
personnel indicated that, in general, that switch engines operate at each
end of the yard, and the other sources are located inside the main yard
area.  The noise source groupings for industrial and small industrial
flat yards are shown in Table U-6.

     Figure U-l presents a generalized schematic for each of the above
yard types and identifies the relative location of noise sources and
source groups within each yard complex.

2.  Source Noise Levels

     A noise generation equation, or model, has been developed for each
identified yard noise source.  The yard noise sources are categorized as
either moving or stationary, and are grouped depending on the source type
and relative location within the rail yard boundaries.  The noise genera-
tion equations are developed in terms of L(jn for all sources.

     The Ljjn value for each yard source is computed using an empirical
data base on rail yard source noise levels obtained from equipment and
facility noise surveys and measurement studies, and from the yard
activity data study.6,12  ^ discussion of the data used in estimating
of the noise generated by each rail yard source is presented below.

     For yard activities or operations which are performed on a  24-hour
per day basis, the number of occurrences or level of yard activity was
indicated by rail industry consultants to be distributed uniformly
during the daytime and nighttime periods.
                                   U-5

-------
                                     TABLE U-5

                HUMP YARD NOISE SOURCE GROUPINGS  AND DISTRIBUTION BY
                               COMPONENT YARD TYPE*
Receiving Yard
   Classification Yard
   Departure Yard
Source
Group (a)
               Hump
            Switchers
             Inbound
              Trains
Source
Group (b)
           Retarders (Master
           and (Group)
           Idling Locomotives
           Load Tests
           Makeup
          Switchers

Source     Industrial
Group (d)  Switchers

           Outbound
            Trains
                                        Inert Retarders
                             Source      Refrigeration Cars
                             Group  (c)
                                        Car  Impacts
 *Except  for  retarders,  source  groupings and distribution are similar for
  classification  flat  yards.

-------
                             TABLE U-6

INDUSTRIAL AND  SMALL  INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARD NOISE SOURCE GROUPINGS
    Industrial
                            Small Industrial
Source
Group
 Noise
 Source
Source
Group
Noise
Source
 (a)
Inbound Trains
Outboard Trains
Switch Engines
(a)
Inbound Trains
Outbound Trains
Switch Engine
 (b)
Car Impacts
 (b)
                                                    Car  Impacts
                                 U-7

-------
Hump Yard Noise Sources

     1.  Inbound/Outbound Road-Haul and Local Train Operations

     Based on average train lengths and power requirements, it was assumed
that the local and road-haul trains entering and leaving the yard complex
are powered by one and three engines, respectively.  Train operations were
modeled as moving point sources and were assumed to take place within the
receiving and departure yard components at a speed of approximately 5 MPH.
The number of local and outbound road-haul train operations were combined
and treated as a single source type.  The number of train operations for
each the hump yard activity categories is shown in Table U-l.  The train
arrivals and departures were uniformly distributed over the daytime  and
nighttime periods in accordance with the opinion regarding uniform distribu-
tion of rail operations by rail industry personnel (see Figures 3-2 and 3-3
for hump yard arrangements).  Adjustments were made to the L
-------
with two tricks during the daytime period and  one during the nighttime
period, giving an average number  of  cars classified per hump engine trick
of 230.  The number of pass-bys per  hump engine  per shift is therefore
equal to nine (2 x 230/50).   For  the medium and  high  traffic activity
hump yards the number of pass-bys per  engine trick is approximately 20
to 32, respectively.

     3.  Retarders - Master.  Group.  Intermediate and  Track

     The master, group, intermediate and track retarders were modeled as
a grouped point source located at the  geometric  center of the retarders.
The Ldn resulting from cars  passing  through the  retarders is determined
from the number of cars classified per day, number of retarders  passed by
each car and  the percentage  of cars  which  cause retarder noise  events.
Examination of  the available data indicated that on  the  average  each car
classified passes  two  retarders,  and that  retarder squeal occurs approxi-
mately 50 percent of  the  time.  Using  the  number of  cars classified per
day for the low, medium and  high  traffic activity hump yards as  shown in
Table U-l, the  number  of  retarder noise events per day is 700,  1500, and
2400, respectively.

     4«  Inert  Retarders

      Inert retarders were also modeled as  a grouped  point source located
at the geometric  center  of the  retarders.   In the  absence of any data, it
was assumed that  each  car leaving the classification yard passes a retarder
and that approximately 85 percent produce  a noise  event.  It was also
assumed that  the  total number of  cars passing the  retarders is  equal to
the number of cars classified per day.

     5.  Car  Impacts
      Car  impacts were modeled as stationary point sources located in
 the  classification yard component of the hump yard complex.  It was assumed
 that the  total number of car impacts is equal to the number of cars clas-
 sified  per day (see Table U-l).
                                   U-9

-------
     6.  Makeup, Industrial and Other Switch Engine Operations

     Makeup, industrial and other switch engine operations were modeled as
moving point sources which operate in the departure yard component of the
hump yard complex at a speed of approximately 4 MPH.  It was assumed that
the total number of cars leaving the classification yard component per day
(assumed equal to the number classified per day) is removed in such a way
so that an equal number of cars is handled by each switch engine work
shift.  Therefore, the number of cars handled per work shift is equal to
the total number of cars classified divided by the total number of work
shifts.  Assuming that 10 cars are handled per switch engine operation,
the number of pass-bys per work shift was computed by dividing the number
of cars handled per work shift by 10 and, assuming round trips are per-
formed, multiplying the result by 2.  The total number of pass-bys per day
was determined by multiplying the number of pass-bys per work shift by the
total number of work shifts.

     7.  Idling Locomotives and Refrigeration Cars

     Both idling locomotives and refrigeration cars were modeled as
grouped point sources located in the classification yard component.
However, the baseline Ldn was developed from a truncated line source
model which transformed the line of point sources into a grouped or
virtual point source.  This was considered appropriate since the sources
may be grouped in a square or rectangular pattern.  The resulting
expression which accounts for the number of sources, and rows, and extra
air and ground absorption is given by:

     ^n * Lea +10 log~7(NHd+10NHn)+8 log(1.33Ni) - 20 log (•£-)
             4H       24                                    "°
                      + 10 log(NR) - K(D)
where Ldn           m baseline day-night average noise level, dB
                    = average noise level (per 1-hour period) of a
                      single locomotive or refrigeration car at a
                      distance of 100 feet, dB
                    = number of locomotives or refrigeration cars
                      per row
          and NHjj   - number of hours of operation during daytime (d)
                      and nighttime (n)
                                  U-10

-------
      NR            = number of rows of locomotives or refrigeration cars
      D0            = 100 feet
      D             = distance from source to yard boundary
      K(D)          = air and ground absorption

     Based on the number of locomotives and refrigeration cars in the rail
company inventory, the number of rows and the number of idling locomotives
and refrigeration cars per row assumed for each hump yard traffic category
ar shown below:5»°

                              IDLING                     REFRIGERATION
     TRAFFIC                LOCOMOTIVES                       CARS
      RATE               NUMBER     NUMBER             NUMBER      NUMBER
     CATEGORY            OF ROWS    PER ROW            OF ROWS     PER ROW
     Low                    22                 25
     Medium                 32                 45
     High                  32                  65

      8.   Locomotive Engine Load Tests

      Locomotive load tests were modeled as stationary point sources
 located in the classification yard component.  It was assumed that load
 tests  are conductd at high activity category hump yards only.  Also, it
 was assumed that one 6-hour test was performed per day with 4 and 2 hours
 of operation occurring during the daytime and nighttime periods,
 respectively.

 Flat Classification Yard Noise Sources

      1.  Inbound/Outbound Road-Haul and Local Train Operations

      As previously discussed, it was assumed that local and road-haul
 trains entering and leaving the classification yard complex are powered
 by one and three engines, respectively.  Train operations were modeled
 as moving point sources and were assumed to  take place in  the receiving
 and departure yard components at a speed of  approximately  5 MPH.  The
 number of local and outbound road-haul train operations were combined
                                    U-ll

-------
and treated as a single source type.  The number of train operations for
the three flat classification yard activity categories is shown in Table
D-2.  It was assumed that all train operations are uniformly distributed
over the daytime and nighttime periods.
     2.  Switch-Engines Operations;   Classification, Industrial, and
         Roustabout
     Switch engine operations were modeled as moving point sources which
operate in the receiving and departure yard components at a speed of
approximately 4 MPH. The rationale used in determining the operational
parameters is the same as that discussed for the makeup and industrial
switch engine operations in hump yards.  However, for flat classification
yard operations, it was assumed that only 5 cars are handled per switch
engine operation.

     To allow for variations in the distribution of switch engine opera-
tions for future impact assessment, switch engine operations have been
modeled as two separate yard sources, one at each end of the yard complex.
It is assumed that all switch engine operations are equally distributed
between the two locations and that the yard operates 24-hours per day.

     3.  Car Impacts

     Car impacts were modeled as stationary point sources located in the
classification yard component.  In the absence of specific data, it is
assumed that the total number of car impacts is equal to the number of
cars switched or classified per day. (See Table U-2).

     4.  Idling Locomotives and Refrigeration Cars

     Both idling locomotives and refrigeration cars were modeled as
grouped point sources located in the classification yard component.  The
noise generation model and the baseline L^n development procedures
have been previously discussed.
                                  D-12

-------
OF ROWS
2
3
3
OF CARS
2
3
3
OF ROWS
2
4
6
OF CARS
5
5
5
     The number of rows and the number of idling locomotives and
refrigeration cars per row which were assumed for each flat classifi-
cation yard traffic category are shown below:
                           IDLING LOCOMOTIVES        REFRIGERATOR CARS
   TRAFFIC RATE            NUMBER      NUMBER        NUMBER      NUMBER
    CATEGORY
     Low
     Medium
     High
     5.  Locomotive Engine Load Tests

     Locomotive  engine load  tests were modeled  as  stationary point sources
located in the classification  yard  component.   As  in  the hump yard case,
it was assumed that testing  is performed  in high activity category flat
yards only and that one  6-hour test is conducted per  day with 4 and 2
hours of operation occurring during the daytime and nighttime periods,
respectively.

Flat Industrial  Yard  Noise  Sources

     1.  Inbound/Outbound Road-Haul and Local Train Operations

     It was  assumed  that local and  road-haul trains entering  the yard
complex are  powered by one  engine,  and departing road-haul  trains are
powered by   three engines.  Train operations were modeled as moving point
sources at  a speed of approximately 5 MPH.  The number of local and out-
bound  road-haul  train operations were combined and treated  as a single
source  type.  All sources were assumed to operate within  the  yard complex.
The  number  of road-haul and local train operations determined for the
flat industrial  yards is shown in Table U-3.  It was  assumed  that all
train  arrivals and departures are uniformly distributed over  the daytime
and  nighttime periods.
                                   U-13

-------
     2.  Switch Engine Operations

     Switch engine operations were modeled as moving point sources at a
speed of approximately 4 MPH. The rationale used in determining the
operational parameters is the same as that discussed for the makeup and
industrial switch engine operations in hump yards.  The number of switch
engine tricks per day is shown in Table U-3.  It was assumed that the
yard operates 24-hours per day and that all switching operations are
performed at one end of the yard complex, since this type of flat yard
is too small to warrant switching at both ends simultaneously.

     3.  Car Impacts

     Car impacts were modeled as stationary point sources located at the
center of the yard complex.  It was assumed that the total number of car
impacts is equal to the number of cars switched per day  (See Table U-3)
and that the yard operates 24-hours per day.

Small Industrial Flat Yard Noise Sources

     1.  Inbound/Outbound Road-Haul Train Operations

     It was assumed that road-haul trains entering or leaving the yard
complex are powered by one engine.  Train operations were modeled as
moving point sources at a speed of approximately 5 MPH. All sources were
assumed to operate within the yard complex and it was assumed that all
train arrivals and departures are uniformly distributed over the daytime
and nighttime periods.  The number of road-haul train operations for the
small industrial yards is shown in Table U-4.

     2.  Switch Engine Operations

     Switch engine operations were modeled as moving point sources at a
speed of approximately 4 MPH. The rationale used in determining the
operational parameters is the same as that discussed for industrial
switch engine operations in hump yards.  The number of switch engine
                                  U-14

-------
 tricks  per  day is shown on Table U-4.  It was assumed that the yard
 operates  24-hours per day and that all switching operations are performed
 at  one  end  of the yard complex.

      3.   Car Impacts

      Car  impacts  were modeled as stationary point sources  located at  the
 center  of the'yard complex.  It was assumed that the total number of  car
 impacts is  equal  to the total number of cars switched per  day (see
 Table U-4)  and that the yard operates 24-hours per day.

 Noise Propagation Attenuation Factors

      Previous analyses of noise propagation losses in various types of
 urban areas  have  resulted in generalized approximations  for the total
 attenuation  with  distance including air and ground absorption,  and
 buildings acting  as noise barriers.  In general, these analyses appear
 to  have been done for road traffic (line)  noise sources  which charac-
 teristically have most of their noise energy distributed in the 100 to
 1000  Hz.  frequency range.  The results for the composite attenuation
 between 100  and 500 feet  were approximately 14 dB,  12 dB,  and 8 dB per
 doubling  of  distance for  urban high rise,  urban low rise,  and open
 terrain areas, respectively.

      It was  considered that these  "distance attenuation" relationships
were  not  applicable to the rail yard noise case due to the  wider variety
of noise  sources  (point and moving), many  of which  have  considerably
different spectral  characteristics than traffic noise  sources.   As dis-
cussed earlier in  the  subsection on rail yard noise sources,  retarder
squeal, car  impacts,  and  other sources  have dominant  noise  energy in
the 1000  to  4000  Hz.  range, while  idling locomotives  and switch engine
operations produce  dominant noise  energy in the low frequency (100 Hz)
range.  The  result  is  that air  and ground  absorption factors  may be
significantly different for the  rail yard  noise sources  than  for the
road traffic noise.
                                  U-15

-------
     Therefore, an analysis was conducted to determine air and ground
attenuation factors for each type of noise source in the rail yards, and
building insertion loss factors for the medium- and low-density land
use areas surrounding rail yards.  The analysis and results are presented
in the following paragraphs.  The resulting attenuation factors apply to
the rail yard noise sources and locations only, and are not likely to be
appropriate for regulatory noise analyses for other products or noise
sources •

Divergence Loss

     The variation of noise with distance from the source because of
divergence loss, i.e., spreading of noise energy over larger and larger
areas, for stationary (individual and grouped) sources in the rail yards
is a function of 20 log^Q (distance ratio) assuming that the sources
radiate in the normal hemispherical pattern.  Since the determination of
Lgn values for the stationary sources is based on Leq or SENEL values
which are dependent only on noise event durations , the decrease in Lan
with distance is also a function of 20 log^Q  (distance ratio).
     In the case of the moving sources, e.g., switch engines, L^n  is
developed from SENEL per pass-by and the number  of  pass-by events.  At a
particular distance from the source the SENEL value is a function  of  the
speed of the source and the maximum noise level  (I^ax) during the
pass-by:

     SENEL!  - Ljaax!* 10 log II  -±
where:
          DI * distance from source to observer  (ft.), and
          V  » source speed (ft. /sec.).
Then at any other distance, D2 -
                               2
      SENELo  - L    - 10 log
           *•
                                   U-16

-------
However, this reduces to:
     SENEL2  = Ljnax^ 10 log  n ^ -10 log  rl  , or
                                              1
     SENEL2  = SENEL! - 10 log  l
                               Dl

Therefore, the divergence loss applicable  to L4xl05,
      Aground=   °»  for "£^105,
                                   U-17

-------
where:
       A  =    attenuation, dB
       f  =    sound frequency, Hertz, and
       d  =    distance from source, feet.

     However, since the noise model must compute L,jn values, and
since the L^ noise rating scale is based on A-weighted sound levels,
it is more convenient to use a combined air and ground attenuation
factor representing the attenuation of the A-weighted noise levels with
distance*  Thus, the rail yard noise source data base was used to obtain
an average or typical noise spectrum, in terms of octave band sound
levels, for each type of source.  In general, the data base provided
typical spectral levels at 50 or 100 feet.  For each typical source the
air and ground attenuation was calculated for 100 to 2000 foot distances
using the center frequency of each octave band for the f value in the
equations given above.  The A-weighted level at each distance was then
computed from the correspondingly attenuated octave band noise levels,
and the differences between the levels at the selected distances were
used to determine the extra attenuation (Aa4g) in dB attributable to
air and ground absorption.  An approximation to the average extra attenu-
ation factor 1/2
                 _"a+R .».  "an
                          Aa
,  was obtained by inspecting the values
                          2000
for the source at the 1000 and 2000 foot distances.

     A review of octave band spectra for the seven major types of rail
yard noise sources indicated a wide variation in the predominant noise
energy frequencies.  Because the level of extra attenuation increases
directly with the sound frequency, as indicated by the air and ground
attenuation equations shown above, the greatest noise level attenuation
will occur for the noise sources whose levels are dominated by high-
frequency components.  The data base indicated, for example, that the noise
source with the highest predominant frequencies were the retarders.  The
retarder screech, or squeal, sound energy is concentrated in the 2000 to
4000 Hz frequency level.  Using the procedure outlined in the preceding
discussion, the combined air and ground attenuation for retarder noise was
                                  U-18

-------
calculated to be 10 dB per 1000 feet.  Other noise sources such as car
impacts and refrigerator cars produce A-weighted sound energy predominantly
in the mid-frequency range (1000 to 2000 Hz), and the combined attenuation
factors were determined to be in the 3 to 5 dB per 1000 foot range.
Locomotive sources, switch engines and road-haul engines, were generally
characterized by low-frequency  (<500 Hz) sound energy, and the combined
attenuation factors were 1 to 2 dB per 1000 feet.  The resulting combined
air and ground absorption factors, in terms of dB per foot, are shown for
each noise source-type on Table U-7. Based on the attenuation factors
presented on Table U-/~, average combined absorption coefficients were
computed for each of the source groupings shown on Tables U-5 and U-6.
A listing of these average attenuation factors is shown on Table U-8.
                               Table U-/
            COMBINED AIR AND GROUND ATTENUATION  FACTOR FOR
                    MAJOR RAIL YARD NOISE  SOURCES
                                        Combined  Air and Ground
        Noise Source                    Attenuation Factor  (dB/ft)
        Retarders                                0.01
        Switch Engines                           0.001
        Car Impacts                              0.005
        Idling Locomotives                       0.0025
        Locomotive Load Tests                    0.002
        Refrigeration Cars                       0.0035
        Road-Haul Locomotives	        0*002	
Insertion Loss Due  to Buildings

     The DOT  rail yard  survey indicated that  the 4000  rail  yards were
widely distributed  relative to the  surrounding land  use  and the size of
the cities where they are  located.   Examination of yard  locations and
surroundings  in different  cities  from 20 to 30 USGS  quadrangle maps
indicated that relatively  few rail  yard complexes were situated in
central business districts characterized by tall multi-floor buildings
and high-density land use.  Thus, from the yard distribution data, it
was determined that noise  level attenuation factors  due  to  intervening

                                  U-19

-------
                       TABLE U-8

  AVERAGE COMBINED AIR AND GROUND ATTENUATION  FACTORS
          FOR RAIL YARD NOISE  SOURCE GROUPS
Yard Type
Noise Source
   Group
    Average Combined
     Air and Ground
Attenuation Factor, dB/Ft.

Hump



Flat Classif-
ication

Industrial and
Small Industrial
Flat
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)

0.0015
0.005
0.0062
0.0013
0.0015
0.0023
0.0043
0.0015
0.0017
0.005

                            U-20

-------
buildings were necessary for two  cases:   (1)  residential area with
single-floor houses, and (2) residential, commercial, or other areas
with multi-floor buildings.

     Typical insertion loss factors  for  the first row and additional rows
of buildings have been developed  by  many authors.13-1^  These factors
were developed generally for highway traffic  noise sources (line sources)
and are applicable when the location of  the buildings relative to the
source is known, or when the conditions  are similar to those for which
the factors were developed.  In the  general case of the rail yards and
their surrounds, the typical distances from the noise sources to the
buildings, or the spacings between the buildings on the receiving land
are not known.

     Therefore, it was necessary  to  reexamine the insertion loss data to
determine a generalized approximation for insertion loss due to buildings
in the non-specific case of the rail yards and their surroundings.  The
data used to obtain the insertion loss values in FHWA/NCHRP Reports 117
and 144 and in other sources to obtain the insertion loss values were
reviewed.13-14  when the overall  conditions,  including background noise
effects, were taken into consideration the expected total insertion loss
for several rows of buildings was in the range 5 dBA for low-density
residential areas (single-floor dwellings), and 8 dBA for higher-density
areas of multi-floor buildings.   Since the distances to the buildings
are not known for rail yards noises, average  losses of 5 dB per 1000 feet
and 8 dB per 1000 feet were used  for the lower and higher density areas,
respectively.
                                   U-21

-------
                              APPENDIX V
               RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ONE HOUR Leq LIMITS AND
           DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVELS AND COMPARISON OF ANNUAL AVERAGE
                   WITH DAILY DAY-NIGHT NOISE LEVELS
               PART A:  One Leq Versus Day-Night Levels

     The day-night sound level measured in  the vicinity of a railroad
yard will differ from the one-hour equivalent sound level, Leq, by
an amount that varies with the number of  hours during which activities
occur.  This fact complicates the selection of compatible Leq and Ldn
limits, since the difference between these  twp measures may vary consi-
derably from yard to yard, and even from  day-to-day at  the same yard.

     Table V-l shows  the difference between the Ldn and the maximum
one-hour Leq in both  day and nighttime periods  for various time periods
during which railyard activities  might occur.   Thus,  if railroad yard
activities occur during one daytime hour, the Leq  for that hour will be
13.8 dB above the Ldn for the day.  If yard activities  occur during an
8-hour daytime period, the Leq  during each hour (or more  correctly, the
one-hour Leq averaged over all  8  hours) would be  4.8  dB above  the Ldn
for that day.

     Consider the situation  in  which  the  daytime  Leq  limit  is  set at
13.8 dB above the Ldn limit,  and  the  nighttime  Leq limit  is  set  at
3.8 dB above  the Ldn.  If either  of  these limits  are  exceeded,  the
Ldn must also be exceeded.   Thus, selection of  these  limits  assures
compatibility between Leq and Ldn limits.  However,  for nost railroad
yards where operations occur during more than one hour  of the  day, such
L  Units will  be  very  lenient.   That is, a one-hour measurement may
not show that  the  standard  is exceeded even though the  L^  for that
day may well  be  in  excesss  of the Ldn limit.

      Selection  of  Leq limits for daytime and nighttime hours which
are less  than the  13.8  and 3.8 dB, respectively,  provide  some risk in
that  the Leq  limits may be exceeded but not the L^ limits.   Thus,

                                   V-l

-------
selection of Le_ limits must be based on a tradeoff between the
desirability to have low enough Leq limits to permit reasonable
enforcement based on an Leq rather than an L^ measurement, and
the desirability to limit the 24-hour noise exposure rather than the
noise exposure during individual hours.

     While the differences shown in Table V-l represent possible
differences that may occur at a yard, Table V-2 shows the differences
that were actually measured at 42 different locations in the vicinity
of 18 railyards (where rail noise was dominant), representing a total
sample of 55 measurement days.  The table shows that Leq limits
3*2 dB above the L^ for the daytime Leq, and 0.1 dB above the L^
for the nighttime Leq represent 95 percent confidence limits; that
is, if these Leq limits were exceeded, there is a 95 percent pro-
bability that the Ldn limits would be exceeded as well.  It would
seem that the optimum selection of Le_ limits would be somewhere in
the range between these values and the 13.8 dB daytime and 3*8 dB
nighttime values discussed above.

     Because of the 10 dB nighttime weighting incorporated within the
L^n measure, selection of nighttime Leq limits which are 10 d3 less
than the daytime Leq limits will result in control of the same number
of daytime and nighttime hours•  Such an approach leads to the selection
of 10 dB and 0 dB as the differences between the daytime and nighttime
Leq limits, respectively, and the L
-------
                                TABLE V-l
       MAXIMUM HOUR EQUIVALENT  LEVEL/DAY-NIGHT  LEVEL  DIFFERENCES

  Number of hours
of Operation/Period      Day  Leq (l)max -  Ldn     Nite Leq  (l)max  -Ldn

        1                      13.8 dB                     3.8 dB
        2                      10.8                       0.8
        4                       7.8                      -2.2
        9                       4.3                      -5.7
        15                       2.0
                                TABLE V-2
                      MEASURED Leq/Ldn DIFFERENCES*

                         Day Leq  (Dmax  ~ Ldn      Nite Leq  (l)max ~Ldn

 Maximum Difference             4.5  dB                     2.8 dB
 Average Difference             -1-0                       ~2*8
 Minimum Difference             -9-4                       ~5'9
 Upper Limit of 95%              3.2                        0.1
   confidence interval

 *  Based on 55 measurement days.
                                    V-3

-------
      PART B:  Annual Average Versus Daily Day-Night Sound Levels

     The day-night sound level measured on a particular day in the vicinity
of a railroad yard may differ from the annual average day-night sound level
at the same location (that is, the energy average of the day-night sound
levels measured on each day of a full year), because of both the daily and
seasonal variation in operations that may occur at the yard*  If a yard
were to maintain a constant level of activity, day in and day out through-
out a full year, the day-night sound level measured on any day would be
equal to the annual average day-night sound level.  When yard activities
vary, such as when a yard handles a particular commodity with seasonal
variation in production, there could be a large numerical difference
between the daily and annual values of the day-night sound level*

     In order to estimate the size of possible differences, Table V-3
lists adjustment factors for daily, weekly, and monthly variability
in level of activity at the rail yard.  The table utilizes the concept
of a typically "active" day, as a way of categorizing yard operations.
The term typically active implies a normal level of activity or operation
at the yard.  If a yard has five typically active days a week and is then
shut down for the remaining few days, Table V-3 indicates that the day
adjustment is minus 1.5 dB.  If there are five typically active days,
and the level of activity on the remaining 2 days is about half the
normal level of activity, this would count as a total of six active
days per week (five full days plus 2 half days).  The day adjustment
for this condition would be -.7 dB.

     Similarly, the week and month adjustments can be obtained from the
table using estimates of the total number of typically active weeks per
month and months per year, respectively.  The numerical sum of these
three adjustments is the year adjustment:  Year adjustment « Month
adjustment + Week adjustment + Day adjustment.  Then the average L^
Is related to the L,jn measured on a typically active day as follows:

Annual average L^ = Daily Ljn  (for active day) + Year adjustment.
                                   V-4

-------
                TABLE V-3
ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIABILITY IN OPERATIONS
No. of Active
Months /Year
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Month
Adjt.
0
-0.4
-0.8
-1.3
-1.8
-2.3
-3.0
-3.8
-4.8
-6.0
-7.8
-10.8
No . of Active
Weeks /Month
4-1/3
4
3
2
1







Week
Adjt.
0
-0.3
-1.6
-3.4
-6.4







No. of Active
Days /Week
7
6
5
4
3
2
1





Day
Adjt.
0
-0.7
-1.5
-2.4
-3.7
-5.4
-8.5





                     V-5

-------
     For example, if a yard is active five days per week every week
of the month, ten months per year, the year adjustment is (-1.5)+(-.8)
or -2.3•  As mentioned above, a yard that is active almost all of the
year has a year adjustment of 0.  In contrast, the yard with a highly
seasonal variability might be completely active seven days a week
every week of the month but for only a season (three months).  In this
example, the year adjustment would be -.6.
                                  V-6

-------