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 twentyfour 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-orfight" 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 63.
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 $12.5 million per year
would add less than one-half of one percent to the levels currently
7-33
-------
TABLE 7-20
RATE OF RETURN ON NET WORTH-
LEADING CORPORATIONS
Calendar Year 1976
i 10 is to as
1. Soft drink* 21.
2. S«MP. e««»tttr* 20.9
]. Other Btnlni. 4u*rryl«| 10.1
*. Dr»«» *nd **rflcln«« 10.4
4~iht»»Tnt~>nd ~«h«Y"tV«niF>ort«(lon~ 11.1
t. 4«t9« *ntf trvcfc* II. *
ft. Household *p»1t*nec« 17. S
t. l«M*ur.nt. .nd hotiU 17.S
"THf.rirton.tr-tt Ion, Mt*rt«l-h«rula«| «t»pt, TTT"
11. ll.ctrU.l *qulp.*nt .nd .UclTOC.l H.7
1*. Otftc* *^«lp«*m, co«t>ut«r« U.7
1*. Oth.r t>u*U««« r«lc«a 1ft.4
3Q^ Bjfriwjt* *nA tool* 1 l^_j_
21. kklnt U-*
22. Vh»l*.il* .n4 .l*t*ll«n*(K.* r.t.ll !i. »
23. Ow«Jr»l product* IS.7
24. n«i*i mini is. I
i^. .__fL-->'.l!1fj _ j.i-Q^
92. Coon ««rrl.r irvchlj>| .».!
13. lolUlni, h«»tln|t pliMblni *^ulfMic 14.8
M, TOTJIL THADE H.7
M. 5ha»«. luther^ ,tc. 1^7
"~3>p.Tt»*M «rM p«cUlty I *
42. TOTAL NOMFIKAXC1AL 1 .0
41. Dl*tllllni I .0
4*. Kf>C«ll.T«u* «v«r *n, TOTAL rilKNClAt **
44. M<~.f«rro<,. »*t.l. 1.7
4V Iron .r^ »lT.l »-*
~W^ f»»il)r pioduct* *.i
K. lov,»i«-nt funJ* 4.4
"u. CLA~$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.41971* 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.31971* 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.
AEC031_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 229EASI._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 carcoupling 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 commandthe 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 equipmentviz., locomo-
tive and rail carsare 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 wordsequipment 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 BRailroad 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 noisefor 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 Commercethree federal agen-
cies which can all lay claim to considerable expertise
relative to the railroad industry and its role in interstate
commerceall 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 yardshump, 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 years1975, 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&MFor 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 percentagesthe 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 considerationsCircumstances 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 operationMany 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 potentialThe 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
-------
|