&EPA
                    United States
                    Environmental Protection
                    Agency
                  Office of
                  Noise Abatement Control
                  Washington DC 20460
EPA 550/9-79-210
December 1979

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR  FINAL INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER
NOISE EMISSION  REGULATION:
SOURCE  STANDARDS
.


-------
                BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
                     FOR  FINAL
INTERSTATE RAIL CARRIER  NOISE EMISSION REGULATION:
                  SOURCE  STANDARDS
                 December 1979
          ^             HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR
        ...f/NERAL AVAILABILITY. IT DOES NOT CONSTI
        TUTE A STANDARD, SPEC.F1CATION, OR RECuSi

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                                    Page
SECTION 1:  INTRODUCTION	1-1

SECTION 2:  INDUSTRY PROFILE	2-1
            Introduction	2-1
            Railroad Industry Structure 	 .....  2-1
            Competition in the Railroad Industry	2-9
            Railroad Industry Performance 	  2-15
            Conclusion	2-21
            Bibliography	.  .  .  2-23
            Definition of Terms	2-25

SECTION 3:  IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF RAILROAD
            EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES	  3-1
            Introduction	3-1
            Railroad Equipment and Facilities . 	  3-1
            Classification of Railroad Property ..........  3-3
            Classification System for Railroad Yards	3-7
            Description of Typical Railroad Yards .........  3-9
            Railyard Configuration Analyses ............  3-23

SECTION 4:  NOISE SOURCE EMISSIONS AND NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY  .  .  4-1
            Railroad Noise Sources	4-1
            Railroad Property Noise Survey Program. ... 	  4-2
            Measurement Methodology . . .	  4-2
            Existing Noise,Data Base. ...............  4-3
            Description of Yard Noise Sources and Abatement
            Technology. . . . . . . ... • • • • • • •  » > •  •  •  >  4-8
            Noise Control for Alternative Regulatory Options.  .  .  .  4-20
            Summary	4-30
            References.	4-37

-------
                         TABLE  OF CONTENTS (Continued)
 SECTION  5:   HEALTH AND WELFARE  IMPACT 	  5-1
             Introduction	5-1
             Rallyard Distributions,  Configurations
             and Noise Sources	5-9
             Population Density  Analyses  .....  	  5-13
             Railroad Noise Model	5-16
             Railyard Noise Impact  	  5-24
             References	5-42

 SECTION  6:   ANALYSIS OF  COST AND ECONOMIC  IMPACT	  6-1
             Introduction.  ... 	  .............  6-1
             Individual Noise Source  Cost Estimates	6-9
             Economic and Financial Impact  of  Railyard  Noise
             Abatement Regulations	  6-31

 SECTION  7:   DOCKET ANALYSIS 	  ...  7-1
             Introduction	7-1
             Conceptual Issues	  7-11
             Technical Issues	7-17
             Health and Welfare  Issues	7-29
                                                     *
             Cost and Economics  Issues	 7-38
             Other Issues.	7-44

APPENDIX A:  Noise Measurement  Methodology. .......  	  A-l
APPENDIX B:  Noise Source Abatement  Cost Estimates.  	  B-l
APPENDIX C:  Tabulation of Railroad  Companies  Studied  Including
             Number of Yards Owned and Company Ownership.	' C-l
APPENDIX D:  Tabulation of Railroad  Companies  by Name  and  Code.  .  .
             Designations  (ACI  and Uniform Alpha Codes)  ......  D-l
                                   11

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX E:
APPENDIX F:
APPENDIX G:
APPENDIX H:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX J:
APPENDIX K:
APPENDIX L:

APPENDIX M:
APPENDIX N:
APPENDIX 0:
Economic Impacts by Railroad Company .........  E-l
Industry Profile Data	F-l
Fractional Impact Procedure	G-l
Railcar Coupling Noise Measurements	H-l
U.S. Court of Appeals Decision 	  1-1
Railroad Cash Flow Model	•	J-l
Sample Railroad Selection Procedure and Analysis . . .  K-l
Derivation of Average Noise Levels for Railroad
Noise Sources	L-l
Population Density 	
Source Activity and Noise Level. ...
Yard Identification and Activity Rates
M-l
N-l
0-1
                                   iii

-------
                               LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                    Page
  2-1     U.S. Railroad Employment,  1932-1978 ............  2-6
  2-2     Rail Freight Market  for  Intercity Manufacturers,  1972.  .  .  2-14
  3-1     Schematic Representation of Hump Classification Yard  .  .  .  3-6
  3-2     Hump Yard Crest and  Retarder System .......  .....  3-12
  3-3     Typical Modern Classification Hump Yard Layouts ......  3-14
  3-4     Hump Yard Capacity .............  .......  3_15
  3-5     Group Retarders in Hump  Yards ......  ......  ...  3-16
  3-6     Typical Flat-Yard Track  Configurations ..........  3-19
  3-7     Flat Yard Capacity .............  . ......  3-20
  3-8    Representative Configuration for Hump and Flat
        Classification Rallyards ...... . .  . ........  3-34
  3-9    Representative Configuration for Flat Industrial and
        Small Industrial Railyards ... .............  3_35
 4-1    Frequency Spectrum of Noise Emitted from Master
        Retarder at  100  ft (30 m) and Mechanical Refrigerator
        Car at  50 ft (15 m) .................... 4.5
 4-2    Noise Frequency  Spectrum of Car Coupling Impact —
        Measurements 100 feet (30 m)  from Track  ......... 4-6
 4-3    Noise Frequency  Spectra of  Idling Switcher and
        Locomotive at  Throttle Setting  No.  8 — Measurement
        at  50 feet  (15 m) ..................... 4.7
 4-4    Insertion Loss of  Retarder  Barrier  as a Function  of
        Barrier  Height  (100 feet  from barrier at  90 degrees)  . .  . 4-11
 4-5    Insertion Loss of  12-foot Barriers,  as  a  Function  of
        Angular  Location  (100-foot  equivalent distance) ...... 4-12
 4-6    Insertion Loss of  12-foot-high Barriers,  with
        11-foot-long Extensions,  as a Function  of  the  Distance
        from the Retarder  to  the  Observer at  90 Degrees ...... 4-13
 4-7     Retarder /Barrier Plan View and Foundation .......  .  . 4-15
 5-1     Equivalent Noise Impact ..................  5_g
 5-2     General Locations of Noise Sources in Railyards ......  5-14
 5-3     Railroad Yard Noise Impact Model ...... .......  5-21
 5-4     Railyard Noise Impact Model ................  5-31
 6-1     Flow Diagram of Analytical Steps Encompassing Cost
        and Economic Impact Analysis ........ ...... . 6-2
6-2     Supply and Demand Relationships ..... ......... 6-38
                                      IV

-------
                               LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                               Page
  2-1    Firms Ranked by Total Operating Revenues 	 2-3
  2-2    U.S. Railroad Yards in 1978 by Class I, II and III
         Railroad Companies by Yard Function and Type of Yard . . . 2-4
  2-3    Types of Freight Equipment 	 2-7
  2-4    Locomotive and Freight Car Inventory; Class I Line
         Haul Railroads (1977)	 2-7
  2-5    Transport Statistics (1929-1978) 	 ........ 2-12
  2-6    Modal Market Shares, 1972.	2-13
  2-7    Revenue Ton-Miles	2-16
  2-8    Average Revenue per Ton-Mile	• . . . . 2-18
  2-9    Rate of Return on Net Investment	2-19
  2-10   Rate of Return on Regulated Freight Carriers . ... . . . . .2-20
  3-1    Railroad Property	 ... 3-2
  3-2    Railroad Locomotives 	 ........... 3-4
  3-3    Railroad Cars (generic types)	3-4
  3-4    Special Purpose Cars and Equipment '	3-5
  3-5    Classification of Railroad Properties	 . 3-6
  3-6    Activity Levels for Railroad Yards	 3-8
  3-7    Classification System for Railroad Yards 	 3-10
  3-8    Summary of Hump Yard Data.	 3-17
  3-9    Summary of Flat Yard Data.	 . 3-21
  3-10   Distribution qf U.S. Railroad Yards by Type,
         Function, and Location • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .• . .3-22
  3-11   Numbers of Hump Yards by Activity and Population
         of Locality. . . .  . .	3-24
  3-12   Numbers of Flat Yards by Activity and Population
         of Locality	 3-24
  3-13   Distribution of All Yards by Locality Population . . . . . 3-25
  3-14   Kailyard Distribution by Yard Type, Place Size and
         Traffic Rate Category. . . . -. . . . . . . . . . .... . . . 3-26
  3-15   Summary of Average Dimensions for Hump Classification
         Yards	3-31
  3-16   Summary of Average Dimensions for Flat Classification
         Yards	3-32
  3-17   Representative Average Dimensions for Industrial and
         Small Industrial Railyards ..... 	 .... 3-33

-------
                        LIST OF TABLES  (Continued)
4-1    Source Noise Level Summary  .....  	  4-4
4-2    End Switcher Locomotive Sound Levels With and
       Without Silencers	4-26
                                                                      »
4-3    Summary of Locomotive Muffler Acoustics Tests.  ......  4-27
4-4    Summary of Locomotive Muffler Acoustics Tests.  ......  4-28
4-5    Distribution of Railcar Impacts.  	  4-29
4-6    Noise Sources and Sound Level Reductions 	  ....  4-31
4-7    Summary of Noise Control Treatment  	  .....  4-32
4-8    Estimated Noise Levels for Retarders	  .  4-33
4-9    Estimated Noise Levels for Load Cell Tests	4-34
4-10   Estimated Noise Levels for Car Coupling	4-35
4-11   Estimated Noise Levels for Switchers  	  4-36
5-1    Railyard Distribution by Yard Type, Place Size  and
       Traffic Rate Category.	5-11
5-2    Railyard Noise Sources	5-12
5-3    Percentage of Sample Railyards by Population
       Density Range	5-17
5-4    Source Noise Level Summary	  5-22
5-5    Hump Yard Noise Source Average Day-Night Sound Level  (L(jn)
       as a Function of Distances (dn and  df) to Near  and Far
       Side of Yard Boundary and Traffic Rate Category	5-25
5-6    Flat Classification Yard Noise Source Average Day-Night
       Sound Level (Ljjn) as a Function of  Distances (dn  and  df)  to
       Near and Far Side of Yard Boundary  and Traffic Rate
       Category		  5-26
5-7    Flat Industrial Yard Noise Source Average Day-Night Sound
       Level (L<|n) as a Function of Distances (dn  and  df) to Near
       and Far Side of Yard Boundary	 .  .  5-27
5-8    Small Flat Industrial Yard Noise Source Average Day-Night
       Sound Level (Lgn) as a Function of  Distances (dn  and  df)  to
       Near and Far Side of Yard Boundary  and Traffic Rate
       Category . . .	  5-27
5-9    Baseline Case Contribution to Total ENI and PE for All
       Yard Types by Type of Source	  5-34
5-10   Baseline Case Contribution to Total ENI by Type of Source
       and Type of Yard ............ .  ........  5-36
                                      vi

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

5-11   Source Treatment Options and Noise Level Reductions. . . • 5-37
5-12   Benefits (Impact Reductions) for Source Noise Reduction
       Options	5-40
6-1    Summary of Compliance Costs for Key Selected Regulatory
       Alternatives	6-4
6-2    Noise Sources and Sound Level Reductions 	 6-6
6-3    Summary of Source Noise Control Technology Options .... 6-7
6-4    Summary of Regulatory Options for Retarder Noise
       Abatement	6-11
6-5    Component Cost Elements for Retarder Noise Abatement . . • 6-13
6-6    Summary of Costs for Regulatory Options for Locomotive
       Load Cell Test Stand Noise Abatement ........... 6-15
6-7    Component Cost Elements for Locomotive Load Cell Test
       Stand Noise Abatement	6-16
6-8    Summary of Regulatory Options for Car Coupling Noise
       Abatement	6-20
6-9    Summary of Cost for Regulatory Options for Switcher
       Locomotive Noise Abatement	• 6-26
6-10   Component Cost Elements for Switcher Locomotive Noise
       Abatement	6-29
6-11   Summary of Measurement Costs for Regulatory Options. . . . 6-32
6-12   Summary of Economic Impacts for Class I and II Line
       Haul Railroads ..... 	 6-34
6-13   Elasticities by STCC Commodity Class 	 6-41
6-14   Costs for Source Standards 	 6-43
6-15   Total Costs of Noise Abatement Techniques	6-45
6-16   Present Value Total Capital Costs. .	 6-51
6-17   Total Annualized Cost	6-52
6-18   Total Annualized Capital Costs .............. 6-53
6-19   Total Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 	 6-54
6-20   Average Annual Cost Increase per Ton-Mile	• 6-57
6-21   Average Revenue per Ton-Mile in 1978	6-58
6-22   Weighted Average Price Elasticities	 6-59
6-23   Decrease in Output	6-60
                                     vii

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

6-24   Net Decrease in Employment	6-62
6-25   Railroad-Parent Relationships	6-68
6-26   Performance of Railroads with the Poorest Financial
       Condition	 . .	6-74
6-27   Performance of Railroads with NPV/NW < 0	 . 6-74
6-28   Performance of Railroads with 0 < NPV/NW < .1	6-74
7-1    Listing by Respondent Categories	7-2
                                     viii

-------
SECTION 1

-------
                                SECTION 1

                              INTRODUCTION

     The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Issued, on December 31, 1975*, a
noise emission regulation for locomotives and railcars operated by Interstate
rail carriers (40 CFR Part 201).  In developing the December 31, 1975 railroad
noise emission regulation, EPA considered broadening the scope of the regula-
tion to include facilities and additional equipment.  Because of the wide
disparity in perceived severity of noise problems found at differing rail
facilities, the Agency decided that railroad facility and equipment noise,
other than that produced by locomotives and railcars, was best controlled by
measures which did not require national uniformity of treatment*  Further, EPA
believed that the health and welfare of the Nation's population being jeopar-
dized by railroad facility and equipment noise, other than locomotives and
railcars, was best served by specific controls at the state and local level
and not by federal regulations, which would have to address railroads on a
national, and therefore on a more general, basis.  Where the Federal govern-
ment establishes standards'for railroad facilities and equipment, states and
local authorities ordinarily are preempted unless they adopt standards identi-
cal to the federal standards.  For these reasons, EPA decided to leave state
and local authorities free to address site-specific problems, on a case-by-case
basis, without unnecessary federal hindrance.

     The Association of American Railroads (AAR) challenged the regulation
on the grounds that it did not Include sufficiently comprehensive standards for
railroad equipment and facilities under Section 17 of the Noise Control Act of
1972 (Pub. L. 92-574, 86 Stat. 1234), and thus did not provide the rail
carriers with adequate federal preemption of potentially conflicting state and
local noise ordinances.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit ruled that EPA must substantially broaden the scope of its regulation
*Published In Federal Register, Wednesday, January 14, 1976, pages 2184 to 2195.
                                       1-1

-------
affecting rail carrier facilities and equipment.  On April 17, 1979* EPA
proposed additional rules in response to this court order.  The proposed
standards were developed in terms of typical or average situations.  Con-
sequently the uniform national standards proposed were a compromise, only
partially controlling railroad facility and equipment noise throughout the
country.  The primary factor limiting more effective federal noise control is
the very substantial costs incurred when more stringent noise levels are
applied on a nationwide basis to all railyards and equipment.  The Agency's
health and welfare analysis indicated that there would be an appreciable
number of people in the nation who would still suffer significant adverse
effects of railroad noise even after such a rule were in effect.  Further,
because of the preemptive nature of the federal regulation, states and local-
ities would find it difficult to provide further relief to their citizens
in most of these cases.

     The proposed regulation was published on April 17, 1979*, with a public
comment period of 45 days.  EPA extended the comment period by an additional
30 days, to July 2, 1979.  Our review and analysis of the comments received,
especially those regarding the availability of technology, costs associated
with the property line standard, and the L
-------
     The second part, the property line standard, will establish federal
regulations limiting all other noise emitted from railyard facilities which
are not covered by the source standards.  This two-phased approach will allow
EPA to satisfy the first part of the court order schedule agreement requiring
promulgation of a source standard final rule by January 23, 1980*  This
two-phase approach allows more time to resolve the complex Issues raised by
the public comments concerning the property line standard.

     This Background Document details the scope, context and breadth of the
work conducted in support of the regulation.  Section 2 characterizes the
railroad Industry from a physical and economic perspective.  Section 3 iden-
tifies and classifies the railroad equipment and facilities studied, including
railroad yard operations and activities.  Baseline noise levels corresponding
to specific railroad yard noise sources are described in Section 4.  The "best
available technology" to reduce noise emissions from the specified noise
sources is also described in Section 4.  Section 5 describes and details the
results of the railroad yard noise propagation model and the potential health
and welfare benefits associated with various noise control measures.  Section
6 describes the costs attendant to noise control methods to achieve various
regulatory study levels, and details the possible economic impacts.  An anal-
ysis of comments submitted to the docket during the comment period is provided
in Section 7.
                                      1-3

-------
SECTION 2

-------
                               SECTION 2
                           INDUSTRY PROFILE
INTRODUCTION

     This section provides an overview of the railroad industry today.  The
industry structure is examined and the extent of existing competition within
the railroad industry is evaluated.  The rallyard noise regulations are
associated largely with the operation of railroad yards, but the economic
impacts affect the entire railroad industry; consequently, the structural and
financial characteristics of the industry will be examined since they will
influence its ability to absorb the investment required for noise abatement
fixes.  Historical employment trends in the rail industry as well as the
present level of employment and wages are also noted.  Next, a variety of
issues concerning competition in the transportation industry as a whole will
be discussed, in particular, intermodal competition between railroads and
trucks.  A short discussion of the regulatory process and its effect on the
railroad industry is'followed by an evaluation of the overall performance of
the railroad Industry.  The material presented in this section will establish
a framework in which the problem of noise regulation within the railroad
industry can be examined.

RAILROAD INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

     In 1978, the U.S. railroad industry was composed of approximately 500
operating companies, which were divided into two categories.  The first
category consisted of 332 line-haul railroads providing freight and passenger
service, and the second category contained 154 switching and terminal companies
performing switching services, providing terminal trackage and facilities,
and operating railroad bridges and ferries.  For statistical reporting
purposes, these railroads are divided into three classes by the Interstate
Commerce Commission:  Class I railroads having annual revenues of $50 million
                                    2-1

-------
 or more, Class II railroads with annual revenues of less than $50 million,
 and Class III railroads with revenues of less than $10 million.*  Class I
 railroads incorporated 37 line-haul railroads, and Class II railroads another
 12 roads, representing approximately 99 percent of the industry's traffic, 96
 percent of its rail mileage, and 91 percent of its employment.  There was also
 one Class I switching and terminal company and another 12 Class II switching
 and terminal companies.

     At first glance, the structure of the railroad industry may appear more
 competitive than it actually is.  Table 2-1 displays the largest companies in
 terms of total operating revenue**, freight operating revenue, employment and
 net income.  Eight-firm concentration ratios computed for the 50 Class I and
 II railroads indicate that the top eight companies account for 61.3 percent
 of total operating revenues as well as freight operating revenues.  The
 eight-firm concentration ratio for employment is 62.2 percent.  Net income   of
 the largest firms ranked by operating revenues demonstrate that some of the
 largest companies are the least profitable.  In particular, Consolidiated Rail
 Corporation, with a negative net income of. $678 million is by far the largest
 single operating entity.  However, high fixed costs** and massive capital
 expenditures** relative to operating revenues have resulted in large annual
 deficits.  Of the eight largest firms in terms of operating revenues, six
 also rank in the top eight in terms of net income.

Yards and Equipment in the Railroad Industry

     The 50 Class I and II line-haul railroads operate a total of 3,613 yards
while Class I and II switching and terminal companies operate 83 yards.
According to the inventory of railyards compiled by SRI,*** there are a total
*  The classification scheme was changed in 1978.  Prior to 1978 Class I
railroads had annual revenues of $10 million or greater.  Class II railroads
had less than $10 million annual revenues.
** See definitions of terms at the end of this section.
***S.J. Petracek, et al.  Railroad Classification Yard Technology*  Stanford
Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA., January 1977.

                                       2-2

-------
                                                     Table 2-1
1
LO
           Railroad
FIRMS RANKED BY TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES
           (1978, $ IN MILLIONS)
   Total
   Operating          Operating
   Revenue*   Rank  Revenue-Freight  Rank
Employment  Rank  Net Income  Rank
Consolidated Rail Corp.
Burlington Northern Inc.
Southern Pacific Trans. Co.
Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe RR
Union Pacific RR
Missouri-Pacific RR
Southern Railway System
Norfolk & Western Railway
Seaboard Coastline RR
Baltimore & Ohio RR
Louisville & Nashville RR
Illinois Central Gulf RR
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway
Chicago & Northern Westerns by System
Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &
Pacific RR
Chicago, Rock Island, & Pacific RR
St. Louis-San Francisco Railway
Soo Line -
St. Louis Southwestern Railway
Denver & Rib Grande Western RR
3310 6
1976.4
1653.9
1530.8
1491.3
1198.1
1154.2
996.5
910.5
830.7
824.4
748.7
672.1
652.6

439.2
391.6
388.2
251.3
• 226.3
218.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
2812.5
1912.5
1616.1
1491.3
1465.6
1160.1
1120.7
959.0
881.0
792.6
802.6
688.2
636.1
583.4

395.4
365.7
376.0
245.6
223.7
213.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
91398
46684
34643
33289
26579
19812
21267
18984
19500
16098
14994
17094
19236
13523

10833
8280
8270
4688
4200
3525
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
10
8
12
13
11
9
14

15
16
17
18
20
21
(678.0)
86.9
36.0
110.9
172.8
135.7
149.1
86.0
105.5
60.4
23.8
3.2
21.7
2.2

(74.4)
(12.7)
38.0
25.8
32.7
25.5
36
6
10
4
1
3
2
7
5
8
14
29
15
30

35
34
9
12
11
13
   ^Excludes revenue from non-rail activities
   Source:   ICC R-l  Annual Reports

-------
 of  4,169 yards owned  by all  line-haul  railroads,  and  switching and  terminal
 companies;  thus  the smaller  Class  III  railroads account  for  only 473 yards or
 11.3 percent of  the total*   These  facilities perform  several functions  for the
 railroad industry and are strategically  located throughout the network.  Table
 2-2 characterizes these yard types and their functions by class.  A classifica-
 tion yard receives,, disassembles,  reassembles and dispatches line-haul  traffic".
 Industrial  yards provide the freight interface between the railroads and other
 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 cars into departure configurations.   As shown in these  data, hump
 yards represent  three percent of the current yard inventory. However,  these
 are massive, expensive complexes that  generally perform  a variety of support
 services for the industry.

                                   Table  2-2

                         U.S. RAILROAD YARDS IN 1978
    BY CLASS I,  II AND III RAILROAD COMPANIES BY  YARD FUNCTION AND  TYPE OF YARD

      CLASSIFICATION               INDUSTRIAL

 Class	Hump	Flat	Ind.	Sm Ind.     Total	Percentage
                      f
 I & II    117     1,047      1,183      1,349       3,696        88.7
 III        7         66       198        202        473        11.3

 Total     124     1,113      1,381      1,551       4,169       100.0
     Appendix C identifies individual railroads, the number of yards operated
by each and the owning entity.  Appendix F, Table F-3, tabulates the number
of yards operated by each railroad by ICC Class designations in 1977 (Class I
and II) and region (for Class I railroads).  For each company the number of
yards by type are tabulated and then summed.  Table F-4 in Appendix F lists
the roads which changed ICC Class designations between the years 1976 and 1977.
                                     2-4

-------
     Railroad equipment  in  service  at  the  end  of  1978  is  summarized  in Table
2-3.  The  total number of refrigerator cars  in service has  been declining
since 1974 from previous levels  and is expected to  continue falling.   The
trend in the size  of  the most numerous type  of equipment, box  cars and hoppers,
has been toward greater freight  tonnage capacity.   Trends in ownership of  cars
have also  been changing, with more  privately owned  cars leased to  railroad
operating  companies.  Finally, the  total number of  locomotive  units  operated
by Class 1 and II  railroads  in 1978, and the total  number of freight cars
on-line, is summarized in Table  2-4.

Railroad Industry Employment

     Employment in the railroad  industry accounts for  a large  portion of
costs.  In 1978, total labor expenses  were 43.9 percent of  total Class 1 and
II railroad operation revenues.* There has  been a  sharp decline in  railroad
employment caused in part by the changing role of railroads in the transpor-
tation market and in part by technological change incorporating more  capital
intensive technologies.  Figure  2-1  is an historical time series of  the level
of employment.  During the war years,  employment reached a  peak and  declined
thereafter.  Since 1960, a relatively  smooth decline of employment is depicted.
In the past ten years, employment on Class I and II railroads  had  decreased by
18.5 percent.  The level of employment for Class I and II railroads  in 1978
was 471,516.

     Even in the face of a declining demand  for labor,  annual  payrolls,
excluding fringe benefits, have  risen  by 78.6  percent  in the past  10  years to
$9.6 billion.  Earnings per employee have more  than doubled.   In p'art,  these
payroll increases can be traced  to  the general  rate of  inflation existing  in
the economy, but they also reflect  a complex interplay  between railroads and
unions in which increased productivity has been gained  by reducing employment
through attrition and laying-off nonessential workers.
*Association of American Railroads, Yearbook of Railroad Facts. 1979 Edition.

                                     2-5

-------
   2.000
   1.500
ui  1,000
    500
                                                                        I
                                                                                      tiii
I  ,
      1932   193S
                        1940
                                    194S
                                                1950
                                                           1955
                                                                       1960
                                                                                  1965
                                                                                             1970
                                                                                                         1975    1978
        NOTE:  1970-1974 is from STATISTIC ABSTRACT OF THE U.S.. 1975 and 1976. Figures for 1975 and 1976 are estimated.
        based upon actual Class I employment.
        SOURCE: Series 0398-409, RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES. AND ACCIDENTS AND FATALITIES; 189O-1970,
        HISTORICAL STATISTICS OF THE U. S. COLONIAL TIMES TO 1970
                                               FIGURE 2-1.  U. S. RAILROAD EMPLOYMENT. 1932-1978

-------
                               Table  2-3

                      TYPES  OF  FREIGHT  EQUIPMENT*
                                                            Car Companies

Type
Box cars:
Plain
Equipped
Covered hoppers
Flat cars
Refrigerator cars
Gondola Cars
Hopper cars
Tank cars
Other freight cars
Total

Total

262,986
172,685
246,087
146,402
87,601
175,777
354,086
174,170
32,980
1,652,774
Class I
Railroads

217,307
166,719
161,903
97,752
68,059
158,680
327,047
2,542
26,491
1,226,500
Other
Railroads

32,335
5,733
3,409
3,799
3,648
5.240
11,296
37
3,384
68,881
and
Shippers

13,344
233
80,775
44,851
15,894
11,857
15,743
171,591
3,105
357,393
Source:  Yearbook of Railroad Facts,  1979  Edition.
                               Table 2-4

                   LOCOMOTIVE AND FREIGHT CAR  INVENTORY
                    CLASS I LINE HAUL RAILROADS  (1977)*

                         Locomotives
                                                     Cars
District Yard Servlce
Total
Active
Road Freight
Total
Active
Passenger
Total
Active
Freight
Total
Owned
Passenger
Owned
Eastern   2,556  2,261    6,344  5,764     144     133    519,711     409,814     276

Southern    674    641    4,228  4,001      17      16    294,686     252,563     140

Western   2,642  2,444   10,311  9,484     180     156    640,677     520,385     766
TOTAL
5,882  5,346   20,883 19,249    341    305 1,455,074  1,182,762  1,182
Source:  Association of American Railroads, Operating and Traffic  Statistics,
         O.S. Series No. 220, 1978.
*Note that these data sources were published in different years.
                                      2-7

-------
 Cost  of  Providing Railroad  Service

      The railroad industry  is characterized  by a  high  proportion  of  fixed
 costs relative  to total  operating costs.   In two  similarly  conducted studies*
 of  total railroad operating costs,  one  for Class  I  railroads  and  the other  for
 Class II railroads, fixed operating expenses were found  to  account for  almost
 60  percent  of total costs.    Both  of these  studies  sought  to evaluate
 economies of scale in  the industry; economies of  scale   can  be quite large when
 fixed operating costs  are a large component  of total costs.   Both studies
 found that  scale economies  were attributable to economies of  density rather
 than  the size of the railroad (measured as miles  of  road).

      Harris estimated  that  for railroads with densities  of  less than 250,000
 ton miles per mile of  road, truck service, even after  accounting  for the
 quality  of  service differential, was the cheaper  transportation mode.   He also
 concluded that  for high  density lines,  costs of providing service were  so much
 lower than  costs on average density lines  that comparing average  costs  of
 service  between modes  led to undue bias against railroads providing  services
 on  average density lines.

      Sidhu, Charney and Due in their work were able  to further decline  the
 average  cost of providing rail service.  They found that  average  costs
 decreased very  rapidly as traffic densities  increased  from  10,000 to 55,000
 ton-miles per mile of  road and continued to  decrease fairly rapidly  up
 to  200,000 ton-miles per mile of road.  Economies of density  continued  to be
 realized  until  the lowest average cost was reached at  about 10 million  ton-
miles per mile  of road.  Even at fairly light densities  up to  200,000 ton-
miles per mile,  however, Sidhu found that railroads with  a long enough  haul
 could be  cost competitive with trucks.
  R.G. Harris, "Economics of Traffic Density in the Rail Freight Industry,"
 Bell Journal of Economics 8 (Autumn 1977): and N.D. Sidhu, A. Charney,
 and J.F. Due, "Cost Functions of Class II Railroads and the Viability of
 Light Density Railway Lines," Quarterly Review of Economics and Business
 (Autumn 1977):
      definitions of terms at the end of this section.
                                      2-8

-------
     One can conclude from this discussion that high density railroads will
be less severely affected by the added costs of railyard noise abatement
investment if they are allowed to price according to marginal cost.   The
problem of course is that railroads have been subject to minimum rate regu-
lation since the early 1900s, where the minimum rate has been determined
by the least efficient mode.: The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 is meant to allow railroads greater flexibility in deter-
mining rates.  If railroads were able to price according to marginal cost of
providing service, their significant economies of density would allow them to
cover increased costs without adversely affecting their competitive advantage
over trucks.

COMPETITION IN THE RAILROAD INDUSTRY

     In evaluating the effect of firm concentration on the competitive behavior
of the railroads, one should not overlook competition for transportation
services arising in other industries, e.g., the trucking industry.  Within the
rail industry itself, competition may not appear to be substantial since
individual roads are regulated by the ICC.  It is evident, however, that in
the broader market for transportation services, railroads do not possess a
great deal of market power.  Although each mode—railroads, trucks, barges,
pipelines, etc.—possesses an advantage in a particular characteristic of
service when compared with other modes, the various modes are generally
viable, if imperfect, transportation substitutes.

     A number of fairly recent studies have examined competition in the
freight transportation industry to see whether rate de-regulation would result
in benefits to the economy and what the relative impact on railroads and the
trucking industry would be.**  A common finding in all of these studies has
been that modal shares are not particularly sensitive to price differentials
*See definitions of terms at the end of this section.
**For example, see R.C. Levin, "Allocation in Surface Freight Transportation:
  Does Rate Regulation Matter?",. Bell Journal of Economics 9 (Spring.1978):
  18-45; and K.D. Boyer, "Minimum Rate Regulation, Modal Split Sensitivities,
  and the Railroad Problem," Journal of Political Economy 85 (June 1977):
  493-512.
                                     2-9

-------
but that they are sensitive to service differentials*   (Service differentials
have been computed as some combination of the value  of  the commodity  shipped
and mean transit time, a crude computation of inventory costs.)   In Levin's
study of 42 manufactured commodities, he found modal share to  be  between  two
and three times as sensitive to his service differential variable as  to rate
differentials.*  He concluded, as did Boyer, that fairly substantial
changes in rail freight rates would not lead to any marked shift  between  rail
and truck.  Thus freight rate increases which might  result as  a consequence of
noise regulation should not induce any marked shift  of  commodities from rail
to trucks.  However, if noise regulations Induce railyards to  revise  operations
causing service changes, a shift to truck traffic could occur.

     The "Industrial Shipper Survey" indicates shippers feel that railroads
tend to provide inferior service compared to competing  modes.  Reasons for
shippers' dissatisfaction with service included the following:  36 percent of
all shippers found deliveries to be late; 35 percent found specified  equipment
was unavailable; 27 percent had to deal with late pick-ups; and 17 percent of
shippers had shipments which were lost or damaged.**

     Transit time generally does represent a measurable service differential.
The more recently constructed highway system allows easy access to major
highways which offer more direct routes to major cities.  Thus transit time
for trucks is inherently shorter.  Direct capital investment Is not required
of trucking firms in highways and highway maintenance and, thus,  operating
costs are relatively lower than for railroads which must maintain their own
road systems.  Consequently, both the rate differential and the service
differential in part can be traced to the implicit subsidy trucking firms
receive.

     Inland waterway carriers also compete for low-value bulk commodities.
Their advantage also may be traced to Implicit subsidies the inland waterways
afford them and the absence of user charges for operation of the  waterways.
*Levin, Tables 7, 8, and 9, pp. 33-36,
**Prospectives for Change, p. 19.
                                     2-10

-------
In addition, technological advances which have allowed larger amounts of cargo
to be shipped while at the same time reducing the number of crew members have
resulted in a substantial differential between rail and barge rates.

     Finally, pipelines pose an increasingly competitive challenge to railroads
shipping crude oil and petroleum products.  Unit costs for pipelines are much
lower for high volume bulk commodities.  Railroads simultaneously move their
equipment with the goods being transported; consequently return loads must be
found or the equipment will return empty, producing no revenue.  Pipelines, of
course, do not face a similar problem.

     Table 2-5 shows transport statistics for selected years since 1929; it
is apparent that railroads have lost a significant share of the freight
market, and almost all of their passenger business*  Railroads have surrended
almost 20 percent of their share of all freight traffic to the trucking
industry with a disproportionate loss in higher-value, low bulk commodities
such as textiles, electrical machinery and equipment, medical instruments and
food products.  Waterways have captured some of the shipment of petroleum and
coal products and stone and concrete products.

     Table 2-6 shows the breakdown of commodities hauled by mode for 1972.
With reference to revenue ton-miles, the railroads have been able to maintain
a large share of the market, reflecting their advantage in long-haul', large
volume or heavyweight shipments.  Figure 2-2 indicates that railroads tend to
have a commanding position, the longer the distance and the larger the ship-
ment size.  Even so, railroads have found their market share decreasing.  Much
of this loss is due to changes in taste and the existence of intermodal
competition.

     A major policy concern revolves around the question of whether strict
regulation of the railroad industry is at all necessary or desirable in terms of
efficiency of railroad industry operations.  The ICC, created under the Act to
Regulate Commerce, has been the guiding force over the railroads since 1887.
At that time, the Industry was highly profitable and offered the only means to

-------
                                                                Table 2-5

                                                 TRANSPORT STATISTICS  (1929-1978)
                                          VOLUME OF U.S. INTERCITY FREIGHT AND PASSENGER TRAFFIC
                                      Millions of Revenue Freight Ton-Miles and Percentage of Total
N>
 I
to


Tear
1929
1939
1944
1950
1960
1970
1974
1977
1978p

Rail-
roads'1
454,800
338,850
746,912
596,940
579,130
771,168
855,582
832,000
870,000


Z
74.9
62.4
68.6
56.2
44.1
39.8
38.6
36.1
35.8


Trucks
19,689
52,821
58,624
172,860
285,483
412,000
495,000
555,000
602,000
Millions of


Tear
1929
1939
1944
1950
1960
1970
1974
1977p
I978p

Rail-
roads*
33,965
23,669
97,705
32,481
21,574
10,903
10,475
10,400
10,500


Z
77.1
67.7
75.7
47.2
28.6
5.7
5.9
5.1
4.6


Buses
6,800
9,100
26,920
26,436
19,327
25,300
26,700
25,900
25,000


Z
3.3
9.7
5.4
16.3
21.7
21.3
22.3
24.1
24.7

Great
Lakes
97,322
76,312
118,769
111,687
99,468
114,475
107,451
90,695
98,000


Z
16.0
14.0
10.9
10.5
7.6
5.9
4.9
3.9
4.0
Revenue Passenger-Miles and


Z
15.4
28.0
20.9
38.4
25.7
14.3
15.1
12.7
10.9

Air
carriers
—
683
2,177
8,773
31,730
109,499
135,469
164,200
190,000


Z
—
2.0
1.7
12.7
42.1
77.7
76.7
80.3
82.8
Rivers
and
Canals
8,661
19,937
31,386
51,657
120,785
204,085
247,431
277,580
291,000
Percentage of
Inland
Water-
ways
3,300
1,486
2,187
1,190
2,688
4,000
4,000
4,000
4,000


Z
1.4
3.7
2.9
4.9
9.2
10.5
11.2
12.0
12.0
Total


Z
7.5
4.3
1.7
1.7
3.6
2.3
2.3
1.9
1.7
Oil
pipe-
lines
26,900
55,602
132,864
129,175
228,626
431,000
506,000
546,000
568,000


Z Air Z
4.4 3 —
10.2 12 —
12.2 71 —
12.1 318 —
17.4 778 —
22.3 3,295 0.2
22.8 3,580 0.2
23.7 5,000 0.2
23.3 5,000 0.2


Total
607,375
543,534
1,088,266
1,062,637
1.314,270
1,936,023
2,215,044
2,306,275
2,434,000
(Except Private)
Total
(Except
Private)
44,065
34,938
128,989
68,880
75,319
149,702
176,644
204,500
229,500
Private Private
auto- air-
mobiles planes
175,000 —
275,000 —
181,000 1
438,293 1,299
706,079 2,228
1,026,000 9,101
1,143,440 11,000
1,234,500 12,100
1,298,000 15,000
Total
(including
private)
219,065
309,938
309,990
598,472
783,626
1,184,803
1,331,044
1,451,100
1,542,500
             a -Railroads of all classes, including electric railways,  Amtrak and Auto-Train.
             p - These  are preliminary estimates  and are subject to frequent  subsequent adjustments.
             NOTE:   Air carrier data from reports of CAB and TAA; Great  Lakes and rivers and canals fron
                    some figures for 1977 and 1978 are partially estimated by AAR and TAA.
Corps of Engineers and TAA;
             SOURCE:  Yearbook of Railroad Facts.   1979 Edition, published by  the Association of American  Railroads.

-------
                                                Table  2-6
                                     MODAL  MARKET SHARES,  1972
Tom of Shipments
<%by model

food and kindred products
Tobacco products
Textile mill products
Apparel and other finished textiles
Lumber and wood products
Furniture and fixtures
Pulp, paper, and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
•products
leather and leather products
•Stone, day. glass, and concrete
products
-Primary metal products
Fabricated metal products
Machinery, except electrical
£lecirleal machinery, equip, and
supplies
-Transportation equip.
instruments, photo, and
medical goods
Mines, manufacture
Another misc.
U5. total
*of
sotat
27.0
O.1
1.0
0.4
55
0.7
55
11.8
232

12
0.1

112.
10.7
22
15

1.0
4.1

0.1
02
1.7
100.0
Rail
37.4
44.4
85
10JO
445
25.1
52.1
42JC
115

23.4
2.4

212
42.1
25.1
205

302
542

225
202
875
31.7
Motor
carrier
25 jQ
535
635
685
16.1
33JB
27.7
335
16.1

60.4
61.1

482
435
492
815

53.1
372

605
515
12.7
312
Private
truck
335
1.1
272
152
37.6
40.6
175
112
82

15.1
315

23.1
95
24.0
155

135
85

125
192
172
182
Air Water

—
02
15
—
—
_
—
—

0.7
02

—
—
02
0.7

1,4
02

22 •
05
—
0.1
35
0.1
—
—
12
0.1
22
12.7
635

0.1
—

8.7
4.1
15
02

02
02

02
42
15
18.4
Other
_k
0.4
05
45
—
05
0.1
05
02

OA
33

0.1
0.4
05
12

12
02

2.4
35
02
02
Unknown
OA
OA
02
02
0.4
02
02
02
0.4

02
02

05
02
02
OA

02
02

02
15
02
0.4
Ton-miles of shipments
(X by model
Pood and kindred products
Tobacco products
Textile mill products
Apparel and other finished textiles
lumber and wood products
furniture and fixtures
*»'o. paper, and allied products
Chemicals and allied products
pwroleum and coal products
Rubber and miscellaneous
Plastic products
«*ther and leather products
*tone. day, glass and concrete
Products ',
"Primary metal products i
fabricated metal products
«*sehineryt except electrical
electrical machinery, equip, and
applies
***nsQonation equip
•*«W»umenu. photo, and medical
-a*0***
T**. manufacture
•^11 other misc.
U5. Total
145
0.1
1.1
• ; 05
7.1
05
62

295

1.4
0.1
S2<"
8.1 . ;
'"2.1 '""
1.4
"' tfc3
•;•• i
" " gjj '
05
05'
100.0
555
64.1

14.4
765
41.1
735
515
9.0

335

455
54.1
372
292 "
375
755

36J8 "
352
765
42.1
285
345
61.4
682
7.7
325
195
23.1
35

555
78.7
38.4
34.0
49.0
"605
495
•185

"505"
48.6
10.7
205
135
02
21.4
92
11.0
252
55
45
1.7

9.4
145
112
62
10.7
7.7
82
45

82
115
8.7
65
s<—
_
02
45
0.1
_
0.1
_

1.0
05
._
_
05
1.4
25 	
02

"4.1
22
_
02
3.7
0.7

0.1
4.7
02
1.4
20.1
855

02
02
6.4
65
2.0
0.4
05
02

02 '
12
35
29.7
^,
05
0.7
52
05
0.1
02
—

02
5.1
0.1
02
05
1.4
.1.4
02

22
25
02
02
0.4
02
0.3
02
02
0.1
02
02
02

02
1.0
0.6
02
OA
OA
OA
02

02
02
05
02
ci?iTE:  DMh Lln< Indleatct Inilgnlfleant or nonaxletent amount
SOURCE: Department of Commerce, Commodity Transportation Survey, 1072 Ceniu*of Trantportatlon, Area Report 8. United States.
                                                      2-13

-------
        tti
 loul
irarfcti
m
       Uiwlc*
        100
                  168
                 s
                    •
                                Shipment
                            12.7
                             5.0
                            f'!.'»•
                                      16.1
                                       6.9
 16.fi
                                                 10.0
**-.••'• I
    i
                                          m
                                          -<*• x
                                         *«*'£
            5.0
            3.4
                                                                    Toul
                                                                     Rail
                                                                     4.6
                      3.5
100-199    2O0299   300499   &00999    1,000-      1.500
                                         1.499     of moie
                                  1.9
                                n
                                 Uiulct
                                 1.000
                                                                                            i.f
                                                                                            0.7
                                                                                    1.000
                                                                                    9.999
                                                        Sltlpmenl ill
                                                          (pound tl
                                                      14.6
                                                       1.6
10.000
29.999
                                                                 4.4
30.000
59.999
                                                                                                                           fie
                                                                                                                    7.0
                                                                                                                     ..
                                                                                                                  •m
60.000
89.999
                                                                                                                                     24.3

                                                                                    -3. ft
                                                                                    •:
                                                                                                                                     •« -J
                                 it
90.000
or over
       NOTE: Excludes petroleum and coal products (TCC 29).
       SOURCE:  American Trucking Aeoclatlon, Department of Economics. Data were compiled from 1972 Census of Transportation.
                Commodity Transportation Survey, Department of Commerce.
                      FIGURE 2-2.   RAIL  FREIGHT MARKET  FOR INTERCITY MANUFACTURERS,  1972

-------
ship large quantities of freight between cities efficiently.  The early
industry was characterized by predatory pricing practices as individual firms
fought to monopolize their particular markets.  Many inequities in pricing
policies arose.  Often it was the case that rates on long distance hauls were
lower than for short intercity trips because there often were alternative
routes between major cities and thus rates were competitive.  Between smaller
cities only one road offered service and thus rates could be set considerably
higher without losing business.  As a result of pricing instability, inequities
in service and the frequent bankruptcies of smaller roads, the ICC began
to regulate company entries into the market in the early 1900s.

     The ICC has played an influential role in the operations of railroads.
Rate structures are determined by the agency. Value of service pricing, as
practiced by the railroads, where highly valued goods are charged higher rates
and lower valued goods lower rates, independently of real transporation cost,
became the norm.  However, as these pricing practices were modified, railroads
lost the flexibility to respond to competition from other modes.  Consequently,
railroads lost most of their high value, low bulk markets and were left with
                                         £ ','*,"•              •                '!
the low value, high bulk commodities whichJthey now haul.  The Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4F Act) has sought to.free
the railroads from minimum rate regulation and to allow them to price accord-
Ing to the costs of providing service.  However, the act has a number of terms
not defined by Congress and must await interpretation by the courts before its
full impact will be felt.*

RAILROAD INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE

Revenue Ton-Miles and Prices

     Traffic statistics summarized in Table 2-7 suggest a steady increase in
revenue ton-miles, although there was a slight decrease In the 1974-75  recess-
Ion.  In 1977 revenue ton-miles totaled 826.3 billion and increased further in
1978 to 858,1 billion ton-miles.  Factors contributing to continued growth in
*ProspectiveB for Change, p. 7.

                                     2-15

-------
                   Table 2-7
               REVENUE TON-MILES
             (TON-MILES IN MILLIONS)


1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
Source:
United
States
719,498
744,023
767,841
764,809
739,743
776,746
851,809
850,961
754,252
791,413
826,292
848,105
Yearbook of Railroad
Eastern
District
258,361
259,392
259,827
254,467
225,619
231,221
245,022
248,398
217,909
216,267
211,278
197,633
Facts, 1979,
Southern
District
127,988
130,686
139,256
140,034
139,660
147,116
157,879
160,668
140,261
151,076
160,689
162,417
Association
Western
District
333,149
353,946
368,757
370,309
374,464
398,410
448,907
441,895
396,083
424,070
454,326
498,056
of American Ri
Washington, D.C.
                            2-16

-------
revenue ton-miles include the installation of larger, specialized freight
cars, the retirement of smaller cars and a longer average haul.  However,
service growth has not been uniform; the Eastern District experienced an
6.5 percent decline in ton-miles while the Southern and Western Districts
realized 1.1 percent and 9.6 percent increases, respectively.

     Table 2-8 shows that the average revenue per ton-mile has increased
steadily over the twelve years between 1967 and 1978.  Average revenue per
ton-mile increased by 3.7 percent in 1978 resulting in an average of 2.370
cents, a total increase of 86.8 percent since 1967.  However, prices of
transportation services in general have risen by 109.4 percent over the same
period.  Average revenues from railroad transporation services have not kept
pace with the general rate of inflation.  They reflect the continued loss of
high value, low bulk commodities and gains in low value, high bulk commodities.

Profitability

     While revenue ton-miles and average revenues have been  rising slowly over
the last decade, profits have been falling since 1966.  The  rate of return on
net investment for the industry has consistently remained below 3 percent.
Table 2-9 shows that the rate of return on net investment* for the industry
was only 1.62 percent in 1978.  Comparing the railroad industry with other
transportation industries in Table 2-10, the rate of return  on equity* is shown
to be extremely low both in absolute and relative terms.  Class I line-haul
railroads had a -0.41 percent rate of return on equity, while their competitors
all enjoyed returns in excess of 10 percent.

New Technology

     The railroad industry has been one characterized by slow technological
change since the turn of the century.  Innovations have resulted in more
capital-intensive transportation service; this has led to an absolute decline
In the number of employees as capital was substituted for labor.  On the other
   See definitions of terms at the end of  this  section.

                                    2-17

-------
                                Table 2-8
                       AVERAGE REVENUE PER TON-MILE
                          (CENTS PER TON-MILE)
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
United
States
1.269
1.310
1.347
1.428
1.593
1.618
1.617
1.853
2.041
2.194
2.286
2.370
Eastern
District
1.336
1.406
1.452
1.554
1.831
1.855
1.881
2.136
2.372
2.627
2.800
2.988
Southern
District
1.152
1.212
1.255
1.343
1.478
1.510
1.526
1.717
1.879
2.027
2.113
2.292
Western
District
1.262
1.277
1.309
1.374
1.493
1.521
1.504
1.743
1.913
2.034
2.109
2.149
Source:  Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1979, Association of American Railroads,
         Washington, D.C.
                                    2-18

-------
                                Table 2-9

                     RATE OF RETURN ON NET INVESTMENT
               United
               States
Eastern
District
Southern
District
Western
District
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971*
1972*
1973*
1974*
1975*
1976*
1977*
1978
2.46
2.44
2.36
1.73
2.12
2.34
2.33
2.70
1.20
1.49
1.60
1.62
1.58
1.27
1.10
def.
def.
0.11
0.07
0.46
def.
def.
def.
def.
3.86
3.79
4.17
4.50
4.36
4.61
4.61
4.73
3.98
4.62
5.23
5.44
2.75
3.01
2.81
3.02
3.51
3.34
3.30
3.66
2.65
3.57
3.71
4.40
def. —Deficit.
* Reflects inclusion of deferred taxes.
Source:  Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1979, Association of American Railroads,

         Washington, D.C.
                                 2-19

-------
                                Table 2-10

                RATE OF RETURN ON REGULATED FREIGHT CARRIERS

                             FOR THE YEAR 1975
     Carrier
Return on
  Net
Investment
Return on equity
  (net Income
     basis)	
Class I line-haul
  railroads3
  0.08
    -0.41
Class I Intercity motor
  carriers of property
 13.27
    13.08
Class A and B water carriers
  by Inland coastal waterways
Pipeline companies
 15.79


  7.66
    20.18
    21.19
aBy reason of the railroad Industry's use of replacement retirement betterment
 (RRB) accounting for Its rights-of-way, the rate of return for railroads
 cannot be compared directly with rates of return for other Industries.
 Adjustment of the rail rate to reflect this difference would not change the
 Indicated conclusion.
SOURCE:  Interstate Commerce Commission, "90th Annual Report, Fiscal-Year
         Ending June 30, 1977," Tables 20, 12, and 15.
                                 2-20

-------
hand, partially due to regulation by the ICC,  some innovations have been
postponed and subsequently introduced only after long delays and long after
they were justified on a cost basis.  As an example, the "Big John" grain rate
case of the Southern Railway between 1962 and 1965 was one which impeded the
installation of 100 ton grain hopper cars for use in hauling grain at much
lower rates.  Likewise, unit trains were not allowed generally until the
1960s, although they were first introduced in 1930.  Consequently, other
transportation modes such as trucks, barges and pipelines, which have proven
more flexible, have enjoyed some growth at the expense of railroads.

CONCLUSION

     Several points are extremely important insofar as they affect the
railroad industry's ability to absorb added costs of railyard noise regulation.

     1.  Railroads have experienced extremely low rates of return over the
         past decade, with no relief in sight.  Fixed operating expenses are
         high as a result of the extreme capital Intensity of railroad opera-
         tions, and thus railroads will have difficulty raising funds inter-
         nally for any Investment not associated with operations.  With their
         low rates of return, railroads also will have difficulty raising
         funds externally for any purpose.  Thus, the financial stability of
         the railroads may be extremely sensitive to any increased costs.

     2.  The demand for railroad freight transportation services is not very
         sensitive to price differences between railroads and trucks.  At the
         same time, the trucking industry is now subject to noise regulations,
         and thus its operating costs can be expected to increase.  Consequent-
         ly, one need not be overly concerned that price increases which may
         be allowed will lead to a worsening competitive position for rail-
         roads if costs increase as a result of noise regulation.  On the
         other hand, because modal shares are affected by the quality of
         service, one should be sensitive to any time delays that new noise
         regulations may induce.  These could lead to greater shifts in demand
         to trucks or other modes.
                                     2421

-------
3.   There are definite differences in industry strength on a regional
    basis.  Eastern District railroads account for the bulk of the
    bankrupt railroads and those with extremely low rates of return.
    Southern and Western District railroads are in better shape finan-
    cially although as a group their rates of return rank them among
    the lowest in U.S. industry.  However, on a regional basis the
    Southern and Western District railroads will be better able to
    absorb increased costs brought about by noise regulation.
                               2-22

-------
                             BIBLIOGRAPHY


1*  Allen, B.J. and Due, J.F.  "Railway Abandonments:  Effects Upon the
    Communities Served." Growth Change 8 (April 1977):8-14.

2.  Allen, W.B.  "Private Versus Social Decision-Making for  Railroad Abandonment:
    Comment." Quarterly Review of Economic Business 16 (Summer 1976):123-28.

3.  Annual Report of Class I Railroads 1977 - R-l Interstate Commerce Commission,
    Washington, D.C.

4.  Baumel, C.P.; Miller, J.J. and Drinka, T.P.  "The Economics of Upgrading
    Seventy-one Branch Rail Lines in Iowa/1 American Journal of Agricultural
    Economics 59 (February 1977):61-70

5.  Baumol, W.J.  "Payment by Performance in Rail Passenger  Transportation:
    An Innovation in Amtrak's Operations*" Bell Journal of Economic Management
    Science 6  (Spring 1975):281-98.

6.  Berglund, M.F.  "Externalities and Freight Car Supply in the U.S. Rail
    Network." Nebraska Journal of Economic Business 15 (Spring 1976):47-58.

7.  	.  "Institutional Impediments to Efficiency:  The Case of Rail
    Freight Car Supply." Land Economics 53 (May 1977):157-71.

8.  Boyer, Kenneth D.  "How Similar are Motor Carrier and Rail Rate Structures?:
   The Value-Of-Servlce Component." Transportation Research Forum.  Proceedings.
    19th, 1978, pp. 523-531.

9.  	.  "Minimum Rate Regulation, Modal Split Sensitivities, and the
    Railroad Problem. Journal of j'olitical Economy 85 (June  1977):493-512.

10. Conant, M.  "Socialized Railroads in the U.S.A.:  The Grand Trunk Western."
    California Management Review 19 (Summer 1977):59-63.
                                                                   •'  '

11. Due, J.F.  "A Comment on Recent Contributions to the Economics of the
    Railway Industry." Journal of Economics Literature 13 (December  1975):
    1315-20.

12. Due, J.F. and Sidhu, N.D.  "Private Versus Social Decision-Making for
    Railroad Abandonment." Quarterly Review of Economic Business 14  (Winter
    1974):23-42.            ;                      »

13. Thomas K. Dyer, Inc.  United States Class I Railroad Fixed Plant Requirements.
    Prepared for the ERA, Lexington, MA, October 1977.

14.  Eads, G.C.  "Railroad Diversification:  Where Lies the Public Interest?"
     Bell Journal of Economic Management Science 5  (Autumn 1974): 595-613.

15.  Harris, R.G.  "Economies of Traffic Density in the Rail Freight Industry."
     Bell Journal of Economic Management Science 8  (Autumn 1977):556-64.
                                     2-23

-------
                             BIBLIOGRAPHY
16.  Jarvis, John J. and Martinez, Oscar M.  "Sensitivity Analysis of Multi-
     commodity Network Flows."  Transjaprtation Science 11  (November 1977):
     299-306.

17.  Meyer, J.R. and Morton, A.L.  "A Better Way to Run the Railroads."
     Harvard Business Review 52 (July-August 1974):141-48.

18.  Morton, A.L.  "Northeast Railroads:  Restructured or Nationalized?"
     American Economics Review 65 (May 1975):284-88.

19.  Operating and Traffic Statistics-Class I Line-Haul Railroads in the United
     States, 1977, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.

20.  Petracek, S.J., et al.   Railroad Classification Yard Technology;  A
     Survey and Assessment.  Prepared for the FRA, Stanford Research Institute,
     January 1977.

21.  Pitfield, D.E.  "Freight Distribution Model Predictions Compared:  A Test
     of Hypotheses."  Environment and Planning A 10 (July 1978):813-836).

22.           .  "The Impact of Structural and Compositional Changes on the
     Canadian Railway Industry:  1958-73."  Transportation Research 12 (April
     1978):79-82.

23.  Sidhu, N.D., Charney A., and Due, J.F.  "Cost Functions of Class II
     Railroads and the Viability of Light Traffic Density Railway Lines."
     Quarterly Review of Economic Business 17 (Autumn 1977):7-24.

24.  Stenger, Alan J. and Cunningham, Wayne, H.J.  "Additional Insights
     Concerning Rail-Truck Freight Competition." Transportation Journal 17
     (Summer 1978): 14-24.

25.  U.S. Department of Transportation.  Transportation Systems Center.
     "Freight Market Sensitivity to Service Quality and Price."  Report No.
     SS-223-U1-32, 1977.

26.  	.  "Freight Transportation Systems:  An Overview."  Report No.
     DOT-TSC-OST-71-9,  June 1971.                             r'

27.  Yearbook of Rallr_Qad_Fact8, 1979 Edition, Association of American Railroads,
     Washington, D.C.
                                      2-24

-------
                             DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Capital Expenditure:  The purchase of fixed assets (e.g.,  plant),  expenditure
on current assests (e.g., stocks).

Economies of scale:  Exist when an increase in output results in a less
than proportional increase in costs*

Equity:  The value of a company's assets after allowing for all outside
liabilities (other than to shareholders).  Rate of return on equity is
net profit after depreciation and taxes as a percentage of equity*

Fixed cost:  Costs that, in the short run, do not vary with output.
These costs are incurred even if no output is produced.

Marginal costs:  The change in the total costs of production when output
is varied by one unit.  Marginal cost pricing is a method of pricing in
which price is made equal to marginal costs.  Maximum economic efficiency
dictates that price be set at the point where all output services are sold
at a price equaling the marginal costs of production.  Since marginal
costs vary with output, marginal costs pricing Implies setting the price
at the point which the demand curve cuts the marginal cost curve.  In a
perfectly competitive market a business would have to use marginal cost
pricing to successfully sell it goods.

Net income:  Net profit on earnings after tax*

Net Investment:  Measures the change in the capital stock.  Calculated
as the gross expenditure on capital formation minus the amount required to
replace worn out and obsolete equipment.  Rate of return on net investment
is net profit after depreciation as a percentage of net investment.

Total costs:  The summation of total fixed costs and total variable costs.

Total operating revenue:  Value of services sold (price times quantity
sold) for all rail activities.
                                        2-25

-------
SECTION 3

-------
                              SECTION 3

                    IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION
                  OF RAILROAD EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

INTRODUCTION

     The purpose of this section is to identify the equipment and facilities
of the railroad industry and to organize them into a logical classification
system.  The identification of the equipment and an understanding of its
physical characteristics and usage will permit an effective and efficient
assignment of noise abatement techniques to the proper sources.

     The classification of facilities into various categories is in recognition
of the fact that there is a wide variation in the noise impacts from differing
types of facilities and equipment*  Since there are several thousand railroad
facilities — far too many to analyze individually — the facilities will be
categorized into groups which have similar functions or characteristics with
respect to their estimated noise impacts.  The assessment of noise impacts and
the potential costs for noise abatement can then be estimated separately for
facilities having differing equipment types, operating characteristics, levels
of activity, adjacent land uses and other factors which may significantly
affect noise Impacts and costs*

RAILROAD EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES

     Railroad property consists of equipment and facilities*  Equipment in-
cludes locomotives, cars, and special purpose items such as for malntenance-
of-way, loading and unloading of freight 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
                                       3-1

-------
                                     Table 3-1

                                 RAILROAD PROPERTY
Lines (Track)

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

-------
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.2  Table 3-3 shows that railroad freight
cars fall into nine functional categories.^

     Special purpose cars and equipment such as for marine applications and
malntenance-of-way are listed in Table 3-4.3  Although this tabulation may
not be all inclusive, it reflects the majority of the inventory typical
of railroad property.

     The functions of railroad yards are:  classification, storage, inter-
                             •
change, 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 can rely in part
on gravity and yard grades for car movement through portions of the yard
complex (hump yards)*

     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

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 is 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*
                                       3-3

-------
                   Table 3-2




                RAILROAD LOCOMOTIVES
  Type                                    Function






 Diesel                                 Road Passenger



                                        Road Freight




                                        Road Switcher



                                        Yard Switcher






Electric                                Road Passenger



                                        Road Freight




                                        Yard Switcher






Steam                                   Generally Historic








                   Table 3-3



         RAILROAD CARS (GENERIC TYPES)






                    Box Car



                    Refrigerator Car




                    Stock Car



                    Gondola Car



                    Hopper Car




                    Flat Car



                    Tank Car



                    Caboose



                    Special Purpose Car
                        3-4

-------
                             Table 3-4




                 SPECIAL PURPOSE CARS AND 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
                              3-5

-------
                                 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
                                                       Railcars
                                                       Special Purpose  Equipment
Stations/Terminals
 Freight

 Passenger
 Marine
                             Repair
                             Manufacturing
                             Testing
                             Power Generating
                             Power Transmission
                             Communication
 Locomotives
 Railcars
 Special Purpose Equipment
 Ferries
 Floats
 Tugs
Yards
Support
Facilities
Hump
Flat
Service
Locomotives
Railcars
Special Purpose Equipment

n - millions of gross ton-miles per year
                                     3-6

-------
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 and activity level.  Also, the number of railyards in
each subtype has been determined according to place size (population in the
locality of the yard) and a subjective Judgment of predominant type of land
use around the yards.

     The two primary functions of railroad yards are the 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 determined in terms of railcars classified per day
for both principal types of yards are presented in Table 3-6.*  It should
be noted that these activity levels only apply to yards performing the class-
ification function.  They do not apply to those yards whose only function is
freight service to and from industry  (i.e., industrial yards).  Also, six
population size classes are used to describe or categorize the yards by
                                                        I
locality.  These are:*

          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
                                    3-7

-------
                                                  Table 3-6
                                       ACTIVITY LEVELS FOR RAILROAD YARDS
                         Yard                     Yard                   Number of Cars
                         Type                    Activity                Classified per Day

                         Hump                     Low                       <1000
                                                  Medium                     1000-2000
                                                  High                      >2000

                         Flat                     Low                       < 500
"                                                 Medium                      500-1000
00                                                 High                      >1000

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

     The results of the identification and classification of railroad equip-
ment and facilities indicated that railroad yards can also be categorized into
four functional types:^

     o    Classification (C) Yards
     o    Classification/Industrial (C/I) Yards
     o    Industrial (I) Yards
     o    Small Industrial (SI) Yards.

     In conducting the railyard noise Impact assessment, it is useful to
group all hump yard complexes (which include C, C/I, and I yards) into one
category, which is referred to generally as hump classification yards, and to
group all flat classification and classification/industrial yards into one
general category of flat classification yards.  The flat Industrial yards and
the flat small industrial yards are grouped as separate categories.  Thus, the
four basic railyard categories used in the noise impact model are:

          o    Hump Classification Yards
          o    Flat Classification Yards
          o    Flat Industrial Yards
          o    Flat Small Industrial Yards.

     Additional details of activity rates and parameters for hump and flat
classification yards are presented in Tables N-l and N-2 in Appendix N.

DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL RAILROAD YARDS

Hump Yards

     Hump yards perform classification and may perform 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 configurations and a subyard for
outbound traffic.  These three subyards are defined as receiving, classifi-
cation and departure "yards" respectively, as shown below In Figure 3-1.^
                                      3-9

-------
              Table 3-7
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR RAILROAD YARDS

Yard Type:

Yard Function:


Adjacent Land
Use:



Yard Locality:
Population Size
Class :



YARD CHARACTERISTIC
Hump
Flat
Classification
Industrial
Classification/Industrial
Industrial
Commerlcal
Residential
Agricultural
Undeveloped
0-5000
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)
                      3-10

-------
                     Direction of Traffic Flow
            receivingX       /classificationX        /departure^

              "yard"              "yard"                "yard"
      FIGURE 3-1.  SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION 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 in Figure 3-2.5  Not shown are the "inert" retarders which

are located at the departure end of each classification 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 4 of this document.


     A typical hump yard may also contain a variety of buildings and facilities,
such as:
          o  Control Tower(s) and Office/Administration Buildings
          o  Stock Pens
          o  Trailer Ramp
          o  Powerhouse
          o  Compressor Building
          o  Hydraulic Pump House
          o  Fuel Pump House
          o  Car One Spot Service and Repair Facility
          o  Caboose Service Facility              <
          o  Locomotive Washer Facility
          o  Locomotive Service Facility
          o  Maintenance-of-Way Facility
                                     3-11

-------
                                               PLAN VIEW
                                   CAR RETARDERS
           HUMP CONTROL TOWER
                                 RETARDER
                                                                                    CLASSIFICATION TRACKS
YARD SWITCH
LOCOMOTIVE
                                                       RETAROER
                             FIGURE 3-2. HUMP YARD CREST AND RETARDER SYSTEM

-------
     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 can be measured in terms of car classifications per
day, and is also 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.

     Each of the three "subyards" has a standing capacity of hundreds of cars
resulting in a total standing capacity of thousands of freight cars.  Hump
yards may contain hundreds of miles of track within their boundaries and
process dozens of trains and thousands of cars per day.

     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.4

     Appendix 0, Table 0-1, contains a list of automated classification
yards.^  These data show that 79 of the approximately 124 hump yards in the
U.S. railroad system are automated to some degree.  Yard automation may
include the receiving* service, classification and departure functions; car
identification; switch control; speed control including car weight and roll-
ability; and yard/car inventory and location.  Examples of the new automated
classification yards in the U.S. railroad system are Northtown (BN), Barstow
(ATSF), West Colton  (SP), Sheffield (SOU) and Bailey (UP).?

                                    3-13

-------
LOCOMOTIVE 6 CAR  / CAR
                                                                      StRVICINC
                                                                      AIN CLASSIFICATION
                                                                            YARD
 RECEIVING AND
DEPARTURE YARDS  J
               t
                                                              RECEIVING AND
                                                             DEPARTURE YARDJ
                                                                           CLASSIFICATION
                                                                               HUMP
                                             Courtesy of  Westinghouse Air  Brake Co.
                                                              I.OCOMUI 1 VI. i, CAR L"
                                                                 SERVICING
                                                                 -.•"	!•..!»,

                             rRMLROAD MAIN I, I ML I
                             •MI- . • •     . -. -        ^
                                                  J   RECEIVING f,
                                                 •a DEPARTURE YARDS
                                                 \x". '  ••••   *  .'  ."^
                                                  N    •
                                                v.
                                    Courtesy of Westinghouse  Air Brake Co.
      FIGURE  3-3.   TYPICAL  MODERN CLASSIFICATION HUMP YARD LAYOUTS
                                         3-14

-------
I
CB
5
1
«
(9
Z
o
                                                                       CONWAY
                                              • ELKHART
          BARSTOW
BUCKEYE •    •
 AVON
FRONTIER
                                    • ROANOKE
            DEWITT •  ^
               BALMER, EAST l_A.
               20
        40          60          80

         NUMBER OF CLASSIFICATION TRACKS
                                                              100
                                                        120
                       FIGURE 3-4. HUMP YARD CAPACITY
                                     3-15

-------
        16
        14
        12
                                                                             MARKHAM
        10
UJ
I
      Q
      cc
ui
CC
Q.
      (9
      u.
      O
      uj
      a
      Z  4
                                           SHEFFIELD
                                                                                           ROANOKE
                                                                CICERO
                                                    MECHANICVILLE

                                                              • BUCKEYE

                                               • CENTREVILLE
W. COLTON

* • ROSEVILLE

• BARSTOW
                                                                                                        WALBRIDGE
                                • EAST LA.
                        10
                                 20            30             40

                                       NUMBER OF CLASSIFICATION TRACKS
                                                                                  50
                   60
70
                                      FIGURE 3-6. GROUP RETARDERS IN HUMP YARDS

-------
                                Table 3-8

                        SUMMARY OF HUMP YARD DATA
                                 Yard Activity  (Classified Cars Per Day)

Yard Characteristic                 <1000       1000 - 2000     >2000
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
26
1
4
26
11
9
43
1
7
43
11
12
57
1
10
57
13
14
Standing Capacity of
Classification Yard                  1447        1519    .      2443

Standing Capacity of
Receiving Yard                        977        1111          1545

Standing Capacity of
Departure Yard                        862         969          1594

Number of Cars Classified/Day         783        1663          2661
                                     3-17

-------
Flat Yards

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

     Yard switcher locomotives move cars out of the receiving tracks and
use either continuous push or acceleration/disconnect techniques to distri-
bute them into specific classification tracks.  The continuous push or
the "bumping" action of the switcher locomotive accomplishes the same function
in a flat yard as the "crest-roll-retard11 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.

     Flat yard activity or capacity, measured by cars classified per day,
is a function of the number of tracks used for that function and available
switcher locomotives.  As shown in Figure 3-7,5 this relationship is similar
to that of hump yards.

     Table 3-9 presents some typical data on flat yards showing yard charact-
eristics similar to those shown for hump yards.^

SUMMARY OF KAILYARD 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.

     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

                                    3-18

-------
         LADDER TRACK


                   /       CLASSIFICATION TRACKS

                 /                                      X
SWITCHING
                    2L.   RECEIVING AND      \,
                   /     DEPARTURE TRACKS     \

                                                \
CLASSIFICATION TRACKS
                                                   \
                 \

                     \
          FIGURE 3-4. TYPICAL FLAT-YARD TRACK CONFIGURATIONS
                                 3-19

-------
    2-r
OB
u

1
u
                   10             15              20


                      NUMBER OF CLASSIFICATION TRACKS





                       FIGURES-?. FLAT YARD CAPACITY
                                      3-20

-------
                                Table 3-9

                        SUMMARY OF FIAT YARD DATA
          Yard Characteristic            Yard Activity (Classified Cars/day)
                                           <500      500-1000     >1000
     Number of classification tracks         14         20           25

     Standing capacity of
     classification yard                    653        983         1185

     Cars classified/day                    348        907         1692



Flat yard operational procedures may also be found in Section 2.3 of Railroad
Classification Yard Technology.4
                                      3-21

-------
                             Table 3-10

                 DISTRIBUTION OF U.S. RAILROAD YARDS
                   BY TYPE, FUNCTION, AND LOCATION
A. Number of Kailyards
Yard Function*
Yard Type C/I C I
Hump 98 18 8
Flat 930 183 2932
Total 1028 201 2940
C/I Commercial/Industrial
C Commercial
I Industrial
B. Percent of Yards for Judged Adjacent
Total
124
4045
4169
Land Use
Predominant Adjacent Land Use
Yard Type I C R A U
Hump 20 7 27 13 33
Flat 21 11 35 12 21
Flat Ind. 30 16 32 4 18
Flat Small Ind. 31 14 28 8 19
Total
100
100
100
100
T T J n •• M-f A 1
C Commercial
R Residential
A Agricultural
U Undeveloped
                                    3-22

-------
displays these yards by function and adjacent land use.  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 class-
ification purposes.  The data also indicate that only approximately 15 per-
cent of the yards are judged to be in areas that are predominantly agri-
cultural and undeveloped.  The predominant land use data near the yards were
based on subjective judgments by PRA personnel.

     Table 3-11 shows the distribution of hump yards according to yard
activity and population in the yard's locality.  These data show that the
highest concentration of hump yards is in areas of population size class
2 (5-5OK 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 population size
two and industrial areas have the highest concentration of this yard type.
Table 3-13 shows the distribution by locality population class.

     Since the railyard noise impact model that is developed in Section 5
uses 3 place size (locality population) classes, 3 traffic rate classes
and 4 functional yard types, a summary of the yard data presented in Table
3-14 is shown in terms of number of yards by type of yard, place size of
yard location and rate of traffic (activity).  (The numbers of yards in the
six place sizes in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 were transferred to the distribution
of yards by 3 place sizes in Table 3-14.)

RAILYARD CONFIGURATION ANALYSES

Introduction

     Preliminary analyses indicated considerable variation in the configuration
of railyard facilities.  Thus, accurate analyses of railyard noise impact
and noise reduction costs required determination of typical or representative
yards in terms of yard geometries and dimensions as well as noise source
locations relative to yard boundaries and adjacent residential areas.  The

                                    3-23

-------
           Table 3-11

NUMBERS OF HUMP YARDS BY ACTIVITY
   AND POPULATION OF LOCALITY
Yard
Activity
Low
Medlmum
High
Total


Yard
Activity
Low
Medlmum
High
Total

1 2
0-5K 5-50K
8 11
I 18
4 10
13 39

NUMBERS
AND

1 2
0-5K 5-50K
102 219
64 140
33 71
199 430
Population
of Locality

345
50-100K 100-250K 250-5 OOK
7
3
2
12
Table 3-12
OF FLAT YARDS
POPULATION OF
Population
8
8
6
22

BY ACTIVITY
LOCALITY
of Locality
5
6
5
16



345
50-100K 100-250K 250-500K
75
48
23
146
60
35
21
116
42
23
12
77

6
>500K
8
10
4
22



6
>500K
73
47
25
145

Total
Yards
47
46
31
124



Total
Yards
571
357
185
1113
                 3-24

-------
                        Table 3-13






      DISTRIBUTION OF ALL YARDS BY LOCALITY POPULATION
Population of Railroad Locality                Yards
                                    Number           Percentage
           0 - 5000                  1128                27






          5K - 50K                   1664                40






         50K - 100K                   378                 9
100K - 250K
250K - 500K
>500K
290
254
455
7
6
11
                   Total             4169               100%
                                  3-25

-------
                                              Table 3-14


              KAILYARD DISTRIBUTION BY YARD TYPE, PLACE SIZE AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY




                                        NUMBER OF RAILYARDS


                                       Place Size (Population)


                         Less Than 50,000    50,000 to 250,000     Greater Than 250,000
Yard Type                Traffic Rate:         Traffic Rate:         Traffic Rate:
                        Low   Med   High      Low   Med   High      Low   Med   High    Total
W
I Hump Classification
II Flat Classification
III Industrial
IV Small Industrial
Total

19
321
849



19 14
204 104

1262
2792

14
135
239



12 8
83 44

133
668

13
115
293



16 9
70 37

156
709

124
1113
1381
1551
4169

-------
available maps, which consisted mainly of U.S.6.S 7.5 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'a Environ-
mental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) was enlisted to provide
additional data through examination of aerial (photographic) Imagery of
rallyard complexes.  The objective of the photographic evaluation was to
acquire sufficient data (yard boundary dimensions, etc.) to develop, within
acceptable statistical certainty limits, representative configurations for
each type of yard.

     The data sought from the EPIC study Included:

     o  Percentage distribution of land uses (agricultural,
        commercial, industrial, residential and undeveloped)
        along the railyard boundaries, and within a one-half
        mile wide strip along both sides of the railyards.
     o' Boundary to boundary and track to track widths of the
        receiving, departure and railcar classification areas
        of rallyard complexes
     o  Lengths of receiving, departure and classification areas.
     o  Distances from railyard boundaries to the nearest
        cluster of residences, measured from several locations
        around the yards.
     o  Distances to yard boundaries on each side from master
        retarders and repair facilities and distances from yard
        boundaries to locations where road-haul locomotives and
        switch engines are parked or operating.

     The selection of the railyard sample from which the representative yard
data were obtained was conducted by a random process to avoid inadvertent
biasing of the desired input parameters for the health and welfare impact
model.  The 4169 rail classification yards were grouped according to 4 yard
types, and distributed by 3 place size classes.  Due to schedule and resource
constraints, sampling consisted of only ten yards for each of the twelve yard
                                     3-27

-------
 type-place size combinations  (i.e.,  cells),  for  a total  of  120  representative
 yards.   The sample size of  10 yards  in each  cell was  selected on  the basis of
 using the  statistical  t-distribution for  evaluating the  expected  standard
 deviation  limits about  the  sample mean dimension values  for various confidence
 limits*  Since  the t-distribution analysis is  relatively insensitive to the
 total population size,  the  sample size of 10 is  satisfactory for  the range 40
 to  1000  yards of each  type.   Details of the  selection procedure and results
 are given  in Appendix K.

      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 K, Figures  K-l and K-2.   EPIC then ascertained  whether there was
 sufficient recent  aerial imagery of  the yard and  vicinity to gather the
 necessary  data.  There  were 25 yards which 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 K,  Figures  K-3  and K-4) on  the U.S.G.S.
 quandrangle maps indicating yard boundaries  and land  areas within 2000
 feet  (610  m) of  the boundaries.  Based  on the Standard Land Use Coding System
 (re. U.S.  DOT-FHWA 1969), the land uses around each yard were grouped into
 residential, commercial, industrial,  agricultural and undeveloped land use
 types*  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. The latter sources included repair facilities,  retarders, switch
engines, road engines, trailer-on-flat car/container-on-flat car  (TOFC/COFC
and bulk loading facilities.  Figure K-5 and K-6  illustrate the data sheets
used, with data from two sample yards*
                                     3-28

-------
Data Evaluation

     The random selection of railyards in the hump and flat classification
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 railyard
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 railyard could be placed.  The procedure for doing this
is discussed in Appendix K.

     The purpose of classifying the sample hump and flat classification
yards into low, 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 railyards 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.

      Examination of the data for the flat and hump classification yards
indicated that, in general, the yards were asymmetrical and quite complicated
in  configuration.  Time constraints and  data limitations required that the
yard  data be reduced to obtain simplified representative yard  configurations.
Therefore, it was assumed  that the various portions of the railyards were
rectangular and that groups of noise sources were  located  within the rect-
angular 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 dimensionssobtained  from  the EPIC
analyses were grouped  into distances from the sources  (or  assumed source group
locations) to the nearest  and farthest yard boundaries.  In  the case of the

                                     3-29

-------
observed  locomotives, at any yard, the weighted average distances to 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
previously) were tabulated and then averaged.  The resulting average dimensions
are shown in Tables 3-15 through 3-17.

     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 (Davg) 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 (identified 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 classification area.  Similar analyses of the
data from the sample industrial and small industrial yards resulted in the
representative dimensions shown in Table 3-17.  The configurations of the
industrial and small Industrial yards were generally more symmetrical than the
other yards, and thus, the representative dimensions Indicate that sources
were 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 railyard data
evaluation are shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9.  The hump and flat classification
yards were assumed to have identical receiving and departure area dimensions

                                     3-30

-------
                            Table 3-15

   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR HUMP CLASSIFICATION YARDS
                           Average Dimensions (m)
                                 Traffic Rate:
Hump Yards           Low             Medium            High
                 Near** Far**     Near   Far        Near   Far
Classifica-
  tion Area;
Dw
DMR
DER
DRL
DAVG
L
63
60
68
69
64

193
235
129
177
183
1129
84
100
90
99
95

170
191
224
214
201
1312
107
112
113
116
113

210
224
299
188
229
1739
Receiving
and Departure
Area:

Davg"Dw            *6   137         40   146          55   171
L        .              1556             1952              1952
 *DW Near - Track to track width 7 2
  D,, Far - Boundary to boundary width 7 2
  DJIR » Distance from master retarder to yard boundary
  DER * Distance from engine repair area to yard boundary
  DRL " Weighted average distance from road haul locomotives to
        yard boundary
**Shorter and larger distances from source > to boundaries •
                              3-31

-------
                            Table 3-16

   SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS
Flat Classifi-
cation Yards
          Average Dimensions (m)
                Traffic Rate:
    Low             Medium
Near** Far**     Near   Far
                   High
                Near   Far
Classifica-
  tion Area:
D*
DER
DRL
DSE
DAVG
L
24
40
***
46
37

73
104
-
143
107
854
40
-
24
•"
32

—
-
116
140
128
1311
70
-
119
104
92

183
159
-
293
214
2074
Receiving
and Departure
Area:

Davg"Dw
                   31
       107
       793
31
137
976
92   184
    1250
       Near - Track to track width 7 2
       Far » Boundary to boundary width 7 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.
                              3-32

-------
                         Table 3^17

      REPRESENTATIVE AVERAGE DIMENSIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
                SMALL INDUSTRIAL RAILYARDS
                               Average Dimensions (m)

                                            Small Industrial
                         Industrial Yards        Yards
Dw                            70                 52

DRL                           58                 24

Ds                            62                 31

DAVG                          70                 52
L                           1312               1007
                             3-33

-------

i
\
'dl
d2
Receiving Area

i
'd3
\
. i ,


\
dl
d2
J 1 .
Departure Area
                      Classification Area
Yard Type
I.




II.




Hump Classification:
Traffic Rate:
Low
Medium
High
Flat Classification:
Traffic Rate:
Low
Medium
High
Representative Railyard Dimension
dl

43
43
55


31
31
92
d2

137
146
171


107
137
183
d3

64
95
113


34
34
92
d4

192
192
229


107
128
214
Ll

1556
1952
1952


793
976
1251
(m)
[2

1129
1312
1739


854
1312
2074
FIGURE 3-8  REPRESENTATIVE CONFIGURATION FOR HUMP  AND FLAT CLASSIFICATION
            RAILYARDS
                                3-34

-------
     Yard Type
Representative Dimensions (m)
     Industrial
 70
1312
     Small Industrial
 52
1007
FIGURE 3-9  REPRESENTATIVE CONFIGURATION FOR FLAT INDUSTRIAL AND
            SMALL INDUSTRIAL RAILYARDS
                              3-35

-------
    o    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  - Locomotive Load Cell Test Stands
              RC  - Refrigerator Cars

     o  FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

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

     o  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 deter-
mination of the overall noise levels at railyard boundaries, the major noise
sources identified in the preceding yard noise source list produce noise

                                     3-36

-------
(the receiving and departure areas were not distinctive and could usually not
be differentiated on the photographic imagery).  The d^ distance of 43 m for
the low and medium traffic rate hump yards is the average of the corresponding
distances of 40 and 46  < m previously determined.  Also, the d^ distance of
192 m for the low and medium traffic rate is the average of the corresponding
far side distances of 183 and 201 m previously determined.  Similar averaging
was done to obtain the d3 distance of 34 m for the low and medium traffic
rate flat classification yards.

Kailyard Noise Sources

    Prior to and in conjunction with the EPIC sample railyard analyses the
predominant noise sources for each class of railyard were identified by
examining the literature and data base on railroad equipment and facility
surveys.  Discussions with the MR staff and consultants provided additional
data on potential noise sources.  The identified noise sources for which
a sufficient noise data base were available to determine a statistically
meaningful average level were included in the railyard noise model.  The major
noise sources included in the railyard noise model and health/welfare impact
model are listed below according to yard type and function category:

    o    HUMP YARD - NOISE SOURCES:

              MR - Master Retarders (Includes Group, Intermediate,
                   and Track)
              HS - Hump Lead Switchers
              IR - Inert Retarders
              MS - 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
                                    3-37

-------
 levels  and  event  rates  sufficiently high  to provide good  indicators  for the
 noise environment and impact  at  the railyard boundaries.  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 for industrial yards, there are some indications of
 general source locations.  Information derived from the EPIC railyard survey,
 the AAR and consultants regarding railyard operations was used to develop
 reasonable source placements  within the yard complexes.   For example, it was
 assumed that  locomotive load  test stations and storage of idling locomotives
 would be positioned in  the general area of engine repair  facilities.  During
 the EPIC railyard  survey it was observed  that engine repair facilities (and
 load test cells)  were frequently situated near the master retarder end of the
 classification yard.  It seemed logical to consider switch engine and inbound
 train operations  located in the receiving yard, and other switch engine and
 outbound train operations located in the departure yard.  (See Figure 3-8)

     The hump and flat classification railyards were thus assumed to have
 four (4) general noise  source areas.  In the absence of any specific data on
 yard 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 industrial yard types. (See
 Figures 3-8 and 3-9)

Land Use Distribution Analyses

     The percentage distribution of residential commercial, Industrial,
 agricultural and  undeveloped  land uses was calculated from the EPIC overlays
 and U.S.G.S. maps  (See  Figures K-l through K-4).  EPIC had delineated yard
 boundaries as well as land use (per Standard Land Use Coding System) within
 2000 ft  (610 m) from yard boundary.
                                     3-38

-------
     The percentage land use distribution adjacent to each yard was calculated
by using linear distances intercepted along the yard boundary*  These values
were then averaged for ten yards in each of the twelve cell-groups by place
size and yard type, as presented in Table K-5.

     The percentage land use distribution within 2000 ft (610 m) from each
yard boundary was calculated by separately adding the areas of each of the
five land uses.  These values were averaged for ten yards in each of the
twelve cell-groups by place size and yard type, as presented in Table K-6.
                                      3-39

-------
                           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 Assessment.
    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, Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corp.,
    Bristol, Conn., March 27, 1978.
                                     3-40

-------
SECTION 4

-------
                              SECTION 4

           NOISE SOURCE EMISSIONS AND NOISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

RAILROAD NOISE SOURCES

     Noise is generated by rail carriers during the operation of nearly all
the equipment listed in Section 3*  In order to characterize railroad noise
emissions, the EPA has attempted to determine noise levels both from indi-
vidual sources and from the operation of multiple sources which are combined
into larger single operations such as a classification yard.  The understand-
ing of how multiple sources interact to produce an overall noise level is
essential since it is the combined noise of several sources which is generally
heard outside the boundaries of railroad facilities*  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 which have been identified as major
contributors to railroad noise are:

          o    Locomotives and switch engines
          o    Retarders
          o    Refrigerator cars
          o    Car-coupling
          o    Load cells, repair facilities and locomotive
               service areas
          o    Wheel/Rail interaction
          o    Horns, bells, whistles and public address systems

     The primary focus in this background document is on the above railyard
noise sources.  Other railroad operations such as stations and offyard 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 has been covered in a previous EPA background document 1,
and will be reviewed only briefly in this document.
                                     4-1

-------
 RAILROAD PROPERTY NOISE  SURVEY  PROGRAM

      The EPA has undertaken  a noise measurement  program to  determine  the
 extent  of noise emissions  around  railyards.   This  program was  limited by the
 time  available.  The measurements taken  in this  effort  supplement  the existing
 railroad noise data base and provide baseline data at and near railyard
 property lines.

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

          o    Establish the relationship of  these measurements to
               selected  railyard  type, yard function, and level of
               activity, as  a basis for  the development of
               classification categories;
          o    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
          o    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 whicti
                                     4-2

-------
would be suitable for enforcement auditing by the Federal Railroad Admini-
stration of the Department of Transportation and compliance determination by
the railroads and state and local enforcement officials.  A methodology was
chosen consistent with this objective that it should:

          o    Ensure that the noise emissions characteristic of major
               noise sources are repeated and accurately represented;
          o    Correlate well with the known effects of environmental
               noise upon public health and welfare;
          o    Discriminate between railroad and non-railroad noise
               sources; and
          o    Enable convenient measurement at noise sensitive locations*
                                          A
     The procedures developed estimate average maximum A-weighted sound
levels at receiving property measurement positions for each of the noise
sources considered.  Additionally, measurement procedures at fixed locations
from certain nearly steady state sources are also prescribed.  The measurement
procedures appear 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.*»2»3»4,5,6,7  T^e otner form focuses on overall railyard noise
levels resulting from the combined railyard noise sources and will be pub-
lished as part of a separate document to be published in approximately one
year from the publication of this document.

     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 data points available for each noise source*  Addition-
al information on the data base and the computational procedures used to cal-
culate baseline levels appear in Appendix L.  Figures 4-1 through 4-3 show
typical noise spectra for five prominent railyard noise sources.
                                    4-3

-------
                                 Table 4-1
                         SOURCE NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
  Noise Source
  Number of
Measurements
                                                Level of Energy Average
LAve  @30 m (dB)
                                                                  **
Retarders
(Master and Group)
     410
        111
Inert Retarder
      96
         93
Flat Yard Switch
Engine Accelerating
      30
         83
Hump Switch Engine,
Constant Speed
Reference 2
         78'
Idling Locomotive
      82
         66
Car Impact
     164
         99
Refrigerator Car
      23
         67
Load Test
(Throttle 8)
      59
         90
*   '•Wax Average for Intermittent or Moving Sources
**  A-Weighted Sound Level
                                  4-4

-------
                                                        Refrigerator Car at High Throttle
    50
                50      100
                                             500
                                         Frequency in Hertz
       2000
                              5000
1
9>
a>
   100
CM
 Z
 8
    90
    80
    70
                                              X
±
                £
                                                                       Master Retarder
                                                                  V
                50
                          100
   500
Frequency in Hertz
       2000
                                                                      5000
         FIGURE  4-1  FREQUENCY SPECTRUM OF  NOISE EMITTED FROM MASTER
                      RETARDER at  100 ft  (30  m)  AND MECHANICAL  REFRIGERATOR
                      CAR at 50  ft (15 m)
                                          4-5

-------
CO
TJ



I
I

•Q


§
03
    60 —
                        100
         1000

Frequency in Hertz
             FIGURE 4-2  NOISE FREQUENCY SPECTRUM OF  CAR COUPLING IMPACT-

                          MEASUREMENTS  100 FEET (30 m)  FROM TRACK
                                            4-6

-------
               100
        1000
Frequency in Hertz
               100
         1000
Frequency in Hertz
FIGURE 4-3   NOISE FREQUENCY  SPECTRA OF IDLING SWITCHER AND  LOCOMOTIVE
             AT THROTTLE SETTING NO. 8 —MEASUREMENT AT 50 FEET  (15 m)

                                 4-7

-------
DESCRIPTIONS OF YARD NOISE SOURCES AND ABATEMENT TECHNOLOGY

     The major sources of railroad noise and the alternative abatement
procedures for reducing noise emissions from the sources were investigated by
the EPA prior to issuing noise emission standards for railcars and locomot-
ives in January 1976.  A brief summary of the sources and treatments is in-
cluded in this document.  A more comprehensive analysis can be found in EPA
Background Document for the Railroad Noise Emission Standards. December
19751.  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 total noise emissions from the operations of all equipment
on the property not exceed a specified level at each point along the railroad
property line or the adjacent receiving property.  The discussion that follows
examines individual noise sources and some of the abatement technologies
available for reducing noise Impacts from these noise sources.  No attempt is
made to determine the overall average railyard noise levels and the reduction
achievable from all sources collectively.

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 corridor,
are powered by all-electric or gas turbine locomotives.  The few remaining
steam locomotives in the United States are preserved primarily for historical
reasons.
                                     4-8

-------
     Diesel-electric locomotives have a diesel engine driving an electric
alternator or generator which, in turn, powers 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 important
noise-producing mechanisms in diesel-electric locomotives are engine exhaust,
engine casing vibrations and cooling fans.

     Noise abatement treatment for locomotives and switch engines detailed in
the 1975 EPA Railroad Backround Document* can be summarized as follows:

          o      Equipment modification
                 - Improved exhaust muffling
                 - Cooling fan modification
                 - Engine shielding

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

Retardera

     Within the classification portion of most major U.S. hump yards, track
mounted breaking devices known as retarders are used to control the velocity
of free-rolling freight cars.  The speed with which the cars enter the class-
ification track must be controlled, so that the momentum upon impact 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.
                                      4-9

-------
      Retarders  are mechanical  devices  which clamp  a  beam or beams against the
 wheel flanges of  the  cars,  thereby creating a  friction force which  slows the
 forward  motion  of the cars.  The  amount  of  retardation is controlled by
 varying  the pressure  applied to the beam.   The friction force, in addition to
 slowing  the railcar,  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 in some hump yards*  They are:

          o        Barriers
          o        Lubrication  systems
          o        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
 located approximately eight feet  (2.4 m) on  a perpendicular line to the rail
 track center.  The barrier's construction consists of supporting timbers,
 corrugated transite, and  four  inch (10 cm) 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 noise measurements conducted as part of a Department of
Transportation qtudy** on  railroad retarder noise reduction at the Burlington
Northern Railroad, Northern freight yard, showed typical Insertion loss values
at 100 ft (30 m) from the retarder in a direction perpendicular to the  barrier
16 dB to 22 dB for absorptive barriers.  Figures 4-4, 4-5, and 4-6 show sound
levels as a function of barrier height, absorptive characteristics and  dis-
tance from the barriers.

     The acoustical barriers used for the Northern Yard study are commercially
available modular panels manufactured by IAC.  The panels were IAC No.  1
shield regular panels with a 0.032 mm polyethylene film covering  to protect
the acoustical material from moisture.  The noise shield panels were 10 cm.
                                     4-10

-------
CD
                                                 6              8
                                               Barrier Height, Feet *
               Absorptive

               Reflective

               One foot is approximately 03 meters

12
              FIGURE 4-4   INSERTION LOSS OF  RETARDER BARRIER AS A FUNCTION OF  BARRIER
                            HEIGHT  (100 FEET FROM BARRIER AT  90 DEGREES)

-------
                                   12-Foot Barriers *
CD
            /**\ Absorptive

            4fe Reflective

             •  One foot is approximately 0.3 metara
       FIGURE  4-5  INSERTION LOSS OF 12-FOOT  BARRIERS, AS A FUNCTION
                    OF ANGULAR LOCATION (100-FOOT EQUIVALENT DISTANCE)
                                      4-12

-------
                                 12-Foot Barrier
OB
~
   20
   IO
           25
                      50                  100
                   Distance From Retarder, Feet*
     o
Aiworptiv*
         Reflective
         Absorptiv" With 1-Ft-Lip
         Orw foot is approximately 03 meters


       FIGURE 4-6   INSERTION  LOSS OF 12-FOOT-HIGH  BARRIERS,  WITH
                     11-FOOT-LONG EXTENSIONS, AS A FUNCTION OF THE
                     DISTANCE FROM THE RETARDER TO THE OBSERVER AT
                     90 DEGREES
                                   4-13

-------
thick and had standard sizes of width  times length ranging from  16 x 60
inches to 48 x  168 inches  (41 x 152  cm to  122 x 427 cm).  The back surfaces
were 18 gauge steel.  The  perforated surface was installed facing the retarder
The acoustic fill is an inert, mildew  resistant, vermin proof mineral wood
material with a UL fire hazard classification per ASTM specification of E-84
as follows:

           Flame spread            15
           Smoke development       0
           Fuel contributed        0

     The barrier construction at the Northern Yard consisted of vertical
panels with support provided by 5  inch  (12.7 cm) wide flange columns anchored
to concrete footings at 11 foot (3.3 m) intervals.  The column lines were 9
feet - 10 1/2 Inches (2.9 m) from  the  track centerline.  A plan view of the
retarder/barrlers and a cross section of the concrete foundation are Illu-
strated in Figure 4-7.  As indicated the effective height of a 12 foot (3.7 m)
barrier is just under 10 feet (3m).

     Some of the reported findings on barrier performance and the affect of
barriers on system operations from the Northern yard study are as follows:

Assessment of Performance

     The absorptive barrier configurations investigated can provide sub-
stantial far-field reduction of noise caused by operation of a railroad
retarder.   Insertion losses measured in this study for the 12 foot (3.7 m)
high barrier with lip and with 22 foot  (6.7 m) extensions were:

     a.  More than 25 dB on the barrier transverse centerline (i.e.,
         perpendicular to the tracks),
     b.  More than 23 dB in the 60 degree sectors centered on the
         transverse centerline,
     c.  More than 13 dB in the 120 degree sectors centered on the
         transverse centerline.
                                    4-14

-------
                           143'-0"
                                                                RETARDERS
                                                                BARRIER
                   RETARDER/BARRIERS  PLAN VIEW
                                    (4) 3/4"x15" ANCHOR POSTS
                                    8"x5 1/2" SPACING - 3" PROJ.
                                    FOR BARRIER POSTS
            SYM.ABOUT
                                                     2M"
                                                    3'-3'
              RETARDER/BARRIER FOUNDATION
FIGURE 4-7  RETARDER/BARRIER PLAN VIEW AND FOUNDATION
                          4-15

-------
      Corresponding insertion losses for the "normal" 8 foot (2.4 m)  high barrier
 with 11  foot (3.4 m)  extensions beyond the end of the retarder  were:

      1.   More than 20 dB on the transverse centerline,
      2.   More than 13 dB in the 60 degree  sectors,  •
      3.   More than 10 dB in the 120 degree sectors.

 Effects  of Barrier on System Operations

      Negative effects inherent  in  use  of the barriers  investigated are as
 follows:

      a.   Signal personnel are restricted in performing repair or  replacement
          of  retarder  parts  in that  access  can be  gained only by use of doors
          located in the barrier opposite the retarder  mechanism,  through
          the open  ends of the barrier,  through use of  a crane or  by removal
          of  the barrier panels*
     b.  Derailments  in the retarder are more difficult to clean  up, and
          damage to the barriers usually occurs during  derailments.
     c.  Personnel working within the barrier confines cannot be  readily
          seen by the Hump Control Operator.  To eliminate the possibility
          of injury, special precautions must be taken  above and beyond
          those normally required.

     Positive effects of barriers,  beyond those associated with control of
retarder noise propagation to the community, are as follows:

     1.  Retarder noise Is decreased in the area around the retarder.  Although
         this may not be of significant benefit in the Northtown Yard,  It
         could well be in cases  where personnel need to work close to an
         operating retarder, particularly if no other type of retarder  noise
         suppression is in use.
     2.  Barriers serve to contain  the emulsified oil spray used as part of
         the  computerized retarder  noise suppression system in use at the
         Northtown Yard.
                                     4-16

-------
     3.  Barriers provide weather protection, acting as a snow break for this
         retarder and wind break for personnel working within their confines.

     In addition to barriers, lubrication systems are 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.  Approx-
imately three gallons of the dilute mixture is sprayed per car when the
system is operating.  At least 50 percent and maybe as high as 75 percent of
the mixture is recoverable.  The consumption 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 yard9, squeal
frequency dropped from 53 percent with the standard steel shoes to 17 percent
with ductile iron shoes (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
commercially available releasable-type retarders which allow cars to pass
freely when the release is activated.
                                     4-17

-------
 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
 coupler (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 by EPA for  a  number of  actual and simulated
 operating conditions.  The results  are  presented in  Appendix H.   Practical
 approaches  to reducing coupling  noise impact 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 principal source of noise  in the  refrigeration  cars is the diesel
 engine that drives the electrical generator  for  the  compressor.  The engines
appear to have adequate exhaust muffling so  that further noise reductions would
likely require the addition of a baffle blocking the outside direct line of
sight to the engine and the application of sound absorptive foam in the engine
compartment.
                                     4-18

-------
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 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*
                                      4-19

-------
     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.

NOISE CONTROL FOR ALTERNATIVE REGULATORY OPTIONS

     The noise control technology for railyard noise sources has been analyzed
for specific regulatory options.  The noise control options presented are
believed to reflect the most practical approaches for the noise sources
considered.  These approaches take into account difficulties which arise due
to operational problems including constraints imposed by yard geometries and
safety considerations.  The options considered are for the following sources:

          Active retarders
          Locomotive load cell test standards
          Car coupling
          Switcher locomotives

Regulatory sound levels associated with the various options are presumed to
be measured at the receiving property in accordance with the measurement
procedures described in Appendix A.

Options for Retarder Noise Reduction

     Of the three methods for reducing retarder noise which have been
discussed previously, only barriers significantly reduce the intensity of the
                                      4-20

-------
retarder squeals.  Lubrication systems and ductile iron shoes both reduce the

frequency of squeals but are ineffective in lowering the peak noise levels

when squeals occur.


     Although retarder barriers have been found very effective in reducing

peak noise levels, their use around group retarders may be limited because of

space limitations arising from close trackage.  Industry sources claim that

construction would be impossible around 50% of the group retarders.1® How-

ever, close trackage and clearance problems rarely occur at the master

retarder so that noise absorptive barriers can almost always be placed at

those sites.  To reduce the sound level of squeals from group retarders at

receiving property, barrier walls can be constructed along the rail property

boundaries.  Assuming the railyard geometries Identified in Section 3, reflec-

tive barrier walls of 10 to 15 feet (3.0 to 4.6 meters) in height and 1500

feet (457 meters) in length would reduce maximum levels by 10 to 20 dB at the
receiving property.  The barrier walls can be wooden or masonry with con-

struction similar to that now commonly used for noise control along highways.

Three specific retarder noise options with receiving property regulatory

limits and corresponding noise control measures have been analysed.  These

are:

Option  Receiving Property Limit (dB)            Noise Control

  1                   94                    8 ft x 1500 ft (2.5 m x 457 m)
                                           barrier wall at boundary nearest
                                           the master retarder and 8 ft x
                                           1500 ft (2.5 m x 457 m) wall
                                           along the opposite boundary.

  2                   84                   15 ft x 1500 ft (4.6 B x 457 m)
                                           barrier wall at boundary nearest
                                           the master retarder and 10 ft x
                                           1500 ft (3.0 m x 457 m) wall
                                           along the opposite boundary.

  3                   83                   In addition to treatment listed In
                                           Option 2, 12 ft x 150 ft (3.7 m x
                                           45.7 m) absorptive barriers are
                                           placed around the master retarder.
                                    4-21

-------
The noise control measures assume a baseline average max A-weighted sound
level from retarder squeal of  111 dB at 30 meters.  For the  typical low volume
hump yard, which is the worst  case  (retarder nearest to property line), the
master retarder is 64 meters from the near side property lines.  The group
retarders also average 64 meters from nearest property line  although they are
distributed - - some closer and others further away.  The reduction in sound
levels due to the insertion of barrier walls at the property line can be
estimated by treating the retarders as a point source and assuming a barrier
attenuation11 (Ay,) of:


             (10 log  (	   ,N   )     +5       N > - 0.2
     A   -   J        ltanh\/27rN /                 ~
      b      )
             (0                                  N < - 0.2

     where:

     N - ± (2A> (A + B - d)

     is the acoustic wave length for retarder squeal (approximately 0.15 m)

     A + B - d » path length difference between the shortest distance over the
     barrier to the receiver,  and the straight line distance from the source
     to the receiver.

     The receiving property is assumed to be 15 meters beyond the wall.  The
sound level at the receiving property is estimated by subtracting the barrier
attenuation plus air/ground attenuation (0.33 dB/m) from the noise levels
that would otherwise occur at  the receiving property.

     Although the insertion loss achievable with absorptive barriers at the
master retarders is approximately 20 dB, the average A-weighted maximum
retarder sound levels at the property lines will be'only slightly reduced
by those barriers since the property line levels result from the combined
effect of both the master and  group retarders.
                                     4-22

-------
Options for Load Cell Test Noise Reduction

     Where load cell testing can not be positioned sufficiently distant from
the property line to reduce load test noise to acceptable levels, enclosures
or barriers can provide the necessary noise control*  Unless a facility
enclosure is desired for reasons beyond noise reduction, it is probable that
barriers will be the preferred treatment.  Absorptive barriers, 7.6 meters
high and similar in construction to those which have been described in de-
tail for the master retarders will provide approximately 15 dB reduction in
the maximum load test A-weighted noise levels.  Since there is a large low
frequency component in locomotive noise emissions (See Figure 4-3) sound
absorbing masonary blocks should also be considered for barrier construction
material to better attenuate annoying low frequency sound.

     Two options with receiving property regulatory limits and corresponding
noise control measures have been analyzed.  They are:

                     A-Weighted
Option      Receiving Property Limit (dB)              Noise Control

  1                 67                        Absorptive barriers 20 ft x 150
                                              ft (6.1 m x 45.7 m) placed 25 ft
                                              (7.6 m) from track certerline.
  2                 65                        Absorptive barriers 25 ft x 150
                                              ft (7.6 m x 45.7 m) placed 25 ft
                                              (7.6 m) from track centerline.

The noise control measures assume a baseline load test A-welghted sound level
of 90 dB at 30 meters.  The expected worst case occurs in flat yards where the
load test cells average 92 meters from the nearest property lines.  The
accoustic center for the load test noise is assumed to be located approximately
3.6 meters above ground level.  The insertion losses for the two cases are
conservatively estimated at 13 and 15 dB corresponding to the 20 feet and 25
feet (6.1 and 7.6 meters) high barriers.
                                     4-23

-------
Options for Switcher Engine Noise

     The most practical approach to reducing noise from switcher engines
is to retrofit the engines with exhaust silencers.  The reduction achievable
through the use of silencers will vary slightly from model to model due to
variations in component noise emissions for each model.  However, the in-
vestigations which have been conducted indicate that exhaust noise is a major
contributor to locomotive noise, expecially at high throttle settings.  As
part of the proposed interstate rail carrier regulation docket, industry
provided data indicating that little or no reduction was achieved on two
switcher models when the engines were tested at idle.  Reductions of 3 to 5 dB
A-weighted were recorded at the higher trottle settings.  The models tested
were EMD MP15AC and EMD SW1001.  These relatively low horsepower engines, 1500
HP and 2000 HP respectively, are typical in operating characteristics of
models designed specifically for the purpose of switching.  Measured sound
levels with and without silencers are shown for each throttle setting in
Table 4-2.  The results shown in Table 4-2 coupled with the fact that switchers
spend much of their time at low throttle settings indicate that for most of
the operating time the reductions in switcher noise levels will be nominal.
However, the measured noise levels at idle are only 65 dB at 30 meters and
significant noise reductions do occur when the engines operate at throttle
settings that produce their peak noise levels.

     An Important factor to consider for a retrofit program is the avail-
ablility of space for positioning a muffler.  A detailed evaluation of space
availability was conducted for the 1975 rail carrier regulation and appears in
the 1975 Background Document1 as Appendix I.  The results of that evaluation
indicate that sufficient space is available above the hood for models designed
as switchers.  For road engines that are used as switchers the availability of
space above the hood is less certain.  In some instances exhaust manifolds may
need to be enlarged and the muffler installed under the hood.  It is also
possible that some units have been modified in ways that make muffler in-
stallation difficult.  In tests conducted by the Donaldson Company for the AAR
on two road locomotives, EMD models SD 40-2 and GP 380-2, reductions in total
noise emissions were again less at the lower throttle settings than at high

                                      4-24

-------
throttle settings, however, on the SD-40-2 a 5.5 dB reduction in A-weighted
levels were recorded at 30 meters at throttle setting 2.  Although the mufflers
used in the study were large (18 dBA reduction at 1 meter) and would not fit
the confines of the locomotives,  the report concluded that a smaller muffler
(10 dBA reduction at 1 meter) would result in the same overall noise reduction
at 30 meters as the larger muffler.  The test results are indicated in Tables
4-3 and 4-4.

     The regulatory options considered to reduce noise from switcher engines
would limit the maximum sound levels measured at 30 meters.  Differing maximum
sound levels would be permitted for Idling and moving modes of operation.  Two
specific options have been analyzed.  They are:

                     A^weighted
Option           Regulatory Levels (dB)              Noise Control
                 Idle        Moving

   1              70          90                    Muffler retrofit
   2              67          88                    Muffler retrofit

The available data indicate that Option 1 would require no noise control at
all for most switchers.  Option 2 appears to be right at the level where
abatement will be required for the noisier engines.  Although the level at
idle, for Option 2 would be 2 dB above the current energy averaged sound
levels, the existing variation about the average along with measurement
uncertainties (+1.5 dB) will require that a substantial part of the switcher
fleet be retrofited with exhaust silencers.

Options for Reducing Car Coupling Noise

     Two of the regulatory options considered for reducing car coupling noise
are based on expected average coupling noise levels associated with car coupling
speed limits.  The remaining options are based on car coupling speed limits,
but provide noise limit waivers when car coupling occurs below designated  limit
speeds*  The specific regulatory options are:
                                     4-25

-------
I
to
                                                Table 4-2

                      END SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVE SOUND LEVELS WITH AND WITHOUT  SILENCERS*
                                Low
         Throttle Position      Idle   Idle   Idle
         Cooling Fan             ON     ON     OFF     ON    ON    ON     ON     ON    ON    ON    ON


         MP25AC  with spark       63     65     65      63    73    78     81     83    85    87    90
         arrester manifolds


         MP25AC  with spark       63     65     65      68    72    75     78     80    82    84    85
         arrestor/silencer
         Raditor shutter        OPEN   OPEN   CLOSED  OPEN   OPEN   OPEN  OPEN  OPEN  OPEN  OPEN  OPEN
         position


         SW 1001 with spark             65      65       66     73    77      79    80    84    86    89
         arrestor manifolds


         SW 1001 with spark             65      65       66     72    76      78    82    82    83    86
         arrestor/silencer


         *Single unit sample A-weighted sound levels in dB  - slow response central tendency,  100 ft
          (30 m) to the side of the locomotive  on a stationary load test.   Source:  EMD.

-------
                                                   Table 4-3

                                    SUMMARY OF LOCOMOTIVE MUFFLER ACOUSTICS TESTS
i
NJ
                                        SD 40-2 Locomotive. BN Road 6332

                    Locomotive without Muffler    Locomotive with Muffler
Throttle
Setting

Idle (no load)
   1
   2
   3
   4
   5
   6
   7
   8
Noise Level
  @ 30 m
   (dB)

   65.6
   66.5
   72
   74
   77.5
   84.5
   84.5
   85
   85
Number
of Fans
Runnine
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Noise Level
@ 30 m
(dB)
64
64
66.5
68
71
74.5
76
80
81
Number
of Fans
Running
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Reduction in
Total Locative
Noise @ 30 m (dB)
1.5
2.5
5.5
6
6.5
10
8.5
5
4
 Reduction in
Exhaust Noise
  (31m (dB)

    18.5
    18.5
    17
    18
    19
    18
    16
    19
    19
    Notes:
          1.
          2.
          3.
          4.
         Ambient noise levels:  47-55 dB(A)
         Ambient temperatures: 80-90°F
         Wind Speed:  10-20 mph
         Sound levels are A-weighted.

-------
                Table 4-4

SUMMARY OF LOCOMOTIVE MUFFLER ACOUSTICS TESTS
   GPP 38-2 Locomotive. EN Road 2092
M
00
Locomotive without Muffler Locomotive with Muffler

Throttle
Setting
Idle (no
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Notes :
1.
2.
3.
4.
Noise Level
@ 30 m
(dB)
load) 60.5
64
68
73
78
79
82
84.5
86.5

Ambient noise levels:
Ambient temperatures:
Wind Speed: 10-30 mph
Number
of Fans
Running
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

54-55 dB(A)
80-95 °F

Noise Level
@ 30 m
(dB)
60.5
62
65.5
67
72
75
75
79
81




Number
of Fans
Running
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2




Sound levels are A-weighted.
                                          Reduction in
                                         Total Locative
                                        Noise @ 30 m  (dB)

                                              0
                                              2
                                              2.5
                                              6
                                              6
                                              4
                                              7
                                              5.5
                                              5.5
 Reduction in
Exhaust Noise
  @ 1 m (dB)

    18
    16
    18
    19
    19
    16.5
    18
    17
    17.5

-------
                        A-weighted
Options              Regulatory Limit*              Exception Condition

  1                         91                      less than six mph

  2                         91                      none

  3                         85                      less than four mph

  4                         92                      none
  5                         92                      less than eight mph
*Measured at receiving property.


Based on the noise data presented in Appendix H, the energy average sound

levels of railcar impacts can be described by the following relationship.


          Lmax - 75 + 32.5 log v     (1)


          where Lmax is based on the fast meter response in dB at

          (30 meters) and v is in mph.


It is the relationship between average maximum sound level and car coupling

speed that provides the basis for impact reduction.  The current practice  is

for railcars to be coupled at speeds distributed over a several mph range.

Data provided by Conrail Indicate the average speed recorded  for 60,958

measurements taken at 7 classifications yards was 4.75 mph.   The distribution

of impacts as a function of railcar speed at impact is given  in Table 4-5.


                              Table 4-5

                   DISTRIBUTION OF RAILCAR IMPACTS

                                               Percentage of  Impacts
         Speed  (mph)                             in Speed Interval

            0-2                                          1.1
            2-3                                         4.8
            3-4                                         13.2
            4-5                                         24.2
            5-6                                         31.2
            6-7                                         13.8
            7-8                                          6.2
            8-9                                          3.2
            9-10                                         1.3
            10-11                                         0.5
            11-12                                         0.2
            12-18                                         0.1

                                     4-29

-------
As  the percentage of  rail  cars  in  excess  of a given  speed  (4,6 or 8 mph) is
reduced, the average  velocity level  is  reduced and the expected sound level
is  correspondingly reduced.  It  is estimated that eliminating speeds in excess
of  6 mph will  reduce  A-weighted  average max levels 1 to 2  dB; while restrict-
ing coupling speeds to less than 4 mph  would reduce  the levels by 7 to 8 dB.

     It is probable that a reduction of coupling speed to  less than 4 mph
would require  a considerable increase in  control effort on the part of switch
engine operators.  In many yards where  the classification  area is slope
graded to aid  rail car reliability,  switch engine operators might need to
push cars much closer to the point of coupling rather than letting them roll
free for several car  lengths as  is the  current practice.

SUMMARY

     The noise source level reduction achievable for specific sources
considered in the regulatory source  options are summarized in Table 4-6.

     A summary of noise control  treatments for the options appears in Table
4-7, and estimated noise levels  at the  receiving property after source treat-
ment are presented in Tables 4-8,  4-9,  4-10, and 4-11.
                                    4-30

-------
                               Table 4-6
                   NOISE SOURCES AND SOUND LEVEL REDUCTIONS
Noise Sources
     Noise  Control  Techniques
  Range of Reduction in
A-Weighted Sound Level (dB)*
Retarders (Master)
        Absorptive Barriers
        150 ft x 12 ft  (46 m x 3.7 m)
            16-22
Retarder (Master    (a)  Reflective Boundary Walls
            or             1500 ft x 8 ft (457 m x 2.5 m)
           Group)
                                              9-11
                    (b)  Reflective Boundary Walls
                           1500 ft x 15 ft (457 m x 4.6 m)
                           1500 ft x 10 ft (457 m x 3 m)
                                             16-21
Load Cell Test
(a)   Absorptive Barriers                     12-14
        150 ft x 20 ft (45.7 m x 6.1 m)

(b)   Absorptive Barriers                     14-16
        150 ft x 25 ft (45.7 m x 7.6 m)
Switcher Engine
  Noise
   Exhaust Silencer
         0-1 at idle
         1-5 moving
Car Coupling
(a)  Reduce coupling speeds
     to less than 4 mph

(b)  Reduce coupling speed
     to less than 6 mph

(c)  Reduce coupling speeds
     to less than 8 mph
             7-8
                                                                  1-2
                                                                  0-1
* These are the expected ranges of reduction in maximum sound levels for
   single events depending on the type of noise source, the distance from the
   sound to yard boundary and other factors.  In the case of retarders, the
   reductions shown are the barrier insertion loss values; the overall noise
   reductions will be less due to finite barrier effects.  The reductions in
   terms of the Ljn scale for each option or type of source are discussed in
   Section 5.
                                      4-31

-------
Retarders
                                   Table 4-7
                      SUMMARY OF NOISE CONTROL TREATMENT
               Barrier walls 1500 ft x 8 ft (457 m x 2.5 m)  near side
                         and 1500 ft x 8 ft (457 m x 2.5 m)  far side

               Barrier walls 1500 ft x 15 ft (457 m x 4.6 m) near side
                         and 1500 ft x 10 ft (457 m x 3.0 m) far side

               In addition to T2,  150 ft x 12 ft (45.7 m x  3.7 m)
               absorptive barriers are placed around the master retarder
Load Cells
   T4
Absorptive barriers 150 ft x 20 ft (45.7 m x 6.1 m)
placed 25 ft (7.6 m)from track centerline

Absorptive barriers 150 ft x 25 ft (45.7 m x 7.6 m)
placed 25 ft (7.6 m) from track centerline
Switch Engines

   Tg          Exhaust Silencer
Car Coupling
               Reduce rail car coupling speeds to less than 4  mph

               Reduce rail car coupling speeds to less than 6  mph

               Reduce rail car coupling speeds to less than 8  mph
                                     4-32

-------
                                     Table 4-8
                          ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FOR RETARDERS
                                          Baseline
Yard type and   Distance to nearest      A-Weighted
 traffic rate   receiving property* (m)  Levels (dB)
  Levels Achieved
by treatments** (dB)
         T2    T3


*>.
1
w
10
Hump
Low volume
Medium volume


High volume

79 m
110 m


128 m

104
100


98

94
90


88

84
80


78

83
79


77
  15 m beyond assumed property line

 TJnder the proposed measurement methodology for compliance determination the levels listed
  would be adjusted for activity in accordance with adjustment factors listed in Table 2 of
  Appendix A*
***
   Treatment code shown in Table 4-7.

-------
                                                   Table 4-9
                                    ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FOR LOAD CELL TESTS
        Yard type and
         traffic rate
                          Baseline
Distance to nearest      A-Weighted
receiving property* (m)  Levels  (dB)
               Levels Achieved
             by treatments** (dB)
               T4           T5
i
CO
        Hump
          (High volume only)
        Flat
          (High volume only)
       128
       107
78
80
65
67
63
65
          15 m beyond assumed property line

          Under the proposed measurement methodology for compliance determination the levels listed
          would be adjusted for activity in accordance with adjustment factors listed in Table 2 of
          Appendix A.

-------
                                           Table 4-10
                            ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FOR CAR COUPLING
Yard type and Distance to nearest
traffic rate property line (m)
Hump
Low
Medimum
High
Flat
Low
Medimum
High
Industrial
Small Industrial

210
310
370

110
110
300
230
170
Baseline
A-Weighted
Levels (dB)

89
85
83

95
95
86
88
91
Levels Achieved
by treatments* (dB)
T7 T8 T9

81
77
75

87
87
78
80
83

87
83
81

93
93
84
86
89

88
84
82

94
%
85
87
90
*Under the proposed measurement methodology for compliance determination the levels listed would be
 adjusted for activity in accordance with adjustment factors listed in Table 2 of Appendix A.

-------
                                                     Table 4-11
                                      ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS FOR SWITCHERS
             Yard type
                               Measurement
                               Distance (m)
                   Baseline
                  A-Weighted
                  Levels (dB)
               Levels achieved
              by treatment (db)
                    T6
I
U>
Proposed measurement
  Methodology

Receiving property
  measurement for
  idling switcher
                                 (Idle)
                                 (Moving)
            Hump
               Low
               Medlmum
               High
30
30
                                   64
                                   95
                                   113
66
90
                      59
                      56
                      55
65-66
85-89
                     58
                     55
                     54
            Flat
              Low
              Medimum
              High
                                   33
                                   33
                                   92
                      65
                      65
                      56
                     64
                     64
                     55

-------
                                 REFERENCES
!•  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 Yars 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.

7.  Rallcar Coupling Noise Measurements, Simpson, M.A.,  BBN  RN  3873, Dec*  1978.

8.  Railroad Retarder Noise Reduction. Burlington Northern Inc. and  Transporation
    Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts, on-going study.

9.  Private communication, Mr. Rudy Nagal, Signal Department, Southern Pacific
    Railroad, April 3, 1978.

10. Official Docket for Proposed Revision  to Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation.
    AAR Submission, EPA 550/9-79-208.

11• Noise and Vibration Control. Beranek,  L., McGraw Hill Book  Co.,  N.Y.,  1977.
                                    4-37

-------
SECTION 5

-------
                               SECTION 5

                       HEALTH AND WELFARE IMPACT
INTRODUCTION

Benefits to Public Health and Welfare

     The phrase "health and welfare", in this 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, disturbance 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
terms of reductions in noise exposures and, more meaningfully, in terms of
reductions in adverse effects.  This analysis first quantifies rail facility
noise exposure (numbers of people exposed at different noise levels), then
translates this exposure into a community impact.

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

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

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

                                     5-1

-------
the effects mentioned below, depending on exposures and specific situations.
The discussion here refers to noise in general.

     The best-known noise effect is probably noise-induced hearing loss.
Noise-induced hearing loss characteristically that it first occurs in
the 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 lost.  Noise-induced hearing loss
is a permanent loss for which hearing aids and medical procedures cannot
compensate.

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

     This stress response occurs with individual noise events, but it Is
not yet known to what extent 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 response  of people  to environ-
mental noise.  To  the extent that  physiological 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
                                      5-2

-------
interference.  Noise interferes with many important daily activities such
as sleep and communication.  In expressing the causes of noise annoyance,
people often report that noise interferes with sleeping, relaxing, concentra-
tion, 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 with activities.

Measures of Benefits to!_P_ublic_Health^ and.Welfare

     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 alternative noise
regulatory options is therefore statistical in that an effort is made to
determine the order of magnitude of the population that may be affected at
each "not to exceed" noise emission level.  Some uncertainties with respect to
individual cases or situations may remain.

     In general, reducing rail facility noise levels at residential and
commercial land uses is expected to produce the following benefits:

     1.  Reduction in rallyard noise levels and associated cumulative
         long-term impact upon the exposed population.

     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.

     The approach taken for the analysis of health and welfare benefits
resulting from various railyard noises abatement options was to evaluate the
effects on the U.S. population of reducing noise levels at railyard boundaries

                                      5-3

-------
by abating the noise emissions of the predominant noise sources in railyards.
(One prominent source of railroad noise, line-haul noise  (locomotives and
railcars), is currently subject to federal noise emission regulations.*»2)

     The noise source limits in the current regulation are designed to be
compatible with a subsequent, more comprehensive regulation in the sense
that the noise descriptors used for specific standards here are compatible
with the day-night sound level (L^n).   (See page 5-6.)  The benefits (reduced
impacts) calculated for each source are based on a railyard facility noise
impact model which incorporates noise emissions from the dominant noise
sources found in typical railyards.  The latter portions of this section will
first describe the railyard noise model, and then specify source reduction
options and benefits.

Health and Welfare Impact Measures

     In this analysis, no attempt was made to quantify the complexities
of railyard 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 within each different level
of noise environment.  This is appropriate to a quantification of a community's
general adverse response to rail facility noise.  In addition, the analyses
were conducted according to standard procedures, on the basis of population
information which indicated only the typical local average population densities
mean railyards, but with no differentiation between various land uses such as
residential and commerical.  This, in effect, quantified the impact on the
redidents of the area regardless of whether they participate In residential or
commerical activities.  However, as discussed in the final part of this
section, these are other specific benefits to be gained from protection of
commerical property from excessive noise that are not quantified by this
procedure or model.

     The health and welfare impact analysis uses 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
                                    5-4

-------
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 Leq.  This indicator correlates well with the overall long-term
effects of noise on the public health and welfare. The analytical expression
for Leq is:

     Leq " 10 logio

where t^ - 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 (Leq)
is expressed by:
                                      -2
                       r   i      /
        L,

                            [i      /"t          L(t)/10    I
                         -   I        10            dt
                          t2-ti  J                        J
where, in general, L(t) - 10 Iog10
     The impact of the cumulative noise environment on people is assessed
in terms of the day-night sound level (Ldn) which is a noise rating scale
developed by the EPA.  Ldn is used as a rating scale for the daily (24-hour)
sound exposure, and is based on Leq»  It incorporates a weighting applied to
nighttime noise levels to account for the increased sensitivity or reaction of
people to noise intrusion at night.  Thus, Ldn 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.M.  This may be expressed by the following equation:
 Ldn - 10 logic i
                       t2

                    /    10L(t)/10   dt + J
                T
                   •^                       ^
                                               t2
10[L(t)+10]/10    dt
where T-t3-ti, ti-7 A.M. on 1st day, t2»10 P.M. and t3 - 7 A.M.
2nd day.
                                     5-5

-------
When values for average or equivalent  sound  levels during  the daytime and
nighttime hours (L^ and Ln, respectively) are known, Ljjn can be  expressed
as:
where Lj is the Leq for the period 7 A.M. to  10 P.M.  and Ln  is  the
Leq for the period 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.
     In the assessment of railyard noise  impact, the Leg and L^ scales
are used to estimate the response of people  exposed to various levels of
noise.  There is some variability in the  general adverse response measure due
to a number of social and demographic factors.  However, in the aggregate for
residential locations, 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 L
-------
level varies linearly, i.e., a 5 dB excess (L^-60 dB) constitutes a 25 per-
cent impact, and a 10 dB excess (L(jn=65 dB) constitutes a 50 percent impact.

     For convenience of calculation, a function for weighting the magnitude of
noise impact with respect to general adverse response (annoyance) has been
used.  This function, normalized to unity at L C,
               FI -
                                 for L < C.

L is the observed or measured Ljjn of the environmental noise, and in
this study the criterion level C is L^-SS dB.  Note that FI can exceed
unity at levels greater than L^ « 75 dB.
     Thus, relative to projected community response, the impact of railyard
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.  This concept is illustrated and described in
Figure 5-1.  Additional explanation of the fractional impact procedure is
given in Appendix G.

     In a particular area, then, the equivalent noise impact (ENI^),* or
the number of people who are considered 100 percent affected, is given by:
*Equivalent Noise Impact  (ENI) was the term in use at the outset of  this  rule-
making action.  It has since been changed to LWF, or Level Weighted  Population.
For the sake of consistency, "ENI" will continue to be used  throughout  this
rulemaking.  Likewise, the term "Fractional Impact" (FI) is  used here  instead
of the more recent notation W(Ldn).
                                      5-7

-------
00
EQUIVALENT  NOISE  IMPACT:   A
METHOD TO ACCOUNT  FOR THE
EXTENT AND SEVERITY OF NOISE
IMPACT

    Equivalent  Noise   Impact  (END
expresses  both  the extent  and the
severity of a noise impact.  The extent
of impact refers to the number of peo-
ple who are  adversely affected, while
the  severity represents  the degree to
which  each  person is  affected.   EN I
provides a simple, single number used
to compare benefits of  different noise
reduction options.
     It  has been  determined  that an
outdoor L£jn value of  55 dB  (or an
indoor  Ltjn  of 45 dB) represents the
lower  threshold  of noise  jeopardizing
the  health and welfare  of  people.  In
the  range above these  levels, noise may
be a cause of adverse physiological and
psychological  effects.   These  effects
often  result  in annoyance and com-
munity action.  Above an L(jn  of 75 dB,
noise, in time, may cause hearing loss
and   the  possibility  of other  severe
health effects.
     The computation  of  EN I allows
one  to combine the number of people
jeopardized by noise  above an  Ljn  of
55  dB with  the degree of impact  at
different noise levels.   The figure is a
pictorial  representation  of  the EN I
concept*  The circle  is a noise source
which  emits  noise  to a  populated
area represented  by the figures.  The
various  partial  amounts   of  shading
represent various  degrees of  partial
impact by the noise.   Note that those
people closest to  the noise source are
more  severely threatened.  The partial
impacts are then summed  to give the
Equivalent  Noise Impact.   In this ex-
ample, 6 people  who are  adversely
affected by the noise (partially shaded)
results in an  Equivalent Noise  Impact
(END of 2 (totally shaded).
                                                                                  FIGURE  5-1
                                                             EQUIVALENT   NOISE   IMPACT

-------
Thus, for example, in a populated area where 1000 people are exposed to
an L
-------
     o  Hump Classification Yards
     o  Flat Classification Yards
     o  Flat Industrial Yards
     o  Small Flat Industrial Yards.

     The railyard types and locations were also grouped by the average
level of activity (traffic rate) and the population size of the urban area
in which the yard is located.

     A summary of the railyard data discussed in Section 3 is shown in
Table 5-1 by type of yard, place size of yard location and rate of traffic
(activity).  The distribution of yards by the six place size classes in
Tables 3-11 and 3-12 was translated into the distribution shown in Tables 3-14
and 5-1 since the level of detail necessary to develop the noise impact model
required only 3 place size classes.

Railyard Configurations and Noise Sources

     The EPIC analyses discussed in Section 3 resulted in the derivation
of the typical or average railyard configurations and dimensions shown In
Figures 3-8 and 3-9.  In essence the shapes of flat classification railyards
are complex and asymmetrical, but can generally be considered to have separate
receiving and departure areas with a wider classification and railcar storage
area near the central part of the whole facility.  The main operational area
or traffic region in each of the subyard areas is not centered between the
boundaries.  It appears from visual observation (see EPIC analyses, Section 3)
that some of the noise sources are nearer one side than the other.  The
configurations of the industrial and small industrial flat yards appeared
to be somewhat simpler as indicated by Figure 3-9.

     The analysis of types of noise sources to be considered In the noise
impact model is also discussed in Section 3.  In general there were 11 types
of sources in hump yards, 8 types in flat classification yards and 4 types
in the other yards.   These noise sources are listed in Table 5-2.
                                     5-10

-------
                                                Table 5-1
                                  KAILYARD DISTRIBUTION BY YARD TYPE,
                                  PLACE SIZE AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
NUMBER OF RAILYARDS
Place
Less Than 50,000
Yard Type Traffic Rate
Low Med High Total
I Hump Classification 19 19 14 52
II Flat Classification 321 204 104 629
*III Industrial 849
*IV Small Industrial 1262
Total/Place size 2792

Size (Population)
50,000 to 250,000 Greater Than 250,000
Traffic Rate Traffic Rate
Low Med High Total Low Med High Total Total/Yard Type
14 12 8 34 13 16 9 38 124
135 83 44 262 115 70 37 222 1113
239 293 1381
133 156 1551
668 709 Grand Total:
4169
*Industrial and small industrial yards were not categorized by traffic rate*

-------
                     Table 5-2
                KAILYARD NOISE SOURCES

HUMP YARD - NOISE SOURCES:
    -       Mr  - Master Retarders (Includes Group,
                  Intermediate, and Track)
            HS  - Hump Lead Switchers
            IR  - Inert Retarders
            MS  - Makeup Switchers
            CI  - Car Impacts
            IL  - Idling Locomotives
            LT  - Locomotive Load Test
            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

    FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD -  NOISE SOURCES:

            SE  - Switch Engines
            CI  - Car Impacts
            IB  - Inbound Trains (Road-Haul plus Local)
                          5-12

-------
     The general locations of noise source operations in the various yard
types are indicated in Figure 5-2.  There were insufficient data to determine
the typical distances between types of sources and more specific locations of
all the sources.  Therefore it was assumed, for example, that in the hump
classification yards the hump lead switch engines (HS) and inbound train (IB)
locomotives operated back and forth in the full length of the receiving area,
while the make-up and industrial switch engines (MS, IS) and the outbound
train locomotives operated back and forth in the full length of the departure
area.  The remaining sources either were known to or were assumed to operate
in the classification area.  Similar data or assumptions hold for the flat
classification yards.  Thus all the moving sources operate in the receiving
and departure areas, while all the stationary sources operate in the
classification area.

POPULATION DENSITY ANALYSES

Local Average Population Density

     The evaluation of railyard noise impact and the development of a noise
impact model required an analysis of population densities for the railyard
locations.  However, the exact location of each of the 4169 railyards in the
U.S. and the population densities in the vicinity of the yards was not known
or practical to determine.

     Since the number of.each type of yard in selected population size classes
(for cities near or in which the yards were located) had been determined (see
Section 3), the only choice in obtaining representative population densities
was to select samples of yards of each type and determine' representative
population densities by averaging the greater urban area average population
densities for each place size class.  It was recognized that these large scale
average density values would not reflect the site specific land use patterns
at railyards and thus did not represent railyard noise impacted residential
area population densities.
                                     5-13

-------
 CLASSIFICATION YARDS:
 HUMP YARD
  NOISE SOURCES*: HS. IB     MR. IL. LT, Cl. Cl, RC. IR
                               MS, IS, OB
d1
(a) d2
I
U 	 1, 	 ^

"3
t
d4
(b> 1 (c)
1,
t
	 dj 	
W» d2
I
— 	 11 u

    RECEIVING AREA
CLASSIFICATION AREA
                                                      DEPARTURE AREA
 FLAT YARD
  NOISE SOURCE: CSW, IB
   IL, LT, Cl, Cl. RC
CSE, OB
 INDUSTRIAL YARD
                        NOISE SOURCES*: IB, SE, Cl, OB
•REFER TO TABLE 5-2 FOR SOURCE NAMES
        FIGURE 5-2. GENERAL LOCATIONS OF NOISE SOURCES IN RAILYARDS
                                5-14

-------
     As discussed In Section 3, a decision had been made to randomly select a
sample of railyards for determination of typical parameters needed to develop
the noise impact model.  Therefore in conjunction with the railyard configuration
analyses, computerized census data were accessed to obtain site specific
population data for each of the 120 railyards selected for examination.  The
objective was to obtain local average population densities in the areas
adjacent to the railyards*  These data were required to accurately assess the
railyard noise impact in terms of equivalent number of people subjected to
day-night average sound levels (l>dn) greater than 55 dB.

     The population data were 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 summarizes
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 construction rates.  The CACI
system produced a Demographic Profile Report for each of the 120 railyards.
Samples of these reports are shown in Appendix M, Figures M-l and M-2.

     Preliminary analyses indicated that railyard noise could affect populations
within 2500 ft (762 m) to 5000 ft  (1524 m) of the yard boundaries.  Therefore,
for each railyard the study area selected was rectangular in shape extending
the length of the yard complex and either 2500 ft  (762 m) or 5000 ft (152A m) to
either side depending on the size  of the yard (i.e., 5000 ft (1524 m) for
classification yards and 2500 ft  (762 m) 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 railyard
area).  The resulting average population density values are shown in Table
M-3, Appendix M.  As discussed in  Appendix M, there were a few cases of yards
in scarcely populated areas which  did not contain a population centroid in the
study area about the yard even though there may have been populated census
tract blocks in the selected area*  In  these few cases the study area was
expanded into the immediate vicinity to obtain a group of census block population
                                      5-15

-------
 data with which to compute an average density.   Any uncertainty associated
 with these cases is insignificant relative to the total results from the
 impact model since the cases are few and the Impact values are small*

 Distribution of Kailyards by Density Class

      The percentage of sample railyards in each density class  or range was
 computed,  and these values are shown in Table 5-3.

      The average density  values and  percentage  distribution of railyards
 for  the corresponding  density range  classes were assumed to hold for (or '
 represent)  the total population of railyards in the respective place size
 categories.   Thus,  for example, the  percentage  distribution of railyards 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 5-1.
 Application  of the  percentage factors in Table  5-3  to  the number of  yards
fshown for  each yard type  shown in Table 5-1 results in the total number  of
 railyards  of each type estimated for each density class as shown in  Appendix
 M, Tables  M-4 through  M-7.

 RAILYARD NOISE MODEL

 General Description

      The noise sources  identified  in railyards  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 distri-
 buted  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  occurrence,  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
                                      5-16

-------
                                 Table 5-3
                       PERCENTAGE OF SAMPLE KAILYARDS

                         BY POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
   Population
  Density Range
 (People/Sq Mi)*
                    Place Size  Place Size
                                         Place Size
Less than    50,000 to    Population      Greater
  50,000      250,000    Density Range  than 250,000
  People      People    (People/Sq Mi)     People
     <500


 500 to 1000


1000 to 2000


2000 to 3000


3000 to 5000


5000 to 7000


7000 to 11,000
   20
   15
   32.5
   17.5
10.3
            <1000
15
                             25
                             32.5
12.8     1000 to 3000
15.4     3000 to 5000
17.9     5000 to 7000
               25.6     7000 to 10,000
               10.3    10,000 to 15,000      15.8
                7.7    15,000 to 22,000     10
  To convert to People/Sq Km multiply by 0.386.
                                     5-17

-------
railyard boundaries is not possible without considerable additional
descriptive data on the 4169 railyards 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 railyard
complexes were due to widely separated Individual sources and groups of
sources of the same type*  Additionally, examination of the yard noise
source characteristics indicated that only two types of basic noise genera-
tion models were necessary, one for stationary sources and another for
moving sources.  In the case of stationary or groups of like stationary
sources, the corresponding average dally 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 esitmated for the groups of distributed sources of the same
type were used to determine property line noise levels for the impact analysis,
The designations of source operation areas were based on the examination of
location of specific operations and activities within each railyard type as
far as possible, as previously discussed in Section 3.

     Another basic concept for the noise model was the grouping of railyards
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
railcars classified per day.  Thus, there are eight typical yards in the
composite model:

     o     High Traffic or Activity Hump Classification Yards
     o     Medium Traffic Hump Classification Yards
     o     Low Traffic Hump Classification Yards
     o     High Traffic Flat Classification Yards
                                      5-18

-------
     o     Medium Traffic Flat Classification Yards
     o     Low Traffic Flat Classification Yards
     o     Industrial Flat Yards
     o     Small Industrial Flat Yards

The basis for these groupings, and the supporting data on the number of
yards and their distribution by location (place size) and traffic level,
were developed in a railroad yard survey conducted for DOT.4  (See Section
3.)   Therefore, the noise generation model is thus based on the average
noise level, average number of sources and average activity level data for
each of the classes of yards which are either presented in the referenced
document or derived from the statistical data therein*  The model was
developed on the basis of average or statistically expected values used in a
deterministic procedure (as opposed to a stochastic model) to make relative
comparisons.

     In view of the diversity and scope of details regarding railyards and
their operations, the severe limitations of the available data and the time
constraints imposed by the Federal Court ordered schedule for the development
of the regulation, the railyard noise Impact model was intended only to
provide a consistent procedure for estimating the magnitude of impact on a
national scale, and a basis for relative comparisons between an estimate
of baseline Impact and changes in impact as selected noise reduction options
were considered*  It was not possible, and there was no intent, to use the
model for providing absolute accuracy of noise impact determinations, either
for an individual yard, or for the total number of railyards.  Additionally,
the numbers of variables and assumptions required by the model made it
impractical to conduct a composite uncertainty analysis to set bounds on the
magnitude of impact with known confidence levels.  Finally, there were no
explicit legal requirements directing the Agency to base the noise regulation
on benefits (reductions in noise Impact).

     A schematic diagram of the railroad yard noise adverse response impact
model outlining the basic elements of the model and the required input information
                                      5-19

-------
 is  shown  in  Figure 5-3.  The  railyard noise  sources  are  listed  in  Table  5-2
 and Figure 5-2,  and  the  representative  or  average  noise  level for  each of
 the sources  are  discussed  in  Section 4  and listed  in Table  4-1  and
 Table  5-4.

 Average Noise Source Levels
    The railyard noise data base provided average  (energy basis) noise levels
 (Lave)* at a distance of 30 meters from the source for  each of  the major
 noise sources identified.  In the case of such  time-varying noise levels as
 retarder, car impact and locomotive pass-by  the averages of  the maximum
 A-weighted sound levels, Lave max were computed.  In addition,  for
 moving sources and intermittent sources a sound exposure level  (L8) was
 determined from Lave values and the corresponding event duration (or time-
 history) .  The Lave and La values were calculated according to:
                 ave
                                n
                       10 log   E
                                    10
                                       L /10
where:
     n
                Lg   - Lave max + 10 log (^TTJ,   for moving sources  (Ref. 5);

                Ls   « Lave max + 10 log teff, for stationary sources


             Measured A-weighted sound level for specific event i, dB

             Number of measurements for each source
             Average or average maximum A-weighted sound level, dB

     D    »  Shortest distance between stationary observer
             and source path

     V    «  Source speed

     Teff "  Effective duration, seconds.

The results are shown in Table 5-4, which provides necessary input data for
the noise impact model.2»6»7»8»9» 10» u»12»13
                                     5-20
     Jave

-------
RAIL-
YARD
NOISE
SOURCES


SOURCE
NOISE LEVELS


ACTIVITY RATES,
OPERATION CYCLES,
RAILYARD
DIMENSIONS
                 SOURCE
                LOCATIONS
                 IN YARDS
en
to
                                                             BASELINE Ldn
                                                             FOR EACH
                                                              SOURCE
NOISE ATTENUATION

• GEOMETRIC
  SPREADING

• AIR AND GROUND
  ABSORPTION

• SHIELDING
                                                            NOISE LEVELS
                                                            PROPAGATED
                                                            BEYOND YARD
                                                            BOUNDARIES
                       COMMUNITY NOISE
                       IMPACT  (ADVERSE
                       RESPONSE, ENI):

                       INTEGRATION OF
                         NOISE LEVEL
                        FACTOR (FI) AND
                      POPULATION EXPOSED
                        FIGURE  5-3.   RAILROAD YARD NOISE IMPACT MODEL

-------
to
to
                                                   Table  5-4



                                           SOURCE NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Noise Source
Master Retarder:
Group, Track, and
Intermediate
Inert Retarder
Flat Yard Switch
Engine Accelerating
Hump Switch Engine,
Constant Speed
Idling Locomotive
Car Impact
Refrigerator Car
Load Test
(Throttle 8)
Number of
Measurements
410
96
30
Ref. 6
27
55
164
23
59
Level of Energy Average*
I-Ave. @ 30 m, dB Lg @ 30 m
111 108
93 90
83 98 (5 MPH)
78 95 (4 MPH)
65(<2500 HP)
67(>2500 HP)
99 94
67
90
              *  A-weighted L,i,ax, Average for Intermittent or Moving Sources

-------
     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.
Additional discussion of the noise source level data base and determination of
expected average levels for selected source types is provided in Appendix L.

Noise Generation Models

     The noise rating scale selected to assess railyard noise impact is the
day-night sound level, L^n*  Since the railyard noise model is developed
from measured sound levels for each individual source, a baseline Ldn value
is required for each source and for each level of activity.  The empirical
data base on railyard source noise levels in general provided average A-weighted
sound levels (Lave) and single-event noise exposure levels (Ls) as discussed
in the previous section.  It is necessary, then, to use the Lave or Ls
values and the activity parameters to compute the baseline L
-------
     The daytime and nighttime periods, 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 30 meters
from the source.  The latter of the two expressions is applicable when Leq(l)
remains the same for all hours the source is operated.  This condition was
determined to hold for parked refrigerator cars, stationary idling locomotives
and locomotive load tests.  The first expression for L^n is applicable to
moving sources such as the switch engines, and to intermittent 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
is presented in Appendix N.

KAILYARD NOISE IMPACT

Rallyard Boundary Noise Levels

     The baseline Ldn values for the railyard noise sources were
determined from:  1) average source noise levels at a reference distance of
30 meters, 2) railyard source activity and operational parameters and 3)
average attenuation factors for each noise source or group.  These three
parameters were used to compute railyard boundary noise levels which formed
the basic input data base for the railyard impact model. The general expression
for computing Ldn values will be discussed in the following subsections.

     Analysis of the EPIC survey data indicated that hump and
flat classification railyards have an asymmetrical configuration.  As a
result, a near and a far yard boundary distance was assigned to each yard
source and an Ldn value was determined for each boundary distance.  The
generalized configurations and dimensions for each .railyard type are shown
in Figures 5-3, 3-8 and 3-9.  A summary listing of the input data base Ldn
values as a function of distance to the near and far side of the yard
boundary is presented in Tables 5-5 through 5-8.
                                     5-24

-------
to
Ul
                                              Table 5-5

                               HUMP YARD NOISE SOURCE AVERAGE 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
LOW
Location* Noise Source Near Side Far Side
(a) 8
Hump Switchers
Inbound Trains
(b) <§
Retarders (Master
and Group)
Idling Locomotives
Load Tests
(c) §
Inert Retarders
Refrigeration Cars
Car Impacts**
(d) @
Makeup Switchers
Industrial Switchers
Outbound Trains
42 m
65
64
64 m

86
71
••"•
64 m
68
70
67
43 m
68
69
65
@137 m
60
58
(§192 m

72
61
«•
@192 m
54
59
55
@137 m
62
63
59
Ldn (dB) FOR
TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
MEDIUM
Near Side Far Side
@ 43 m
68
67
@ 95 m

85
71
.»
@ 95 m
67
73
66
@ 43 m
71
68
68
@146 m
63
61
@192 m

75
65
~_
(§192 m
57
66
59
@146 m
65
62
62
HIGH
Near Side
@ 55 m
69
68
@113 m

87
69
75
@113 m
69
73
66
@ 55 m
71
72
69
Far Side
@171 m
64
62
@229 m

76
60
69
@229 m
58
66
58
@171 m
65
66
63
       *   Refer  to  Fig.  5.3

       **  There  are two  car impact groups, each group represented by an equivalent stationary source
          with the  same  levels as shown.

-------
                                                        Table 5-6
                                        FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARD NOISE SOURCE AVERAGE
                               DAY-NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (Ldn)  AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES
                              TO  NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD  BOUNDARY AND TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
in
K>
Source
Location* Noise Source
(a)
Classification
Switchers (W)
Inbound Trains
(b)
Idling Locomotives
Load Tests
(c)
Refrigeration Cars
Car Impacts**
(d)
Classification
Switchers (E)
Outbound Trains
LOW
Near Side Far Side
@ 30 m

69
60
@ 34 m
78
~~
@ 34 m
79
69
@ 30 m

69
64
@107 m

64
55
@107 m
68
~""
@107 m
69
58
@107 m

64
59
Ldn (dB) FOR
TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
MEDIUM
Near Side Far Side
@ 30 m

74
63
@ 34 m
81
~~

-------
                    Table 5-7

FLAT INDUSTRIAL YARD NOISE SOURCE AVERAGE DAY-NIGHT
SOUND LEVEL (Ldn) AS A FUNCTION OF DISTANCES
       TO NEAR AND FAR SIDE OF YARD BOUNDARY
                              Ldn (dB) For

         Noise Source     Near Side  Far Side

Inbound Trains
Outbound Trains
Switch Engines
Car Impacts
@ 70 m
53
53
69
65
@ 70 m
53
53
69
65
                    Table 5-8

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

         Noise Source     Near Side  Far Side

Inbound Trains
Outbound Trains
Switch Engines
Car Impacts
@ 52 m
54
54
64
61
@ 52 m
54
54
64
61
                              5-27

-------
Noise Impact Model for Kailyards

     The impact analysis methodology requires the determination of the variation
of L^ with distance from the railyard boundary.  The basic general expression
for computing L^n values for each source or source group at any distance  (D)
from the source is:
          Ldn     -  Ldno- 10 10* (D    - (kl+ V(D-D0)
          Ldno    a baseline L2-Do2 i for stationary sources
                                     5-28

-------
where:
          Lo  - characteristic path length for moving sources
          D   « distance from source to receiving location
          D0  •» distance from source to railyard boundary

     The density values applicable to the railyard areas in terms of place
size and population density range are presented in Appendix M, Table M-3.

     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 Lo values ranged from
790 to 2070 meters, depending on type of yard and traffic rate (see Figures
3-8 and 3-9).

     The railyard noise model was developed to determine the noise impact
resulting from individual noise sources*  The yard noise sources are modeled
as either moving sources or as stationary sources.  As a result of uncer-
tainties in the treatment of the interaction of railyard noise sources with
external (to the railyard) ambient sources, the modeling of this interaction
was approached in two independent ways.  In one case, the noise emanating from
each source is propagated out to the distance where the L^n value is
decreased to either the 56 to 55 dB range, or to 1 dB above the estimated
local ambient noise level.  The background (or ambient) noise level, due to
other than railyard noise sources, is determined from the site specific local
average density values (see Table M-3, Appendix M) for each place size and
density range class according to the formula: 14

     Background Noise Level -22+10 log p,  p- people/sq mi.

In the second case, wherever the background noise level, as determined by the
above equation, is equal to or greater than L
-------
the sensitivity of the results to these differing assumptions.  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.  The impact of each yard noise source, given in terms of

Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI) , is obtained by summing the noise source impacts
over  the appropriate number of yards defined by yard type, function and

activity level, 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:


          o     Select yard type, traffic rate, place size and source.

          o     Find Ljjjo from yard/source matrix.
          o     Compute L(jn per D for each 1 dB interval using
                appropriate n, k^ and k2 values relative to source
                and population density range.
          o     Compute FI for each successive strip area using the L,jn
                average relative to the strip boundaries.

          o     Compute strip area (A^) between successive D values (in
                accordance with the type of source) .  Continue out to boundary
                of noise impact area.

          o     Compute ENI^ for each strip area using the appropriate
                population density value for the place size
          o     Sum the ENI^ values to obtain the ENI per each density
                range for the selected conditions.  Multiply the ENI value
                by the number of railyards in the particular yard category
                selected.
          o     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 railyards for the selected yard
                type and activity level.
          o     Repeat the procedure for each activity level to obtain
                total ENI for all the yard types selected.

          o     Repeat the procedure for each of the yard types and obtain
                the grand total ENI for all sources, yard types, activity
                levels, etc.


     A flow diagram for the model elements and ENI computing procedure is

shown in Figure 5-4.  A computerized model for the railyard noise impact

assessment, programmed according to the above relationships, was exercised


                                    5-30

-------
                        Railyards by Type,
                        Function and Volume, V
                        Population Density
                         By  Place Size, P,
                         and Density Range,  U
                        2 Noise Impact:
                        U £N1(U), PE (U)
                         Number of Yards
                           $ (V, U, P)
                          Noise Impact:
                        H 2  ENIOJ),  PE  (U)
                          U
                          Noise Impact:
                    N 22ENI (U,  S),   PE  (U, S)
                      U S
                          Noise Impact:
                   N 22-2 EMI (S,  P,  U),  PE (S,  P,  U)
                    U S P
                          Noise Impact:
                      N 22 2 2 EMI  (S, P, U, V)
                        V U S P
                                PE  (S, P, U, V)
FIGURE 5-4.   KAILYARD NOISE  IMPACT  MODEL
                        5-31

-------
using baseline noise level data and activity parameters to obtain the total
baseline ENI for all the railyards.  Because the typical configuration
of the hump and flat classification yards was asymmetrical, the near side
and far side ENI values were computed separately and added to obtain the
total baseline ENI.

     It was not possible within the data base and schedule limitations to
develop a railyard simulation model that would determine accurately the
location and patterns of iso-noise contours around the typical yard configu-
rations.  One of the basic data deficiencies involved the locations of
sources within the component yards and consequently the separation distances
between sources and operation areas.  Thus, there was no way to accurately
assess the degree of overlap of noise patterns from different types of
sources.  However, the noise generation and propagation model for each type
of source did provide a reasonably accurate prediction of the noise patterns
for an individual source.  Additionally, the total length of the railyards
was generally sufficiently great so that for the idealized configuration used
in the model it could be considered there was no overlap pattern between
identical source types functioning in different operational areas of railyards,
e.g., the switch engine operations in the receiving and departure yards.  The
areas more likely to receive impact from more than one source would be those
near each end of the classification subyard.

     A preliminary analytical study of a few simple or idealized cases of
noise overlap patterns was conducted prior to the final development of the
railyard noise impact model to obtain a rough estimate of the likely error
range between the assumptions of combined sources, partially overlapped
noise patterns and completely separated individual sources.  This was done
for two stationary sources of equal strength and two moving sources of equal
strength.  The results indicated that the total ENI for two completely separated
sources equals the ENI obtained when the two sources are superimposed.  The
partial overlap pattern investigated produced less than: a 20% error relative
to no overlap.  The error is not very large because in the partial overlap (or
superposition) case, although there is a common area where the noise levels are
greater than if only one of the sources were operating, the total area of

                                    5-32

-------
exposure appears to be reduced compared to two completely separated sources.
Thus there are two opposing effects which tend to minimize the relative error.

     The impact model was developed on the basis of individual source noise
propagation patterns and included no procedure either to account for proximity of
sources or to estimate joint impact from more than one source.  Thus the
Impact (in terms of ENI) values for each source are computed separately,
and the aggregate Impact for each yard type and the grand total from all yards
is obtained by summing over the sources.

     Several versions of the total Impact model were developed for the case of
one yard type to provide a comparison between results for individual versus
grouped sources.  The results of a comparison of 11 separate and independent
sources with 4 groups of superimposed sources derived from the 11 sources
Indicate that the impact (ENI) values were about 18 percent greater for the
separated source case*

Baseline Impact

     A model run using data based on the estimated current conditions for
the identified sources at all the railyards was considered the baseline case.
The estimated total Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI) ranges from 1,740,600 to
1,945,500 depending upon the method for handling the external ambient.  The
smaller value is associated with the case in which the ambient noise level is
reset to 54 dB in ^areas where the population density equation yields values
that equal or exceed 55 dB.  Similarly, the corresponding population exposed (PE)
to railyard noise ranges from 6,509,600 to 10,182,000.  In this situation, the
higher value of population exposed is associated with the case in which the
ambient noise level is reset to Ldn - 54 dB.  (The Population Exposed value is the
number of people exposed above L^ • 55 dB.  This value contains no weighting
for the severity of impact, as does ENI.)  The baseline ENI and PE results are
segregated in Table 5-9 which presents the computed ENI and PE values for each
source type, aggregated yard type, volume and by place size.  The resulting
sensitivity to the assumptions regarding the treatment of external ambient
                                     5-33

-------
                                                  Table  5-9

                                                BASELINE CASE
                                  CONTRIBUTION  TO TOTAL  ENI AND PE  FOR ALL
                                         YARD TYPES  BY TYPE OF  SOURCE
         Source Type                      	ENI	     	PE	

         Inbound and Outbound Trains         201,180 -   214,200      1,082,100 -  2,311,500

         Switcher Operations               1,243,300 - 1,400,100      4,274,800 -  5,957,000

         Idling Locomotives                   88,580 -    98,900        346,600 -    561,900

         Retarders (Master, Group, Inert)      26,720 -    28,900         65,700 -     98,830
m
£        Refrigerator Cars                    92,110 -   102,700        342,700 -    545,200

         Car Impacts                          50,400 -    55,400        256,500 -    509,920

         Load Test Operations                 39,930 -    44.300        141,200 -    208,900
                                           1,740,600 - 1,944,500      6,509,600 - 10,182,000
         Ranges of values are due. to different methods for handling the external  ambient
         noise level.  Any inconsistencies in numerical values are attributable to  round  off.
         See text for further explanation.

-------
noise levels yields a 56.4 percent difference in baseline population exposed,
and a 10.5 percent difference in baseline ENI.  Because of the large difference
in population exposed resulting from the two assumptions, the following Tables
5-10 through 5-12 are presented utilizing the case which yields the smaller of
the population exposed values, although the ENI values are slightly larger.
It is noted that additional sensitivity analyses indicated that the RCI values
presented later in Table 5-12 are almost identical for the two cases.  There-
fore, even though the baseline noise impact measured may be sensitive (to dif-
fering degrees) to the assumptions regarding external ambient, the benefits
resulting from varying regulatory options are much less sensitive on a percent
reduction basis.  The dominant contributors to the noise impact are switch
engines since these sources operate in all 4169 yards and generally outnumber
each of the other source types.  A more detailed listing of noise Impact (ENI)
by noise source and yard type is presented in Table 5-10.  The results indicate
that the flat classification yards account for about one-half the total
impact, since they both account for a much greater number of yards than do
hump yards and operate at a much higher activity rate with a greater number of
noise sources than the industrial yards.  Note also that, whereas hump yards
comprise less than 3 percent of railyards in the U.S., their equivalent noise
impact is about 14 percent of the total ENI.  Flat classification yards
constitute about 27 percent of U.S. railyards, but account for about 49
percent of the total ENI.  Thus, while the classification type yards comprise
only 30 percent of the total railyards, they account for the major portion (63
percent) of the impact.  The disproportionate impact of the classification
yards relative to all the other railyards is mainly due to the large number of
noise sources and higher traffic rates (with consequent higher noise exposures)
at classification yards.

Study Options Impact

     A number of noise reduction options (or treatments) for four dominant
noise sources in railyards are discussed in Section 4.  The benefits attributable
to the various proposed treatments were examined by determining the reductions
in L-dj! resulting at the railyard boundaries from the application of the
proposed treatments or options, and using the noise Impact model with the

                                     5-35

-------
                                 Table  5-10
                                BASELINE  CASE

   CONTRIBUTION TO TOTAL ENI BY TYPE OF  SOURCE AND TYPE  OF YARD
  Yard Type
 (No. of Yards)
   Hump:
    (124)
Flat
Classification:
   (1113)
Industrial and
Small Industrial
   (2932)
 Source Type


Inbound and
Outbound Trains

Switchers
(Hump, Industrial,
 Make-up)

Idling Locomotives

Master Retarder Group

Inert Retarder Group

Refrigerator Cars

Car Impacts

Load Tests

         Subtotal
Inbound and
Outbound Trains

Switchers

Idling Locomotives

Refrigerator Cars

Car Impacts

Load Tests

         Subtotal



Inbound and
Outbound Trains

Switchers

Car Impacts

        Subtotal

            TOTAL
ENI
% ENI for
Yard Type
65,200
154,100
7,000
27,000
1,900
8,900
4,200
5,900
274,200
126,700
564,000
91,900
93,800
27,400
38.400
942,200
22,300
682,000
23.800
728,100
1,944,500
23.8
66.2
2.6
9.8
0.7
3.2
1.5
2.2
100
13.4
59.9
9.8
10.0
2.9
4.1
100
3.1
93.7
3.2
100

 % of Total
ENI all Yards
                         3.5
                        14



                         6.5


                        29
                                                                     48.5
                                                                     35
                                                                    37.5
                                     5-36

-------
                          Table 5-11

       SOURCE TREATMENT OPTIONS AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTIONS
Source

Retarders
(Hump Yards)
Load Cells
Option (*)       Noise Reduction Treatment

 1 (Tj)     Noise barrier walls 8 ft  (2.5 m) high by  1500  ft
            (457 m) long are placed along the yard boundaries
            (both sides) at the hump-switch end of the
            classification area.  The expected noise  level
            reductions in the receiving property area are
            10 dB and 8 dB, respectively, at the near
            and far sides relative to the master
            retarder location.  These reductions are
            averages for the consideration of distrib-
            uted group retarders (i.e., some nearer and
            some farther from the walls) and receiving
            property locations 50 ft  (15.2 m) to 200  ft
            (61 m) beyond the walls.

 2 (T2>     Noise barrier walls 15 ft (4.6 m) x 1500  ft  (457 m) .
            on the near side and 10 ft  (3 m) x 1500 ft  (457 m)
            on the far side, with same considerations as
            Option 1 above.  Expected average noise level
            reductions in the receiving property area
            are 15 dB and 13 dB.

 3 (Tj)     Same as Option 2 above, with the addition
            of 12 ft (3.7 m) x 150 ft (45.8 m) absorptive  noise
            barriers along both sides of the master
            retarder (s).  This increases the expected
            noise level reductions in the receiving
            property areas (within 200 ft (61 m) of the walls)
            to 18 dB and 15 dB, respectively, for the
            near and far sides.
            Load cells are assumed to be located in
            high volume yards (hump and flat classifica-
            tion) only.  Absorptive noise barriers
            20 ft (6.1 m) x 150 ft (45.8 m) are placed along
            both sides of the load test cell and locomotive
            position.  The expected noise reduction in
            the receiving property area is 13 dB.
               2 (T5>     Absorptive noise barriers 25 ft  (7.6 m)  x  150  ft
                          (45.8 m) are placed at  the load  cell*  Expected
                          noise reduction is 15 dB.
                                  5-37

-------
                          Table 5-11

 SOURCE TREATMENT OPTIONS AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued)

Source        Option (*)       Noise Reduction Treatment
Switch
Engines
 Car Coupling   1 (T7)
                 2  (To)
Minimum expected noise reductions for
switch engines per AAR data -
    Throttle 0     :  0 dB
    Throttle 1 to 2:  1 dB
    Throttle 3+    :  3 dB
Noise impact model assumes a mix of 50%
switch engines and 50% road haul locomotives
conducting yard operations.  The composite noise
reductions assumed are  (treated switchers,
untreated locomotives) -
    Throttle 0      :  0 dB
    Throttle 1 to 2:  1 dB
    Throttle 3+     :  2 dB

Maximum  expected noise  reductions  for
switch engines -
    Throttle 0      :  3 dB
    Throttle  1+     :  A dB
For 50/50 mix  switch  and  road  haul engines,  the
assumed  composite  level reductions are -
    Throttle  0     :   1 dB
    Throttle  1+    :   3 dB

A coupling  speed limit  of 4 MPH is assumed.
 The expected  baseline (no speed limit) energy
 average level is determined by integration of the
 product of  the speed-probability distribution
 (Ref . 10) and the energy average noise level vs.
 speed functions (derived from Ref. 11).  Then,
 the speed-probability distribution is skewed by
 assuming all coupling events above A MPH are in
 the 3 to A MPH range, and a new expected average
 coupling noise level is computed.  The resulting
 expected noise level reductions are -
     Max Level:  7 dB
     SEL      :  8 dB

 A  coupling speed limit of 6 MPH is assumed.
 The new skewed distribution average level
 is determined similarly as in Option  1
 above,  and compared  to the baseline exp.
 level.  The expected noise level  reduc-
 tions are -
    Max. Level:  2  dB
    SEL        :  2  dB
                                    5-38

-------
                             Table 5-11

    SOURCE TREATMENT OPTIONS AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTIONS (continued)

   Source        Option (*)       Noise Reduction Treatment
Car Coupling
Same as Option 2 above, but any noise
level is allowable for measured coupling
speeds _< 6 MPH.  Relative to the baseline
expected level, the noise level reduction
assumed is 1 dB.

A coupling speed limit of 8 tnph is assumed.
The new skewed distribution average level
is determined as in Option 2 above, and
compared to the baseline expected level*
The expected noise level reductions are -
   Max. Level:  0-1 dB**
   SEL       :  0-1 dB

Same as Option 4 above, but any noise level
is allowable for measured coupling speeds
_< 8 mph.  Relative to the baseline expected
level, the noise level reduction is 0-1 dB**.
  Treatment number per Section 4.  Note that the noise reductions shown in this
  table are in terms of reductions in L(jn (a measure of the change of
  cummlative noise exposure) rather than reductions in Lnax for an individual
  event.  These noise reductions were developed from expected decreases in
  source I^ax (for example, barrier insertion loss for retarders) as discussed
  in Section 4, and other considerations*  These other considerations included
  the effects on composite cummulative noise exposure levels from groups of like
  sources (master and group retarders), and the effects on noise barrier lengths,
  the spatial distribution of like sources in a group and the relative mix of
  source sizes (such as road haul locomotives and switch engines).

** Limited data relative to noise data vs. speed causes uncertainties
   in computational accuracy in these cases.
                                     5-39

-------
                                                         Table 5-12
Ul
i
                          BENEFITS (IMPACT REDUCTIONS) FOR SOURCE NOISE REDUCTION OPTIONS
    Noise Source

    Master and
    Group Retarders:
                    Noise Reductions
Noise Impact Reduction
     for All Yards
                                                                   Residential Land Use
                                  Residential and
                                 Commercial Land Use****
    Load  Test  Cells:
    Switch Engine
    Operations:
0  Car Coupling:
Option (*)
i (TJ)
2 (T2)
3 (T3)
1 (T4)
2 (T5)
1 (T6)
2
1 (T7)
2 (Tg)
3
4 (T9)
5
(AENI)
18,400
23,200
24,600
40,050
42,500
199,460
551,500
50,100
21,600
15,900
15,900
7,950
%RCIL**
63.7
80.3
85.1
90.4
95.9
14.2
39.4
90.4
39.0
28.7
28.7
14.4
ZRCI2***
1.0
1.2
1.3
2.05
2.18
10.2
28.3
2.6
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.4
AENI
16,173
20,395
21,623
39,650
42,075
167,456
463,260
40,581
17,496
12,879
12,879
6,440
% RCI***
0.8
1.0
1.1
2.03
2.16
8.6
23.8
2.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.3
AENI %
16173-18400
20395-23200
21623-24600
39650-40050
42075-42500
167456-199460
463260-551500
40581-50100
17496-21600
12879-15900
12879-15900
6440-7950
RCI***
0.8-1.1
1.0-1.2
1.1-1.3
2.03-2.05
2.16-2.18
8.6-10.2
23.8-28.3
2.1-2.6
0.9-1.1
0.7-0.8
0.7-0.8
0.3-0.4
      "Treatment Number per Section 4
     **% Relative Change in Impact,
    ***ZRCI2
               AENI
              Total Baseline ENI for
              all  sources and all yards
   AENI	
  Baseline ENI
  for source
  100
x 100
   ****The increases in AENI  and  IRCI for  "Residential  and Commercial Land Use" are actually additional
       residential benefits gained from protection of commercial property.  Benefits to people while on

-------
reduced  levels  to  estimate new ENI and PE values.  A summary of the corres-
ponding  noise reduction options and the magnitude of expected noise level
reductions are  listed in Table 5-11.  A summary of the results in terms of
ENI and  relative change in impact (RCI)* is presented in Table 5-12.  In the
case of  the  first AENI column, it was assumed that the noise reduction option
was applicable  to  all the railyards operating that particular source, regardless
of the average  distribution of land use around the yard type or group.  In the
last column  under  "Residential and Commerical Land Uses", the AENI and % RCI
benefit  ranges  shown indicate additional residential benefits gained from the
protection of commercial properties.

     While benefits to people using commercial land have not been quantified,
the activities  conducted in these areas (shops, services, offices, parks,
places of public assembly, etc.) are especially sensitive to noise intrusion.
In most  cases,  the utility of the property is dependent on effective speech
communication.  Some "commercial" land uses, such as parks and resort areas,
require  a level of quiet conducive to rest and relaxation.  Thus, benefits
of protecting commercial areas from excessive noise are not reflected in
Table 5-12.

     The noise  impact reductions for retarders and locomotive load test cells
were relatively small due to the small portion of the total railyards involved,
and since the total number of load cells was also relatively small.  The
reduction in car coupling noise impact was small since the 6 MPH speed limit
results  in only a  small noise level reduction and the baseline ENI for this
source was only a  small fraction of the total (see Table 5-9).

     However, switch engine operations are extensive in all the yards and
constitute the major portion of the total impact so that even a small source
noise level  reduction results in relatively large benefits (ENI reductions).
*  RCI - Baseline ENI - Noise Reduction Option ENI
                     Total Baseline ENI
where the AENI (numerator) is only for the noise source being treated, while
the total ENI (demominator) is the sum for all sources and all railyards.
                                    5-41

-------
                             REFERENCES

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

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

  3.  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, D.C., March  1974.

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

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

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

  8.   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.

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

10.   Rail Car coupling speed data, CONRAIL  letter, 21 Aug. 1979,  to
     Richard Westlund, U.S. EPA, Office of Noise Abatement and
      Control.

11.  Rail Car Coupling Noise Measurements, Simpson,  M.A., BBN RN 3873,
     Dec. 1978.

12.  Railroad  Regulation Docket Response Letters from AAR to EPA.

13.  Noise Measurements  at Rail Yards,  BBN,  1978.
                                     5-42

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

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

16.  Highway Noise - A Field Evaluation of Traffic Noise Reduction
     Measures. Kugler, B. A. and Pierson, A. G.,  NCHRP Report 144,
     1973.
                                      5-43

-------
SECTION 6

-------
                                 SECTION 6

                     ANALYSIS OF COST AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

INTRODUCTION

     This section describes the increased capital and operating and maintenance
costs and derivative economic impacts associated with alternative regulatory
options for each of the following railyard noise sources:

     o  Active Retarders
     o  Locomotive Load Cell Test Stands
     o  Car Coupling
     o  Switcher Locomotives

     The costs and economic Impacts are analyzed at both the aggregate industry
level and also for individual rail carriers.  The costs and economic Impacts
are based upon data presented in Sections 2 through 4 concerning industry base-
line data, railyard configurations and noise abatement technology.

Methodology

     A simplified flow diagram of the procedures used to evaluate the compliance
costs and associated macro and micro economic Impacts upon consumers and the
railroad Industry Is given In Figure 6-1.  The methodology consists of
the following analytical steps:

     o  Develop baseline Industry data to Include:
        -  Number of yards owned by each road
        -  Number of yards surrounded by residential and commercial
           receiving land uses
        -  Number of each noise source existing in each yard
        -  Employment
        -  Output
        -  Costs

                                     6-1

-------
                DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA
ESTIMATION OF UNIT COSTS, CAPITAL
INVESTMENT & ANNUALIZED COSTS
FOR NOISE CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR
EACH SOURCE
i

ESTIMATION OF NUMBER OF SOURCES OF
EACH TYPE REQUIRED TO BE TREATED FOR
EACH RECEIVING LAND USE ALTERNATIVE
i
i
ESTIMATION OF COMPLIANCE COSTS RELATED
TO REGULATORY LEVELS USING 'TECH FIXES'
FOR EACH NOISE SOURCE AND LAND USE
ALTERNATIVE
i
1
CASH FLOW ANALYSIS OF MAJOR AND OTHER
ROADS (DISAGGREGATE LEVEL)
               ESTIMATION OF PRICE ELASTICITIES OF DEMAND
                                 I
                 DETERMINATION OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON
                MAJOR ROADS RESULTING FROM COMPLIANCE
                        WITH NOISE STANDARDS
FIGURE 6-1. FLOW DIAGRAM OF ANALYTICAL STEPS ENCOMPASSING COST & ECONOMIC
                           IMPACT ANALYSIS
                                 6-2

-------
        -  Prices/Revenues
        -  Rate of return on net investment and equity
     o  For each noise source estimate:
        -  initial increased unit capital investment costs to meet
           alternative regulatory levels
        -  Recurring capital costs and out-of-service costs required
           to replace initial abatement equipment and materials
        -  annual operating and maintenance costs
     o  Determine the total number of sources of each type required to
        be treated for each receiving land use alternative
     o  Estimation of the total initial capital, annual operating and
        maintenance and recurring annualized costs for each regulatory
        option associated with each noise source
     o  Analyze cash flow for each regulatory option and land use
        alternative for major and other roads
     o  Estimate the price elasticities of demand for principal railroad
        commodities
     o  Determination of the economic Impacts on each major road of the
        alternative regulatory options and land uses for each source
        singly and In combination Including impact upon:
        -  Operating costs
        -  Prices
        -  Output
        -  Employment

Summary of Compliance Cost Results

     Table 6-1 presents a summary of the estimated compliance costs associated
with key selected regulatory options for each noise source*  This  table
indicates that for the specific regulatory alternatives discussed  in  Section
4 for each noise source, the total initial capital costs range from $91
million to $110 million depending upon the land use alternative considered,
whereas the uniform annualized j total cost outlay* ranges from $20  million to
$24 million.  These costs are in constant 1979 dollars.
 Uniform annualized cost outlay is defined below.
                                      6-3

-------
                                          Table 6-1

    SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR KEY  SELECTED REGULATORY  ALTERNATIVES

Source


I. Active
Retarders
Description
of Proposed
Technology
Discussed In
Section 4
Option 3

A-welghted
Regulatory
Limit (dB)
**
83

Anticipated Initial
Reduction Capital Cost
in Max Noise ($ x 106)
Level (dB) RES.
ONLY
21 33.4

RES.+
COMM
40.1

Annual
0 & M Cost
($ X 10*)
RES.
ONLY
0.72

RES.+
COMM.
0.87

Uniform Annual Ized
Total Cost Outlay
($ x 106)
RES.
ONLY
2.94

RES.+
COMM.
3.48

2. Switcher      Option 1     70     90        02
   Locomotives               (Idle) (Moving)   (idle) (Moving)  42.6     54.6
                             (a) 30 Meters
3. Locomotive     Option 2        78
   Load Cell                 (a) 30 Meters
   Test Stand
                                                  15
13.65    14.0
                                                                               4.97    6.38      13.45    17.24
1.04    1.05      2.40     2.45
4. Car Option 5 92
Coupling
Sub Total
5.* Measurement
and Record
1 N/A N/A
89.65 108.7
1.0 1.0
N/A
6.73
1.1
N/A
8.30
1.35
N/A N/A
18.79 23.17
.98 1.16
TOTAL
                                                              90.65    109.7
                                                                               7.83    9.65      19.77    24.33
N/A  Cost on a  national basis is expected  to  be minimal relative to other noise source and abatement aspects of this
     ruleaaklng

    Measurement and record keeping costs are  included -although not explicitly required by the regulation.  Consultants
    •ay be used alternatively but at costs expected to be higher than those Included above.

** Noise limits are at receiving property  unless otherwise specified.

-------
Kailyard Source Noise Abatement Cost Estimating Procedures

     For each noise source included, this section describes the key steps
used to develop the estimated costs for the noise abatement alternatives
considered.

     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 railyards.
     Step 2.  Identify for each source the percentage of yards which
              have residential or residential and commerlcal land use
              in the vicinity of that source.
     Step 3.  Identify alternative noise abatement procedures that can
              be applied to each source to achieve reduced noise levels
              at receiving property*
     Step 4.  For each source estimate the unit noise abatement costs
              required for each regulatory alternative.
     Step 5.  For each source determine the number of units required to
              be treated for each land use alternative to achieve
              selected noise levels at yard boundaries.
     Step 6.  Estimate the total costs incurred to achieve each regulatory
              alternative for each land use.

      The source noise control approach (Steps 1 through 6) consists of
the application of selected noise abatement procedures to specific types of
sources.  The specific noise abatement procedures considered for each source
and the reduction in noise levels at yard property lines are displayed In
Table 6-2.  This information Is also shown In Table 6-3 for the specific
regulatory options considered for each source.

     For each source discussed on subsequent pages, tables of estimated total
costs are presented for each alternate abatement procedure.  Cost elements
include estimates for initial capital investment Including hardware, equipment,
installation and out-of-service costs.  Additionally, annual operations and
maintenance costs are included.
                                     6-5

-------
                              Table 6-2

                 Noise Sources and Sound Level Reductions
Noise Sources
 Noise Control Techniques
   Range of Reduction in
A-Weighted Sound Level (dB)*
Retarders
(Master)
     Absorptive Barriers
        150 ft x 12 ft (46 m x 3.7 m)
           16-22
Retarder
(Master
or Group)
Locomotive Load
Cell Test Stands
Switch Engine
  Noise

Car Coupling
(a)   Reflective Boundary Walls
       1500 ft x 8 ft (457 m x 2.5 m)
(b)   Reflective Boundary Walls
       1500 ft x 15 ft (457 m x 4.6 m)
       1500 ft x 10 ft (457 m x 3 m)

(a)   Absorptive Barriers
        150 ft x 20 ft (46 m x 6.1 m)

(b)   Absorptive Barriers
        150 ft x 25 ft (46 m x 7.6 m)

     Exhaust Silencer
(a)   Reduce coupling speeds
     to less than 4 mph

(b)   Reduce coupling speed
     to less than 6 mph

(c)   Reduce coupling speeds
     to less than 8 mph
            9-11
                                                                   16-21
           12-14
                                                                   14-16
            0-1 at idle
            1-5 moving

            7-8
                                                                    1-2


                                                                    0-1
* Refer to footnote on Table 4-6.
                                         6-6

-------
                                 Table 6-3

              Summary of Source Noise Control Technology Options

Technology  Noise Source    Technology Description

  Option    Retarders

    1                       Barrier walls 8 ft x 1500 ft (2.5 m x  457 m) near  side
                            and 8 ft x 1500 ft (2.5 m x 457 m)  far side

    2                       Barrier walls 15 ft x 1500 ft  (4.6 m  x 457 m) near  side
                            and 10 ft x 1500 ft (3 m x 457 m) far  side

    3                       In addition to option 2, 12 ft x 150 ft (3.7 m x 46  m)
                            absorptive barriers are placed
                            around the master retarder

             Locomotive Load
             Cell Test
             Stands
                            Absorptive barriers 20 ft x  150 ft  (6.1 x  46 m) placed
                            25 ft (7.6 m)  from track centerllne

                            Absorptive barriers 25 ft x  150 ft  (7.6 m  x 46 m) placed
                            25 ft from track centerllne
             Svitch Engines

                            Exhaust Silencer

             Car Coupling
                            Reduce rail car coupling  speeds  to  less
                            than 4 mph

                            Reduce rail car coupling  speeds  to  less
                            than 6 mph

                            Reduce rail car coupling  speeds  to  less
                            than 8 mph
                                         6-7

-------
     For each source,  capital  recovery costs  are  included  based  upon both  the
initial and replacement capital and  installation  costs,  interest  rates and
useful lives of  the abatement  techniques  that would  be  required  to meet  the
alternative regulatory options.

     The capital recovery  cost is defined as:

            fl       1
     n +	5	  x 1 x N     where:
                 T
         (1 + 1) -1J

U - Initial unit costs of  noise abatement equipment  (capital & installation)
R - replacement unit costs (capital  &  installation)
i - interest rate
T - useful life of noise abatement technology
N » number of units required.

     Also, an annualized cost  is included which represents the sum of the
capital recovery cost  and  the  annual operating and maintenance costs.

     In addition, a uniform annualized  total  cost outlay column  is presented
which accounts for:  (1) the lead time  prior  to the  imposition of a standard;
(2) the fact that noise abatement investments may be financed for periods
less than their useful lives and (3) that outlays may be in the form of
uniform annuity type payments.  The  uniform annualized total cost outlay is
defined as follows:
               M
              j-1 (1+1) ^
                                 M
                                   C,
                                                       where:            (2)
C - yearly cost
1 - interest rate
M - number of years in time string
                                      6-8

-------
 INDIVIDUAL NOISE  SOURCE COST ESTIMATES

 Retarders

 Introduction

      The agency originally proposed a 90 dB source  standard for active
 retarders  to be measured at 30  meters.   To meet this standard it was antic-
 ipated  that 12 foot  x 150 foot  (3.6 m x 46 m)  absorptive barriers would
 be  required to be placed near each master and  group retarder at an estimated
 total cost of $14 million dollars.

      The agency assumed that no operational changes would be required
 due  to  the Installation of these barriers.

      The Industry asserted that EPA's estimate of $14  million in capital  costs
 was  too low and that,  in addition,  significant operational changes with atten-
 dant  high  costs would be required to install the barriers around each retarder
 due  to  track clearance problems at  approximately half  of the retarder locations.

      In order to  alleviate the  causes of  these concerns,  the agency has
 developed  a  revised  concept in  which retarder  noise is required to be abated
 only when  it adversely impacts  noise sensitive receiving property  in the
 vicinity of  railyards.   As such,  the regulatory options  considered would  be
 effective  only on receiving property which  is  used  as  residential  or commercial
 or both.   The measurement  location  for  compliance would  be on the  receiving
 property rather than  on the railyard property.  This approach would allow the
 Industry to adopt  a more flexible arrangement  of selective barriers around
 specific master and/or group  retarders  and  In  addition would provide the
 Industry the alternate solution  involving the  construction of  railyard  boundary
walls in the vicinity  of noise  sensitive land  uses.  It  is assumed  that this
approach would substantially  eliminate  the  potential for  large  operational
costs to be incurred by the. industry.

Regulatory Options Being Considered

     The Agency has considered three Options involving different applications
of noise abatement technology for which compliance costs are being analyzed.
In addition, for each  technology option, the Agency has considered  the
                                     6-9

-------
alternative of having the regulation apply to either residential receiving
property alone or to both residential and commercial property.  Table 6-4
Indicates the various options under consideration and their related regulatory
levels and compliance costs•

     The basic cost elements used to develop the summary Table 6-4 for the
abatement alternatives are contained in Table 6-5.  A detailed discussion of
these cost elements is contained in Appendix B.

Comparison of Regulatory Options

     As seen In Tables 6-4 and 6-5, the costs would increase approximately
20 percent If the regulation were to apply to both commercial and residential
land use as opposed to residential land use alone.  Capital cost estimates
for the various options have been based upon a cost per linear foot of
$67-$100 ($220 - $328 per linear meter) for the selected reflective boundary
wall configurations.  Initial absorptive barrier component material and
installation costs near retarders have been based upon a cost of $162 per
linear foot ($531 per linear meter).  Replacement costs for barrier panels
which have an estimated useful life of ten years are lower since initial
installation costs include the costs of the support structure for the panels.
These costs compare with EPA's original estimate of $75 versus the Industry
estimate of $200 per linear foot ($246 versus $656 per linear meter) for
barriers.  Annual unit maintenance costs for barrier panels and property line
walls are estimated respectively to be 7.5 percent and 2.0 percent of the
Initial unit material and installation costs*

Locomotive Load Cell Test Stands

Introduction

     The Agency did not propose a source standard for locomotive load cell
test stands as part of its proposed rule.  Instead in the development of the
proposed property line Ldn standards, the Agency presumed that full enclosures
would be utilized or load cell test stands would be moved in order to comply
with the proposed property line rules.
                                    6-10

-------
                                               Table  6-4
                 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR RETARDER  NOISE ABATEMENT
Option
1
2
A-welghted
Technical Regulatory
Description Llalt (dB)
Along the 94
htaip yard
boundary
nearest the
•aster
retarder a
8 ft x 1500 ft
(2.5 • x «57 •)
rail Is
placed' and a
8 f t x 1500 ft
(2.5 • x 457 •)
wall Is
placed along
the opposite
boundary
Along the 84
hoap yard
Uniform
Anticipated Initial Capital Annual Annuallzed Annuallzed
Reduction Capital Cost Recovery Cost 0 6 M Coot Cost Total coat outlay
in "«* (S x 106) (S x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Noise Hethodologlcal Res. Res.-»- Res. RCS.+ Res. Rea.-t- Res. Res.+ Res. Res.+
Level (dB) Assumptions Only Conn. Only Conn. Only Conn. Only Com. Only Conn.
9-11 Discount 15.0 18.0 1.66 1.99 .30 .36 1.96 2.350 1.45 1.74
rate: .11
Wall
lifetime:
50 years
Finance
period:
30 years
Lead five
prior to
effective
date of
regulation:
4 years
16-21 Save as 22.5 27.0 2.49 2.99 0.45 0.54 2.94 3.53 2.17 2.61
above
boundary
nearest the .
•aster
retarder a
15 ft x 1500 ft
(4.6 • x 457 •)
wall Is
placed and a
10 ft x 1500 ft
(3 « x 457 •)
wall Is
placed along
the opposite
boundary

-------
                                                Table 6-4  (Continued)
                            SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR RETARDER NOISE ABATEMENT
10
A-welghted
Option Technical • Regulatory
Description Limit (dB)
3 In addition 83
to the 15 ft x
1500 ft (4.6 • x
457 •) and
10 ft x 1500 ft
(3 • x 45T »)
walls, absorptive
barriers
12 ft x 150 ft
(3.7 • x 457 •)
are placed
on both sides
of each
•aster retarder.













Uniform
Anticipated Initial Capital Annual Annual t zed Annuallzed
Reduction Capital Cost Recovery Cost 0 6 H Cost Coat Total cost outlay
in Max ($ x 10°) ($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Noise Methodological Res. Res. -f Res. Res. + Res. Res. -I- Res. Res.-f Res. Res.+
Level (dB)* Assumptions Only Com. Only Conn. Only Coma. Only Conrn. Only Comm.
16-21 Discount 33.4 40.1 4.3 5.16 0.72 0.87 5.02 6.03 2.94 3.485
rate : .11


Wall
lifetime:
50 years

Wall
finance
period:
30 years


Barrier
lifetime:
10 years
Barrier
finance
period:
5 years
Lead tine
prior to
effective
date of
regulation:
4 years
         Refer to footnote on Table 4-6.

-------
                                                             Table 6-5
                                  COMPONENT COST ELEMENTS FOR RETARDER NOISE  ABATEMENT
T
Cost
El event
Abatement
Technology
Absorptive barriers
Cor master retarders
(12 ft x 150 tt or
3.7 • x 46 •)
Reflective walls at
yard boundary
Total
Number
Units
Existing
" 124



124

Units
Required •
RKS.+
RES. COHM.
75 90



75 90

Initial
Component
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
$162/ft
($531 /m)


$ 67/ft
($220/ii)
Initial Unit out
Total Unit of Service
Material Opportunity
and Coat ($)
Installation Due to
Cost ($) Installation
48,600 97.000



200,000 0

Unit
Annual
Operating
and
Maintenance
Cost ($)
3,645



4,000

Replacement
Component
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
$142/ft.



0

Replacement
Total Unit
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
40,824



0

        (8 ft x 1500 ft or
        2.5 • x 457 m
        on side nearest
        master retarder
        and 8 ft-x 1500 ft or
        2.5 m x 457 m
        on opposite side)
        Reflective walls
        at yard boundary  ,
        (15 ft x 1500 ft  or
        4.6 x 457 • on
        side nearest master
        retarder'and
        10 ft x 1500 ft or
        3 • x 457 • on
        opposite side)
124
75
90
$100/ft
($328/m)
                                    300,000
                                                        6,000

-------
     The industry took exception to the cost estimates used by the Agency.
Whereas the Agency estimated structures to cost $90,000 for materials and
installation, the industry estimated the average cost to be approximately
$500,000.  The discrepancy in system-wide costs was approximately $70 million
as the Agency estimated a total cost of $19.4 million whereas the industry
estimated a cost of $89.5 million.

     In order to achieve the potential benefits associated with noise reduction
from load cell test stands at more nominal costs, the Agency decided to inves-
tigate the concept of requiring a source standard and basing its stringency
upon the use of barrier technology as opposed to full enclosures.  This ap-
proach, it was believed, would allow the achievement of significant benefits
at costs significantly lower than that required of full enclosures.  Ad-
ditionally, if the regulation were only to apply at noise sensitive receiving
land uses, rather than at all land uses, the costs could be further reduced
without significantly reducing the benefits.

Regulatory Options Being Considered

     In developing the specific regulatory noise limit for load cell test stands
the Agency has considered two options involving different heights of absorptive
barriers which are to be placed around the load cells.  In addition, for each
technology option, the Agency has considered the option of having the standard
apply to either residential receiving property alone or to both residential
and commercial receiving property.  Table 6-6 indicates the various options
under consideration and their related regulatory levels and compliance costs.

     The basic cost elements used to develop the summary Table 6-6 for the
abatement alternatives are contained in Table 6-7*  A detailed discussion of
these cost elements is contained in Appendix B.

Comparisons of Regulatory Options

     As is seen in Tables 6-6 and 6-7, for each of the land use alternatives,
increasing the barrier height from 20 feet (6.1 meters) to 25 feet (7.6 meters)
produces an Increase in capital and 0 & M costs of approximately 25 percent.
The increase in uniform annualized cost outlays is approximately 23 percent.

                                       6-14

-------
                                                   Table 6-6





          SUMMARY OF COSTS FOR REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR LOCOMOTIVE LOAD CELL TEST STAND NOISE ABATEMENT
Ul
Reduction
A-Welghted in Max
Option Technical Regulatory Noise
Descrlpton Lialt (dB) Level (dB)
1 Foe each Load 80 13
Cell Test (a) 30 meters
Stand-tin hump
and flat
classifica-
tion yards
absorptive
barriers 20'
high by 150'
long are
placed on
each side
at 25'
from track
center line.
2 Sa»e as Case 78 15
1 except that (a) 30 weters
barrier
height is
increased
to 25'.
Initial Capital Annual
Capital Coat Recovery Cost 0 & H Cost
($ x 1Q6) ($ x 106) {$ x 106)
Methodological Res. Res.+ Res. Res.+ Res. Res-t-
Assmptlons Only Com. Only COMB. Only Com.
Discount 11.0 11.2 1.79 1.82 0.83 0.84
rate: .11
Barrier
lifetime:
10 years
Finance
period:
5 years
Lead tlw»
prior to
effective
date of
regulation:
4 years
S»»e as 13.65 14.0 2.23 2.28 1.04 1.05
above
Unlforo
Annual 1 zed Annuallzed
Cost Total Cost Outlay
($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Res. Res.+ Res. Res.+
Only Con. Only Con.
2.62 2.66 1.941 1.984
3.27 3.33 2.40 2.446

-------
                                                    Table  6-7
                  COMPONENT COST ELEMENTS FOR LOCOMOTIVE  LOAD CELL TEST STAND NOISE ABATEMENT
O\




Abatement Cost
Technology Element
Absorptive barriers
20 ft z ISO ft
(6.1 • z 45.7 •)
Absorptive barriers
25 ft x ISO ft
(7.6 • x 45.7 •)


Total
Ntutber
Units
Existing
189


189



Units
Required
RES.+
RES. com.
141 144


141 144

Initial
Component
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
$260/ft
($8537.)

$325/ft
($l,066/«)
Initial
Total Unit
Material
and
Installation
Coat ($)
78,000


97.500

Unit out
of Service
Opportunity
Cost ($)
Due to
Installation
0


0

Unit
Annual
Operating
and
Maintenance
Cost ($)
5,850


7,312

Replacement
Component
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
$228/ft
($7487.)

$285/ft
($9357.)
Replacement
Total Unit
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
63,370


85,462


-------
      Comparison of the increased costs to include both residential and commercial
 land use as compared with residential only indicates that approximately a 2
 percent increase occurs.   The percentage of the 189 load cells which require
 barriers as a result of their location near residential or commercial land use
 has  been based upon the EPIC overlays and the U.S.G.S maps using the data base
 described in Appendix K.   From these sources it has been estimated that 141
 load cells would require treatment for the residential only situation whereas
 only three additional load cells would require treatment if commercial land
 use  were to be also Included.

      It is noted that the total unit material and installation costs for the
 various heights of absorptive  barriers considered are comparable to the
 Agency's original estimates  of $90,000 for simple enclosures,  yet significantly
 lower than the industry's estimates for enclosures.

      Annual unit increases in  maintenance costs associated with the
 absorptive barriers  are estimated to be 7.5 percent  of the initial unit
 material and installation costs.

      In addition the Agency  has  estimated that minimal out-of-service
 costs would result from the  installation and periodic replacement of barriers
 around  load cell test  stands.

     The computation of capital  recovery cost and uniform annualized
 total cost  outlays utilize a discount  rate of 11  percent  and a  lead time of
 four years  before  the  regulation  becomes effective.   Additionally,  barrier
 panels are  estimated to need replacement an average  of  every ten  years.
Replacement costs  are  lower  since  initial  capital  and installation  costs
 Include  associated support structures.

Car Coupling

Introduction

     The Agency originally proposed an A-weighted sound level of  95 dB as the
source standard for noise emissions resulting from car coupling operations which

                                     6-17

-------
Included an exception provision in situations where it was demonstrated that
cars were traveling at speeds no higher than four miles per hour even though
the noise limit was exceeded.  The Agency ascribed no cost to the proposed
standard on the basis that this approach only codified existing operational
rules.

     The railroad industry took exception to the use of the four mile per
hour speed limit as a basis for the proposed rule.  They contended that four
miles per hour is a goal or guideline and not a hard rule.  Data were submitted
during the docket period indicating that in actual practice more than 60 percent
of car couplings occur at speeds greater than four miles per hour, that 17 per-
cent occur at speeds greater than six miles per hour and approximately 3 per-
cent occur at speeds greater than eight miles per hour.  The industry asserted
that if they were forced to slow to the standard's level of four miles per hour,
the flow of traffic would be impeded with the result that major operational
changes would be needed at a cost of approximately $10 billion.

     In order to mitigate the causes of these concerns yet still achieve some
degree of protection from the adverse impacts associated with car coupling
impact, the Agency has decided to consider several alternatives involving
relaxing the noise limit to correspond more closely to either typical
existing or worst case practice rather than operational guidelines or rules.
Additionally, industry comments indicated that while four miles per hour can
be difficult to obtain because of the large number of variables Involved in
controlling coupling speeds, 6 mph to 8 mph are more reasonable targets from a
technological viewpoint and that such speeds are desirable as an upper bound
on coupling speeds in order to minimize freight damage and resultant insurance
losses*  Additionally, the Agency has decided to consider a revised concept in.
which car coupling noise is required to be abated only when it adversely
impacts noise sensitive receiving property in the vicinity of railyards.  As
such, the Agency has considered the alternative of having the regulation apply
to either residential receiving property alone or to both residential and
commercial receiving property.  The measurement location for compliance would
be on the receiving property rather than on the railyard property.  These two
new elements were believed to substantially eliminate the causes of concern
expressed by the industry.

                                    6-18

-------
Regulatory Options Being Considered

     In developing the specific regulatory limit for car coupling noise
reduction, the Agency has considered five options based upon differing
degrees of speed control and associated exemptions in situations where the
noise limit is exceeded despite the achievement of the requisite coupling
speed*  The uncertainty in the costs does not allow for a convenient comparison*
In addition, for each technology option the Agency has considered the alterna-
tive of having the regulation apply to either residential receiving property
alone or to both residential and commercial receiving property.  Table 6-8
indicates the various options under consideration and their related regulatory
levels.

Comparion of Regulatory Options

     No cost information is included in Table 6-8 as it is presumed that the
noise limits based upon the 8 mph coupling speed can be. achieved with minimal
cost on a national average basis whereas the noise limits associated with the
                                       ''           •          • •   f '
4 mph limit are believed to be substantial although unknown.  The costs
associated with the 6 mph limit are not believed to be minimal yet not
of the same magnitude as the costs associated with the 4 mph limit.

Data Uncertainties or Methodological Problems    ,

     The major uncertainty in the car coupling analysis involves the null
cost hypothesis for restricting car coupling operations to speeds no higher
than 6 or 8 mph.  Conrail data suggests that only 17 percent of car couplings
occur at speeds greater than 6 mph and approximately 3 percent occur at speeds
greater than 8 mph; however, a 1972 study by the National Transportation
Safety Board* indicates that approximately 32 percent and 7 percent of the
                                        .j •   ' .
couplings at the East St. Louis yard .occurred at speeds greater than 6 mph and
8 mph.                      ,	  ......
*"Railroad Accident Report - Hazardous Materials Railroad Accident in the
Alton and Southern Gateway Yard in East St. Louis, Illinois, January 22, 1972,"
Report NTSB-RAR-73-1, National Transportation Safety Board, Washington, D.C.
                                     6-19

-------
                        Table 6-8
SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR CAR COUPLING NOISE ABATEMENT

Technical
Option Description
1 Car coupling Impact
-
A-weighted
Regulatory
Limit (dB)
91
Anticipated
Reduction
in Max
Noise
Level (dB)
2
     noise is reduced as a
     result of restricting
     coupling speeds to occur
     at no higher than 6 mph;
     the noise limit is based
     upon reductions in the
     statistical average of max
     levels derived from
     integrating the coupling
     speed vs impact noise level
     relationship with the
     probability distribution
     of coupling speeds;  As the
     coupling speed distribution
     is skewed to place all
     impacts below 6 mph, a
     reduced average max noise
     level is produced.
     Additionally, this option
     provides an exemption if rail
     yards can demonstrate that
     their coupling speeds are
     in fact no higher than 6 mph
     and yet they cannot comply
     with the noise limit.
     Same  as  option 1  except no
     exemption Is  included for
     coupling at speeds no higher
     than  6 mph which  otherwise
     cannot meet the noise limit.
91
                          6-20

-------
                                Table 6-8  (Continued)


           SUMMARY OF REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR CAR COUPLING NOISE ABATEMENT
                                                                     Anticipated
                                                                      Reduction
                                                  A-weighted            in Max
                    Technical                     Regulatory            Noise
Option             Description                    Limit  (dB)          Level  (dB)
                Same as option 1 except-noise        85
                limit is based.upon 4 mph
                coupling speed restriction.
                Same as Option 2 except noise        92
                limit is based upon 8 mph
                coupling speed restriction.
                Same
-------
      Current car coupling speeds in flat yards are affected by the fact
 that these yards are built whenever possible to have a slight downward slope
 from either end.  In this manner, cars entering the yard through the leads
 will roll slowly down hill until coupling with a string of cars already on a
 given classification track.   If there are no cars on the track, they will roll
 to the approximate center of the yard and stop.

      In 1929,  a series of experiments were carried out as to the reliability
 of freight cars.  The conclusions of these experiments was that the ideal
 downward slope of a flat yard was a 0.2 percent gradient.  From that time to the
 the late 1950's, virtually all yards built were fixed with this gradient.  On
 rare occasions,  yards which handled primarily empty cars were given even
 steeper slopes  because of the lower reliability of empties.   By the later
 1950's  it had  become apparent that  advances in car technology,  most particu-
 larly  the widespread use of  roller  bearings,  had introduced  new variables into
 the operation  of flat yards.   New reliability tests were made over a range of
 cars and it was  concluded that the  ideal gradient was no longer 0.2 percent,
 but rather 0.08  percent.   From 1960 on, all new flat yards and  also yards
 receiving extensive  overhaul  were modified to this new gradient.   It Is
 estimated, however,  that 75 percent of  existing yards have a 0.2  percent
 gradient.

     Coupling operations  in these older yards are normally handled without any
 special  precautions.   Thus, cars  which  are released into the classification
 tracks  that are  nearly empty  may  roll a considerable distance and build up
 speed,  thereby creating  relatively  high impact  coupling.   If a  lower coupling
 speed is desired, the  operational solution is to  send a  car  into  each classi-
 fication track with  a  switchman riding  it.  He  stops the car with the hand-
 brake and applies the handbrake firmly  at  a distance down the track which is
 less that  that required for cars  to  build  up  excessive speed.   Cars are then
 switched into the classification  track  until  there  is no more room for them.
At  this time, the string  of cars  must be moved  farther into  the yard in order
 to make room for the next batch of cars switched  onto that track.   In pushing
 the string of cars down the classification track, the brake  on  the far car may
 or may not be released*   In any event,  the  locomotive must push this string

                                       6-22

-------
of cars into the yard in order  to make room for additional cars.  If one sums
the operating times  involved in the various unitary activities  in both switch-
ing and shoving down the classification tracks, It appears that the time to
switch one car is approximately doubled when the above described procedure is
used.

     There are two major economic consequences of incurring extended switching
times.  The first involves  the  direct additional pay to  the switch crew
resulting from the longer time  spent to do a given job.  The second consequence
which in many cases  may be more important but Is more difficult to estimate
is that the yard in  question,will suffer a reduction of  peak capacity by
approximately a factor of two.   In some cases, this may  be of little consequence,
but in others it may result  in  a loss of large amounts of business to other
carriers or other modes and  thereby have a serious economic Impact.

     Modification of an existing flat yard can be accomplished  by bringing
In fill material and elevating  the tracks in the center  so as to have a 0.08
percent grade.  A typical yard,  4,500 feet (1,370 meters) long  by 20 tracks
wide, will require approximately 1,000,000 cu yds (760,000 cu meters) of fill
to bring it to the new grade.   Ninety thousand feet (27,000 meters) of track
must be relaid.  If  this job Is done while the yard is in operation, it will
Involve closing off  parts of the yard over a period of six to eight weeks.

Switcher Locomotives

Introduction

     The Agency did  not propose  a source standard for switcher  locomotives
as part of its proposed rule.   Instead, In the development of the proposed
property line L^ standards, the Agency presumed that moving and idling
switcher locomotives would have  to be treated using retrofit muffler techn-
ology or that Idling switcher locomotives would have to  be moved or shut down
in order to meet the proposed property line rules.
                                    6-23

-------
     The industry took strong exception  to  the Agency's contention  that
retrofit muffler technology existed to reduce the noise emission from switcher
locomotives an average of 3 dB at  idle and  4 dB while moving at the most
common throttle positions.  The industry also contended that the Agency
underestimated the retrofit hardware and installation costs, and that idling
locomotive shutdown was not feasible.  Additionally, they contended that
retrofit costs should also include out-of-service costs resulting from the
downtime and that the Agency did not consider in its costing retrofitting the
large number of road haul locomotives which are often used to augment the
dedicated switcher fleet.  The industry asserted that 450 new road  locomotives
would have to be purchased to replace those road haul locomotives which would
have to be dedicated to yard operations in  order to obviate the need to
retrofit all road haul locomotives which are currently used in switcher
operation.

     The result of these discrepancies was  an industry capital cost estimate
of $582 million as compared with the Agency estimate of $7.9 million.

     Since switcher locomotives contribute more than half of the total noise
Impact associated with railyards, the Agency decided to consider promulgating
a source regulation to control switcher locomotive noise.  It was believed
that, despite the technology uncertainties, a nominal level of noise reduction
could be achieved at reasonable costs.  In  order to eliminate the potential
problem created by road haul locomotives used in switching, the Agency
decided to consider regulatory options restricted to the inclusion  of only
those existing switcher locomotives that are currently identified by the
industry and the ICC by name and model as dedicated to yard service.  Addition-
ally, the Agency revised its unit cost estimates to include hardware, labor
and out-of-service costs.

Regulatory Options Being Considered

     The regulatory options under consideration differ with respect to the
level of noise reduction believed to be achievable using retrofit muffler
                                    6-24

-------
technology in the idle and throttle 1 and 2 settings during which switcher
locomotives operate more than 90 percent of the time.  In addition, options
are distinguished by applicability of the standard to either residential or
residential and commercial receiving land use.  Table 6-9 indicates the
various options under consideration, their regulatory levels and compliance
costs.  The basic cost elements are contained in Table 6-10.  A detailed
discussion of these cost elements is contained in Appendix B.

Comparison of Regulatory Options

     As indicated in Tables 6-9 and 6-10, a range of compliance costs is
presented for each land use alternative, reflecting differing scenarios
of both the lead time prior to the effective date of the regulation and
assumptions regarding the average lifetime of the retrofit exhaust mufflers
which are presumed to be used to achieve the requisite noise abatement.  For
the eight year lead time and eight year muffler lifetime situation, both the
initial retrofit and subsequent replacement retrofits are presumed to occur
within the normal maintenance cycles (six years) of the switcher locomotives;
therefore no out-of-service (opportunity) costs would be charged to the
regulatory option under this scenario.  At the other extreme, If a four year
lead time prior to the effective date were assumed in conjunction with a four
year useful life of the exhaust mufflers utilized, both an initial and a
periodic replacement out-of-service cost for approximately one-third of the
fleet would be chargeable to the regulatory option since only this fraction
of the required retrofits could be accommodated during normal maintenance
cycles•

     As a result, the cost bounds indicated In Table 6-9 for both initial
capital costs and uniform annualized costs reflect the additional out-of-
service costs resulting from differing regulatory lead times and replacement
rates for mufflers.

     The compliance costs associated with retrofitting switcher locomotives
assume that for the residential only land use alternative 57 percent of the
yards will have to retrofit their dedicated switchers.  Similarly 73 percent

                                     6-25

-------
                                                    Table 6-9
                SUMMARY OF COST FOR REGULATORY OPTIONS  FOR SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVE NOISE ABATEMENT
to
Anticipated
Reduction
A-weighted In Max
Option Technical Regulatory Noise
Description Limit (dB) Level (dB)
1 Minium noise 70 90 02
reduction. Idle Having
Assumes no
noise reduction
Is achieved at
idle, and 1 dB
reductions are
achieved for
switcher
operations which
are composed of
501 untreated
road haul
locomotives and
SOX dedicated
switcher
locomotives
which are
treated to
achieve 2 dB
reductions.
Methodological
Assumptions
Huffier
life tine:
8 years
4 years

Finance
period:
3 years

Discount
rate:
.11









Initial
Capital Cost
($ x 106)
Res. Res.+
Only Comm.
31.5 40.3
(8 year lead
time)

to

42.6 54.6
(4 year lead
tine)












Capital Annual Annual Ized
Recovery Cost O & M Cost Cost
($ x 106) ($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Res. Res.+ Res. Res.+ Res. Res.+
Only Conn. Only Comm. Only Comm.
6.13 7.85 4.97 6.38 11.1 14.2
(8 year
muffler
rep lace-
to »ent) to

13.71 17.56 to

4.97 6.38 18.68 23.94
(4 year
Muffler
replace-
ment)








Uniform
Annuallzed
Total Outlay
($ x 10&)
Res. Res.+
Only Comm.
5.148 6.587



to



10.54 13.51













-------
                                                           Table  6-9  (Continued)
                     SUMMARY  OF COST FOR REGULATORY OPTIONS  FOR SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVE NOISE ABATEMENT
     Option Technical
            Description
                A-welghted
                Regulatory
                Limit (dB)
Anticipated
 Reduction
  In Max
  Noise
  Level (dB)
Methodological
Assumptions
  Initial
Capital Cost
 ($ x 106)
Res.     Res.+
Only    Conn.
  Capital
Recovery Cost
 ($  x  106)
 Res.   Res.+
 Only  Conn.
   Annual
 O & M Cost
 ($  x 10*)
Res.    Res.+
Only    Comm.
                                                           Annual1zed
                                                             Cost
                                                            ($  x
                                                            Res.   Res.+
                                                            Only   Conn.
 Uniform
Annuallzed
Total Outlay
($  x 10&)
Res.   Res.+
Only   Comm.
to
Nominal' noise
^reduction.
Assumes noise
level
reductions
are achieved
for switcher
operations
which are
composed of
50X untreated
road haul
locomotives
and 50Z
dedicated
switcher
locomotives.
Treated
switchers
achieve 4 dB
reductions
while moving
and 3 dB
at Idle.
                              67     88
                             Idle  Moving
Same
 as
                                                         Option 1
                                  Same
                                   as
                                Option 1
                                     Sane
                                      as
                                   Option 1
                                   Same
                                    as
                                 Option 1
                                  Same
                                   as
                                Option 1
                                 Same
                                  as
                               Option 1

-------
                                                          Table  6-9  (Continued)
                     SUMMARY  OF  COST FOR  REGULATORY  OPTIONS FOR SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVE NOISE ABATEMENT
   Option  Technical
           Description
                A-weighted
                Regulatory
                Ll.lt (dB)
Anticipated
 Reduction
  In Max
  Noise
  Level (dB)
Methodological
Assumptions
  Initial
Capital  Cost
 (S x 106)
Res.     Res.+
Only    Conn.
  Capital
Recovery Cost
 (S  x 10^)
 Res.   Res.+
 Only  Coram.
   Annual
 0 & M Cost
 ($  x 106)
Res.    Res.+
Only.   Coram.
AnnualIzed
  Cost
 ($  x 106)
 Res.   Res.-t-
 Only   Conra.
 Uniform
Annual Ized
Total Outlay
($  x 10&)
Res.   Res.+
Only   Coram.
CT»

to
00
Optimistic
noise
redaction.
Assumes ,
noise level
reductions
are achieved
for switcher
operations
which are
composed  of
100Z treated
switcher
locomotives.
Road haul
locomotives,
albeit present,
are assumed to
operate for
minimal
durations and
therefore
contlbute
insignificantly
to the noise
emissions from
switcher
operations.
                            67     88
                           Idle  Moving
                 Same
                  as
                Option 1
                    Same
                     as
                  Option 1
                     Same
                      as
                   Option 1
                   Same
                    as
                 Option 1
                   Same
                    as
                 Option 1
                                                                 Same
                                                                                                                                      Option 1

-------
                                                   Table 6-10
                         COMPONENT COST ELEMENTS EOR SWITCHER LOCOMOTIVE NOISE ABATEMENT
ro
to


Cost
Elescnt
Abatement
Technology
Exhaust
Muffler, 4-
related
Materials
for
Installation










Total Units
of Required
Unit Units RES.+
Type Existing RES. OOMM.
END 305 173 223
645
series



EMD 5,809 3,312 4,240
567
series

other 860 491 629
•anuf .


Initial
Unit
Material
and
Installation
Cost ($)
6,800





7,300



12,500



Lead Tine
Prior to
Effective
Date of
Regulation
(Tears)
4
4
8
8


4
4
8
8
4
4
8
8
Unit out
of Service
Opportunity
Cost ($)
Due to Initial
Installation
fr.OOO
8,000
0
0


8,000
8,000
0
0
8,000
8,000
0
0
Unit
Annual
Operating
+
Maintenance
Cost ($)
460(fuel)
+ 680(malnt)
-1,140



460(fuel)
+ 730(nalnt)
-1,190

460(fuel)
+l,250(naint)
-1,710

Replacement
Unit
Material
•f
Installatlon
Cost ($)
5,000





6,000



6,000





Muffler
Useful
Life
Years
4
8
4
8


4
8
4
8
4
8
4
8
Unit out of
Service
Opportunity
Cost ($) Due
to Replacement
Installation
8,000
0
8,000
0


8,000
0
8,000
0
8,000
0
8,000
0

-------
of the yards will have to retrofit their dedicated switchers if the regulation
were to apply to both residential and commercial land uses surrounding rail
yards.  In the development of the capital costs, initial retrofits of HMD
switchers average $7,275 and other switcher retrofit costs average $12,500.
Initial retrofit costs Include provisions for fabrication of a hatch bonnet
and other modifications which are not required for subsequent muffler replace-
ments •

     Annual operations cost increases of $460 per engine are included in
costs of compliance due to increased fuel costs.  In addition, annual mainten-
ance costs increases of 10 percent of initial material and Installation costs
are Included resulting from the cleaning of sound arrestor/exhaust silencer
assembly and retorquing of bolts*

Measurement Costs

     In the original Agency proposal for a property line standard, the
Agency estimated that Instrumentation required to monitor the property line
Leq and L(jn for compliance would cost approximately $10,000 per set.
These costs were based upon the anticipated requirement for the purchase of a
Type 1 sound level meter, microphone, windscreen, calibrator and community
noise classifier.  Approximately 590 instrument sets were estimated to be
required resulting in a total Initial capital Investment of $5.97 million.
Annual labor costs were estimated to be between $500 and $2,000 per year
depending upon yard size to monitor the property line levels and the specific
rallyard sources.  The industry did not take exception to the Initial capital
investment costs or the 5-year useful life estimation except to note that the
$10,000 cost per instrument set would not be sufficient to procure a strip
chart recorder and a tape recorder which could assist in the identification
of individual noise sources.  They did, however, take exception to the
estimated labor costs asserting that they should be Increased by more than a
factor of four.
                                     6-30

-------
     In developing the  revised regulatory concepts which are not based
upon the measurement of receiving property Le_ or Ldn values, the
instrumentation costs and annual labor costs can be substantially lowered.
Since the regulatory options under consideration only require the measurement
of maximum A-weighted sound levels, only Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters
plus associated microphone, windscreen and calibrator will be required.
Additionally, because 24 hour measurements will not be required the labor
costs will be more nominal than in the proposed standard.

     Table 6-11 summarizes the compliance costs associated with the purchase
and annual operating costs associated with the monitoring of the four noise
sources which are considered for regulation.

     It is estimated that each of the 500 railroad companies which will
have to comply with the standard would purchase one instrument set at an
initial capital cost of approximately $2,000.  This would include the purchase
of a Type 1 and/or a Type 2 sound level meter and associated microphone,
windscreen and calibrator.

     Annual maintenance costs are based upon 10 percent of initial capital
costs.  Annual operating (labor) costs to perform the measurements are
estimated to be $2,000 per yard based upon 3 to 5 sources per average yard.
Each yard will be measured once every five years to ensure compliance.

     For the regulatory option which applies to residential receiving property
only, 2,501 yards are estimated to require measurement whereas in the residential
and commercial case 3,127 are estimated to require measurement*

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL IMPACT OF KAILYARD NOISE ABATEMENT REGULATIONS

Summary of Economic Impacts

     The analysis presented in this section evaluates the probable impact
of increased costs on the railroad industry resulting from railyard noise
                                     6-31

-------
                                                         Table 6-11
                                  SUMMARY  OF MEASUREMENT COSTS FOR REGULATORY OPTIONS
0*
I
ro
Annual
Operating
Cost Initial and
Category Capital Maintenance
Land Use Cost ' Cost
($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Residential only 1.0 1.10
Capital
Recovery Annuallzed
Methodological Cost Cost
Assumptions ($ x 106) ($ x 106)
Discount rate: .11 O.29 1.37
Instrument useful
life: 5 years
Finance period:
3 years
Lead time prior
to effective
date of regulation:
4 years
Uniform
Annuallzed Total
Cost Outlay
($ x 10&)
0.982
      Residential •*• Coonerclal
                                1.0
                                          1.35
                                                                               0.27
                                                                                            1.62
                                                                                                           1.16

-------
abatement regulations.  The analysis uses two separate techniques; one
intended to highlight the economic impacts in the rail freight transportation
industry; the second designed to look at individual railroads' discounted
cash flows over the future and compare this with costs of noise abatement.

     Some of the major conclusions from the economic Impact analysis are
summarized in Table 6-12.  The cost of the noise abatement regulations may
lead to a .1 percent Increase in the price of rail freight transportation
services in the United States.  This price increase translates into a decrease
in the traffic originating in Class I and II railroads of between 314 and
1279 million revenue ton-miles.  This decrease will lead to a reduction of
between 192 and 777 jobs in the industry*  However* both the employment
decreases and output reductions may be totally offset if the demand for rail
freight transportation increases, even modestly.  Given the recent rapid
escalation of fuel prices and the concurrent noise regulation of new trucks,
it seems likely that the demand for rail freight services will increase.

     The question of the impact on individual railroads is also particularly
Important.  The impact of noise abatement regulations on the railroad
industry as a whole appears to be very small, but some railroads may be more
adversely affected than others.  Conrail is of special interest because of
•' . .              •..'!"','''          '             .  •        '
the large government subsidies it already receives.  The analysis performed
for this section suggests that Conrail's costs will rise by about .2 percent
of total capital plus operating costs*  The number of revenue ton-miles
shipped by Conrail will fall between .06 and .23 percent If the full increase
in costs is passed through as a price Increase.  After Conrail, the railroad
with the largest deficit relative to operating revenues affected by the
regulations is the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific.  It is smaller
ranking 15th in terms of revenue ton-miles of the 49 Class I and II railroads
studied.'  Although total costs will increase by only .2 percent, traffic will
decrease by .09 to .28 percent.  These are small changes, but given that the
railroad is already operating with a deficit, the impacts are relatively
large.
                                     6-33

-------
               Table 6-12

      SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS
FOR CLASS I AND II LINE HAUL RAILROADS




Output decrease Min
(mil 1 ion of Tot
ton-miles) Max
Employment
decrease Min
(mi 1 1 ions of Tot
ton-miles) Max
^rice increase Min
(in percent) Avg
Max
Res i dent ial
Receiving
Property
Low
0
3U
57

0
192
56
High
0
10*40
175

0
635
172
0
0.1
0.5
Res idential/
Commerc
al Re-
ceiving Property
Low
0
391
71

0
236
70
High
0
1279
218

0
111
215
0
0.1
0.6
Industry
Character! st ics
for 1978

Output Min 198
(Millions Tot 585,105
of ton miles) Max 108,12^
Employment
Min 259
Tot ^71,516
Max 91,318
Price - Min 1.51
U per Avg 2.37
ton-mile) Max 8. '19
                       6-34

-------
     Two of the railroads with the largest Increase in costs relative to
total capital plus operating costs are the Pittsburgh and Lake Erie, and
the Richmond, Fredericksburg and Potomac.  Costs could increase by,as much
as .4 and .5 percent, respectively (or as little as .4 and .3 percent,
respectively).  Both are small railroads, ranking 38th and 39nd respectively
in revenue ton-miles shipped in 1978, but they should be better able to
absorb increased costs in the short run than many of their competitors.  The
Pittsburgh and Lake Erie's net income as a percent of total operating revenue
was 16.6 percent in 1978, and that of the Richmond, Fredericksburg and
Potomac was 43.8 percent.

     The major conclusion reached is that the noise abatement regulations
as posed and evaluated in this chapter should lead to only minor impacts in
the rail freight transportation industry in the short run and in the long run
after railroads have had the chance to pass through added costs.  Employment
impacts likewise will be extremely small, with no reduction in jobs in some
firms.  Conrail may experience a reduction of as many as 215; however, even
this reduction in employment amounts to less than one quarter of one percent
of Conrail's total labor force.

Description of Methodology Used

     The two methodologies used to calculate the economic and financial
impacts of rallyard noise abatement regulation address two different but
highly Interrelated questions: first, how will the market respond to cost and
price increases brought about by the noise abatement fixes; and second, what
will be the impact on individual railroads incurring the costs of these
fixes?  The first question is addressed using a highly simplified economic
model of the railroad industry.  The second question is addressed by modeling
expected future railroad cash flows over the life of the quieting fixes.

Economic Impact Analysis

     An economic,model of the railroad industry was developed, using simplifying
assumptions, to forecast the impacts of the candidate noise abatement techniques

                                     6-35

-------
specified in  the final  regulation.   The  model  is  described  below,  with
justification for  its use  and  its key  underlying  assumptions.   The major
caveat  to be  emphasized is that  the  model  does not  address  intermodal  compe-
tition  directly, a potentially serious mis-specification  that  cannot be fully
justified.  However, to the  extent that  trucks are  currently subject to noise
regulation, and their capital  and operating  costs increase  by  the  same order
of magnitude  that  rail  costs increase, no  distortions will  be  introduced  into
the analysis.  Additional  considerations will  be  noted  below.

The Railroad  Impact Methodology:

     The methodology used  to compute economic  impacts of  cost  increases
brought about by noise  abatement technology  is based on a number of
assumptions about  the railroad freight industry.*  The  most Important
assumptions are the following:

     1)  Firms in  the railroad industry behave competitively as profit
maximlzers.  Even  if there is  little opportunity  for competition between
individual railroads, the  existence  of other transport  modes ensures that
railroads must price their services  competitively.

     2)  Railroads are  characterized by moderate  economies of  scale and
significant economies of density*  In practice this means that once a  railroad
achieves even moderate  size  as measured by its miles of road (given traffic
density measured in revenue  ton-miles per mile of road),  its average costs of
operation per ton-mile  are constant  (and its marginal costs equal  average costs)
*It should be noted that the impact on passenger transportation has been
ignored.  It is legitimate to disregard these impacts only if they are
expected to be negligible.  Railroads currently account for less than
5 percent of all revenue passenger miles by mode; passenger revenues were
approximately three percent of total operating revenues for all Class 1
railroads in 1978.  Finally, two railroads, the Long Island and Conrail,
accounted for over 70 percent of all revenue passenger miles for Class I
railroads in 1978.  However, the majority of these passenger are commuters
who should be relatively insensitive to price changes.  Thus it is assumed
that passenger traffic will not be affected substantially by the noise
abatement regulations.
                                   6-36

-------
      3)  The Interstate Commerce  Commission will allow the full cost
 increase due to noise abatement fixes  to be passed on to railroad
 customers  in terms of higher prices.   However, the price increases
 will  not be instantaneous as railroads must petition the ICC for the
 increase.  Thus, in the short run, even as costs rise, freight charges
 will  not.  Given sufficient time, six  months to a year, the full cost
 Increase will be passed through.

      The remaining assumptions are somewhat more tenuous, but without a
 much  larger expenditure of resources to develop a truly general rail industry
 model, they are the only workable alternative.

      4)  The increase in rail freight  prices relative to other modes'
 freight transport prices will be very  small; thus additional intermodal
 substitution will not occur.

      5)  Service differentials will not change (i.e., delivery times for
 rail  freight will not increase relative to other modes).  Thus no sub-
 stitution between modes will be spurred due to changes in service differ-
 entials.

      6)  The price elasticity of demand faced by each railroad is constant
 for sufficiently small changes in price and output.  This assumption is really
 a consequence of the preceding two.  As will be demonstrated later In this
 section, average cost Increases per ton-mile are a very small proportion of
 average revenue per ton-mile; thus assuming that the price elasticity Is
 constant will not lead to very large distortions.

     Based on these assumptions, the demand for and supply of railroad
 freight transportation services are depicted in Figure 6-2.  The shaded region
between the two demand curves represents the area In which the equilibrium
price and output would fall If costs change (and consequently the supply
                                                '         •      - \ :
curve shifts).   The more steeply sloped demand curve DD represents an elasticity
 (in absolute value) of less than 1 (.348) and the more gently sloped demand
                                     6-37

-------
U)
oo
             0
             c
              •
             0)
             3
             0.
             :
                 28
                 27
26
25
                 2k
             •   23
             
22


21


20


19


18


17
                                      750
                                 850
950
1050
1150
                                                                Bi11 ion ton-miles
                               FIGURE 6-2.   SUPPLY AND DEtlAND KELATIOWSHIPS

-------
 curve D'D'  represents  an elasticity greater than 1  (1.037).*  The intersection
 of  the  supply  curve  SS and demand curves at 858.1 billion ton-miles  and
 average revenue  (or  price) of  $23.65 per thousand ton-miles  are  the  observed
 1978 values.

     Conceptually, the steps that are necessary to  find the  new  equilibrium
 price and output  are as follows:

     1)  Costs associated with the noise abatement  fixes are calculated
 on  a per ton-mile basis.

     2)  These cost  Increases  are added  to  the  average  cost  per  ton-mile
 at  the  original equilibrium point.   Graphically,  the  supply  curve shifts
 upward  by the unit cost increase.

     3)  At the new  Intersection  of  the  demand  and  supply curves,  the
 equilibrium price and  quantity can be read  from the graph.

     Computationally,  the steps are  quite similar to  those above.  The
 basic relationship to  be  used  is  the definition of  the  elasticity:
         K  -
         Nd"%AP
i.e., the price elasticity of demand is defined as the percentage change
in output divided by the percentage change in price.  The percentage change in
price is calculated as the change in cost due to the noise abatement fixes
(these costs are passed on to railroad customers in the form of a price increase)
divided by the average revenue per ton-mile, a crude proxy for the average
^Throughout this section, the price elasticity of demand will be reported
using the absolute value, omitting the minus sign which is consistent with
the downward-sloping demand curve.                              .
                                    6-39

-------
price per ton-mile, the freight  rate.  Multiplying the percentage change  in
price by the elasticity gives  the percentage change  in output.   Because the
pre-regulation output  is known,  the  change  in  output can be calculated by
multiplying the percentage change by total  output.   This can be  done  on a
railroad by railroad basis, and  the  results aggregated to  the  industry level.

     Employment impacts are calculated under the assumption that for  small
changes in output, the output-labor  ratio is constant.  Dividing the  change  in
output by the output-labor ratio will thus  generate  the change in employment.
Again, a predicted reduction in  employment  is  a long-run change.  The immedi-
ate response of railroads to the cost increase will  depend on  the rapidity
with which the ICC allows increased  costs to be reflected  in the price of rail
services.  Consequently, there will  be no immediate  reduction  in employment.
Given sufficient adjustment time, and if the employment Impact is small,
employment adjustments can be accomplished  through normal  attrition.

Developing Average Elasticities:

     Much of the accuracy of the analysis depends on utilizing reasonable
figures for the price elasticity of  demand.  Unfortunately, there is  little
recent information on railroad price elasticities and that which does exist
is not completely appropriate for the analysis here.  In an analysis  of
competition between two railroad technologies  (boxcars and TOFCs) and trucks,
Levin* found that the average price  elasticity of demand for 42  commodities
to be in the range of .25 to .35.  The only other recent source  of price
elasticities by commodity is the ICC.**  Unfortunately, commodity categories
were aggregated across some 2-digit  STCC commodity classifications so that
the resulting elasticities could not be directly applied to the  STCC  classifi-
cations contained in the railroads'  annual  reports.  However,  the elasticities
shown in Table 6-13 were used to compute weighted average  elasticities for
*R. C. Levin, "Allocation in Surface Freight Transportation: Does Rate
 Regulation Matter?"  The Bell Journal of Economics 9 (Spring 1978): 32.
**ICC Report to Congress, The Impact of the 4R Act; Railroad Ratemaking
Provisions. October 5, 1977, Table V-3, p.103.
                                    6-40

-------
                       Table  6-13

         ELASTICITIES  BY STCC COMMODITY CLASS



 STCC                      Commod i ty                Elasticity
                                               Low        High

  01                      Farm Products         .837       1.320

  10                      Metallic Ores         .390        .819

  11                     -Coal                  .128        .380

  32                      Stone,  Clay,  Glass    .350       *».J»

.  33                      Primary Metal         .100        .300
                         Products

  37                      Transportation        .760       1.680
                 -   '     Equipment
                           6-41

-------
each railroad.  Elasticities were computed for each railroad by multiplying
the tonnage hauled in each commodity class by the related elasticities.
These were added for all railroads.  Finally, the total was divided by the
total tonnage summed over the six commodities classes listed above.  Thus,
each railroad's average elasticity of demand is weighted by the type of
commodities it hauls.  These composite elasticities were aggregated over all
railroads, weighting each railroad's elasticity by its total revenue ton-mile*
The resulting industry-wide weighted price elasticity of demand ranges
between a low of .348 and a high of 1.037.  These are considerably larger (in
absolute value) than those estimated by Levin, but are similar to elasticities
estimated by Friedlaender in 1969.*

Computing Unit Cost Impacts:

     Costs of the noise abatement fixes were computed by applying the unit
capital and operating and maintenance costs discussed above and summarized in
Table 6-14, to noise sources by individual railroads.    Thus quieting costs
associated with retarders were multiplied by the number of hump yards owned
by each railroad, and the quieting costs for load cells were multiplied by
the number of hump yards owned by each railroad, and the quieting costs for
load cells were multiplied by the number of load cells owned by each railroad.
Quieting costs for switch engines were developed assuming a 4-year muffler
replacement cycle.  These were multiplied by an estimate of the total number
of engines requiring treatment owned by each railroad to obtain the total cost
of the treatment.

     The total cost of each treatment was restated as an average or annual! 2e
-------
                                 Table  6-14


                       COSTS  FOR SOURCE  STANDARDS

                                                                      Annual
                                               Unit Cost Number of   O&M Cost
    Noise Source          Treatment            $  (000)     Units   $ (millions)


FOR RESIDENTIAL RECEIVING PROPERTY

1.  Retarders        Absorptive barriers  for
                     master retarders,  12 ft x    48.6       75
                     ISO ft (3.7 m  x 46 m)
                                                                       0.72
                     Boundary vails 15  ft x
                     1500 ft (4.6 m x 457 m)     300.0       75
                     and 10 ft x 1500 ft
                     (3 m x 457 m)

                     Out-of-servlce costs         97.0       75

2.  Locomotive       Absorptive barriers,
    Load Cell        25 ft x 150 ft (7.6  m x       97.5      141         1.04
    Test Stands      46 m)

3.  Switcher Muffler
    Locomotives
                         EMD Engines              7.28   3,485         4.97
                         Other Engines             12.5      491
                     Out of Service Costs
                         (10 day.)                 8.0    1,392

4.  Car Coupling     Speed Control

FOR RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL RECEIVING PROPERTY

1.  Retarders        Absorptive barriers  for
                     master retarders,  12 ft x    48.6       90
                     150 ft (3.7 ax 46 m)
                                                                       0.87
                     Boundary walls,  15 ft x
                     1500 ft (4.6 x 457 n)      300.0       90
                     and 10 ft x 1500 ft
                     (3m x 457 m)

                     Out-of-serviee costs         97        90

2.  Locomotive       Absorptive barriers,
    Load Cell        25 ft x 150 ft (76 m
    Test Stands      x 46 m)                      97.5     144         1.05

3.  Switcher Muffler
    Locomotives
                         EMD Engines               7.28   4,463
                         Other Engines             12.5      629
                     Out of Service Costs
                         (10 days)                 8.0    1,782         6.38

4,  Car Coupling     Speed Control
                                     6-43

-------
life of  10 years was assumed; for the reflective property line boundary walls
used to  abate retarder noise, a 50-year useful life was estimated.  As stated
above, the life of the muffler treatment was assumed to be 4 years.  The
present  value of capital costs and operating and maintenance costs were
combined.  Table 6-15 summarizes the total capital and operating and
maintenance cost estimates used in the calculations.

Financial Analysis/Impact Assessment

     Further analysis was performed to assess the Impact of the railyard noise
controls on individual railroad cash requirements and financial conditions.
Using a  discounted cash flow technique, the net present value (NPV) of each
railroad's twenty year (1980 to 1999) stream of adjusted cash flow is compared
to the NFV of noise abatement costs plus net investment for the same period.
When the costs plus net worth are greater than or slightly less than adjusted
cash flow, or where abatement costs seem large relative to adjusted cash flow,
potential financial difficulty may be present, and further examination is
warranted.

     Adjusted cash flow is defined as the sum of net income after interest,
income taxes, extraordinary items and deferred taxes, less equity in earnings
of affiliated companies.  Net investment is defined as net worth (the difference
between  assets and liabilities)  and is composed of capital stock, capital
contributions and retained earnings.  Net worth represents that portion of
total assets or Investments which are owned by the company's shareholders and
not by creditors.

     The cash flow study encompasses a total of 56 railroads.  Using the ICC
designations in effect during either 1976 and 1977, as discussed elsewhere in
the section, 50 Class I line haul railroads, one Class II railroad and five
Class I switching and terminal operations make up the sample.  The Class II
and switching and terminal railroads chosen are thdse with hump yards, which
contain many of the noise producing sources which are affected by the proposed
                                     6-44

-------
                                Table 6-15
                 TOTAL COSTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT TECHNIQUES
                            ($ IN MILLIONS)
                         Capital Cost
Retarders

Locomotive Load
Cell Test Stands

Switch Engines
Res.  Only  Res.+ Comm.

  33.4        40.1

  13.65       14.0
42.6
              54.6
                        Operating and Maintenance
                        	Costs	
                         Res. Only   Res.+ Comm.

                           0.72         0.87

                           1.04         1.05
4.97
6.38
                                     6-45

-------
regulations and thus would incur a significant expense under regulation.  The
switching and terminal companies included are the Alton and Southern (ALS),
the Belt Railway Company of Chicago (BRC), the Indiana Harbor Belt (1KB), the
Terminal Railway Association of St. Louis (TRRA) and Union Railroad (URR).*
The Youngstown & Southern (YS) is the Class II railroad.  A complete list of
the railroads and equipment included in the analysis appears in Table J-25.
The number of retarders, load cell test sites and switch engines impacted by
each regulation option and included in this analysis is presented in Table
J-2 for each railroad.

     Considerable care should be taken in analyzing the results of this analyst^
This approach is best used to suggest the possibility that specific individual
railroads may have difficulty financing noise abatement expenses.  Since the
same procedure and data base is used for each railroad, the results serve as
a comparative guide among railroads as to which may be most affected or are
in the weakest financial position.  As a relative measurement technique, the
results will indicate those which will be less affected by regulations or are
financially stronger.  However readers must be cautioned that no attempts
were made to develop specific forecasts for individual firms or to analyze
individual railroad conditions.  Moreover, no attempt was made to integrate
the analysis of the railroad industry as a whole (discussed elsewhere in this
section) into the analysis of Individual railroads.  Despite these limitations
the methodology does provide an assessment of potential impacts of noise
regulations on individual railroads.

Data Sources

     A vast amount of data was culled from a number of different publications
obtained primarily from the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Association
of American Railroads.  These sources are listed below:
*  Letters in parentheses are the railroads' uniform alpha codes.
                                    6-46

-------
Operating and Traffic Statistics

     The principal source for Class I and II railroad operating and traffic
statistics was the ICC's Transport Statistics in the United States and the ICG's
QCS Reports (not published but available in the Public Documents Room at  the
ICC)t  The QCS reports provided detailed information on  tonnages and revenues
by STCC category for all freight commodities hauled by Class I railroads.  In
addition, detailed operation and traffic statistics for  Class I and some  Class
II railroads were available from the AAR in its Operation and Traffic Statistics,
O.S. Series No. 220.

     The same data on operating and traffic statistics were available for Class I
and II switching and terminal companies from the ICC.  All of the operating
and traffic statistics were contained in the R-l or R-2, Annual Report filed
by each railroad each year.  A summary of commodities hauled (for Class II rail-
roads) was included in the R-2 (Schedule 2602), whereas  no corresponding  table
existed in the R-l Annual Reports.

     In 1978, the ICC changed its classification scheme  so that Class I
railroads were designated as those with operating revenues in excess of $50
million; Class II railroads had operating revenues greater than $10 million
but less than $50 million.  As a result, a number of the railroads (approximately
20) were reclassifled as Class II railroads.  In addition, many of the data
reported were changed in format or level of aggregation.  Finally, what had
been Class II railroads became Class III railroads, with only a fraction  of
the data available in the R-3 Report.  Thus, the 1978 data which were used in
the current analysis represents the most current, consistent set of data
available, but unfortunately exclude all Class III railroads.

Financial Data

     The individual railroad financial data also were gathered from the R-l,
R-2 and R-3 reports.  The net worth data were taken from the comparative
general balance sheet and represent total shareholder's equity.  Net income
                                     6-47

-------
was obtained from the income  statement.  Deferred taxes and equity in earnings
of affiliates data appeared in the  statement  of changes in financial condition.
The cash flow and net worth data were average  over  the 1973 to  1978 period,
+enerating a single estimate.  This  "smoothing" technique reduced the prospect
of choosing an unrepresentative base period from which the twenty-year
projections were derived.

Employment Data

     Employment data were obtained from two sources.  The source of employment
data for Class I railroads was an AAR report, Rank of Class I Railroads  (by
Employees for 1978).  The ICC does not summarize employment data in a single
source and does not require it to be reported in the R-l, Annual Report.
However, the principal source of employment data for Class II railroads was
the R-2, Annual Report*  These employment figures by category of employment
were summarized in Schedule 2401.

Costs of Regulatory Compliance

     The costs for each of the noise abatement technologies have been discussed
earlier.  Specific unit capital costs and annual O&M costs were summarized
in Table 6-14.  These formed the basis for the cost impacts.

Regulatory Scenarios and Assumptions

     Two  regulatory scenarios were evaluated.  In one, the impacts were
computed under the assumption that the regulation applied to yards abutting
only residential receiving property; the second assumed that all yards
bordering residential/commerical receiving property were regulated.  Within
each of these scenarios, a high and a low impact were calculated.  The high
impact, in each case,  assumed that the high price elasticity of demand
obtained;  the low impact used the low elasticity estimate.  Additional
assumptions are summarized below.
                                    6-48

-------
Residential Receiving Property

     The annualized costs  described  in Table  6-15  were  used  to  compute  the
Impacts on all Class 1  and Class  II  railroads* Each  hump  yard was  assumed to
have one master  retarder.   Of these,  75 of  the 124 were assumed to require  the
treatments listed in Table 6-14.   Similarly,  141 of  189 locomotive load cell
test stands require quieting in the  residential option.  Finally,  3,976 of  the
inventory of  switch engines owned by  each of  the Class  I  and Class II
railroads as  reported by AAR required quieting.

Residential/Commerical  Receiving  Property

     The method  used to calculate the more  severe  impacts associated with
regulating all those yards abutting  residential or commerical property  has
inherent uncertainties.  Ideally,  one would like to  know  which  of  the 4169
railyards in  the inventory actually  do border residential or commerical
property.  However, the property  line of railyards in the EPIC  sample was used
as a basis from which to extrapolate  the total residential/commercial property
affected.  There was no way to precisely assign individual retarders, load
cells or switch  engines to owning railroads on this  basis.

     In order to develop some estimate of the impact of the  noise  abatement
standards when applied  to  residential/commercial receiving property, it was
decided simply to take  the proportion of retarders (or  load  cells,  or switch
engines) in the  option  being considered relative to  the total number, and
scale all costs accordingly.  An  obvious problem with that approach is  that
railroads in more densely  settled parts of  the country, the  East and the
Midwest, may have a proportionately greater number of yards  bordering residential
or commercial property.  Thus, the costs estimated for  those  railroads  will  be
somewhat underestimated relative  to railroads in less densely populated
regions of the country.
                                     6-49

-------
Regulatory Schedule

     The final source regulation requires compliance on January 15, 1984.
To meet this effective date, the assumption was made that all capital equipment
would be purchased, installed and put in use in 1983, except for those switch
engines treated during the major overhaul cycle, as discussed abovei  The
depreciation for capital equipment begins in the year in which equipment is
put in use with Investment tax credits generated at that time as well.  It is
further assumed that, once equipment is put in use, it will also generate
operating and maintenance costs.  Thus, for compliance at January 15, 1984,
costs will be incurred prior to the effective date.

Economic Impact Analysis

     In this section, the economic impacts of the railyard noise abatement
regulations will be summarized.  Individual impacts for 49 Class I and Class
II railroads, and 14 Class I and II switching and terminal companies are
presented in Appendix E.  Only freight impacts are evaluated because, as was
suggested earlier, the passenger component of the railroad industry is so
small relative to all rail activity that passenger impacts are expected to be
negligible.  In the first round of the analysis with 1977 data Class III
railroads (formerly Class II) were included.  However, the update with 1978
foreclosed that analysis since few of the data were available.  Some Class I
and II railroads were excluded (e.g., the Canadian Pacific in Maine) because
no financial data or no operating and traffic statistics were available.  In
this section, we have aggregated these railroads for analysis by Eastern,
Southern and Western District Class I and II railroads, and separately, Class
I and II switching and terminal companies.

Impact on Operating Costs

     The present value of total capital costs (including replacement costs)
are summarized in Table 6-16.  Annuallzed total costs, capital costs and
operating and maintenance costs are summarized In Tables 6-17 through 6-19,
                                    6-50

-------
                         Table  6-16

             PRESENT VALUE TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS*
                        ($ in 000)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
Switching
6 Terminal
Resident ial
Receiving Property
18142.4
21839.9
7560.6
47542.9
2008.0
Res i den t i a 1 /Comme re i a 1
Receiving Property
20914.6
20923.1
8366.9
50204.6
2392.5





NOTE:  These totals are lower than the capital  cost estimates
       shown in Table 6-1  for several  reasons,  including:

       0   Out of Service Costs are omitted here but included
           as Capital Costs in Table 6-1.

       0   Future capital  outlays are discounted (lower)  here,
           but not in Table 6-1.

       0   This analysis applies  only to Class  I and II
           railroads, a subset of the total industry.
                           6-51

-------
     Table  6-17

TOTAL ANNUALIZED COST
     ($ in 000)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
Switching
£ Terminal
Res ident ial
Receiving Property
10127.2
10234. 1
2935.8
23297.1
1679.2
Residential/Commerci al
Receiving Property
12534.5
12504.9
3592.7
28632.1
2117.0
        6-52

-------
         Table  6-18

TOTAL ANNUALIZED CAPITAL COSTS
        ($ In 000)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
Swi tching
& Terminal
Residential
Receiving Property
3202.6
3280.3
1033.6
7516.5
443. 2
Res t den t i a 1 /Commerc i a 1
Receiving Property
3827.8
3823.8
1218.7
8870.3
546.4
         6-53

-------
                            Table  6-19
          TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
                           ($ in 000)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
Swf tching
& Terminal
Residential
Receiving Property
692*1.7
6953-9
1902.3
15780.9
1236.2
Resident ial /Commercial
Receiving Property
8706.3
8681.1
2373-8
19761.2
1570.5
* NOTE:
These totals are higher than the 0 & M cost estimates  shown -jn
Table 6-1 for several  reasons, including:
0   The effects of future inflation are reflected here
    but not in Table 6-1.
0   Out of Service costs are included here.   In  Table  6-1,
    Out of Service costs are included with capital  outlays.
0   Replacement mufflers are included here but not  in
    Table 6-1.
                            6-54

-------
for Class I and II railroads In each of  the  three ICC districts and for Class
I and II switching and terminal companies.*   It is clear that the largest
percentage of the abatement compliance costs will be borne by Class I and II
railroads.  Total annualized costs for switching and terminal companies will
amount to only slightly more than 7 percent  of total costs imposed on all
Class I and II railroads.  These costs will  be passed through to the line
haul railroads using the yards, however, and thus the additional impact on
Class I or Class II line haul railroads will be small.

     Total annualized capital costs as depicted in Table 6-18 are small
compared with "retained funds"** as reported by the AAR.  In 1978, retained
funds were reported as 749.8 million.***  Total annualized ca'pital costs for
residential receiving property amounted to $7.5 million, or 1 percent of
retained funds.  However, because railroads have had to borrow approximately
three times their retained funds in each of  the last five years to finance all
capital expenditures, one can assume that the entire cost of the noise
abatement fixes will be financed, thus competing directly with funds needed for
capital improvement expenditures.

     Total annual expenditures on operating and maintenance costs are
summarized in Table 6-19.  Again, it is clear that switching and terminal
companies' expenditures will amount to only a small fraction of the Class I
and II railroads' expenditures, approximately 8 percent.  Class I and II
railroads' expenditures will amount to a very small proportion of total
operating expenses, approximately .07 percent in the residential receiving
property scenario and in the residential/commercial receiving property
scenario.  Thus,  the total noise abatement costs appear to be a very small
proportion of all capital and operating costs.
*Note that these estimates differ significantly from those shown in Table
6-1.  The differences are described in footnotes to the tables.
**Retained funds is the cash flow available to the railroads from which capital
expenditures can be financed.  Annual capital expenditures have been considerably
larger than retained funds in recent years, reflecting heavy borrowing by
railroads in financial markets*
***AAR, Yearbook of Railroad Facts, 1979 Edition, p. 21.
                                     6-55

-------
 Impact on Prices

      In order to calculate the impact  of  abatement  compliance  costs  on
 prices,  total costs  in the preceding section were weighted  by  revenue ton-miles
 for  each railroad relative to total  ton-miles in the  industry.   Table E-5  of
 Appendix E is summarized in Table  6-20.   For Class.I  and  II railroads,  the
 impact ranges from .0017 cents per ton-mile  for  Southern  District  railroads
 in the residential receiving property  scenario to .0062 cents  per  ton-mile
 for  Eastern District  railroads in  the  residential/commercial receiving
 property scenario.

      Average revenue  per ton-mile  is shown in Table 6-21  for each  of the
 three ICC districts and  for the U.S. total.   For Eastern  District  railroads,
 the  price impact  may  range from .17  percent  to .21 percent.  For Western
 District  roads,  the impact ranges  between .09 and .12 percent  of average
 revenue  per ton-mile;  while for Southern  District roads,  the range is between
 .08  and  .09 percent.

 Impact on Output

      In  order to  compute  the Impact  of abatement compliance on total revenue
 ton-miles,  the percentage  price increase  must be multiplied by the price
 elasticity  of  demand  times the base  output (for  small changes).  Weighted
 average price  elasticities of  demand were calculated  for  each  railroad  in
 Table E-8  of Appendix E;  these are summarized in Table 6-22.   The  average
 price elasticity  ranges  from .275 for Eastern District railroads to  1.128  for
 Western District  railroads.   The average  for the U.S.  ranges between .348  and
 1.037.

     The net decrease  in  revenue  ton-miles,  which is summarized in  Table
 6-23, primarily reflects  the  fact that Western and Eastern  District  railroads
 account for a larger  share  of  total  revenue  ton-miles than  the Southern
District railroads.  Under  the high  impact assumptions for  residential/commercial
 receiving property, Western District shipments decrease by  .13 percent  or
                                     6-56

-------
                            Table 6-20
           AVERAGE ANNUAL COST INCREASE PER TON-MILE
                       (in 0 per ton-mile)
Eastern
District

Wes te rn
District

Southern
District

U.S.  Total
                     Residential
                  Receiving Property
.00503


.00201


.00173

.00265
                      Residential/Commercial
                        Receiving Property
.00621


.00249


.00211

.00328
                           6-57

-------
              Table  6-21
  AVERAGE REVENUE PER TON-MILE IN 1978
          (in 
-------
            Table  6-22

WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICE ELASTICITIES
           (in percent)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
High
.908
1.128
.923
1.037
Low
.275
.399
.2Bk
.3^8
               6-59

-------
                            Table 6-23

                        DECREASE IN OUTPUT
                (in millions of  revenue  ton-miles)
Eastern
District

Western
District

Wouthern
District

U.S. Total
                     ResIdential
                 Receiving Property
                 Low
 90.6
183.3
 39-6
313.5
               High
 338.5
 536.1
 165.5
1040.1
                             Res ident ial/Commercial
                               Receiving Property
                 Low
118. It
223.8
 48.7
390.9
               High
 420.8
 655.6
 202.2
1278.6
                               6-60

-------
655.6 million ton-miles.  Eastern District shipments decline by 420.8 million
ton-miles or .19 percent of their total, while Southern District shipments
decline by only .09 percent or 202.2 million ton-miles.  Impacts in the low
calculations for both types of receiving property are considerably smaller,
averaging only .04 percent of 313.5 million ton-miles in the least stringent
regulatory option.

Impact on Employment

     Employment impacts closely parallel changes in output (revenue ton-miles)
because the output-labor ratio is assumed to be constant.  Using the high
impact computations for residential/commercial receiving property, total
industry employment may fall by 635 jobs or less than .2 percent of total
employment*  These impacts are summarized in Table 6-24*  Almost half of that
decrease will occur in Eastern District railroads, and according to Table E-7
of Appendix E, 215 Jobs, or about one-third of that decline, will occur at
Conrail.  Under the lower Impact assumptions, only 192 Jobs would be lost, of
.04 percent of total 1978 employment.

     These employment impacts are extremely small.  In all likelihood, the
required reductions in employment could be accomplished through normal attrition.
(As current employees retire or quit voluntarily, the reductions could
be accomplished with no layoffs.)

Financial Analysis/Impact Assessment

     This section summarizes the net present value (NFV) analysis of future
revenues and abatement expenses.  (Definitions of terms, descriptions of the
calculations, and the detailed output are found in Appendix J).

     The computations were performed for each of 56 railroads for both the
residential and residential/commercial regulatory options.  Included in the
analysis of the data are discussions of the following measures:
                                    6-61

-------
        Table 6-24

NET DECREASE IN EMPLOYMENT
    (Number of Persons)

Eastern
District
Western
District
Southern
District
U.S. Total
Residential
Receiving Property
Low
91
86
15
192
High
327
251
57
635
Res ident ial /Commercial
Receiving Property
Low
113
105
18
236
High
1»02
306
69
111
           6-62

-------
      -  net worth or  net  investment
      -  net present value of  future  adjusted cash flows before abatement
      -  net present value of  incremental abatement cash flows
      -  net present value of  adjusted cash flows  with abatement
      -  net present value of  adjusted cash flows  with abatement,  as  a
        percentage of  net worth.

Existing Financial Difficulties

      A number of  railroads exhibit financial problems even before considering
noise abatement regulations.  The first  group are those with  negative net
worth (net investment), which essentially implies that the equity base has
been  liquidated and the creditors of  the firm are owners of the assets.  This
can arise from an accumulation of extraordinary and operating losses which  are
in excess of accumulated  retained earnings and invested capital*

      Six railroads meet this  condition,  as listed in Table J-22 of Appendix J.
All but one, Central Vermont, also displayed negative future  cash flows.
In addition, the  Clinchfield  and the  Georgia,  which are included  as  part of
the Seaboard Coast Line System, have  zero net  worth.   These eight railroads
will  be omitted in most of the following analysis.   Negative  net  worth is a
meaningless concept In the net present value approach taken here,  other than
to indicate capital erosion,  vulnerability to  increased operating costs, or
potential difficulty entering the capital markets for additional  funds.

      A number of  additional railroads experienced negative adjusted  cash flow
on the average over the 1973-78 period (expenses  exceeded  revenue plus deferred
taxes).   The extrapolating employed here  simply extends  this  negative  average
over  the 20-year horizon,  1989-1999,  thereby yielding negative  net present
value of future cash flows.

     Table J-5 lists the present value of  future  adjusted  cash  flows before
abatement for all 56 railroads, with negative  values  highlighted  by  an asterisk.
Tables J-19 and J-20 list  separately those  railroads with  positive and negative
                                   6-63

-------
future adjusted cash flows, respectively.  Three railroads show zero values -
the Canadian Pacific in Maine, the Georgia and the Clinchfield.  For the Canadian
Pacific in Maine, operating deficits over 1973-78 were offset by "contributions
from other companies" in revenues.  An oppposite transaction occurred for the
Georgia and the Clinchfield, in which excess revenues over expenses were
transferred to other companies, resulting in zero net income.

     Using the adjusted discounted cash flow method, future cash flows are
less than zero for 15 railroads.  Ten of these presently have positive net
worth (some mix of equity and retained earnings), which could erode if operating
losses continue.  Among the six railroads with negative net worth, the Central
Vermont improved dramatically in recent years, showing a positive average cash
flow over the period.  The other five roads with both negative net worth and
negative future cash flows (Conrail, Grand Trunk Western, Missouri-Kansas-Texas,
Northwestern Pacific, and the Youngstown and Southern) showed declining
performance over the six-year period.

     Three of the railroads in the negative earnings group are presently in
Section 77 Trusteeship.  These are the Boston and Maine; Chicago, Rock Island
and Pacific; and Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific.  Trustees have
been appointed to manage the assets of these railroads.  They do have
the power to restructure the debt of these firms, which could amount to
consolidation and lengthening of outstanding bonds and other loans.

     Those 10 roads which display negative future cash flows but still maintain
an average positive net worth warrant further examination.  In addition, there
are 21 railroads whose adjusted future cash flows exceed net Investment,
resulting in a negative net present value before abatement.  These are listed
in Table J-24, and the net present value of future cash flows are highlighted
in Table J-5 by an asterisk.  This Is an indication that additional costs
placed on these roads could impose hardship.  That Is, in addition to the 8
railroads with an average negative or zero net worth position, 28 (eliminating
the CP)  show a negative net present value before considering abatement impacts*
                                    6-64

-------
     It is interesting to note that  some of  these  railroads which display
negative net present values include  the Atchison,  Topeka and Santa Fe, Burlington
Northern and Southern Pacific, all of whose  parent companies, if not  the railroads
themselves, are generally considered financially healthy and should not be
considered in a financially vulnerable position.

Abatement Cost Impacts - Residential Only Source Standards Option

     The net present value of incremental abatement cash flows is the present
value of cash outflows resulting from compliance at the assumed rates for
inflation, interest (discount or reinvestment), income taxes and tax  credits,
adjusted for abatement-caused capital investment.  The estimated costs of
abatement are, of course, directly related to the  number of identified noise
sources owned by each railroad and their associated costs.  Table J-13
presents the present value of these streams  of future cash outlays by railroad,
in total and by source.

     The net present value of cash flows with abatement, the final column of
Table J-13, adjusts net present value of future adjusted cash flows (Table
J-5) by net present value of abatement cash  flows.  For the reasons outlined
previously, the Georgia and the Cllnchfield  are eliminated from consideration
along with those having a negative net worth.  The 31 roads with negative net
present value of adjusted cash flows after abatement are the same roads with
negative cash flow before abatement and are  listed separately in Table J-15.
No railroad shifted from positive to negative NPV due to additional costs of
abatement.

     Those railroads with a positive NPV (17 in total) are shown in Table J-14.
Of these 17 roads, only two (Detroit, Toledo and Shoreline and Duluth, Missabe
and Iron Range) have future abatement-related flows as great as 10 percent of
net worth.

     In terms of the net present value of abatement outflows relative to net
present value of cash inflows (adjusted) prior to  regulation, only two exhibited
outflows greater than 10 percent:  Detroit, Toldeo and Shoreline (72%) and
the Union Railroad (19%).
                                   6-65

-------
      From the data gathering effort,  2  railroads were found not  to  be
affected by  the  regulation, as no  noise sources were identified  for these
railroads:   Texas Mexican and Duluth  Winnipeg and Pacific.  Both of  these
exhibited a  favorable net present  value of adjusted cash  flows before abatement'

      In summary, those  railroads which  tend to Indicate possible cash flow
problems or  inadequate  capitalization prior to noise regulation  would also
continue to  have problems after regulation.  Those 17 with positive  cash flows
and capitalization would appear to be able to continue to operate without
adverse consequences after the implementation of the noise standard.

     The next step in the analysis considers those railroads whose  NPV,
although positive, may  be sufficiently  close to zero to present  potential
difficulty.  One measure of "sufficiently close" is the ratio of NFV to net
worth.  For  two railroads, the Detroit, Toledo, and Shoreline and the Duluth,
Missabe and  Iron Range  (Table J-16),  this ratio is greater than  zero, but
less than 10 percent.   For 15 others, the ratio exceeds 10 percent.  Included
among these  fifteen railroads, the ratio of NPV to NW is greater than 10
percent, but less than  100 percent, for 12 roads while 3 roads'  ratios exceed
100 percent.  These ratios are listed by railroad in Table J-17.

     Two Class I switching and terminal companies and the one Class  II road
show decreasing abilities to bear  additional operating or capital costs
(Indiana Harbor Belt, Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis and the
Youngstown & Southern).  The Indiana  Harbor Belt and the Terminal Railroad
Association  of St. Louis have positive  future cash flows, but the net present
values of future cash flows both before and after abatement are  negative.
The Youngstown & Southern, a Class II railroad under the former  classification,
exhibits negative future cash flows before abatement, as well as a  negative
net worth.    It is, of course, in the  negative NPV position after abatement.
It should be noted that no data were  available to Identify any ownership of
switcher engines; thus, it is assumed that the YS has none and no regulatory
costs for switchers are incurred.
                                      6-66

-------
     A third switching and terminal company, the Belt Railroad of Chicago,
has positive adjusted future cash flows and positive net investment.  However,
with net investment about 10 times as great as cash inflows, the firm shows a
negative net present value before any regulation.

     Many of the railroads displaying potentially troublesome financial
difficulties with regulation, as categorized in Table J-15  (negative net
present value of future cash flows with abatement), and Table J-22  (negative
net worth), are subsidiaries of other roads, parts of larger railroad systems,
or subsidiaries of other corporations.  Thus, it is possible that the Individual
firm's financial position should not be analyzed independently, but instead
considered as part of the overall organization of which the company is a part.
Table 6-25 relates these firms to their parent.  The railroads are  grouped as
follows:
     1.  Net investment less than or equal to zero.
     2.  Ratio of NPV to net worth less than zero but greater than  -0.5.
     3.  Ratio of NPV to net worth positive, but less than  0.1.
While these choices are arbitrary, they serve to group railroads to permit
some general conclusions.

     Several reasonable explanations exist as to why firms  might subsidize
financially unhealthy subsidiaries of affiliates.  Among these explanations
are:

     1.  The railroads with NPV less than zero includes many which would
appear healthy if depreciation were included in cash flow.  These are also
most of the group (13 or 17) whose ratio of NPV/NW is less  than zero but
greater than -0.5.  This arbitrary assignment of values to  the ratio facilita-
tes a manageable review of those railroads which may show financial difficulty,
but will continue unimpeded because of a healthy parent corporation.

     2.  Tax considerations—Circumstances unique to the firm, its  parent or
the industry may offer significant tax incentives to maintaining the operations
of an apparently unprofitable or unhealthy subsidiary.  Aspects of  the tax law
make'this general statement particularly applicable to the  railroad industry.
                                     6-67

-------
                     Table 6-25

                RAILROAD-PARENT RELATIONSHIPS
Railroad
        Parent
Negative or Zero Net Investment

Central Vermont
Conrall
Grand Truck Western
Clinchfield
Georgia
Missouri-Kansas-Texas
Northwestern & Pacific
Youngstown & Southern

NPV/NW>-0.5

Bangor & Aroostook
Boston & Maine
Canadian Pacific in Maine
Detroit, Toledo & Ironton
Delaware & Hudson
Long Island
Illinois Central Gulf
Illinois Terminal

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul
 & Pacific
Chicago, Rock Island &
 Pacific
Chicago & Northwestern
Colorado & Southern
Fort Worth & Denver
Western Pacific
Indiana Harbor Belt
Terminal RR Assn. of St. Louis
Youngstown & Southern
Toledo, Peoria & Western

Belt RR of Chicago

0.1>NPV/NW>0

Detroit, Toledo & Shoreline

Duluth, Mlssabe & Iron Range
Grand Trunk Corp.,
 Canadian National
 Railway
USRA
Grand Trunk Corp.,
 Canadian National
 Railway
Seaboard Coast Lines
Seaboard Coast Lines
Katy Industries
Southern Pacific
Various
Independent
Bomalne
Canadian Pacific
Penn Central
Dereco-Norfolk & Western
MTA of New York
1C Industries
Illinois Central Gulf and
 Norfolk & Western

Independent

Independent
Independent
Burlington Northern
Colorado & Southern (BN)
Western Pacific Industries
Conrail
Various
Various
Atchison, Topeka & Sante Fe;
 Penn. Co.
Various
Norfolk & Western and
 Grand Trunk Western
U.S. Steel
                              6-68

-------
     3.  Nature of subsidiary operation—Many of the railroads examined here
are not independent entities 'but instead are integral parts of a larger
operation.  Examples include:  the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis
and the Belt Railway of Chicago which 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.

     4.  Future potential—The parent may have expectations of eventually
turning the unprofitable subsidiary into a profitable operation.

     It remains possible that despite the additional costs of the regulation
and its impact on the net worth of firms, other considerations operating
both before and after the regulation, will induce the parent to continue
to subsidize the operation.  That is, additional costs will not endanger
the individual road's operation.

Abatement Cost Impacts—Residential/Commercial Source Standards

     This option represents a further restriction of the regulation analyzed
above.  Regulatory costs for Option 2 appear irl Tables J-6, J-7, J-8; tax
credits and depreciation off-sets appear in Tables J-ll and J-12; NPV for
Option 2, in Table J-13 and summary Tables J-14 and J-15.  Ratios developed
under this option appear in Tables J-16, J-l7, and J-18.

     The absolute costs associated with this option are, as expected, greater,
although the results are in general consistent with those of the residential
only option.  In addition, the railroad groupings are unchanged - no railroad
moves to a different category as a result of the more stringent regulatory
option.
                                     6-69

-------
Qualifying Observations


     The effects of several crucial assumptions on  the analysis  should be

reviewed.


     —Inflation between 1980 and 2000 will average 6 percent per year.


     —The opportunity cost of capital for all railroads is 10 percent.
      -Investment tax credits have been taken in full (10%) in the year in
       which capital expenditures are made (capital expenditures are listed In
       Table J-8 and their related investment tax credits are listed in Table
       J-15).
     —The complement of the marginal tax rate of 46 percent is used to
       convert before-tax costs (and thus outflows) of abatement for O&M,
       out-of-service, and depreciation (Tables J-9, J-10, and J-ll).
     Changes in these assumptions could result in regrouping of railroads

using the net present value techniques.  The effect of some changes are

suggested below:
      -An increase in the inflation rate will increase present values,
       and vice versa.
     —An Increase in the discount rate would decrease present values,
       and vice versa.
     —Should limitations actually be placed on the amount of investment
       tax credit or should the proposed abatement equipment not be eligible
       for investment tax credits, no regrouping of railroads by NPV will
       occur.  The investment tax credit is not significant with respect to
       the outflows it is assumed to offset.  However, not all railroads may
       be able to use the full 10% in the year of outlay.  Individual
       firm analysis could result in regrouping.


     If the effective tax rate for individual firms is less than the assumed

marginal rate, due to defererals, the net effect would be zero.  That is,
                                     6-70

-------
while an increase would occur in the outflows, an increase would simultaneously
occur for inflows, assuming that the increase for deferred taxes is above
the 1973-1977 average.  If no offset occurs for deferrals and the real tax
rate is below the 46% assumed, the after tax costs and outflows understated
both before and after present value factors are applied.  Furthermore, the
depreciation inflow would likewise decrease.  The tax rate is applied to
operating costs to determine after tax cash outflows, applying a factor of
(1-t) where t is the tax rate.  For depreciation inflows the factor is t.

Conclusions

     The preceding evaluation of the cost impacts of noise abatement regulations
will be summarized below.  The major conclusion is that on an industry-wide
basis, even in the more stringent residential/commercial receiving property
standards and with the high demand elasticities, the net reductions in revenue
ton-miles and employment are small.  If the demand for rail freight transportation
services grows at all, the impacts of the noise regulations will be easily
offset.  The trend in rapidly escalating fuel prices and the concurrent noise
standards for new trucks will lead to increased demand for rail services,
thus, even the small impacts predicted here may be somewhat exaggerated.

Impacts on Rail Transportation Services

     Price impacts are predicted to lie between .0027 cents per ton-mile and
.0033 cents for Class I and II railroads.  This represents a relative price
increase ranging between .11 percent and .14 percent.  Reductions in output
are predicted to be very small, ranging between 314 and 1,279 million ton-miles
for Class I and II railroads.  These are .04 and .15 percent of total revenue
ton-miles, respectively.  Employment impacts are predicted to be extremely
small, ranging between .04 and .16 percent of total industry employment,,a
reduction of between 192 and 777 jobs.  Even these small changes may not be
felt if normal worker attrition is used to pare the work force or if demand
for rail freight services grows even marginally.
                                     6-71

-------
Results

      1.  A few railroads appear to be in serious financial difficulty, even
before considering the costs of noise abatement.  Six railroads show negative
net work as of December 31, 1978, and ten additional railroads experienced a
negative adjusted cash flow, on the average, over the 1973-1978 period.  A
total of 31 railroads show a net present value base of these adjusted cash
flows and net worth data.  While noise abatement costs will add to the
financial burden of these railroads, serious problems are already present and
cannot be attributed to the noise regulations.

      2.  In no instance was the present value of noise abatement costs
greater than the difference between cash flow and net worth.  Thus, noise
regulations do not shift any railroad from a positive difference (between
cash  flow and net worth plus cost) to a negative difference.

Capital Requirements and Availability

      Capital cost requirements were shown to be small relative to total
capital expenditures by railroads in recent years.  The present value of
total capital costs, excluding out-of-service costs, was predicted to range
between $47*5 million and $50.2 million*, which represent 6.3 and 6.7 percent
respectively of "retained funds" or railroads' cash flow.  While these
amounts are not large, they do compete directly with requirements for capital
expenditures on equipment and structures.  Bescause the railroads' current
capital expenditures are approximately three times retained funds, the
increased capital requirements will be met through debt financing.  Consequently
railroads may have added difficulties securing that financing as a result of
their poor recent profitability.  However, one cannot ascertain precisely how
much these additional funds will cost the railroads or where they will be
obtained.
"•Initial capital costs plus out-of-service costs for residential and
 commercial land uses is estimated to be $109.7 million  ($90.7 million where
 only residential land use is considered).
                                     6-72

-------
Conclusions Concerning the Impact on Individual Railroads

     The two analyses which this section contains, one an economic impact
analysis and the other a financial impact analysis, come to the same conclusion,
that the railroad industry will not be adversely affected by the costs of  the
noise abatement regulation of the railyards.  In addition, none of the individual
Class I or Class II railroads appears to be placed in any more adverse competitive
position than the one in which they find themselves.  For the five railroads
in the worst financial shape (with negative net worth, negative cash flow  and
increasing annual deficits in the net income account), price, output and
employment impacts are not large.  Table 6-26 summarizes the impacts for three
of these railroads.  In each case, the predicted decrease In output Is a tiny
fraction of total output and employment impacts are likewise very small.

     The financial analysis also identifies three railroads whose ratio of net
present value with abatement costs to net worth is large and negative.  These
railroads could have more difficulty meeting abatement requirements than
others and the resulting economic impact should be evaluated.  In Table,6-27,
the percent increase in price, and decrease in output and employment is
summarized for each railroad.  As can be seen, the impacts are extremely
small.

     Finally, for two railroads the ratio NPV/NW was greater than zero, but
less than .1; for these railroads, the Detroit-Toledo Shoreline and the
Duluth, Mlssabe and Iron Range, abatement cost impacts might be great enough to
cause their competitive position to decrease sufficiently to lead to negative
cash flows.  However, according to the figures in Table 6-28, price, output
and employment impacts are very small.  The impact on the Detroit-Toledo
Shoreline is greater than any of the railroads examined in detail thus far.
However, even the impact on it is extremely small in reality.

     Consequently, it appears fairly certain that the impacts resulting from
the Noise Abatement regulation of railyards will not lead to a large impact,
even on those railroads in the least financially sound condition.  The cost
                                     6-73

-------
                                   Table 6-26
          PERFORMANCE OF RAILROADS WITH THE POOREST FINANCIAL CONDITION
                        (Residential Receiving Property)
 Conral1

 Grand Trunk Western

 Missouri-Kansas-Texas
% Increase
In Price
.21
.14
.11
% Decrease
In Output
.19
.21
.18
% Decrease
Employment
.06
.21
.06
In



                                   Table 6-27

                    PERFORMANCE OF RAILROADS WITH NPV/NW < 0
                        (Residential Receiving Prpperty)
 Chicago £ Northwestern

 Chicago Rock Island

 Western Pacific
                               NPV/NW
           % Increased   % Decrease
           In Price      In Output
-3.58
-3.22
-2.98
.10
.16
.03
.10
.17
.01
                   % Decrease  in
                   Employment

                     .01*
                                         .01
                                   Table 6-28

                 PERFORMANCE OF RAILROADS WITH 0 < NPV/NW < .1
                       (Residential Receiving Property)
Detroit Toledo Shore Line

Detroit Missabe Iron Range
% Increase
In Price

  .32

  .10
% Decrease
In Output

  .35

  .09
% Decrease In
Employment

   .35

   .09
                                           6-74

-------
impacts are so small relative to total costs that even in the short run,
before railroads can pass cost increases through, little damage would result
from the increased costs.  In the longer run, after costs are passed through,
it is quite likely that the growth of rail transportation demand will offset
even these modest increases.
                                    6-75

-------
SECTION 7

-------
                                SECTION 7

                             DOCKET ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

     This docket analysis is the formal review of comments submitted by
the public regarding the proposed Noise Emission Standards for Transportation;
Interstate Rail Carriers.  The proposed regulation was published in the
Federal Register on April 17, 1979, with a public comment period of 45 days
(until June 1, 1979)*  EPA extended the comment period by an additional 30
days, to July 2, 1979.  During this period, three meetings were conducted by
EPA for the purpose of information exchange with state and local officials
covering the purpose, content, ramifications and other considerations relative
to the proposed rule.  The first meeting was held in Berkeley, California on
May 23, 1979, the second in Springfield, Illinois on May 25, 1979 and the
third in Miami Springs, Florida on May 26, 1979.  Additional meetings involv-
ing data and information exchange were held with the Association of American
Railroads in Washington, D.C. on May 15 and 18, 1979.

     In addition to records of all of the above meetings, the official docket*
includes all comments concerning the proposed regulation received by EPA
during the formal public comment period.  Two late comments that were received
prior to the printing date are also included in the official docket.  Those
persons or organizations contributing comments have been grouped Into the
following categories:  (1) state agencies, (2) city/county governments,
(3) federal and foreign governments, (4) private citizens, (5) Industry and
(6) associations.  A list of the specific contributors in each of these
categories is provided in Table 7-1*  Each contributor has been given an
identification number corresponding to the order of receipt of its comments.

     All comments published in the official docket have been reviewed; this
section provides a summary of all substantive Issues raised in these comments
and the EPA response to those issues.  The issues have been grouped into
general categories to eliminate duplication of responses*
^''Official Docket for Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission Regulation,"
EPA 550/9-79-208, Parts I and II, ONAC/EPA, Washington, D.C., July 1979.
                                     7-1

-------
                               Table  7-1

                   LISTING BY  RESPONDENT CATEGORIES
          State Agencies
Docket Number
California, State of,
  Department of Health Services

California, State of,
  Meeting with USEPA

Connecticut, State of,
  Transportation, Department of

Delaware, State of

Delaware, State of,
  Natural Resources and Environmental
  Control, Department of

Delaware, State of,
  Transportation, Department of

Florida, State of,
  Environmental Regulation, Department of

Illinois, State of

Illinois, State of,
  Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois, State of
  Environmental Protection Agency

Illinois, State of
  Meeting with USEPA

Kentucky, Commonwealth of,
  Environmental Protection, Bureau of (Jackson)

Kentucky, Commonwealth of,
  Environmental Protection, Bureau of (Roark)

Maryland, State of,
  Transportation, Department of

Minnesota, State of,
  Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
  79-01-147


  79-01-049


  79-01-045

  79-01-114



  79-01-047


  79-01-101


  79-01-034/076

  79-01-146


  79-01-109


  79-01-144


  79-01-050


  79-01-102


  79-01-015


  79-01-065


  79-01-140
                                     7-2

-------
   Table 7-L  LISTING BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES (Continued)
          State Agencies
Docket Number
New Jersey, State of,
  Environmental Protection, Department of

New York, State of,
  Environmental Conservation, Department of

New York, State of,
  Executive Chamber

New York, State of,
  Transportation, Department of

Ohio, State of,
  Environmental Protection Agency

Oregon, State of,
  Public Utility, Commission of

Oregon, State of,
  Environmental Quality, Department of

Pennsylvania, Commonwealth of,
  Department of Transportation

South Carolina, State of

South Dakota, State of,

Texas, State of,
  Railroad Commission of Texas

Virginia, Commonwealth of,

Washington, State of,
  Ecology, Department of (Saunders)

Washington, State of,
  Ecology, Department of (Vogel)

Wyoming, State of,
  79-01-160


  79-01-009


  79-01-012


  79-01-130/148


  79-01-007


  79-01-054


  79-01-036/113


  79-01-017

  79-01-041

  79-01-006


  79-01-103

  79-01-116


  79-01-058


  79-01-061

  79-01-003
                                      7-3

-------
    Table 7-1  LISTING BY RESPONDENT  CATEGORIES  (Continued)
     City/County Governments


 Alexandria,  Virginia,  City of,

 Alhambra,  California,  City of,

 Bellingham,  Washington,  City  of,

 Berkeley,  California,  City of,

 Bloomington, Minnesota,  City  of,

 Burton,  Michigan, City of,

 Chicago, Illinois, City  of,
   Energy and Environmental Protection,
   Department of

 Chicago, Illinois, City  of,
   United States  Environmental Protection Agency

 Clinton, Iowa, City of,

 Columbia Heights, Minnesota, City of,

 Counties Research, Inc., National Association of,

 Dade, Florida, County  of,

 Dallas, Texas, City of,

 Denver, Colorado, City and County of,

 Des Plaines, Illinois, City of,

 Des Plaines, Illinois, City of,

 The District of Columbia, Government of,

Dover, Delaware, City  of,

 Fridley, Minnesota,  City of,

Henrico, Virginia, County of,
Docket Number


  79-01-108

  79-01-141

  79-01-052

  79-01-008

  79-01-082

  79-01-055



  79-01-057


  79-01-091

  79-01-001

  79-01-143

  79-01-062

  79-01-162

  79-01-086

  79-01-004

  79-01-011

  79-01-083/984

  79-01-163

  79-01-046

  79-01-119

  79-01-142
                                     7-4

-------
   Table 7-1  LISTING BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES (Continued)
    City/County Governments
Docket Number
Jacksonville, Florida, City of*

Kansas City, Missouri, City of,
  Health Department

Lincoln - Lancaster Health Department,
  County of,

Los Angeles, California, County of,
  Regional Planning, Department of,

Maumee, Ohio, City of,

Metropolitan Washington B.C.,
  Government Council of,

Miami Springs, Florida, City of,

Miami Springs, Florida, City of,

Miami Springs, Florida, City of,
  Meeting with USEPA

Minneapolis, Minnesota, City of,

Montgomery Maryland, County of,
  Environmental Protection,
  Department of,

National League of Cities

Newark, New Jersey, City of,
  Police Department

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, City of,

San Bernardino, California, County of,

Seattle, Washington, County of,

Tucson, Arizona, City of,
  79-OL-037


  79-01-023


  79-01-069


  79-01-020

  79-01-038


  79-01-033

  79-01-131

  79-01-145


  79-01-051

  79-01-155



  79-01-075

  79-01-138


  79-01-021

  79-01-156

  79-01-073

  79-01-040

  79-01-018
                                     7-5

-------
   Table 7-1  LISTING BY RESPONDENT  CATEGORIES  (Continued)
        Federal Governments
Docket Number
American Railroads, Association of,
  E.P.A. Meeting I                                  79-01-159

American Railroads, Association of»
  E.P.A. Meeting II                                 79-01-158

Commerce, Department of,                            79-01-153

Environment,
  The Ministry of Canada                            79-01-149

Environment Protection Agency, United States        79-01-115

Housing and Urban Development, United States
  Department of,                                    79-01-029

Housing and Urban Development, United States
  Department of,                                    79-01-122

Interior, The Department of                         79-01-124

Interstate Commerce Commission                      79-01-063

Seattle, Washington, City of,
  Housing and Urban Development, Department of      79-01-071

Transportation, Department of                       79-01-152

Transportation Federal Highway Adnminlstration,
  United States Department of                       79-01-025

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe       79-01-090

United States Environmental Protection Agency       79-01-085

Wage and Price Stability, Council on                79-01-136

Youths, Family and Health,
  Federal Ministry for Germany                      79-01-139
                                     7-6

-------
    Table  7-1  LISTING  BY RESPONDENT  CATEGORIES  (Continued)
        Private Citizens






Barnes, William H., Private  Citizen




Bewick, Jr., Robert D., Private  Citizen




Birkner, David, Private Citizen




Bond, PhD., Elden A., Private Citizen




Born, Alice, Private Citizen




Bruns, Eber, Private Citizen




Burr, Roscoe C., Private Citizen




Cutshall, John E., Private Citizen




Daub, Albertina P., Private  Citizen




Deets, H. C., Private Citizen




De Merrith, Ruth C.t Private Citizen




Ferguson, Evelyn V., Private Citizen




Eraser, J. R., Private Citizen




Frendengerger, J. W., Private Citizen




Gjerding, Bradley, K., Private Citizen




GJerding, D. L. C., Private Citizen



Hale, Dennis M., Private Citizen




Kara, Sheryn, Private Citizen




Holce, D. L., Private Citizen




Hubbard, Shaun, Private Citizen <




Huston, Bill, Private Citizen
Docket Number






  79-01-016




  79-01-039




  79-01-106




  79-01-031



  79-01-104




  79-01-035




  79-01-099



  79-01-081



  79-01-032




  79-01-048




  79-01-055




  79-01-093



  79-01-092




  79-01-028




  79-01-072




  79-01-067




  79-01-087




  79-01-120




  79-01-094




  79-01-105



  79-01-112
                                     7-7

-------
   Table 7-1  LISTING BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES  (Continued)
        Private Citizens






Johnson, David, Private Citizen




Kirby, Wanda, Private Citizen




Kohner, Lynn, Private Citizen




Leeth, Beril F., Private Citizen



Lovelace, R., Private Citizen




Lyste, Sue, Private Citizen



Marcotte, Robert D., Private Citizen




Marr, Helen, Private Citizen



Meyers, Raymond W., Private Citizen




Moe, Osborn, Private Citizen



Moe, Osborn, Private Citizen




Moe, Osborn, Private Citizen



Moore, Jerome, Private Citizen



Palasco, John, Private Citizen




Pinkstaff, Private Citizen




Race, George, Private Citizen




Ramm, Virginia, Private Citizen



Rasmussen, Mrs* John R., Private Citizen




Rebane, John T., Private Citizen




Richard, Jerome, Private Citizen
Docket Number






  79-01-014



  79-01-019




  79-01-066




  79-01-027




  79-01-079



  79-01-026




  79-01-002




  79-01-077




  79-01-089



  79-01-080




  79-01-095




  79-01-110




  79-01-030




  79-01-127




  79-01-070




  79-01-097



  79-01-07A




  79-01-068




  79-01-117




  79-01-096
                                     7-8

-------
    Table  7-1  LISTING  BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES  (Continued)
        Private Citizens


Ruane, Eugene B., Private  Citizen

Seattle, Washington, Residents of,
  Private  Citizen

Sternad, William A., Private Citizen

Sroufe, Evelyn, Private Citizen

Sunel, A.  J., Private Citizen

Tretwold,  Jane, Private Citizen

Tretwold,  R.f Private Citizen

Weaver, Mildred, Private Citizen

Wheeler, Walter L., Private Citizen

Whiteman,  Glen W., Private Citizen

Whittle, Joe C., Private Citizen

            Industry


Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute

Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company

Burlington Northern

Consolidated Rail Corporation

Delaware and Hudson Railway Company

Florida East Coast Railway

Ford Motor Company

General Electric Company
Pocket Number


   79-01-042


   79-01-118

   79-01-123

   79-01-128

   79-01-024

   79-01-044

   79-01-043

   79-01-078

   79-01-126

   79-01-121

   79-01-088

Pocket Number


   79-01-059

   79-01-064

   79-01-150

   79-01-134

   79-01-056

  79-01-060

  79-01-161

  79-01-100
                                     7-9

-------
   Table 7-1  LISTING BY RESPONDENT CATEGORIES (Continued)
            Industry


Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

National Railroad Passenger Corp.

QIV, Incorporated

Saint Louis - San Francisco Railway Company

Track Specialities Co.

Turner Collie and Branden Inc.

Westinghouse Air Brake Division


           Associations


Acoustical Society of America

American Railroads, Association of

Environmental Professionals,
  National Association of

Hearing, Educational Aid and Research
  Foundation, Inc«

Hearing, Educational Aid and Research
  Foundation, Inc*

Metro Clean Air Committee

Minnesota Speech and Hearing Association

Noise Control Officials, National Association of

Railway Labor Executives Association
Docket Number


  79-01-132

  79-01-135

  79-01-010

  79-01-157

  79-01-151

  79-01-154

  79-01-013


Docket Number


  79-01-164

  79-01-137


  79-01-022


  79-01-098


  79-01-107

  79-01-129

  79-01-053

  79-01-125

  79-01-133
                                      7-10

-------
CONCEPTUAL ISSUES

Property Line Standards

     Six commenters (#58, 125, 129, 138, 144, 160*) objected to the adoption
of property line standards on the basis of the consequent preemption of more
stringent local standards.  One commenter (#149) argued for the use of community
noise standards rather than property line standards.  Two commenters (#34, 140)
remarked that only source standards should be adopted as EPA lacks the
authority to enact property line standards.  Four commenters (#126, 134, 146,
147) supported property line standards as it is these sound levels which affect
public health and welfare.  Two state agencies (#36, 116) supported receiving
property line standards but suggested that flexibility be retained for taking
the varying uses of receiving property into account.

Response:

     EPA originally proposed a property line standard for railyards and three
specific source standards.

     The Agency has decided not to promulgate a receiving property line standard
in this rulemaking.  Rather, the Agency has chosen to regulate only specific
important railyard noise sources at this time, and to delay rulemaking on
a receiving property line standard pending further assessment and review of
the extensive comments received on this facet of the proposed regulation.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has agreed to this
approach, and the Agency Is charged with issuing a receiving property line
standard by January 23, 1981.  Upon finalization of property line standards,
the Agency will, in the subsequent background document, more definitvely
address individual comments to the docket on this issue.
*  Prefix to docket number, 79-01-, has been deleted in this analysis to
   conserve space.
                                      7-11

-------
 L
-------
Response:

     The Agency's  final  source  standards  are  applicable  only  to  residential
and commercial  receiving property.   The final regulation defines  receiving
property as  any residential  or  commercial property  that  receives  noise  from
railyard facility  operations that  is used for any of  the purposes described
in the following standard  land  use codes  (ref.  Standard  Land  Use  Coding
Manual. U.S. DOT/FHWA, reprinted March 1977):  for residential land use  — 1,
Residential; 651,  Medical  and other Health Services;  68,  Educational  Services;
691, Religious  Activities; and  711,  Cultural  Activities;  for  commercial land
use — 53-59, Retail Trade;  61-64,  Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Personal,
Business and Repair Services; 652-659, Legal  and other Professional Services;
671, 672 and 673,  Governmental  Services;  692  and 699, Welfare, Charitable and
other Miscellaneous Services; 712  and 719, Nature Exhibitions and other
Cultural Activities; 721,  723,  and 729, Entertainment, Public, and Other
Public Assembly; and 74-79,  Recreational, Resort, Park and other  Cultural
Activities.  Given the extensive intermingling of land uses surrounding
railyards, EPA  believes  that a  regulation focusing  on noise emissions received
on residential  and commercial property should provide some protection as well
for other land  uses.

Preemption

     Numerous commenters*  objected  to the preemptive nature of the proposed
railroad regulations.  Their primary concern was that the proposed standards
would result in  Increased  community noise levels where more stringent local
standards were preempted.  Many urged EPA to  explore avenues  of recourse to
have the preemption clause removed.  Several  commenters  (#26,  31, 43) suggested
that,  at a minimum, local  jurisdictions be allowed to impose  a curfew on
nighttime switching operations*


* (#2,  14, 17,  26,  28, 31, 38, 40,  42, 43, 45, 46,  53, 57, 67, 70, 72, 82,
86,  98, 102, 114,  117, 120,  121, 131, 133, 136, 137, 138, 141, 142, 146, 147,
163)
                                   7-13

-------
Response:

      Section  17 of the Noise Control Act of  1972,  as  interpreted  by  the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia  Circuit in Association of
American Railroads v. Costle. 562 F.2d  1310  (August 23, 1977), requires that
EPA set uniform national standards.  The Act stipulates that  standards preempt
state and local statutes and ordinances for  the  equipment and facilities
covered by the federal regulation.  Further, the preemptive provisions of
Section 17 do not apply until the effective date of this regulation,  hence
state and local governments can regulate railroad  noise sources not  covered by
the Agency's December 31, 1975 regulation until  the final regulation is
effective.  After that date, state and  local governments may  petition the
Administrator of EPA for an exception allowing differing statutes and ordinances
when they can show such differing regulation is  not in conflict with the
federal rule and is needed because of special  local conditions.   State and
local authorities may continue to regulate those railroad noise sources which
are not covered by the federal noise regulations.

     The Agency understands the position of state  and local governments on
this issue.  In developing the December 31, 1975 regulation,  the Agency
decided that railroad facility and equipment noise, other than that  produced
by locomotives and railcars, was best controlled by measures which did not
require national uniformity of treatment.  At  that time, EPA  opted to leave
state and local authorities free to address site-specific problems on a
case-by-case basis without unnecessary federal hindrance.  Since EPA must now
promulgate regulations of much broader scope as a result of the August 23,
1977 court order, the only recourse for interests  that favor state and local
control of railyards noise is through the federal  legislative process.

Nondegradation

     Fifteen commenters* objected to the regulation because it did not
include a nondegradatlon clause.  They contended that noise levels would
*  (#26, 31, 33, 36, 57, 58, 67, 69, 70, 72, 99, 125, 136, 147, 160)

                                    7-14

-------
increase In communities where state and local statutes and ordinances with
more stringent standards currently exist and where noise levels  are  currently
below the federal standards.

Response:

     EPA is required by court order to issue uniform national standards  for
railroad equipment and facility noise that comprehensively preempt state and
local statutes and ordinances relating to the same equipment and facilities.
The standards, proposed on April 17, 1979 in response to this court  order,
were developed in terms of typical or average situations.  Consequently, the
uniform national standards proposed were necessarily a compromise, only
partially controlling railroad equipment and facility noise throughout the
country.  EPA realizes that there will be situations where existing  noise
levels at some rallyards may be allowed to increase under these standards.
The Agency will consider the nondegradation issue in developing its  property
line standards, to be Issued in January 1981.

Stringency of Standards

     Twenty-nine private citizens*, 20 city/county governments** and eight
state agencies (#36, 102, 109, 114, 144, 146, 147, 148) objected to  the
regulation as proposed because the standards were not stringent enough*  The
most commonly expressed complaints were:  the least common denominator standard
which all rallyards could meet was chosen, standards do nothing to protect
public health and welfare, nighttime curfews should be Imposed, residential
and industrial zones have the same standards and recognition was not given to
special local conditions and noise sensitive land uses.   Five commenters (#5,
17, 75, 139, 153) criticized the regulation for its lack of consideration of
*(26, 28, 30, 39, 42, 43, 44, 48, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80,  88,
 89, 94, 96, 104, 105, 106, 110, 117, 118, 120, 128)
**(!!, 18, 23, 33, 38, 40, 52, 62, 69, 73, 82, 86,  108, 119,  131, 137,
 138, 143, 155, 156)
                                    7-15

-------
 special local  conditions  and  noise  sensitive  land  uses.   Five  commenters  (#5,
 17,  75, 139,  153)  criticized  the  regulation for  its  lack of consideration of
 noise reductions and  new  or expanding  facilities•  Two associations  (#129,
 133)  charged that  the standards were not  protective  of worker  and public
 health and welfare.   A federal commenter  (#149)  urged that more stringent
 standards be adopted.  Another federal commenter (#122)  stated that  HUD
 standards for  low  and moderate income  housing may  not be in compliance with
 the proposed levels.   A state agency (#65) and an  industry commenter (#150)
 indicated that  the standards  may  be too stringent.  Another industry source
 (#135)  commented that the regulations  were reasonable if  amended to  allow
 higher  levels when temperatures dropped at night.  Another commenter (#64)
 commended EPA  for  a reasonable approach to a  complex problem.  Two industry
 commenters (#102,  135)  remarked that stringent standards were  justified but
 only when necessary to  protect residential property*

 Response:

     The Agency originally proposed a  property line  standard and three source
 specific standards.   Public comments on the proposed receiving property line
 standard have made it clear that before a final  rule of  this nature  is promul-
 gated,  there is a  need  for additional  research and data  collection.   By
 delaying promulgation until January 1981, EPA will be in  a position  to
 adequately carry out  the additional analysis  necessary for the development of
 a final rule that  Is  responsive to  the public needs as expressed in  the docket
 to the proposed regulation.  Many of the docket  comments  refer to the strin-
 gency of property  line  standards and will be  addressed as that regulation is
 developed.

     In the current source standard rulemaking for active retarders,  car
 coupling operations,  locomotive load cell test stands and switcher locomotives,
 the Agency has given  careful consideration to costs' and  economics as well as
 other factors.

     Certain of the standards adopted  to abate the noise  from  the above railroad
noise sources are measured on receiving property (commercial or residential).

                                    7-16

-------
Thus these standards require the application of noise reduction technologies
only  in railyard situations where people may be impacted.

     Land uses other than residential and commercial have not been considered
in the formulation of these standards as only commercial and residential
properties (refer to definition in regulation) are considered to be land use
categories where large numbers of people are adversely affected by railyard
noise emissions.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

Best Available Technology

     Three industry sources (#134, 150, 157) commented that EPA is requiring
more than "best available technology" in its proposed standards.  They
suggested a variance system be used whereby railroads could show that their
facilities are fundamentally different due to technological infeasibility or
physical impossiblility.  One city/county government (#75) and one private
citizen (#123) suggested that new Innovative solutions be employed to reduce
railroad noise.  One association (#125), one city/county government (#33) and
three state agencies (#113, 146, 160) proposed that EPA's definition of best
available technology Include various administrative controls which relate to
the time, place or duration of railroad noise activities.

Response:

     The final source regulations reflect the degree of noise reduction '
achievable through the application of the best available technologies.or
techniques, taking into account the cost of compliance*  For this reason,
the maximum allowable sound levels specified for each source standard
vary according to the availability and cost of abatement technologies or
techniques for the given source.  For the purpose of determining the avail-
ability of technologies or techniques and costs of applying those technologies
or techniques used in developing the final source regulations, the Agency
                                    7-17

-------
considered the following:  the use  of local  absorptive  noise  barriers  around
sources, reflective walls at  the facility  boundary,  mufflers  on switcher
locomotives, and for car coupling,  controlling  the  operation  of rolling  stock
or its location relative to adjacent receiving  property.   Noise barriers can,
for example, be constructed in close proximity  to the source,  at the railroad
facility boundary, or both in combination, as appropriate  to  the situation.
Because these are performance, not  design  standards, the railroads  have  total
flexibility to apply whatever approaches are most attractive  in terms  of cost
or other considerations, as long as the required noise  levels  are met.

     Many railyards are already expected to  be  in compliance with most of the
source standards, due in large part to the location  of  commercial and  resi-
dential land use around railyards.  Some rail carriers, however,  may need to
construct railyard facility boundary barriers to abate  noise  from only one or
two of the sources impacting  receiving property adjacent to the yard boundary.

Retarders

     Industry sources (#134,  157) and the AAR (#137) disputed  EPA's statements
that barriers for retarders would be effective  in meeting  a property line
standard because of retarder  orientation with respect to the property  line
and because of difficulty due to closeness of trackage  at  group retarder
sites.  Three commenters (#137, 144, 150)  stated that technology is not
available to meet EPA's standards for retarders.  Cited was the BN  Northtown
Yard which uses EPA recommended technology,  where the proposed retarder
A-weighted source standard levels of 90 dB were exceeded by 1.3 dB  during
tests.1  Two Industry commenters (#103, 134)  took exception to  the use  of
releasable retarders because  of the safety hazards associated  with  their use.
Ductile iron shoes were discounted as an aid in reducing retarder noise
because of short-term durability (#10, 134,  137).  Three industry sources
(#134, 150, 157) further disputed the qualification  of  spray lubrication
systems for "best available technology."  Cited against their  use was  the
undesirable oil pollution run-off and the need to redesign some yards  to
                                    7-18

-------
provide additional retarder  length  to  compensate  for  friction  losses.   Two
commentsrs  (#33, 160) supported the  retarder  noise  standard.

Response:

     The Agency pursued the  retarder orientation  issue  by  soliciting industry
comment and supportive data  regarding  retarder  orientation and installation
requirements at hump classification  yards.  After carefully reviewing  the
available data the Agency does agree that barriers  for  group retarders would
be either ineffective or installation  would be  inpractical in  many instances.
Consequently, the Agency has revised its retarder source standard to allow
the industry both more flexibility in  barrier arrangement  at the master and
group retarders and the use  of facility boundary  walls  in  the  vicinity of
noise sensitive receiving property.

     Technology is available at reasonable costs  for  reducing  the noise from
active retarders.  The Agency recognizes the  fact that  there will be variations
in the retarder noise levels from one  yard to another.  The retarder squeals
at Northtown during the tests cited  were at levels  slightly higher (2-3 dB)
than typical levels at most yards.   It is expected  that individual railyards
will measure their retarder noise levels to determine the  amount of noise
reduction required at each site.  Barrier height  and  length requirements will
be selected to bring the actual noise  levels  into compliance with the  standard.

     In the proposed regulation, the only case where  replacement of fixed
inert retarders by releasable units  was considered  necessary was to meet the
proposed hump yard facility receiving  property line standard.   Since the
promulgation of that standard has been deferred until January  23, 1981, more
time is available to consider the safety hazards  and other factors associated
with releasable retarders.
                                    7-19

-------
Car Coupling

     Three commenters (#134, 150, 157) argued that the 4 mph speed limit on
car coupling could be attained only under ideal conditions.  They contend
that speeds of 6 or 8 mph are more reasonable alternatives to enforce.
Conrail (#137) and AAR (#134) further argued that the 4 mph goal for car
coupling on which EPA based its noise standards of 95 dB at 30 meters is not
being achieved by the industry and that no known durable cushioning materials
are available to reduce noise levels.  Three state agencies (#58, 140, 160)
commented that the proposed standard is not stringent enough in reducing car
coupling noise levels.  Ten commenters (#30, 58, 69, 102, 114, 125, 144, 147,
148, 160) recommended that the 4 mph exception provision be dropped from the
regulation.  They felt it would be easy for the railroads to control speeds
during enforcement monitoring, thus taking advantage of the exception provision.

Response:

     The proposed car coupling standard was 95 dB measured 30 meters from
coupling incidents, with an exception provision for those couplings with
sound levels greater than 95 dB for which the railroad could show that
coupling occurred at speeds less than four miles per hour.  This standard was
based on the sound level associated with four mile per hour coupling, since
the majority of railroads stated four miles per hour to be their operating
rule, or recommended practice.  There is substantial evidence, however, that
many railroads do not, as a matter of course, comply with their own published
operating rules or recommended practices.  The data submitted to the docket
by rail carriers indicate that more than sixty percent of car couplings occur
at speeds greater than four miles per hour.  Because EPA must presume that,
in the presence of a federal rule, the railroads would have to comply with
such a coupling speed limit, the Agency has assessed the potential adverse
impacts of this rule on railroad operations.  This assessment revealed some
evidence that train movements could be adversely affected if railroads were to
comply fully with the proposed rule on a nationwide basis.  Consequently, the
                                    7-20

-------
Agency has made the final rule less stringent.  The final standard for car
coupling impact noise would generally restrict car coupling speeds to no
greater than eight miles per hour.  The standard of eight miles per hour is
the maximum speed desirable to minimize freight damage.

     The Agency believes that the standard can be met by the majority of
railroads with little or no change in operations, thus avoiding further
technology applications or additional costs.  The measurement methodology has
been refined to allow compliance measurements to take place at receiving
property rather than 30 meters from the point of coupling.  Further, at least
30 consecutive car coupling inpact sounds are required for a period of not
less than 60 minutes nor more than 240 minutes.  An exception provision has
been defined so that the standard will not apply where the railcarrier
demonstrates that the standard is exceeded when cars representative of those
found to exceed the standard are coupled at similar locations at coupling
speeds that do not exceed eight miles per hour.

     EPA fully recognizes that the noise level generated at eight miles
per hour is high.  A standard reflecting lesser speeds would, however, result
in some potentially serious operational slowdowns which could lead to national
railroad system disruptions and high cost impact.  The Agency encourages
further industry attempts to reduce car coupling speed and in selective cases
where communities are adversely affected by car impact noise it would appear
that the railroad concerned might well be able to pay particular attention to
car coupling speed without any unacceptable disruptive effect on its operations
or on those of the rail system.

Refrigerator Cars

     AAR (#137) and a state agency (#144) contended that the estimated A-weighted
baseline noise levels that were used as a basis for setting mechanical refrigerator
car noise levels are significantly below actual refrigerator car noise levels.
                                         7-21

-------
C-welghted sound levels were  suggested as more  appropriate*   Three  industry
sources  (#64, 134, 137), one  state agency (#102) and  the Department  of
Transportation  (#152) expressed the view that the present  noise levels of
mechanical refrigerator cars  already  represent  the use  of  best available
technology so that any further reduction in  noise levels to meet  the proposed
standard (78 dB at 7 meters)  is not possible.   Four commenters (#33, 102,  125,
160) suggested that EPA explore the feasibility of providing  electric service
directly to refrigerator-car  cooling  systems and of shutting  down the diesel-
engine power sources while cars are in yards.   One Industry commenter (#59)
requested clarification as to what additional noise abatement techniques,  if
any, would be required to meet the proposed property  line  standard and also
questioned the validity of "Noise Control Technology  for Truck-Mounted Refri-
gerator Units."  The Council  on Wage  and Price  Stability (#136) questioned the
appropriateness of a separate standard for refrigerator cars.  One  industry
source (#64) proposed that the standard only be applied to new equipment.
Other commenters suggested that the specification for the microphone location
was unacceptably vague (#59), and that an amendment be made to the wording of
the proposed Section 201.14 dealing with construction of railroad sidings  for
refrigerator cars*

Response:

     At the time EPA proposed the mechanical refrigerator car source standard,
the available data indicated that refrigerator cars would emit A-weighted
sound levels averaging 63 dB at 100 feet.  This level is an average  of the
noise from both the compressor side and the engine side at high and  low
throttle conditions.   Substantial amounts of new noise data for refrigerator
cars were received from the industry  during the docket period.  Based upon
these additional new noise data, as well as the previous data, A-weighted
baseline noise levels for refrigerator cars are estimated to average 67 dB
at 100 feet.   This is an Increase of 4 dB above the Agency's previous
determinations.
                                    7-22

-------
     The Agency rejects industry assertions that no further noise reduction
is achievable on refrigerator cars.  Further noise reductions clearly are
achievable by reducing the reverberant noise build-up in the engine compartment
through use of sound absorptive foam and by blocking the external line-
of-site to the engine from outside the refrigerator car.

     The Agency has investigated controls for mechanical refrigerator car
noise emissions levels but does not believe they should be addressed in
this regulation.  While further noise reduction in refrigerator cars is
achievable, EPA has not yet completed its analysis to allow a decision on
the regulatory level(s).  In addition,  it should be noted that the use of
mechanical refrigerator cars by the railroad industry is declining.  Their
function is being replaced by containers on flat cars (COFC) and trailers on
flat cars (TOFC), which were not addressed in the proposed rules.  All of
these factors as well as the docket responses will be addressed in determining
how to regulate this source in the final receiving property line rulemaklng.

Locomotive Load Cell Test Stands

     One industry commenter (#132) stated that enclosed load cell test
facilities presented problems because elaborate ventilation systems were
required to keep the locomotive running*  Another industry commmenter (#64)
indicated that the proposed regulation was in conflict with previous regulation
requiring load cell testing in clear field situations.  The Industry (#134)
also commented that load cell test stands are generally located near repair
facilities and that relocation of the test stands would increase requirements
for both manpower and locomotive movements to and from the repair facilities,
                                                      • •    , • ; f      >   •
resulting in substantial costs, losses in productivity and a decrease in
efficiency.
                                   7-23

-------
 Response:

      The abatement of locomotive load cell  test  stand  noise was a part of
 the receiving property line standard  in  the proposed regulation.  EPA believed
 that the noise from such operations could be reasonably  dealt with by relocat-
 ing locomotive load cell testing away from  noise sensitive receiving areas
 close to the  railroad facility  boundary, or by enclosure of the test facility
 from which the noise  was emitted.

      After reviewing  available  abatement technologies  and techniques, cost
 data and public comments,  the Agency  has modified its  technology and cost
 assessment approach to  reducing noise from  locomotive  load cell test opera-
 tions*   EPA cost and  benefit studies  show that total enclosure of test stands
 is  generally  less  attractive than the use of  150 foot  (length) by 25 foot
 (height) (45.7m x  6.1m)  absorptive barrier  walls around  the facility and the
 locomotive being tested.   The latter  treatment completely eliminates the need
 for  ventilation systems, and substitutes a  much  simpler  structure.

 Switcher Locomotives

     AAR (#137), Conrail (#134), another Industry commenter (#56) and the
Department  of Transportation (#152) commented that the muffler retrofit of
switcher locomotives may not achieve  the degree of noise reduction which EPA
has estimated.  It was stated that the degree of muffling is dependent on the
throttle position and that mufflers are most effective at full throttle when
it is desirable to silence exhaust noise.   Several commenters (#56, 134)
were concerned about  the size of the  exhaust pipes which are needed when
mufflers are used.  One commenter (#64) suggested that the muffler standards
only be applicable to new equipment.

     Four  industry commenters (#56, 132, 134, 150) contended that relocation
of Idling  locomotives is not feasible in some yards because of lack of space
and manpower and, further, that  in some yards relocation would result in no
                                    7-24

-------
change in sound levels.  One state agency (#14) supported the relocation
provisions.

     Two state agencies (#114, 144) and a private citizen (#87) suggested that
the regulation include provision for engine shut-down because of the high
annoyance factor involved with idling locomotives.  Conrail (//134) and
another industry commenter (#135) discussed some of the problems of shutting
down diesel locomotives and stated that large expenditures were necessary for
electrically powered heaters to maintain engine liquids at near operating
temperatures.  It was suggested that higher noise emissions be allowed in
colder weather (#135).

Response:

     EPA considered the industry comments in arriving at the final regulation,
Including those related to idling switcher locomotive relocation and shut
down.  The technology the Agency assumes the railroads will use in meeting the
switcher locomotive noise emission limits is muffling of the engine noise*
The Agency's original proposal required the retrofit of that part on the
entire locomotive (road haul and switcher) fleet.  EPA has chosen to include
only the switcher locomotives at this time because of arguments by the
industry that the retrofit costs for the whole fleet would be excessive
and that it is difficult to isolate those road locomotives used in railyard
duty.

     Locomotive noise is of two types: moving point source noise as the
locomotive is involved in switching operations, and stationary point source
noise as the locomotive is parked but is allowed to remain idling and not
involved in any active operations.  This regulation establishes not-to-exceed
noise standards for both types of switcher locomotive engine noise.

     A review of the locomotive exhaust noise reduction data available  to the
Agency at this time indicates that only a small degree of noise reduction has
been achieved at the lower throttle settings for locomotives used for switch-
ing operations.  Operational data indicate that approximately half of the
                                   7-25

-------
locomotives used as switchers are road type locomotives while the remainder
are lower horsepower units designed specifically as switchers*  Noise data for
the two classes of machines show no reduction at idle for units designed as.
switchers and 1.5 dB reduction at 100 feet in the SD 40-2 road haul unit
testedt  At the highest throttle settings an average noise reduction of at
least 4 dB was achieved for each class*  Although many switcher operations
are at low throttle settings where little reduction in levels is expected, the
data clearly indicate that exhaust silencers will reduce the overall noise
emissions and significantly so at the locomotive maximum noise levels.

     The Agency does not intend that switcher locomotives be retrofitted
except in those railyards where it is necessary.  Therefore, the Agency has
instituted a two part compliance procedure.  For compliance purposes, the
Agency requires the determination of the noise level at any residential or
commercial receiving property measurement location.  The A-weighted sound
level at such locations from switcher locomotives, singly or in combination
with the sound from other stationary or moving locomotives, may not exceed a
maximum level. If this level is not exceeded, switchers at that yard need not
be retrofitted.  Additionally, EPA analysis indicates that locomotive retrofit
will not be required for many railyards.  If the noise level measured at any
receiving property measurement location exceeds the specified level, then all
switcher locomotives in that railyard must meet the noise standard.  All
switcher locomotives not complying with this standard will require muffler
retrofitting or other equivalent technology to achieve the standard's level.
Only switcher locomotives manufactured before December 31, 1979 will be
subject to this switcher locomotive standard since all 'locomotives manufactured
after that date must meet the final standards for locomotives promulgated on
December 31, 1975.

     Additionally, the Agency has amended the regulation to no longer require
locomotives to be connected to a load cell when undergoing a stationary test
for the idle throttle setting.
                                    7-26

-------
Measurement Methodology

      Sixteen  commenters*  criticized  the  proposed  measurement  methodology
contending that  its  extreme  complexity would  result  in little,  if  any,  enforce-
ment  by  state and  local jurisdictions*   Five  commenters (#114,  147,  148,  152,
160)  suggested that  Type  2 meters  be allowed  because Type  1 are costly  and
unavailable,  and Type 2 are  sufficiently accurate.   Conrail (#134) argued that
EPA's measurement  criteria do  not  account  for a wide variety  of contingencies
affecting measurement accuracy.  Two city/county  governments  (#82, 162) and a
state agency  (#58) criticized  the  24-hour  measurement  criterion because many
jurisdictions lack the manpower or time  to take such measurements.   One
association (#164) and a  federal agency  (#149, 152)  commented that impulse
meters should be required to measure impulse  sounds  such as coupling and
retarder squeals.  One commenter (#164)  suggested that measurements  were  more
accurate if made over a continuous period  of  at least  one  week.  A federal
commenter (#153) recommended deletion of Section  201.33(d)(2) and  (e) dealing
with  "clear dominance as  these sections  are arbitrary,  imprecise,  incomplete
and may  create measuring  ambiquities."   AAR (#137) commented  that  the proposed
measurement methodology would  permit  noise measurements to be taken  two meters
from  residential dwelling surfaces,  thereby including  reflected noise in  the
meter readings and effectively reducing  the proposed regulatory levels  by an
additional 3  dB  - a  factor not considered  in  the  technology and cost analysis.
Another  industry commenter (#135)  suggested that  railyard  noise be allowed to
exceed the ambient level  from  other activities by up to 3  dB.   A state  agency
(#147) stated that noise  levels should be  an  energy average of  10 or more
events,  all within 10 dB  of the maximum level observed.  Another state  agency
(#58) questioned the wording in Section 201.26(a) and  suggested  that the
standard not be  exceeded  any time  after  the throttle setting  is  established.
They  also questioned the  microphone location  requirements  of  Sections 201.25
and 201.33(b).   A private citizen  (#26) commented that  the measurement
technique could  not be used in the situation where the  receiving property was
50-100 feet above the source*  A federal commenter (#25) suggested that the
regulation wording be changed  to refer to  "The FHWA Highway Traffic Noise
Prediction Method," FHWA-RD-77-108.
*(#33, 34, 40, 42, 57, 58, 69, 82, 102, 114, 118, 125, 129, 140, 148, 160)
                                   7-27

-------
     A federal agency (#152), two state agencies  (#102, 147) and an association
(#125) all supported the adoption of receiving property line standards with
measurements at the property line.  One state agency (#101) commented that a
fixed distance standard was preferable.  Two city/county governments (#143,
155) argued that receiving property line standards and measurement locations
if adopted, would be Impossible to enforce.

Response:

     After thorough technical review of the proposed measurement methodology
for the measurement of railroad noise, EPA has made a number of changes which
it believes will reduce the associated complexity and costs without compromising
the accuracy and reliability of the noise measurements.

     The final regulation requires that the sound level meter or alternate
sound level measurement system used for compliance determination must meet, as
a minimum, all the requirements for a Type 1 instrument*  Slow meter response
is specified for the stationary locomotive and locomotive load cell test stand
standards.  All other standards specify the fast meter response characteristic.
To ensure Type 1 performance, the manufacturer's  instructions regarding
mounting or orienting of the microphone and the positioning of the observer
must be observed.  Measurements may be made with a Type 2 instrument, with the
measured levels reduced by the following amounts to account for possible
instrument errors:  2 dB for car coupling and 4 dB for active retarders.

     A reduction in the complexity of the measurement procedures has been
achieved with the elimination of the procedures for determining clear do-
minance that appeared in Section 201.33.  Since all noise measurements in this
regulation now pertain to specific sources, the identification of railroad
noise can be greatly simplified.  The concept of clear dominance has been
replaced by generally requiring visual identification of operating equipment
and by requiring operating equipment sound levels to exceed non-operating
levels by specified amounts.
                                     7-28

-------
     A basic  consideration  in this  rulemaking has  been the  appropriate location
 for  the noise measurements  and the  attendant  standard.   The Agency's  proposed
 source standards  required noise measurements  at  a  specified distance  from the
 source.  However, after  further consideration and  review of public  comments,
 the  establishment of  source standards  based in part  on receiving property line
 noise  levels  was  considered preferable to  the originally proposed concept.
 This approach has particular appeal with respect to  compliance  measurement,
 enforceability and  consistency with a  final overall  property line standard to
 be issued by  January  23, 1981.

     Two source standards specify not-to-exceed  noise  levels on receiving
 property; the other two  source standards set  specific  trigger levels,  also
 measured on receiving property.  The use of noise  measurements  on receiving
 property should facilitate  compliance  measurements and  eliminate possible
 safety  hazards or interference with yard operations.

 HEALTH  AND WELFARE  ISSUES

 Health  and Welfare  Should Be A Primary Consideration

     Seven commenters (#16,  30, 33, 54,  98, 114, 149 )  stressed that public
 health  and welfare  should be a primary consideration in the regulation of
 railroad noise.  Two  industry  commenters (#134,  135) argued that annoyance,
 irritation and aggravation  are  not  legal concepts  upon  which railroads  should
 be regulated.

 Response:

     Section  17 of  the Noise Control Act of 1972, which  requires  the EPA
Administrator to publish regulations establishing noise  emission  limits on the
 facilities and equipment of Interstate  rail carriers, directs EPA to set
 standards that reflect the degree of noise reduction achievable  through
                                    7-29

-------
 application of  the best  available  technology  taking  into  account  the cost of
 compliance.  Health  and  welfare  considerations  are useful to help establish
 goals  against which  to measure the effectiveness and cost of available tech-
 nologies;  however, Section  17 does not  require  that  protection of public
 health and welfare serve as  the  basis for  railraod noise  standards.  EPA gave
 some consideration to protection of the public  health and welfare in deriving
 the proposed standards.   The Agency calculated  health and welfare benefits to
 be achieved by  the regulation, but the  final  standards are based  upon the best
 available  technology taking  into account the  cost of compliance.

 Need for Standards

     Twenty-four private citizens* submitted  complaints about noise from
 railroads.   The most common  complaints  concerned car coupling and switching
 impacts, property damage, sleep  disturbance and annoyance because of Idling
 locomotives.  One federal commenter (#63), two  city/county governments (#20,
 21) and one state agency (#41) support  the regulation in  its present form.
 Two city/county governments  (#141,  145) and a federal agency (#139) stressed
 that the vibrations  from railyards should be  Investigated.  One state agency
 (#100) and  an industry commenter (#157) stated  that  very  few complaints are
 made about  railroad noise.

 Response:

     In support of this  rulemaking, EPA has attempted to  determine noise levels
both from individual sources and from the operation  of the multiple sources
which are combined into  larger 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 of several sources that is
heard In the community.  Individual noise sources must also be understood
 since individual noise source treatment is usually the most effective method
for reducing overall noise emissions.   This regulation addresses  four such
individual noise sources.
*(#16, 19, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35, 43, 44, 48, 55, 68, 70, 77, 78, 88, 92, 97,
 99, 105, 121, 127, 128, 150)
                                     7-30

-------
     The Individual sources that have been identified as major railyard noise
sources both by noise measurements and expressions of citizen annoyance are
road haul and switcher locomotives; retarders; refrigerator cars; car coupling;
load cells, repair facilities and locomotive service areas; wheel/rail inter-
action; and horns, bells, whistles and public address systems.  Locomotives
and railcars operated by interstate rail carriers were regulated by the
December 31, 1975 rulemaking.

     EPA has identified car coupling Impacts and retarder screeching as two
of the important contributors to noise from railyards.  These sources, which
produce impulsive noise involving extremely high sound levels that occur
randomly for short durations over extended periods of time, are two of the
four railyard noise sources addressed in this rulemaking.  Switcher locomotives
and locomotive load cell test stands, which produce nearly steady-state noise
emissions from railyards, are also subject to the specific standards in this
rulemaking.

     EPA believes that technologies and techniques are available to abate the
noise emissions from these sources at low to moderate costs.  Residential and
commercial land uses can be protected from noise levels exceeding the standard
for active retarders by the application of absorptive noise barriers on both
sides of master retarders and reflective barriers at the facility boundary
line where necessary to reduce noise from group and tangential retarders.
Similar protection can be provided to residential and commercial receiving
property that is now subject to excessive noise from locomotive load cell test
stands by employing absorptive barrier walls around the facility and locomo-
tive undergoing test*  Relief from excessive switcher locomotive noise
can be obtained by retrofitting the locomotives with mufflers.  The technolo-
gies suggested here are not required, but are available technologies that
railroads may employ to reduce their railyard noise emissions to comply with
the standards*  Car coupling noise can be controlled by assuring that coupling
occurs at speeds to no greater than eight miles per hour.  The Agency believes
that this standard can be met at almost all railyards with no change in
                                    7-31

-------
operations, thus avoiding further technology applications or additional
costs.

     EPA has investigated controls for mechanical refrigerator  car  noise but
does not believe that they should be addressed in this regulation.  This noise
source may be addressed further in the final receiving property line  rule-
making due on January 23, 1981.

Omitted Sources

     Nineteen commenters* remarked that horns, bells and whistles are major
noise sources and thus should be regulated.  Two comment ers (//135,  147) argued
that whistles, bells and other warning devices should be excluded from
EPA's regulation.  A state agency (#140) argued that maintenance-of-way
equipment should be regulated.  Two commenters (#63, 160) stated that compressors
should be regulated.  Three commenters (#59, 150, 152) urged that EPA clarify
its apparent intent not to include refrigeration trailers and containers on
flat cars in the final rule.  An industry commenter (#135) requested that
passenger trains and maintenance-of-way equipment not be regulated.  A state
agency (#147) commented that warning devices and maintenance equipment be
specifically exempted so that state and local governments "may regulate them.

Response:

     Horns, bells, whistles and other warning devices produce a form of noise
intended to be heard for safety reasons, Instead of being an unwanted by-
product of some activity.  EPA does not intend, therefore, to set standards
affecting these devices through this regulation.

     Compressors, trailers on flat cars and containers on flat cars were not
considered for source standards in the proposed regulation.  These  noise
*(1, 27, 30, 34, 42, 45, 66, 81, 93, 112, 114, 125, 126, 135, 139, 140,
 145, 150, 162)
                                    7-32

-------
sources will be addressed In the final  receiving property  line  rulemaking  due
on January 23, 1981.

     The control of noise from locomotives and  railcars  Is  the  principal noise
abatement approach to the control of noise along the main  lines.   EPA  could
impose further limitations on the main  line,  but probably  not without  imposing
major restrictions on the frequency of  operations or the construction  of
barriers at an exorbitant cost.  The Agency's position is,  therefore,  that the
locomotive and railcar regulation limits contained in the  previous regulation
will be the only EPA restrictions on main line  operations.  The regulation
does not apply to maintenance-of-way equipment.  EPA has been unable to
identify clearly the noise levels associated with the specific  pieces  of
equipment or the possible combinations  in which such equipment  might be used.
The regulation applies to the specified rallyard equipment, as  used in both
freight and passenger train operations.

Modeling

     Three commenters (#58, 125, 147) noted that modeling all non-railyard and
through train noise impacts in order to determine background levels acceptable
for proof of dominance is an unreasonable burden to place on local governments.
Another commenter (#153) noted, however, that the modeling procedure is
reasonable if carried out by competent personnel.  Three commenters (#144,
150, 153) indicated that EPA in its model has overestimated the Impacts of
railroad noise and thus the benefits resulting  from the regulation.  One
commenter (#58) questioned what criterion was used to determine the residential
portion of the formula L
-------
feasibility of various methods to reduce noise.  A federal commenter (#153)
questioned the origins of the constants "49.A" and "13.8" in equations on page
6-47 of the Background Document for the proposed regulation.  They also
recommended EPA perform further calculations of the effects on population at
varying distances from railroads.

Response:

     It has been suggested that EPA's railyard noise Impact model may consider-
ably overestimate the Equivalent Noise Impact (ENI) (a method to account for
the extent and severity of noise impact) due to the use of an "average" popu-
lation density around the yards which does not account for the lower densities
which might be expected near the yard boundaries (i.e., in industrial and
commercial areas) in the higher noise regions.  EPA anticipated this potential
problem in the proposed regulation and conducted analyses during the model
development using available data to estimate the possible error.  EPA counted
the population around the 120 sample railyards on which the model is partly
based.  The population data obtained, in many cases, indicated very high local
average population densities around large railyards where residential zones
were mixed with Industrial and commercial zones.  If the model "squeezed" the
people back into the residential areas rather than averaging, this would have
the effect of reducing the area of impact with the given population, resulting
in a higher population density and thus no net change in ENI.  Furthermore, arx
analysis of ENI for actual population density distributions around seven hump
yards (using data from the 1975 Railroad Regulation Background Document), as
compared to the ENI results using an average density, Indicated that, on the
whole, if EPA did overestimate, it was on the order of less than five percent.
At the same time, EPA's analysis tends to underestimate ENI, for example, In
the use of only residential and commerical exposures rather than exposure of
people in all land use environments, particularly In sensitive land uses, such
as hospitals, schools, and churches, and due to the exclusion (because of lac It
of data) of many railyard noise sources from the impact analyses.
                                     7-34

-------
     It was not possible within the data base and schedule limitations to
develop a railyard simulation model that would determine accurately the
location and patterns of iso-noise contours around the  typical yard confi-
gurations.  One of the basic data deficiencies involved the locations of
sources within the component yards and consequently the separation distances
between sources and operation areas*  Thus, there was no way to assess with
any accuracy the degree of overlap of noise patterns from different types of
sources.  However, the noise generation and propagation model for each type of
source (within the input data limitations) did provide a reasonably accurate
prediction of the noise patterns for an individual source.  Additionally, the
total length of the railyards in general was sufficiently great so that, for
the idealized configuration used in the model, It could be assumed there was
no overlap pattern between, for example, the switch engine operations in the
receiving and departure yards.  The areas more likely to receive Impact from
more than one source would be those near each end of the classification
subyard.

     The impact model was developed on the basis of individual source noise
propagation patterns with no procedure in the model to account for proximity
of sources, or to estimate joint Impact from more than one source.  Thus, the
impact (ENI and PE) values for each source are computed separately, and the
aggregate impact for each yard type (and the grand total from all yards) is
obtained by summing over the sources.  This allowed an evaluation of the
contribution of each source to the estimated total impact.  However, anticipa-
ting that there could be complex noise overlap patterns from various noise
sources in railyards, EPA conducted two types of analyses to determine the
potential error.  Analytical models were used to calculate the variation in
ENI as two separate point sources and two separate line sources were merged in
various degrees of overlap (from two completely separated sources to a combined
source of twice the noise energy of a single source).  The results indicated
that the ENI for two superimposed sources (of equal strength) was equal to the
sum of the ENI from two completely separated sources.  However, at intermediate
degrees of overlap of two sources, the average difference between ENI for the
separated sources vs. overlapped noise patterns was about 15 percent.  Also,
                                    7-35

-------
the rallyard noise impact model was programmed to compare the results for
selected yard types using the regular source groups (4 to 5 source groups at
each type of yard) to the results of completely separating all types of
sources (11 sources).  The case of completely separated sources resulted in an
18 percent increase in total ENI compared to the four to five source group
case.  These analyses provide a reasonably good bound on the "error," which is
less than 15 to 18 percent, since the length of the railyards precludes any
significant overlapping of noise patterns from more than any two source
operation areas.

     It should also be noted that the object of the model is to provide only
nominal estimates of ENI for various noise exposure scenarios in order to make
relative comparisons of impact.  Any change in the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of
the input data and analytical model may change the baseline and study level
results to the same degree, thus producing relative changes in impact quite
similar in values to the less accurate model.  Thus the model was developed on
the basis of average or statistically expected values used in a deterministic
procedure (as opposed to a stochastic model) to make relative comparisons.

     In view of the very large diversity and scope of details regarding
railyards and their operations, the severe limitations of the available data,
and the time constraints imposed by the Federal Court ordered schedule for  the
development of the regulation, the railyard noise impact model was  intended
(as were the previous regulatory analysis models) only to provide a consistent
procedure for estimating the magnitude of impact on the average at a national
scale, and for making relative comparisons between an estimate of baseline
impact and changes in impact as selected noise reductions were considered.  It
was not possible, and there was no intent, to use the model for providing
absolutely accurate noise impact determinations, either for an individual
yard', or for the total number of railyards.  Additionally, the numbers of
variables and assumptions required by the model made it impractical to conduct
(within the data and time constraints) a composite uncertainty analysis  to  set
bounds on the magnitude of impact with known confidence levels.  Finally,
there were no explicit legal requirements to base the regulation dr noise
standards on benefits (reductions in noise impact).
                                    7-36

-------
     With regard to the question about the constants in the standard equations used
to calculate L
-------
 COST AND ECONOMICS  ISSUES

 Cost of Compliance

     Industry and government coromenters criticized EPA's cost of compliance
 estimates as simply Ignoring some important cost  elements  that will occur
 as a direct result of regulation and as grossly underestimating the
 level of increase of other cost factors.

     Three industry commenters (#56, 134, 156) stated that the costs and
 complexities of land acquisition are substantially higher  than EPA estimates
 and thus frequently make the alleviation of noise by the extension of railroad
 property lines through land purchase an economically unviable option.  One
 commenter (#134) asserted that the acquisition of "buffer" land as a noise
 control alternative discriminates against railroads operating in the northeast
 corridors where prices are exceptionally high and undeveloped land is scarce.

     The comments of four industry representatives critlzed EPA's estimates of
noise abatement cost for the retarder noise source.  One commenter (#150)
 stated that EPA's estimates do not "adequately" reflect the costs of releas-
able inert retarders, barriers for group and master retarders and spray
systems at retarders.  Barriers, it was asserted, will typically cost twice
the EPA estimate.  One commenter (#134) indicated that EPA's cost for absor-
ptive barriers of $75 per linear foot is unrealistically low and that current
day costs are closer to $150 to $200 per linear foot.  One commenter (#134)
concurred that the costs and impacts of barriers were not assessed correctly
and additionally asserted that annual operation and maintenance costs were
underestimated.  Commenter #137 asserted that clearance problems exist at
approximately one-half of the retarder locations requiring (a) track and
 retarder relocation, (b) rewiring of retarders and track switches, (c) extra
 downtime and (d) purchase of additional real estate to maintain existing car
 capacity.  Two industry commenters (#134, 150) as well as the Department of
Transportation (#152) criticized EPA's treatment of out-of-service time as a
 no-cost item, stating that such costs are significant and should be evaluated.
                                    7-38

-------
     The EPA-estimated costs of locomotive modification were similarly criti-
cized by three commenters (#134, 64, 157) as being far too low.  The latter
indicated that the real cost required to retrofit mufflers is roughly 500
percent of that estimated by EPA.

     Three industry commenters (#64, 150, 157) argued that the costs of
regulatory compliance for refrigerator cars are substantially higher than EPA
estimates.  The first two commenters estimated real costs as being twice those
estimated by EPA while the latter commenter (#157) estimated the true cost
differential as approaching 700 percent.  The Department of Transportation
(#152) criticized EPA for falling to give due consideration to out-of-service
costs during installation of noise attentuating equipment on refrigerator cars.

     EPA's estimate for enclosing load test cells was criticized as being
unrealistically low by two industry commenters (#134, 150).  The latter
indicated that actual costs were five times the $90,000 level estimated by
EPA.  The criticism of locomotive load cell test stand barrier costs mirrored
the criticisms expressed about the costing of retarder noise barriers mentioned
above.

     The Department of Transportation (#152) expressed disagreement with EPA's
assertion that proposed car coupling standards impose no extra costs, but
instead simply "codify existing practice."  DOT information suggests that 70
percent "of all couplings occur at speeds above 4 miles per hour.

     One commenter (#137) took issue with EPA cost estimates in several
additional waysi  EPA ^estimated a zero cost for shutting down idling^loco-
motives.  This commenter points out that diesel engines are damaged when J
started 'and stopped frequently,^especially in cold weather.  Start-up takes
time and results in attendant labor and maintenance cost increases that are
not insignificant.  EPA's cost estimate for noise measurement activities
(labor only) ;of $500 to $2,000 per yard was-less than one-half the $4,500 per
yard expenditure estimated for'such activities by this commenter.  In addition,
                                      '7-39

-------
 this  commenter estimated  the  annualized costs  of  the regulation at  four times
 the level  of  the EPA estimate.

      One industry commenter  (#134)  argues  that many  operational Impacts
 attributable  to yard modifications  are  not readily  quantifiable.  These
 include:
           (1)   delays in  traffic  due  to rehandling  (multiple  switching)
           (2)   increased  per  diem and transportation costs  due  to less  efficient
                handling and added train miles  (out of route)
           (3)   reduced car utilization
           (4)   deterioration  of service
           (5)   erosion of traffic and revenues.

 Response:

      Based upon industry and  state/local comments concerning  the rationale  and
 costing methodologies for provisions  aimed at  abatement  of  railroad yard noise
 levels, EPA has reevaluated the data  and analytical  approaches  used in  determin-
 ing the proposed  rules.  This reevaluation has led to changes in individual
 standards tailored to meet the concerns expressed in docket submissions.  The
 costs of compliance  have been reestimated  taking cognizance of  Industry cost
 estimates and  criticisms.  In order to  meet the fiscal concerns of  industry,
 yet at the same time achieve  some noise emission reductions,  the Agency con-
 sidered options wherein noise abatement from railyards would  only be  required
 in yards where  current noise levels adversely  impact  noise  sensitive  receiving
 property in the vicinity, such as residential  and commercial  receiving  property.
 Cost estimates  have  been reexamlned for each railroad noise source.   In regard
 to retarders, additional EPA review has Indicated that barrier  costs  of $100
 to $162 per linear foot represent the "best" cost range  to  use  for  regulatory
 purposes.   The  final  regulatory approach negates the  need for placing absorptive
 barriers around every active retarder.   The total number of barriers  needed
 for abatement is greatly reduced  since  the  railroad need only install barriers
where they are  needed and will be most  effective, rather than at each retarder.
This abatement  technology coupled with  the  specification of measurement
                                      7-40

-------
locations on residential or commercial receiving property, which is also used
for the locomotive load cell test stand noise source (at an estimated cost of
$260 to $325 per linear foot for barriers) in lieu of full enclosure, decreases
industry cost while optimizing benefits accruing to receiving properties.

     EPA has chosen to promulgate a switcher locomotive noise standard which
affects only those locomotives identified by the industry and the ICC by
name and model as dedicated to yard service and built before December 31,
1979.  The Agency does not intend that switcher locomotives be retrofitted
except in those rallyards where noise levels as measured from applicable
receiving property exceed a specified standard.  This action substantially
decreases the potential regulatory costs to industry.  Unit costs for the
switcher locomotive standard have been revised to include hardware, labor and
out-of-service costs.

     The car coupling noise proposal was originally based on the sound level
associated with 4 mph couplings, since the majority of railroads stated 4 mph
to be their operating rule or recommended practice.  There is substantial
evidence, however, that these railroads do not comply with their own published
rules or operating recommendations.  Because we must presume that, in the
presence of a federal rule, the railroads would now comply with such a coupling
speed limit, the Agency has reassessed the potential adverse Impact of this
rule on the railroads*  Since these is some evidence that train movements
could be adversely affected resulting in high costs to the industry if rail-
carriers were to comply fully with the rule on a nationwide basis, the Agency
has made the final rule much less stringent*  The final rule for car coupling
impact noise would generally restrict car coupling speeds to no greater than 8
miles per hour.  An exception is provided so that the standard will not apply
where the railcarrier demonstrates that the standard is exceeded when cars
representative of those found to exceed the standard are coupled at similar
locations at coupling speeds that do not exceed eight miles per hour.
          • J      -. •     . ,           '    '     •- -    • --"'-"          - - -
     EPA has elected not to promulgate at this time the type of source stand-
ard proposed for refrigerator cars partially because of their declining
use.  Their function is being replaced by containers on flat cars  (COFC) and
                                      7-41

-------
 truck-mounted  (trailer)  refrigerator  units  on flat  cars  (TOFC),  which were  not
 addressed by EPA in  the  proposed  rules.   Further, the Agency  was not  able
 to fully evaluate  the potential for more  significant  noise  reduction  through
 technology applications  at  this time.

 Economic Impact

     EPA estimated that  the general impact  of the capital requirement for
 regulatory compliance would be minimal since  sufficient  capital  would be
 available.  Two industry commentere (#137,  134)  strongly disagreed with this
EPA analysis and asserted the potential of  severe impacts resulting from the
 inability of many railroads to generate needed funds.  Several industry com-
menters (#100, 132) warned that the high  costs of compliance  will necessarily
 depress the ability of railroads  to make  other essential capital investments
and continue important capital programs.  One Industry commenter (#100) con-
cluded that an "inevitable loss of revenues and  traffic  will  result that in
 turn will prompt a further decline in the long^ suffering domestic railroad
industry."  Amplified support of  this assertion was expressed by industry
commenters (#64, 132) who pointed out that  the industry's high price  elasticity
of demand will result in a substantial loss of business  to  truckers and other
competitors as the costs of regulation raise  railroad prices.  In addition,
one commenter (#137) argued that  the Council  on Wage and Price Stability would
not allow the railroads to fully  recover  the  costs of compliance because
requested rate increases would necessarily exceed inflation guidelines.

     Five commenters (#56, 134, 135, 137, 150) concluded that the curtailment
or elimination of nighttime operations would  have a much more substantial
impact than EPA estimated.  They argued that  the Imposition of a day-night
standard for railroads would restrict all rail operations.  Disruptions would
result in many cases in operational delays and a reputation as an unreliable
carrier.  The loss of productivity resulting  from the underutilization of
resources was assessed as significant.  The commenters Inferred  that  changing
operations in response to nighttime curfews is not an economically feasible
noise control operation.
                                      7-42

-------
     One Industry commenter  (#134), additionally expressed  concern  that EPA
should consider more carefully the economic  impact  of  the regulations on
Conrail's employees and customers.  Special  attention, it was argued, should
be paid to Conrail's unique  financial position and  need for operating subsidies.

     One commenter (#161), an industry shipper, stated that the  regulations
will prompt both an Increase in the price railroads charge  shippers and a
major deterioration in the quality of railroad service.  The service that
railroads offer shippers will, as a result,  become  far less cost competitive.

     A private citizen (#74), expressed concern that compliance with the
regulation would be extremely hard to monitor, thus impairing its effectiveness.

Response:

     EPA has estimated that  under the residential and commercial receiving
property standard concept, capital expenditures of  approximately $110 million
industry-wide would be required for regulatory compliance.  This outlay, ap-
proximately 5 percent of total industry capital expenditures in 1978, is fairly
large and one might expect that some companies may encounter some difficulty
in securing necessary financing.  However, such problems if they do arise,
should not be accompanied by an "inevitable  loss of railway traffic and reven-
ues."  EPA analyses have shown that the proposed regulation will have little
impact on the demand for rail freight transportation services.  While the
noise regulations will increase railroads' costs, similar regulations with
their associated compliance  costs presently  affect new, medium and heavy duty
trucks used by the trucking  industry.  Consequently, a shift among competing
modes as a result of this regulation is unlikely.   If conditions such as fuel
shortages continue to worsen, the demand for railroad services may actually
Increase as additional truck freight would be diverted to the more fuel ef-
ficient rails, thus further  mitigating any cost effects of  these railroad
noise regulations.  EPA analysis suggests that Conrail's costs will rise no
more than .2 percent of totalicapital plus operating costs.  EPA estimates
that any employment reductions prompted by noise regulations could be-accomp-
lished through normal attrition.

                                     7-43

-------
     These and other cost and economic impact Issues are discussed in
considerable detail in Section 6 of this background document.

Cost/Effectiveness '

     Four industry commenters (#134,  135,  154,  157) argued that the costs
associated with the proposed regulation are not justified by the alleged
benefits, and that EPA should attempt to maximize the cost/benefit ratio
(#134,  157) and should offer some evidence that rail operations adversely
affect  the public health and welfare.  Two commenters (#132, 152) noted that
EPA should perform a detailed analysis of the effect of moving from a 70 dB to
a 65 dB property-line standard for hump yards.  One industry commenter (#135)
suggested that exemptions be allowed in individual situations where the costs
of full compliance are not warranted by the benefits obtained.

Response:

     EPA believes that the final regulatory proposals are cost effective.
Regulations are structured so as to abate on only noise sensitive receiving
property.  Consequently, costs are incurred only where benefits are to be
gained.  The Agency has identified an outdoor L
-------
numerous  conflicting  local  regulations.   Three city/county  governments  (#5,
75,  137)  and  four  state  agencies  (#54,  116,  160)  commented  that  financial
support was needed for training,  consulting  personnel  and equipment  and  legal
advice.   Five state agencies  (#7,  34,  101,  147,  160) and four  city/county
governments  (#23,  46, 62,  131)  remarked  that there would be little enforcement
unless EPA was prepared  to  enforce its own  regulations because of state  and
local manpower and time  constraints.

Response:

     The U.S. Court of Appeals  for the District of Columbia Circuit  held in
Association of American  Railroads  v. Costle.  562  F.2d  1310  (August 23, 1979)
that uniform  national regulation of railroad equipment and  facility  noise was
mandated by Section 17 of the Noise Control  Act of 1972.  EPA  is responding to
that mandate  initially by promulgating these source regulations.

     This regulation may result In some  enforcement and implementation burdens
on state and  local agencies.  The  Noise  Control Act places  primary enforcement
responsibility with the  Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)  of the Department
of Transportation  (DOT).  Specifically,  Section 17 of  the Act  directs the Secre-
tary of DOT to promulgate regulations to ensure compliance  with the  EPA  rail-
road noise standards.  In addition, Section  17 directs the  Secretary of  DOT to
carry out such regulations  through the use of his powers and duties of en-
forcement and inspection authorized by the Safety Appliance Act, the Interstate
Commerce Act, and  the Department of Transportation Act.

     The FRA has Indicated  to EPA  that It will promulgate compliance regulations
and will conduct investigations to  determine compliance, utilizing the FRA en-
forcement authorities and limited  enforcement resources.

     EPA believes  that the  FRA has adequate authority under the Noise Control
Act to enforce these regulations,  and that, while EPA has some concurrent
authority to enforce, the Act clearly places the primary responsibility for
enforcement with FRA.  Because of  federal resource constraints, however, EPA
                                     7-45

-------
anticipates that the major enforcement activity will need  to  be  conducted by
state and local agencies if the  regulation  is  to be effective*   EPA has made
every effort to design these regulations  in a  manner which will  facilitate  the
adoption and enforcement of identical regulations by state and local governments,

Need for Land Use Planning Provisions

     An industry commenter (#135) urged that future development  of land
adjacent to railyards be restricted to uses compatible with the  noise generated
from the railyard.  A state agency (#101) commented that the  federal government
should not be involved in land use.  Three  state agencies  (#147, 148, 160),
one city/county government (#33) and an association (#125) urged that railroads
be required to provide noise contours to  local governments showing current  and
future noise impact zones to encourage compatible land use planning.

Response:

     The need for land use provisions is  an issue which the Agency believes is
more properly addressed under the receiving property line  portion of the
regulation, which will be promulgated by  January 23, 1981.

Need for Public Participation

     Three city/county governments (#46,  57, 83), one state agency (#114), and
one private citizen (#42) commented that EPA had not allowed adequate public
participation and urged that EPA seek a further extension  of  the date for
final promulgation of the regulation.  An association (#133)  remarked that EPA
should have consulted with railroad labor officials prior  to  issuing the
regulation.

Response:

     EPA initially established a 45-day public comment period for the proposed
rule.  However, in response to a request  from the AAR, the Agency, on May 30,
1979, granted a 30 day extension to the public comment period.
                                     7-46

-------
     To stimulate maximum participation from all public sectors, EPA made
direct mailings to over 1700 selected organizations and individuals, including
each railroad and other potentially affected members of the rail industry,
all members of Congress, state and local governments, labor organizations,
public Interest groups, news media and private citizens selected from ONAC's
mailing list.  Included in each of the 1700-plus Information packages was one
of eight specially prepared cover letters designed to highlight those aspects
of the proposed rule the Agency anticipated would be of greatest Interest to
the recipient.  Also included were a copy of the Act, the Court decision, Fact
Sheets, anticipated questions and answers and several other documents written
specifically for public participation.

     A press release was also included in the mailing packages or sent
separately (as indicated by timing) so that most recipients, including the
news media, had the information within one day of the appearance of the pro-
posed regulation in the Federal Register.  The press release was also sent
to major wire services and a limited number of selected journalists by the EPA
Press Office. Advance copies of all documents were sent to each EPA regional
office and the National Association of Noise Control Officials in the week
immediately preceding publication.

     In addition to the direct mailing, a number of briefings were given
immediately prior to, and immediately subsequent to publication in the Federal
Register*  These .briefings were given to:

     o  Staff of Senate Appropriations Subcommittee (April 17, 1979)
     o  Federal Railroad Administration (April 24, 1979)
     o  National Conference on Noise Control Engineering
        (April 30, 1979)
     o  Representatives of -State, County and Municipal Officials
        Organizations (May 2, 1979)
     o  Representatives of Principal Railway Labor Unions (May 7,  1979)
     o  State of California (May 24, 1979)
     o  State of Illinois (May 25, 1979)
     o  City of Miami Springs, Florida (May 26, 1979)

                                      7-47

-------
      As a result  of  this  extensive public participation effort,  EPA received
 159  written comments from all sectors  solicited about  this  regulatory action.
 EPA  believes that sufficient  public comment  was received on the  proposed  rule
 to delineate all  possible substantive  issues*   This  extensive  public comment
 has  been taken  into  account  in developing the  final  rule.   The schedule set  by
 the  Federal Court did not permit  further public participation.

 Diversity in Kailyards

      Six commenters  (#42,  59,  64,  114,  150,  152) were  concerned  that EPA  had not
 adequately considered the variations in railyards, including size,  unique
 topographic features,  noise levels,  seasonal variations and surrounding land
 uses.

 Response:

      There are more  than  4,000  railroad yards  in the U.S.   Therefore,  it  was
 not  practical nor possible to  conduct  a site-specific  analysis of each fa-
 cility.   Instead, the  Agency has  separated facilities  into  categories  to
 facilitate the analysis.   These categories are  hump yards and flat  yards, the
 latter  category including classification/industrial yards and small industrial
 yards.  EPA subsequently  estimated  the  Impact  of various noise control technology
 and  technique applications on  the basis  of a "typical"  yard of each type  model-
 ed from the  data.  The rail industry has  recommended that we make the  regulations
 considerably less stringent in  order to  accommodate the "non-typical"  yard(s)
where noise  control may be difficult.   By the  same token, there will be yards
where the  costs will  be considerably less than  estimated, and state and local
 governments have  urged more stringent  regulations.  The Agency has  attempted
 to establish noise emission levels  for  the "typical case" in order  to  arrive
at uniform national standards as required by the Noise  Control Act  and the
Federal Court's interpretation of the Act.
                                      7-48

-------
Lead Time

     Three commenters (#42, 114, 144) urged that standards codifying existing
practice (car coupling) be effective immediatelyt  Four other commenters (#30,
45, 75, 147) questioned the necessity for the long implementation dates.  An
industry commenter (#150) remarked that only proposed yards not yet in the
design stage for one year be required to be designed using the proposed
modeling techniques.  Another industry commenter (#100) requested that EPA
monitor the effectiveness of the proposed 1982 standards prior to imposition
of more stringent standards.  Conrail (#134) stated that the lead times were
too short; hump yards take one to three years each to modify, retrofitting
switchers will take 3.3 years, suppliers cannot provide the requisite number
of mufflers, and problems of shop capacity and insufficient skilled labor will
prevent them from meeting the proposed timetable.

Response:

     It is the Agency's intent to provide for a minimum period of three years
(36 months) for the industry to comply with this rulemaking for source standards,
as is consistent with the Agency's general policy.  However, an amendment to
the Noise Control Act currently under consideration requires that no final
regulation issued under Section 17 be made effective earlier than four years
(48 months) after publication.  The congressional intent is to provide an
additional 12 months compliance period for Congressional review of the final
rule and a study by the Federal Railroad Administration.  Thus, the Congress
would have the opportunity to act to change the EPA rule during that 12-month
period prior to the industry having to undertake compliance actions that would
involve financial expenditures.  It is anticipated that a similar compliance
period will be provided in any property line standard.

Miscellaneous

     An association (#164) made a number of definitional and technical comments
to the regulation.  They suggested that abbreviations and symbol usage be
                                       7-49

-------
 taken  from ANSI YlO.11-1979  to avoid  confusion, and that definitions be
 presented in dictionary format*  The  word "fast" should be inserted throughout
 in  connection with maximum sound level, and "equivalent" should be replaced by
 "average."  They commented that the text be written with full words rather
 than symbols, including decibel*  It  was suggested that "A-weighted dB/decibel"
 be  deleted and be replaced by "A-weighted sound level of xx decibels*"  They
 also stated the "average" should be used each time in connection with the term
 L
-------
Response:

     EPA has revised the abbreviations and symbols to bring them into agreement
with currently accepted practice.  The concept of clear dominance has been
replaced by generally requiring visual identification of operating equipment
and operating equipment and sound levels to exceed nonoperating levels by
specified criteria.  Other specific comments regarding definitions have been
taken into account in developing this final rule.  A number of definitional
problems will be resolved when the Agency fully addresses the property line
standard.
                                     7-51

-------
          APPENDIX A
NOISE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

-------
                                APPENDIX A
                        NOISE MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY

     The revised Railroad Noise Emission Standards set noise level limits
at 30 meters from individual noise sources, as well as on receiving property
for selected sources and operations*  In addition, measurements on railroad
property are permitted to establish "probable compliance".  The noise
measurement methodology at these sets of locations is described in Subpart C
of Part 201, "Measurement Criteria for Railroad Equipment", which is attached
to this appendix*

Noise Measurement at 30 Meters From Specific Railroad Noise Sources

     Revised Section 201.22 specifies the use of a Type 1 sound level meter,
but permits use of a Type 2 instrument by adjusting the measured noise levels
to account for the possible measurement inaccuracies that might result using
such an instrument*

     The titles of Sections 201.23 and 201.24 have been revised for clarity
and to relate them to a 30 meter measurement distance.  The criteria and
measurement procedures incorporated in these sections have not been changed.
Thus, the methodology for noise measurements at 30 meters has not been
significantly revised from that in the original regulation.

Noise Measurements on Receiving Property

     Sections 201.25, 201.26 and 210.27 are new and relate to the
measurement methodology on receiving property adjacent to the railyard.
Section 201.25 details criteria with regard to weather conditions and the
selection of the proper location for the measurement microphone.  The section
prohibits measurement locations in the vicinity of vertical surfaces to
eliminate problems resulting from reflection.  However, measurements are
permitted as close as two (2) meters from the exterior wall of a residential
or commercial structure.
                                     A-l

-------
      The procedures for receiving property measurements  of  retarder  and
 car coupling impact noise are specified in Section 201.26.   Except for
 requiring that  measurements  of car coupling impacts be obtained  at a distance
 of at least  30  meters  from the centerline of the  nearest track on which car
 coupling occurs,  the measurement  procedures for retarders and  car coupling
 impacts  are  identical*   These procedures  call for the measurement of each
 retarder or  car coupling impact sound  that occurs during a  period of at least
 one hour and not  more  than four hours  (note that  each retarder or car coupling
 impact sound measured must be at  least  10 dB above the noise level observed
 immediately  before  the  specific sound).   The maximum A-weighted  sound levels
 (fast) of at least  30 consecutive sounds  are measured during this period.
 Using  this sample of maximum sound levels,  first  the average maximum sound*
 level  is determined, and then the  adjusted  average maximum  sound level is
 determined from Table 2.   The adjustment  is based upon the  number of measure-
 ments  occurring during  the measurement period, normalized to a 0 dB  adjustment
 when there is one retarder or car  coupling  impact occurring per  minute.  The
 adjusted average  maximum A-weighted sound level for either  retarders or car
 coupling impacts  is compared  with  the appropriate standard  to  determine
 compliance.

     Measurement  of the  noise  of locomotive load  cell test  stands and
 stationary locomotives on  receiving property,  in  order to determine  the
 applicability of  the 30  meter  standards for these sources,  Is  described
 in Section 201.27.  Since  these sources are nearly steady-state  in nature,
 the noise measure specified in the section Is  the Lgg noise level.   The
measurement procedure involves  measuring  consecutive values of the A-weighted
 sound  level at  10 second  (or  less) intervals for  at least 15 minutes and
 until at least  100 measurements are obtained and  then determining the LgQ
 noise level  for this sample.

     As an assessment of whether  the measured LQQ is valid  (i.e., whether
 or not the Lgg  is In fact  due to  a nearly steady-state noise source), 100
 samples are  taken, from which the  L10 and L99 noise levels  are determined
 as well.  If  the  difference between the LJQ and Lgg noise levels Is  less
 than 4 dB, the  value of  Lg0  is considered to be validated*

                                     A-2

-------
     When the 190 is validated, procedures are described in Section 201.27
(C) for localizing the noise source and selecting the correct value of Lgg
when more than one of the sources (locomotive load cell test stand and sta-
tionary switcher locomotive) Is present.  These procedures call for the use
of an Lgo which Is 3 dB below that measured when both sources are In operation,
however, the actual Lgo is used if the locomotive load cell test stand is the
primary contributor to the measured Lgg.  The procedures also require that the
measured L
-------
prescribed in the standards of  Subpart  B of  this  part.   These  criteria are
specified in order to further clarify and define  such standards.   Equivalent
measurement procedures may be used  for  establishing  compliance with these
regulations.  Any equivalent measurement procedure,  under any  circumstances,
shall not result in a more stringent noise control requirement than those
specified in this regulation using  the  measurement procedures  in Subpart C.

§201.22  Measurement Instrumentation

     (a)  A sound level meter or alternate sound  level measurement system that
     meets, as a minimum, all the requirements of American National Standard
     SI.4—1971* for a Type 1 (or S1A)  instrument must be used with the
     "fast" or "slow" meter response characteristic  as specified in Subpart B.
     To insure Type 1 response, the manufacturer's instructions regarding
     mounting or orienting of the microphone, and positioning  of the observer
     must be observed.  In the  event that  a  Type  1 (or S1A) instrument is not
     available for determining  non-compliance with this  regulation, the mea-
     surements may be made with a Type  2  (or S2A), but with the measured levels
     reduced by the following amount to  account for  possible measurement in-
     strument errors pertaining to specific  measurements and sources:

          Table 1:  Sound Level Corrections  When Using a Type  2
                     	(or S2A) Instrument	
                                                   Amount of Correction to be
Measurement                                        Subtracted from Measured
Section                       Source               	Level (dB)	
201.24                      Locomotives                       0 dB
                            Rail Cars                         0 dB
                            Locomotive Load Cell
                             Test Stand                       0 dB
201.26                      Retarder                          4 dB
                            Car Coupling                      2 dB
201.27                      Locomotive Load Cell
                             Test Stand                       0 dB
                            Stationary Locomotive             0 dB
^American National Standards are available from the American National
  Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY  10018.
                                    A-4

-------
      (b) A microphone windscreen and an acoustic calibrator of the coupler
      type must be used as recommended by:   (1) the manufacturer of the sound
      level meter or (2) the manufacturer of the microphone.  The choice of
      both devices must be based on ensuring that Type 1 performance is main-
      tained for frequencies below 10,000 Hz.

Revised the title of §201.23 to read as follows:

§ 201.23  Test Site, weather conditions and background noise criteria for
         measurement at a 30 meter (100 feet) distance of the noise from
         locomotive and rail car operations and locomotive load cell test
         stands.

Revised the title of §201.24 to read as follows:

§201.24  Procedures for measurement at a 30 meter (100 feet) distance of the
         noise from locomotive and rail car operations and locomotive load
         cell test stands.

§201.25  Measurement location and weather conditions for measurement on
         receiving property of the noise of retarders, car coupling« locomo-
         tive load cell test stands• and stationary locomotives*

      (a) Measurements shall be conducted only at receiving property measure-  *
     ment locations*

      (b) Measurement locations on receiving property shall be selected such
     that no substantially vertical plane surface, other than a residential
     unit wall or facility boundary noise barrier, that exceeds 1.2 meters (4
     feet) in height is located within 10 meters (33.3 feet) of the microphone
     and that no exterior wall of a residential structure is located within
     2.0 meters (6.6 feet) of the microphone.  If the residential structure is
     a farm home, measurements shall be made at any location from 2.0 to 10.0
     meters (6.6 to 33*3 feet) from any exterior wall.
                                     A-5

-------
     (c)  No measurement may be made when the average wind velocity during
     the period of measurement exceeds 19*3 km/hr (12 mph) or when the
     maximum wind gust velocity exceeds 32.2 km/hr (20 mph).

     (d)  No measurement may be taken when precipitation, e.g., rain, snow,
     sleet, or hail,  is occurring.

§201.26  Procedures for the measurement on receiving property of retarder
         and car coupling noise.

     (a)  Retarders

          (1)  Microphone:   The microphone must be located on the receiving
     property and positioned at a height between 1.2 and 1.5 meters (4 and 5
     feet) above the  ground.  The microphone must be positioned with respect
     to the equipment in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations
     for Type 1 performance.  No person may stand between the microphone
     and the equipment being measured or be otherwise positioned relative to
     the microphone at variance with the manufacturers'  recommendations for
     Type 1 performance.

          (2)  Data;   The maximum A-weighted sound levels (FAST) for every
     retarder sound observed during the measurement  period must be read
     from the indicator and recorded.  At least 30 consecutive retarder
     sounds must be measured.  The measurement period must be at least 60
     minutes and not  more than 240 minutes.

          (3)  Adjusted average maximum A-weighted sound level:  The energy
     average level for the  measured retarder sounds  must be calculated to
     determine the value of the average maximum A-weighted sound level
     (Lave max)*  This value is then adjusted by adding  the adjustment
     (C) from Table 2 appropriate to the number of measurements divided
     by the duration of the measurement period (n/T), to obtain the adjusted
     average maximum A-weighted sound level (Ladj ave max)  for retarders.
                                    A-6

-------
     (b)  Car coupling impact

          (1)  Microphone;  The microphone must be located on the receiving
     property and at a distance of at least 30 meters (100 feet) from the
     centerline of the nearest track on which car coupling occurs and its
     sound is measured (that is, either the microphone is located at least
     30 meters (100 feet) from the nearest track on which couplings occur, or
     all sounds resulting from car coupling impacts that occur on tracks with
     centerlines located less than 30 meters (100 feet)  from the microphone
     are disregarded).  The microphone shall be positioned at a height between
     1.2 and 1.5 meters (4 and 5 feet) above the ground, and it must be
     positioned with respect to the equipment in accordance with the manu-
     facturers' recommendations for Type 1 performance.   No person may stand
     between the microphone and the equipment being measured or be otherwise
     positioned relative to the microphone at variance with the manufacturers'
     recommendations for Type 1 performance.

          (2)  Data;  The maximum A-weighted sound levels (FAST) for every
     car-coupling impact sound observed during the measurement period must
     be read from the indicator and recorded.  At least 30 consecutive car  .
     coupling impact sounds must be measured.  The measurement period must
     be at least 60 minutes and not more than 240 minutes, and must be re-
     ported.

          (3)  Adjusted average maximum A-weighted sound level;  The energy
     average level for the measured car coupling sounds is calculated to
     determine the average maximum sound level (Lave max).  It is then
     adjusted by adding the adjustment (C) from Table 2 appropriate to the
     number of measurements divided by the duration of the measurement period
     (n/T), to obtain the adjusted average maximum A-weighted sound level
     (Ladj ave max) for car coupling impacts.

§201.27  Procedures for determining applicability of the locomotive load cell
         test stand standard and switcher locomotive standard bv noise measure-
         ment on a receiving property
                                     A-7

-------
                                Table 2
      ADJUSTMENT TO Lflve max TO OBTAIN Ladj ave max FOR RETARDERS
                      AND CAR COUPLING IMPACTS*
      n      number of measurements
      T      measurement duration (mln)       C « Adjustment in dB

             0.111 to 0.141                            -9
             0.142 to 0.178                            -8
             0.179 to 0.224                            -7
             0.225 to 0.282                            -6
             0.283 to 0.355                            -5
             0.356 to 0.447                            -4
             0.448 to 0.562                            -3
             0.563 to 0.708                            -2
             0.709 to 0.891                            -1
             0.892 to 1.122                             0
             1.123 to 1.413                            +1
             1.414 to 1.778                            +2
             1.779 to 2.239                            +3
             2.240 to 2.818                            44
             2.819 to 3.548                            45
             3.549 to 4.467                            46

*Ladj ave max * Lave max + c  iti  dB.
Values in Table 2 were calculated  from  [C  - 10  log ^]
with intervals selected to round off values to  the nearest
whole decibel.  The table may be extended  or interpolated
to finer interval gradations by using this  defining equation
                                     A-8

-------
(a)  Microphone;  The microphone must be located at a receiving property
measurement location and must be positioned at a height between 1.2 and
1.5 meters (4 and 5 feet) above the ground.  Its position with respect to
the equipment must be in accordance with the manufacturers' recommen-
dations for Type 1 performance.  No person may stand between the micro-
phone and the equipment being measured or be otherwise positioned relative
to the microphone at variance to the manufacturers' recommendations for
Type 1 performance.

(b)  Data;  When there is evidence that at least one of these two types
of nearly steady state sound sources is affecting the noise environment,
the following measurements must be made.  The purpose of these measure-
ments is to determine the A-weighted LgQ statistical sound level, which
is to be used as described in subparagraph (c) below to determine the
applicability of the source standards.  Before this determination can be
made, the measured LgQ is to be "validated" by comparing the measured
LIQ and Lgg statistical sound levels.  If the difference between
these levels is sufficiently small (4 dB or less), the source(s) being
measured is considered to be a nearly steady state source.

     Data shall be collected by measuring the Instantaneous A-weighted
sound level (FAST) at a rate of at least once each 10 seconds for a
measurement period of at least 15 minutes and until 100 measurements
are obtained.  The data may be taken manually by direct reading of the
indicator at 10 second intervals  (± 1 second), or by attaching a statis-
tical analyzer, graphic level recorder, or other equivalent device to the
sound level meter for a more continuous recording of the instantaneous
sound level.

     The data shall be analyzed to determine the levels exceeded 991,
          .               -.;..-• •;.-,r,:r,. • ,. '••!    ... -  .;•'     •   ..  .
90% and 10% of the time, I.e., Lgg, Lg0 and L10» respectively.  The
value of LgQ is considered a valid measure of the A-weighted sound level
for the standards in  201.11* §201.12 and  §201.16 only If  the difference
between LIQ and Lgg has a value of 4 dB or less*  If a measured value
                                A-9

-------
of 1.90 is not valid for this purpose, measurements may be  taken over a
longer period to attempt to Improve the certainty of the measurement and
to validate Lgg.  If Lgg is valid and is less than the level in appli-
cable standards for these source types, the sources are in compliance*
If the measured value of LQQ is valid and exceeds the initial 65 dB
requirement for any of the source types that appear to be affecting the
noise environments, the evaluation according to the following subparagraph
(c) is required.

(c)  Determination of Applicability of the Standard When Lgp is Validated
     and is in Excess of One or More of the Source Standards;

     The following procedures must be used to determine the compliance
of the various source types when LQQ is validated and in excess of
one or more of the applicable standards.

     (1)  The principal direction of the nearly steady-state sound at the
measurement location must be determined, if possible, by listening to the
sound and localizing its apparent source(s). If the observer is clearly
convinced by this localization process that the sound emanates only from
one or both of these two sources, then:

          (1)  If only stationary locomotlve(s), including at least one
     switcher locomotive, are present, the value of Lgg is the value of
     the A-weighted sound level to be used in determining If the 65 dB
     requirement is exeeded and compliance with the standards In  201.11(c)
     and  201.12(c) is necessary.

          (ii)  If only a locomotive load cell test stand and the locomo-
     tive being tested are present and operating, the value of L^Q is
     the value of the A-weighted sound level to be used in determining
     applicability of the standard in §201.16.

          (iii)   If a locomotive load cell test stand(s) and the locomotive
     being tested are present and operating with stationary locomotive(s),
                                A-10

-------
     including at least one switcher locomotive, the value Lgo minus 3
     dB is the value of the A-weighted sound level to be used in deter-
     mining applicability of the standards in § 201.ll(c),  §201.12(c) and
     §201.16.  This paragraph (iii) does not apply to measurements less
     than 120 meters (400 feet) from a locomotive load cell test stand,
     conducted when measurements at 30 meters  (100 feet) cannot be made
     due to site conditions specified in §201.23(a).

          (iv)  If a locomotive load cell test stand(s) and the locomotive
     being tested are present and operating, and a stationary locomotive(s)
     is present, and if the nearly steady-state sound level is observed
     to change by 10 dB, coincident with evidence of a change in operation
     of the locomotive load cell test stand but without apparent change
     in the location of stationary locomotives, another measurement of
     LgQ must be made in accordance with (b) above. If this additional
     measure of Lgo is validated and differs from the initial measure
     of Lgg by an absolute value of 10 dB or more, then the higher
     value of Lgo is the value of the A-weighted sound level to be used
     in determining applicability of the standard in  §201.16.

     (2)  In order to accomplish the comparison demonstration of (3) below,
when one or more source types is found not to be in compliance with the
applicable standard(s), documentation of noise source information shall
be necessary.  This will include, but not be limited to, the approximate
location of all sources of each source type present and the microphone
position on a diagram of the particular railroad facility, and the dis-
tances between the microphone location and each of the sources must be
estimated and reported.  Additionally, if other rail or non-rail noise
sources are detected, they must be identified and similarly reported.

     (3)  If it can be demonstrated that the validated Lgo is less than
5 dB greater than any Lgo measured at the same receiving property
location when the source types that were operating during the initial
measurement(s) are either turned off or moved, such that they can no
longer be detected, the Initial value(s) of Lgg must not be used for

                                A-ll

-------
     determining applicability to the standards.  This demonstration must be
     made at a time of day comparable to that of the initial measurements and
     when all other conditions are acoustically similar to those reported in
     (2)  above.

§201.28  Testing by railroad to determine probable compliance with the standard

     (a)   To determine whether it is probably complying with the regulation,
     and  therefore whether it should institute noise abatement,  a railroad
     may  take measurements on its own property at locations that:

          (1)  are between the source and receiving property

          (2)  derive no  greater benefit from shielding and other noise
     reduction features than does the receiving property;  and

          (3)  otherwise  meet the requirements of §201.25.

     (b)   Measurements made for this purpose should be in  accordance with the
     appropriate procedures in §201.26 or §201.27.  If the resulting level is
     less than the level  stated in the standard, then there is probably com-
     pliance with the standard.

     (c)   This procedure  is set forth to assist the railroad in devising its
     compliance plan, not as a substantive requirement of  the regulation.
                                    A-12

-------
             APPENDIX B
NOISE SOURCE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES

-------
                                APPENDIX B
                 NOISE SOURCE ABATEMENT COST ESTIMATES

     Presented in this appendix are descriptions of specific methods and
data sources used in deriving cost estimates for several of the noise source
abatement procedures contained in this study.

Active Retarder and Locomotive Load Test Cell Absorptive Barriers

     The type of noise barrier used as the basis for the cost estimates is
composed of acoustical panels placed along both sides of the retarders
and locomotive load cell test stands.  The materials used in the construction
of these barriers would typically consist of a heavy backing panel, faced with
acoustical material, and then surfaced with a perforated or expended metal
covering.  The barriers would range from 8 to 12 feet (2.4 to 3.6 meters) high
for retarders and cost between $108 and $162 per linear foot ($354 and $531 per
meter) installed depending upon barrier height; barrier length is 150 feet (46
meters)•  The useful life of retarder barriers is estimated to be 10 years.
For locomotive load cell test stands, the barriers would range from 20 (6.1)
to 25 feet (7.6 meters) high and 150 feet (46 meters) in length.  The cost per
linear foot (meter) Installed would range from $260 and $325 ($825 and $1,066)
depending upon barrier height.

     These cost estimates are based upon the construction of absorptive
barriers similar to the prototype represented by those in existence in the BN
yard at Northtown, Minnesota.

     These barriers have been in use for almost five years and have been
used for quantitative measurements of noise reduction.*  The 8 ft x 8 ft  (2.4 m
x 2.4 m) panels in the Northtown installation were manufactured by Industrial
Acoustics Co., Inc., who provided a price quote for June 1976 purchase.*  The
*Rallroad Retarder Noise Reduction. Department of Transportation,
 DOT-TSC-NHTSA-79-35, May 1979, p. 58.
                                      B-l

-------
cost estimates for the higher barriers have been scaled from the data provided
below.  Constrained schedules did not permit a more detailed estimating
procedure for the higher barriers.

     The BN installation requires vertical I beams between which the panels
are slid.  The beams are bolted to an extensive foundation which is a part of
an oil spray system that is also used to reduce noise.  To consider the
barriers erected by themselves, alternate footings for the beams are hypothe-
sized and costed.  In the case of the DOT study,* configuration is a 5WF16
post (I beam) set six feet (1.8 meters) into the ground in a 14 in (36 cm)
augered hole filled with concrete.

     The configuration quoted was for both sides of a group retarder barrier,
143 ft (A3.6 m) long with six doors in one side for access.  The 8 ft x 8 ft
(2.4 m x 2.4 m) panels are four inches thick with 16 ga. galvanized exteriors
and 22 ga. interior perforated with 3/32" holes on 3/16" staggered centers.
The inside of the panels is filled with mineral wool encapsulated in bags
of polyethylene film for weather resistance.

     The configuration of these barriers as well as the construction of the
panels themselves is not necessarily optimized.

     The initial cost estimates from the DOT report referenced earlier give a.
cost configuration as follows:

          Panels and trim               $13,500
          Supports                        2,700
          Installation                    6.500
                    Total               $22,700

The total cost, when divided by the total length of twice 143 ft (43.6 m) or
286 ft (87 m) produces an average cost of $79.37 per linear foot ($260 per
*"Background Document for Proposed Revision to Rail Carrier Noise Emission
  Regulation," EPA 550/9-78-207, February 1979.
                                      B-2

-------
 meter)  of barrier.   This number is close to the $75 per foot ($246 per meter)
(used in the previous background document.*  The past estimate,  however, is
 not adjusted for inflation beyond June 1976.  Inflation of this value to the
 June 1979 value, requires application of an appropriate labor and materials
 index.   The national average index of labor and materials produced by the
 Association of American Railroads is used for this purpose.   The July 1,  1976
 index is 235.5 and  the July 1,  1979 index is 320.8.  The second divided by the
 first produces a cost escalation factor of 1.36.

      Applying the cost escalation factor to $79.37/foot ($260/m);  the escalated
 value becomes $108/foot ($354/m).

      The 1975 background document* estimated the life of the barriers at  10
 years,  and inspection of the five year old barriers at Northtown indicates
 that this is a reasonable number.  Replacement of the barrier panels after 10
 years of use will be somewhat less costly (in constant dollars)  than building
 panels  from scratch.  We estimate that the Job can be completed in two days
 using a crew of four men and a  light hydraulic crane.  The estimated cost
 configuration for renewal of the panels is as follows:

           Labor (4  x 16 at $7.00/hr.)         $   448
           Crane (16 at $30.00/hr.)                480
           Replacement Panels                   13^500
                         Total                 $14,428

      Thus, provision of such barriers for an indefinite length  of time requires
 an initial cost of  $22,700 with an additional cost every ten years of $14,400.

 Other Sources^

      The design and cost of highway barriers have been studied.**  Interpolation
 of their cost from  Figure 3-29  gives $62.50 per linear foot  ($205/m) for  steel
 *"Background Document for Rairoad Noise Emission Standards,"
   EPA 550/9-76-005,  December 1975.
 **Simpson,  Miles  A.,  Noise Barrier Design Handbook,  February 1976,
   FHWA-RD-76-58.
                                      B-3

-------
barriers, eight  feet high  (1975 price, San  Francisco).  If escalated at  12
percent  to  1976,  the cost  is  $70 per linear foot  ($230 per meter).  This
design is for double panel walls without acoustical packing.

Switch Engine Mufflers

      At  the present time,  the only  locomotive builder engaged in active
development of a muffler system for switch  engines is EMD.  Although the
system had  been  developed  for a new model switch engine, it can be adapted to
older switchers  using the  same basic naturally aspirated diesel engine.  Car
body  modifications are necessary to accommodate the added equipment connected
to  the engine exhaust manifold.  To raise the roof line of the older switchers,
it  will  be  necessary to fabricate and install a new hatch bonnet to replace
the present roof hatch.  In addition to the new hatch bonnet, the existing
structure must be reinforced  by the addition of bracing to support the new
bonnet.  The existing roof bracing  must be  removed to make room for the
muffler  and bonnet Installation.

      Depending on the type of diesel engine in the switcher, unit costs for
the retrofit of  the muffler in 1979 dollars is estimated to be:
      Muffler and  material  costs, 12 cylinder, 645
         series engine                                       $5,000
      Muffler and  material  costs for 12 cylinder,
         567 series engine                                   $5,000

The added cost of the 567 engine installation over the 645 series is due to
the need to make provisions for the engine  water line over the exhaust manifold.
      Labor  to install muffler                               $  500

Fabrication of the hatch bonnet Is  estimated to cost:
     Material and labor                                     $  800
     New bracing  and labor to install bonnet                $  500

The total capital cost for each switch engine Is $6,800-$7,300.  More than 95
percent of  the EMD switchers  are of the older 567 series engine design.
                                      B-4

-------
     Current ICC data shows than there are about  6,975  switcher in service.
About 860 of these locomotives were built by manufacturers  no  longer  active  in
locomotive development and they used diesel engines  significantly  different
from the EMD 567 or 645 series.  Because each of  the  series of  these  older
engines represents a new design problem, it is estimated  that  the  cost  to
retrofit mufflers because of lack of any economy  of  scale,  it will be about
$12,500 each, based on the current state of development by  EMD.

     Capital costs for switcher retrofit therefore are estimated to be:

            .95 x 6115 x $7,300 - $42,407,525
            .05 x 6115 x $6,800 - $21,079,100
            860 x $12,500       - $10,750,000

The opportunity costs for the switcher retrofit are  influenced  by  the scheduled
overhaul cycle of these locomotives.  It is assumed that, whenever possible,
railroads will carry out the retrofit during a scheduled heavy  overhaul and
that the additional out-of-service time will be limited to  that  required to
modify the hood structure and to install the hatch bonnet.   Installation of
the muffler on the engine should take no longer than  the normal  exhaust
manifold rebuild and replacement.  Normal switcher heavy overhaul  varies
between seven and nine years.  With a compliance  time for installation of
mufflers of between four and six years, about 60  percent  (4,533) of the
switcher can be retrofitted during normal overhaul.   For the remaining 2,442,
a special modification program will be necessary.  The full  out-of-service
time will be chargeable against the muffler retrofit.  A total  of  10  days can
be anticipated as out-of-service time, attributable to movement  of the
switcher from its normal assigned location to the heavy overhaul shop and
return at the 30 mph speed restriction on moving  switcher on the main line
railroad, plus the shop time to carry out the modification.  In  1979, the
daily value of a switcher is $800.  Therefore, the opportunity costs  for the
2,442 switchers is $19,536,000.
                                      B-5

-------
                     APPENDIX C
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                      181
Baltimore & Ohio Chicago Terminal       9
Bangor & Aroostock                      6
Bauxite & Northern                      1
Belfast & Moosehead Lake                1
Belt Ry. Company of Chicago             6
Bessemer & Lake Erie                    6
Birmingham Southern                     6
Boston fi Maine                         26
Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal         1
Burlington Northern                   297
Butte, Anaconda & Pacific               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
                                  C-l

-------
          Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
      1
      1
      2
      2
      3
      1

      1

      1

      1
           Ownership
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
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
                                  C-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.
Dansvilie & Mount Morris
Dardanelle & Russellville
Davenport, Rock Island & 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
                                       C-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
Perm Central;
Norfolk & Western Ry.
Independent
Delaware Obego Corporation
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Colorado & Southern;
Burlington Northern, Inc.,
  System
Missouri-Pacific RR Company
Gainesville Midland
Galveston, Houston & Henderson

Garden City Western
Genessee & Wyoming
Georgia
Grafton & Upton
Grand Trunk Western

Graysonia, Nashville S 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 fi 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
                                      C-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 & 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 & Wadley                      1
Louisville, New Albany & Corydon         1
              Erie Lackawanna Ry. Company
              Norfolk S 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
MeCloud 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
                                 C-5

-------
           Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
           Ownership
Minnesota Transfer
Mi s s i s sippian
Mississippi Export
Missouri-Illinois
Missouri-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
                                     C-6

-------
          Road Name
 Number of
Yards Owned
Oakland Terminal
Ownership
              Western Pacific;
              Atchison, Topeka & 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 & 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 & Pacific
Quincy
       2      St. Louis-S.F. Ry. Company
       1      Sierra Pacific Ind.
Rahway Valley
Reading
Richmond, Fredericksburg &
  Potomac
River Terminal
Roscoe, Snyder & Pacific
       1      independent
      47      Conrail

       4      Richmond-Washington Company
       5      St. Paul Iron Mining Company
              (subsidiary of Republic Steel
                Corporation)
       1      Independent
                                 C-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 RR 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
                                 C-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 & 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
                                 C-9

-------
                     APPENDIX D
TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES BY NAME AND CODE
    DESIGNATIONS (ACI AND UNIFORM ALPHA CODES)

-------
                                APPENDIX D
           TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES BY NAME AND CODE
               DESIGNATIONS  (ACI AND UNIFORM ALPHA CODES)

     This appendix lists the names of the railroad companies which appeared in
the FRA/DOT data base.  The data base was compiled by Standford Research  In-
stitute under contract with  the FRA.  The work is reported in //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 then related to the uniform alpha code and
railroad company names.  The results are compiled 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
numbers to individual railroad companies by name.

     Two separate but similar tabulations are presented; the first listing
of companies is based on ascending ACI code numbers, and the second listing
of railroads is formatted on the basis of the lexicographic order of the
ajLpha codes.
                                     D-l

-------
          KCflO
          KCSB_
          KNOB
          LCCB
          LE
          LPSG_
          MAA
          HBEB_
          HEl"
          HP _
          HG
          HID_
          HLD
          HLST_
          HOI
          H01C_
          MVT
          SODH
          Noaif
          NSC
          NSCT
                   ASBESTOS 6 DANVILLE       	
                   THE ATLAKTA~~STONE~MTN.  6  LITHONIA  Rill.  CO.
                   AUGOSTA £ SOMHEBVILLE  HAILHOAD CO.
                   ALLEGHENY & SOOTH SIDE
                   BRITISH COLOHBIA HYDBO  S  POHEB  ATHOBITY
                   BOYNE CITY RAILROAD  CO.
                   BEAOJOEI C ttOOJBEHEAD BE CO.	
                   CLINCHPIELD BB'CO.	
                   CLOODEBSPOBT 6 POHT  ALLBGHAMI	
                   C6MP LEJEUNE" BAILROAD CO.
                   CENTHAL BB OF fENNSYLTAMIA	
                   CAflAS PKAIBIE RB"C07"
                   COAHOLIA 6 ZACATECAS_Blf.	
                   DROtlBOND LIGHTERAGE
                   DETQCIT S WESTERN
                   DOE  HEST HOTOR LINE
                   EDGEBOOH & HAHETTA HWI.	
                   FERBCCAHBIL DE HACOZAfil,  SCI.
                   FELICIANA EASTEBM BB  CO.
                   FOSS LAUNCH & TOG
                   GHANE JAILS CEMTBAL  BWY.  CO.,  LTD.	
                   GOLF TBANSPOBT"
                   HODSON & MANHATTAN	
                   HODSCN BIVEfi DAI LINE
                   HOHAED TEHMINAL	
                   HODSCN BAY
                   IN1EENATIONAL-GBEAT  HOBTJIEBJI	
                   iOHASOOTHEBH UTILITIES  (SOO~THEBN UD. "BB,  11C.).
                   ISLAND TOG Ap_BABGEB	
                   JEBSEYViLLE fi EASTEBM
                   JAMES GBIFFITHS 6 SOBS	
                   JOHNSTOHH 8STONY CBEEK  BB  CO.
                   KANSAS CITY CONNECTING BB CO.	
 KANSAS CITY,  dEXICO & OBIiNT
 KANSAS CITY HESTPOBT BELT	
 KLAUATH NOBTHEBN BWY. CO.
 LEE COUNTY CENTBAL ELECTBIC
 LOUISIANA EASTEBN BB
 LIVE OAK, PEfifiY 6 S. GEOBCIA BMY» CO.
 MAGMA ABIZONA BB CO.
 HERICAH 6 BIGBEE BB CO.
 HOCESTO 6 EHPIBE IBACTIOM CO.
 HIDDIE FOBK	
 THE BOBILE &  GOLF BB CO.
 HIDHAY
 HILS1EAD __ __
 HAfilNE OIL TBANSPOBTATIOD
 BONTBEAL TBAHiAYS _
"HI.  VEBNON TEMINAL
 HBXICO NOBTHHBSTEBM _
 NOBQETAL
 NEH ORLEANS,
                                TEXAS  6  BEJICO
 NEHTEX S.S.
 NIAGABA,  ST.  CATBABINBS « TOBONTO
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code
3.  Railroad Company Name
                                 D-2

-------
1.
2.
3.
                 NEU  SOfiK  CONNECTING BE
                 JOHIO  «IDLAND_LIGHT 6 POJiBJB.
                 CONSOLIDATED  BAIL COBP.
                 THE  PHILADELPHIA BELT LIHE BE CO.
                 ~POBT  EVEBGLADES
                 POBT OF  FALH BEACH  DISIBICT
                 POGEI SOOND FB EIGHT LINES
                 .PHILADELPHIA SQBDBBAS  THAIISPCBTATIOg
                 POGE1 SOOND TOG  & BABGE
                 PENINSULA TEBHINAL  CO.
                 POET TCHNSEND BE, IHC.
                 POBT UTILITIES
     NXCN
     OHLP
     PAOT
     PBL
     PEB
     PBKX.
     PPBD  	
     PSFL
     PSI 	
     PSIB
     PI  	
     PTBB
     PUCC	
     BC       BOSS1IN,  CONNECTING BB CC.
     SBH	ST.  LOUIS,  BBOBNS7ILLB 6_«
     SFPP     SPBOCE  FALL POHEB £ PAPEB
     SIBC	THE  STATES  ISLAKD_BB_COBP_*_
     SLS      SEA-IAND  SERVICE, INC.
     SNBL	SIOUX CITX_6 NEH  pBLEAJI5_Bi
     SNCO     SEAPCBT NAVIGATION
     SSL	SKANIATELES SHOBT LIH? Bi_C..QB£ii	
     ST       SPRINGFIELD TEBdlNAL Bil. CO.  (?EBHQNT»
     TAEA	TANGIPAflOA  6 EASTERN	
     TAS      TABPA SOUTHERN  BR
     TEM	TEHISKAHING $ NOBTH.EJlB_fiIIAaifl	
     TTB      TIJUANA & TECATE  BHX. CO.
     DC?	PTAH_qOAL_eOUTB	
     UO       ONION BB  OF OREGON
     VS_
                 HAYNES&UBG SOUTHEB1I
                 .BATEBVILLE	
                 CONSOLIDATED BAIL  COBP.
                  UKES-BABBE_C.QJl»ECT,IBG_B8	
                 NEST IKD1A FBOIT & STEAHSHIP
                 .PHEEUIIG_6_LAE..BBIB	
                 •ELDIOOD TBANSPOBTATION LTD.
              	BESIIBN IBANSPORTATIflN-JCC.	
                 BAHIKGION  PESTERN
             .00..1_.ABILINE.6_SOUTHEBN_BAL1AI_CO.	
             002 THE  AKRON  C BABBERTOH BELI  BAILBOAD COBPABX
        ACX_003.,THE.AKBON,_CANION_fi..XOOJIGSTOiiN_BIL-£flL.	
        AHH  004 ALGES, HINSLOH  & HBSIEBN BAILBAX CO.
        ABB.. 005._THE  ALASKA_BAILBOAQ	
        ACBL 007 AflERICAN COHHEBCIAL EABGE LIHES, IHC.
        .AC	OOe_ALGOHA..CERXBAL_BAIL»lY	
        AB   009 ABEBCEEN & BOCKFISH BAILBCAD CO.
        AA	0.10_AMN_ABBOB	
        APA  Oil THE  APACBE BAILHAX  COBPA8X
        .AH	012 APALACHICLA  NOBTHEEM BB CC.	
    IRA  013 AECACE  AND  ATTICA BALEOAD COBP.
    ABL_011..AIABIDA..EELI.LIHE	_^
    ALH  016 ABKADSA5  &  LOOISIANi HISSCDBI BHX. CC.
    ABCK. 017.ALASKA. BB1TISH. COLOMBIA .TBABSPOBllMCJLCflHPUIl.
    ALQS 018 ALIQOIPPA & SOOTHEBN BAILBOAD CO.
    AttC _019 AaADCB..C£»TBAL_BAIlBOAI3_CC.	?	-
    ANR  020 THE  ABCATA  AND  HAD BIVEB  BAI1 BOAO CC.
    ADH._..021..ASIiLEX._i)BEH_.£.HOfiTBEBB.BAIIHAU:(L	

Uniform Alpha Code

ACI Code

Railroad Company Name
                                  D-3

-------
     12                  3
   ATSF 022 THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA  6  SiFTA  FE BUY.  CO.
   AMP  023 AILAITA,..6-HEST  2OINT.BAILEOJU JCO.	
   AIB  025 ATLANTIC & HESTEBB  RAILBAY CO.
   PBSL._027_-CONSCLIDATED.BAIL_COBP.			
   ACS  029 THE  ALABAHA  GBEAT  SOOTHBBN BAILBOAD CO.
   AEC
   ALS  032 THE  ALTOfi & SOOTHEBN  BAILiAI  CC,
   AHI.  033 THE  »HM>PRP. ft BBfiT- RUT,  CO.  nf .'t  ftP HfrT.ntin BTff.  BB
   AHB  035 ANGELINA & HECHES  BIVEB  BE CO.
   AVL  038 ABOOSTOOK VALLEEY BALBOAC  CO.	
   AH 1~039~ ALASKA" HYDfiO-TfiAliT
   ASAB 0«2 A1LAHTA 6 SAIN1 AMDEEWS  EAI EAILBAr  CO.
   APD" OU3 ALBA8Y PCBT DISTBICt"'
   AOG  OUU AOGU^TA BAILBOAD CO. 	
   AL " 046* ALBAKOB BAILBOAD" CO'."
   A1CO 048 U.S. ENEEGY BESEABCH  & DEV. ADHIHISTBAIOH
   ABC  OU9 ALEXANDEIfi""BALBC)Ai;"COliPAilY
   BO   050 1HE EALTIHOBE G OHIO  RB  CC.	
   ABT  C51 AMERICAN BEFBIGEBA10R  TBAIISI1  CO.
   BE   052 CONSOLIDATED BAIL  COBP.
   BLA ~C53 "JHE EALTIMOBE £  ANNAPOLIS  BB  CO.
   BFC_05U BELLEFOK1E CEHTBA1  KB  CO.	
   BVS  055 BEVIIB & SOUTHEBM BE CO."
   BAB  056 BANGCB AND ABOOS100K BAILBOAD CO.
   BCK"~059'CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBPOBAIOM
   BEES 060 BEECB MOUNTAIN BAILBpAD CC.	
   BLE  061 BESSEMEB 6'LAKEEBIE BB CC.
   BLKH 063 BLACK HESA & LAKE POHELL 	
   BOCT"06tt" IHE  EALTIMOBE  £  OHIO  CHICAGO TEBM.  BB CO.
   BS   065 BIBMIHG10N SOOTHEfiN BB_CO.	
   BBI  066"" BLACK BIVEB 6 "iJESTEBB COBf.
   BH  _C69 BOSTCH 6  ttAIHE_Cq|P.	
   BHE" 073 BEA7EB, MEADE  £  EHGLEWOOD
   BMS  073 BEBLIN HILLS
   BH' "076 BOBLINGTON "NOBTHEBH CO.
   BAP__p78_BOTlEr JLKACONDA  6 PACIFIC BAIL! AT CO.
   BH   079 BATH~6  HAdflONDSPOflT~BE CO.
   BBC083 THE  BELT  BAILHAY CO._.OF CB_ICAGO
                               "
      _                        _     _
   BXN  08i»"BAOXlT£"6' HOBiHEBN "BiiLfiY CO.
   BHL  087 BELFAST  6  HOCSEHEAD LAKE BB CO.
   BBFD 088  BRANIOfiD  STEAM  BAILBOAD
   CSSL 090_CAMACA_JTEAMSHIP_LIHES	
   DEDT 091  BROOKLYN" EASTEEH  DIS1BIC1 1EEHINAL
   CAD  092  CADIZ BB  CO.
   CLK  093 CADILLAC  & LAKE  CITY BiZ.  CO.
   CHC  095 SEABCABD  COAST LINE BB (CHABIBSTOB 6 BEST. .CiBOLHA)
   CTH "097 CAHTCH  BAILBOAD "CO.
   CP	p99_CAPE  FEAB_BAILHAYSj  INC.	
   CHi  100 CALliOfiNIA '•ESTEBN  BB
   CI	101 CAHBBIA  6 INDIANA JB  CO.	
   CH   103 CAKAEIAM HATIOMAL'BAILHAYS
   CBC  10U CABBCN COONTY  FBY.  CO.	
   CP    105 CP BAIL  (CANADIAN  PACIFIC LID.)
   CBN   106 CABOIINA  &  NOBTHNESTEBN BiI.CO.
   CKSO 107 CONDCN,  KINZOA &  SOOTHEBH iB CO.
   CIC  111 CEDAE  BAPIDS  6 IOKA CITY BAILBAX  CO.
1.  Uniform Aloha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                 D-4

-------
  1    2               3
CCT  112 CENTRAL  CALIFORNIA IRACIICM CO.
CiBB 113 THE  CABBCLLTON  BE.
C1C7  111 COCPEBSIOBN & CHABLOTTE fALLEY BB COBP.
CGI _115 THE  CANACA 6 GOLF  TEBBINAL BAILHAI CC.
CIND  116" CONSOLIDATED BAIL  CORPT
CHF   117 CHES1NDT  BIDGE  BAIliAI CC.   	
CGA   118  CENTBAL  OF  GEOBGIA EAILBCAC CO.
CHJ   119  CONSOLIDATED  BAIL COBP.  	
CV    120  CEN1GAL VEEBHONT BBY.  CO.
CHV   12U  CHAT1AHOOCHEE VALLEY BUY.  CO.
CO    125 THE CHESAPEAKE 6 OHIO BUY. CO.
LB    127 LITCBFIELD 6  HADISOH fCHIC. 6 I.B. TBAMSP. CC.)
CEI   129 HISSCOBI  PACIFIC BB "CO.
CIH   130 CHICAGO 6 ILLINOIS HIDLA8C BBY.  CO. .
CNH   131 CHICAGO £ HORTH  BESTEBN  TBANSP.  C0.t_	
CBI   132 CHICAGO £ HESIEN INDIANA EB CO.
CIL   137 LOUISVILLE &  NASHVILLE BB. CO.  (CHIC.  IMEI1M- R LQOIS-1
CHIT  139 CHICAGO HEIGHTS  TEBHINAL 1BABSFEB BB  CO.
HILH  1«0 CHICAGO,_BIL»AOKEE, ST._P.AOL_6  PACIFIC
CPL1  141 CAHIEO, fLACEBVILLE 6 LAKE TAHOE BB CO.
CHH   1«2 CHESiICK  & HABHAfi
CBI  143 CONSOLIDATED  BAIL  COBP.
BI _145 CHICAGO, BOCK ISLAND C _SJCIfl£.JBB_£G*_
CSL  147 CHICAGO  SHOBT LIHE BVY.  CC.
CP1C 149 CHICAGO  EBODOCB TEBHIHAL  CQ_«	
CIH  150 CHICAGO  5 ILLINOIS HESTEBI BB
C1IYK 151 CENTEAL  NEW YOBK BB COB?,
CHIP 153 THE  CINCINNATI,  NEH  OBLEA9S & TEXAS PACIFIC BIY. CO.
CS.	157_THE  COLOBADO fi SOOTHEBN Sil^CQ*.,	
CH   158 THE  COLOBADO 6 HYOHING BiY. CO.
CNL._159._COLOHBIA.  UEHBEBBI
CLC  163 COLUBBIA & CONITZ  BVY. CO.
COLI.J64 C010NELJ.S  ISLAND
COP  166 CITY Of  PBINEVILLE BUY.
CNOB_167..CINCINNATI .NOBTHEBN.
CSS  168 CHICAGO SOOTH  SHOBE & SOOTH BEND BB
CLP__.J169 .THEE .CLABENDON_.&_PITTSFgB5_B8._CO»_
CWP  172 CHICAGO,  VEST PULLMAN 6 SCOTBEBN BB CO.
CAGY 177 COLOHBUS  6 GBEENVILLE BBY.  CO.f I1C.
CHH  179 CHESAPEAKE MESTEBN BAILNAY
CHER 180 COEIIS. flILBOBM  &  EASTEBH SB CO.	
CLIF 181 CLIFFSIDE BB CO.
COBB. .184_COBTIS_BAY_RR_CO._
CISC 185 CENTEAL IOHA  TBANSP.  COOP. .DBA CENT.  IOIA BIY. CO.
COV.A._186_ THE_COY AHOGA_yALLEE.Y_BRIJ_j;0Jl_
CLCO 188 CLABEHONT & CONCOBD BBY.  CO., IMC.
CBE - .189 CONSOLIDATED  BAIL COBP. . ftASTEBH DISTRICT)
CB   190 CONSCLIDATED  BAIL COBP.
DB	.191 DAPDJNELLE 6_ BUSSELIVI1LE..8B. .C0..__
DBI  192  OAVEENPOET,  BOCK ISLAND & MOBTHHESIEBN BUY. CO.
DVS_ 193. DELTA  VALLEY 6  SOUTHERN     -
DH   195  DELAiiABE & HUDSON BAIL HI Y CO.
DC	196  DE1BAY.CCNNBCUN6_BAILBOJC_CCUB1NJL
DBGI 197 THE  EENVEB &  BIO  GBANDE BESTEN Bfi CO.
DQE..200.DE QOEEN.&..BASTEBM. BB Cfi^.	
CCB  201 THE  COBINTU 6 COONCE Bfi CO.
DHO  2C2 DES  KOINES ONION  BUY..-CO.	
DH   20U DETBCI1  £ HACKINAC BUY. CC.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                D-5

-------
  1    2                 3
D1S—205. THE  EEIROII-AMJ)-IJOIECO.SH.CB1-UILB BR CQ.
BRB  207 BELTCN  Rfl CO.
D1I.-208DETBCIT, TOLEDO- 6 IBONION BE.CO*.
DA   209 Cf BAIL  (CANADIAN  PAC.  LID.) (DOfl. AC I. .fill. -CO.}-
DKS...210 .DONIEHAH,  KENSETT  & SB ABC I BEX..	
DUE  212 DUID1H & NOBTHEASTEBN Bfi CO.
DHIB.-.213...DUL03H,.. MISSABE 6..IBOB .BABGR BUT., CO.	
CBL  215 CONEKAUGH  &  BLACK LICK BB CO.
DWC—216 DDL01H,  WINNIPEG .6 PACIFIC_BiI.
DS   217 DUBHAH  & SOUTUEBH BWI. CC.
DI —.219 DETROIT-lEBHINALJB.CO^
DHH  220 1HE  EANSVILLE AMD HOUKT HCBBIS SB CO.
CIBB_222..CHAT1AHOOCHEE_INOOS1£IAL_EB	
E1L  228 THE  ISSII  TEBBINAL BiX. CC.
EEC	229-JEAS.1.-EBIE  COHHEBCX1L.-EB	
EV   231 THE  EVERETT  BB CO.
EI11L.-231L_EAST_TBMBESSBB
EJE  238  ELGID,  JOLIET 6 EASIEBN BiY. CO. (CHIC..6 C01BB BELT)
EL """"2^0" CdNSCLlOAlED" BAIL COBP.
ELS  2*1  ESCAHABA  &  LAKE SOPEBIOB BBjCO.	
EACH" 242~EAST CAttEEfr 6 HIGHLAKD "Bfl.""CO.
EJB  245  EAS1 JEBSEX BB AMD TEBHIBAL CO.	
EN   2U6  ESQUIMALl 6' NANAIMO BiY. CO.
EDI  2U7  EL  DCBADO 6 HESSOM Bit. CC. 	
FPE  260  FAiBfOBirPAlNSVILLE G'BASlTBli BIT. CO.
FEC  263'FLOBIDA EAST COAST BHI. CC.	
FJG  264 FONDA, JOHNSTOWN  & GLOVEBS7ILLB BB CO.
FP   265 FOBDYCE  5  PBINCE10N BB CC.
FDDH""266~tHICAGO~£"~NB" IBAilSP^ CO. (IT. DODGE,CBS HOIHES & SOOTH Bit.}
FND  268 FT.  iOBTH  6  DEHVEB BUI. CC.  	
FCIN272 FBAHKFOBT  £  CINCIHHAII BE CO.
FRDH 273 FJBDINAHD  BB CO.           	
FWO"
FCH_275 FEBBCCABBIL  MEXICAHO (MEXICAH)
FMS  276" FOB!' HYEES"sbOIHEBN" EB'CO.
FHB  277 PI.  BOBTH  BELT BUY. CO.  	
FSVB "279 "Fl. "SMITH  G  VAN BUBEB BHI. CC.
SEE	281_FEBBCCABBILES UNIPOS DEL SDBESTE, S«A. DB C.I.
FOB  282~IOBE BIVEB fiB'COBP.""
SBC  283 FEBBCCABBIL  SONOBA BAJA CALIF., S.A..DB C.T.
HDP"~285" HEXICAHM  PACIFIC BB CO.,IBC. (FBBBOCABBIL BEI.OEL PA GIF I CO)
NCH_286 FIBBCCABBILES  NACIQNALIS IE HEX (HAIL.BUYS.CF BEI.)(CABS BKD.HDEH)
GCW  287 THE  GAEDEN CITY HESTEBM BIY. .CO.
GC	289_GBAHAH  CIY.  BB CO.	
GH   290 GAINSVILLE'lfibLANb  Bfi CO.
NOT  291 FEBBCCABBIL  MACIOHAL PE TIHOANTEPEC.fTEHDAHIBtBC HAT*L.I	
HG¥sn292~FEBaCCABBIWS~SACiOHALIS EE BBZICO  (HAT* 1. BIYS OF HEXICO)
GHH  293 GALflSTOH, HOOSTOH  6 HEJDISOH BB CO. .	
GE1I 294 GEITYSBOBG BB CO.
GAHO_298 THE  CEOBGI1 MOBTHEBM BBI. CO.	
GA   29 5"GEOBGIA  Bfi~CCu
GSF  300 G EOB CIA  SOOTHEBH 6 FIX) El El BJI. CO.
GEE "302 GEOEGETOiN BB CO.
GBF  303 GALVZSIOH  WHABVES 	
GSN "305 GBEA1 SOUTHWEST B^B., UC.
GBN  306 GBIEH7ILLE & KOBTHEBH EHI. CO.
GNA307 GBAYSONIA,  NASHVILLE 6 1SBDOHI BB CQ.
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-6

-------
G1H  308 GBANE TRUNK  HESTEBN  BB_CO._
GKfi  311 THE  GBEAI HESTEBN  BHX.  CC.
GBH  312 GBEEN BIX £  HESTEBN  BE  CC.
GHBC 314 GBEEB MTN. Bfi  CO£P.
GMO__317_ILLINOIS CENTBAL  GOLf  BB CO.  (GOLF, HOBLE 6 CHIP HE CO.)
GilN 319 GCODNIN BB INC'."
GNWB 320 GENESEE fi HYCM1NG BB CO.	
GJ   321 GBEEKWICH & JOHNSONVILLE EMI. CO.
GBNB 322 THE  GBAND BIVEB_BHI.  CO.	
GO  "323 GBAF10N  6 OPTON  BB~CO.~
HCBC 326 HIILSDALE CTX. BUY.  CO.. IMC.
HE " "328 HCLLIS 6~EASTEBN BB  CO.
HBS  329 HOBOKEH  SHOBE  BB       	
HB   330 HAHP10N  &  BBANCHVILLE BB CO.
HSW  331 EELEKA S001HVESTEBH BB CC.
HN   332 THE  HUTCHINSON G  NOETHEBB BEX.  CO.
HBI  33tt HAETIEL1  BUY.  CO.    	
HUB  335 HOBOKEM  BANOFACTOBEBS
HS   336 HABTIOBD 6  SLOCOHB_BB CO.	
HLME 338 HILLSBOBC & NOBIH EASTEBH BIX. CO.
HI   339 H01TCH IM1EB-OBB1N BIX. CC.	
HBT  3U2 HOUS10M  BELT 6  TEBflINAI_BlX._C_0_lt
ICG  350 ILLINOIS CENTBAL  GOLf  BB  CO.
1C  _351 ILLINOIS CENTBAL  GULF_BB_
10   353 INDIANAPOLIS ONION
I1C  35U ILLINOIS TEBMINAL BB_CO,^
NCAH 356 ISCAB SOPERIOE  LID.
IBB  357 INDIANA  HABBOB _BELT  BB CO..
IB1  358" THE  INTEKATOHAL BBIDGE C  IEB81HAL CO.
INI _361. INTESTATE BB._CO.
DCI  362 DES  BOINES & CENIBAL IOSA BAILHAI CO.
IBN ..36.U CCNSCLIDA1EED  BAIL . COBP.._	
HPTD 366 HIGH POINT, THOBASVILLE S OEXTOH BB CO.
SIRB..367. SOOTHEBN.INDOSTBIAL.BB. IN.Co..
LAL  398 LIVONIA,  AVON  £ LAKEVIILE BB COBP.
KCS___UOQ._THE  KANSAS CITY SQDTHEB11 BE. COk
KC1  401 KANSAS CITY  TEBHINAL BHX.  CO.
KIT  402. KEENTOCKX  6  INDIANA_TEBaiHAl_J&jC.OjL~_
KENN 403 KONECOTT  COHPANY BB
LT _.404.THE  IAKE TEBUINA1 BB_CO,
KT   405 KEENTOCKX  &  TENNESSEE BHX.
LEE	406..THE_IAKE_.EBIE_.6_EASTEBN.J15._CO.«-
LDBT 407 THE  IAKE  FBONT DOCK 6 BB IEBHIN1L CO.
LASB 409 LACKAWAXEN  &.STOOEBBIDGE_JE_COEE.	
KC   410 THE  KANAHHA CENTBAL EWY. CO.
KC8i_411..ftELLEX2S_CBESK_6_.llQBIH|LgSjm[Rll BB CO..
KHC  412 KIN6COUE  NAVIGATION
LNE  AJ3 COSSCIID1TED_JIAII_COR£*	
KB   414 THE  KANSAS &  HISSOOBI BiX. 8 TEBBIHAL CO.
LtiV  419 CONSOLIDATED  HAIL COBP.
LBN  42L THE  IAKE  EBIE 6 NORTHERN FHY.*__CO,
LSBC 420 THE  IA  SALLE  £ BOBEAO CIS. BB CO.
L1C_422_.1AFFIBIX_T.BANSP.OBTATIO»
LEF  423 LAKE  EBIE,  FBANKLIN G CLABION BB CO.
LP.PH 424.IAKE  EBIE 6 FT. .UAXNE. BB...CO*..	
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-7

-------
LSI   425  LAKE SUPERIOR 6 1SHPEBING  BB  CO.
LC    426  LANC4Sl£EB..&_CHESTEB_.BBYi^«U_^_
LBS   127  LAURIHBUBG & SOUTHERN BB CO.
.LAJ_...'»28 .LOS. ANGELES. JOSCTION .RWLu_£fl*___
LBB   429  CONSOLIDATED BAIL CORP.
LOB _i»30. LDDIKGTON G. NOBTHEBN.BHJt*.	
LV    431  CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
LNO _43<4 ..LAONA ,6. NORTHEBN._BWI._.CO-	
LBPA  435  LITTLE BOCK POBT BB
LI	436_IHE .IONG ISLAND BB .CO..	
LAHV  437  THE IOBAIN & HLST VIRGINIA BiY.  CO.
LD1C .439.LAHNCALE-1BANSPOBTATON CO.
LA    441  LOUISIANA 6 ARKANSAS BUY, CO.
LNB ..... 442__THE.IOUISIANA_.G_.NOBTHHESa.BR_CO^
LPB   443  1H2 LOUISIANA 6 PINE BIO If BHI.  CO.
LN..__.44.4_LOUISYILLE..G...NASHVILLE_BJL_COJ,
LSO   445  LOUISIANA SOUTHERN BUY. CC.
LNAC  446 LCQISVILLE,. iJEW._ALBAHX .£_CCRIEQN_BB_C£
LBB   447 THE LOHVILLE & BEAVER RIV£B BB  CO.
LCAM  448 .LOUISIANA MIDLAND .RWY*.CO^ _
 NC    449  LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE Bfi CO.  (MASHYLB, CBATANOOGA 6 ST..LOOIS)
 1PB	4SQ  T.nKflVTKBf PORTT.AMn F. MQHTHERH  RHT-  gr.	
LV    451  LOUISVILLE 6 NADLEX BIX. CO.
HDRY .455  J1ADISON- BHI»,QO. ,_
 BEC   456  MAINE CENTBAL BB CO..
 BUHL  US7  RnBT. THQTON VPRT««P«  (HIHT-TOBA)  t-TMTfTBH
 MJ    459 (JANUEACTUBEBS* JUNCTION  BIT.  CO.
 BBS   ft60~MANU!AC10fiEHS~£Tirr~CC;	
 MCEB 461_HASSACHUSEETTS CENTBAL	
 MPA ~"«63 BABYIAND '6 "PENNSYlVANil  Bfi .CO.	
 MER	464 HUNCIE & WESTEBN BB CO,	
 HD    465 aUNICIPAL DOCKS
 NCR   466 (1C CIOUD BIVEB BB CO.
 me   •a67"Bxsixc "TEBaiiiAr co.	
 BBI_468 MARIANNA & BLOUHlSTOiN BB CO.	
 BAYW 469 flAYHCOD"e SUGAB CBEEK	
 CHP   470 FEEBEOCABBIL^ CBIHOAHUA AI PACIFICO,  S.A.
 BSTB~47r~lHI" BASSENA TififllfiAL~Bl~T?^	
 BC    472_CCNSCLIDATEJD BAIL COBP.          	
 PUBA""U73' TZflBCCABBIL UE~ BINATITAfl~lirCABflB»	
 BINE_U74 HINNEAPOLIS EASTERN BNY. CO.	
 HNJ   Ti7r~MIDDlETOHN 6~NEy~JEBSEY~BlY.  CO.r MC.—
 BIDH 479 MIDDLEIOHN G_HUB«ELSIOHN BE CO.	
 BNS   480 flINNEAPOLiSV NOfiTBflELD  r~SO'UTHBBH fill.
 SOO   482 SCO IINE BB CO. 	     	
 MTFR 48a"iHE MINNESOTA"TBANSFEB an. co.
 BSLC_486_HINNISOTA SHOBT_1INES CO.	
 LBT   488 LOUI£IANA"a±DLAND" TBAMSECBX	
 BKT_490 BISSCUBI-KANSAS-TEXAS BB CO.	
 HP    U94 BISSCUBl'pACifIC BB" C0."~~
 BGA   497 THE EOHONGAHELA BBY^ CO,	
 MCBB 498" THE KONONGAHELA'CONNECTI'BG BB CO.    '
 BIGN SOL BICHIGAN NOBTHEBM BBI. CO,, IMC.	
 BIB  "50Cr"BCNTCUB  BB'CO.  "            	
 BISS_502 BISSISSIPPIAN	
 BSV"  503" BISSISSIPPI "C SKOHTTALLEI Bfi CO.
 BSE   506 BISSISSIPPI E1POBT Bfi CO,
1.  Uniform Aloha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-8

-------
 (fUV  507 HOSHASSOCK VALLEY BE  CO.
 FBL	508_FEDBBAL EABGE LIMES	
 BB   509 BONTrELIEB~£~BABB£ BE CO.
 BOH _510 HIHNESOTA, DAKOTA 6 BESTEBB  BHY.  CO.
 ME"  511~BCBBISTOiN £~ EBIE SB  CO.
 1*1  513 IOHA TEH1NAL Bfi CO. _  	
 HI   515 HISSCUBI-ILLINOIS BB'  CO.
 B1W _520_HARIKETIE, TOBAHAHK fiJIESIEBH  BB	
 BIR  522 aiNNEAPOLIS IBDOSTBIAL  BHY.  CO.
 HE1I 523 HONICIPALITY OF EAST  TBOY, HISCOHS3J
 NAP  525 THE SABHAGAHSETT"PIEB  BB  CO.,  19C.
 NN   530 NEVACA HCRTHEBN BUY. CO.     •
 NJII 533 H.0.7 INDIANJTfi ILLINOIS  BB  CO.
 HLC  534 NEH CRLEANS & LOWEB  COAST BB CO.
 HOPB 536 NEW CBLEANS POBLIC  BELT  fifi
 MEZP 537 NEZPIRCE BB CO.  	   	
 NIAJ 538 CONSOLIDATED'BAIL COBP.
 HYLB 539 CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBP.	
 HYD  5«2 HEi 10BK DOCK BUY".
 HYSi 5U6 H.Y.,SOSQPEHANNA_6  BEST.  BB  CO.  (BALTEB G. SCOTT,TROSTEE)
 NCSA 5U8 MOSCCH, CAHOEM & SAN~AOGO£IINE BE
 NPB  5«»9 HOBFCLK 6 POBTSHOUTH  BEII LINE BB CO.	
 HV   550 NOBFCLK 6 WEST£BN BUY. CC.  (H £ U DI£T.>
 HS   551 BCBFCLK SOOTHEBa BHY.  CO,	
 MH  " 552 BCUN1 HOOD BHY. CO.
 RIG  553 NOBTH LOOISIANA £ GOLF BB_CO.	
 NB  "554 NCETHAMPION AND"flATH  Bfi  CC.
 NHP  559 NOKT8RES1ERN PACIFIC  BB  CC.
 NJ   562 MAPIIBVILLB JOilCTION  BHY.  CO.
 HAfi  _563_HqBTHEfiN ALBEBTA_BAILIAYS  CO.	
 HBST 567 TBE VEB EEADSFELS S 'SERflJI  B~B CO.
 NSBC 570 NOB1H STBATFOBD fifi CCBP.
 HSS  577 THE BEHBQBGH & SOOTH  SHOEE BBY-  CO.
 SOB  578 SON CIL CO. OF PENNA.
 AD   580 NORFCLK, FRANKLIN 6 DAHTIILB BAILWAT CO.
 NUB  581 CONSCLIDATED BAIL COBP.
 MFD  582 HOBFCLK, FBAMKLIH £ DAB?I11E BBI.  CO-
 BKC  583 ttCKEESfOET CONNECTING BB CO.
 HHCO 584 HARQOETTE 6 HURON HIS. BB  CO. . INC.
 HHIB 585 HEW EOPE 6 I7YLAND BB CO.
 OTB  586 TE OAKLAND TEBHIHAL BBY.	
 OCIB 587 OCTOEAfiO BNY. INC.
 HOKL 591 NORTEHESIEBN OKLAHOHA RB_CO*.	
 ONBY 592 OGCENSBUEG BRIDGE & POET AOTHOBITY
 PFE_595 .PACIFIC FRUIT EXPRESS C0._
 ONH  596 OBEGCS £ NOBTHUESTEEN BB  CO.
 OPE  597 OBEGCH, PACIFIC £  EASTEB«
 OIB  598 OHAHA, LINCOLN £ BEATBLCI BBY.  CO.
 OE	600..0REGCN. ELECTBIC_BMY._C.O«	
 01   601 OREGCN 1EONK BAILiAY
 OCE	603. OBEGCN, .CALIF.^L_£_EASJJB8B_11I«_^Q,	
 OB   604 OHASCO BIVEB
 PBT  606 PABR IERJJINAL BB	
 PAH  607 PITTSBURGH^ ALLEGHENY fi HCKEES  BOCKS BB CO,
 PBB...609. PATAESCO £ BACK BI7EES BB_CO«
 PB   610 THE CHESAPEAKE fi OHIO  BJY.  CO.  (PEBE BABQOETIE DIST.)
 .PI	614 PACOCAH fi ILLINOIS BB

3..  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                 D-9

-------
 FAB   615 CONSOLIDATED BAIL CORP.
 P07   616 PIITSEUBGB &._OHIO_VALLEX._W..._.C.Q.a._
 PIB   619 PORTLAND TEBBINAL CO.  (BE.)
 PC    622 CONSOLIDATED BAIL.COBP.	
 BOG   623 CONSOLIDATED BAIL COBP.
 PICK 624_THE._IICKENS. KB. .CO..
 PLE  626 THE EIITSBORGH & LIKE  EBII  BB CO.
 PS  _627 THE EIITSBURGH.O.SHAWHOI.BB .CO,
 PCY  629 PITTSBUBGH, CHARTIEBS  6 YCOGHIOGHEHX  Bil. .CO.
 PF._ 630. THE fIOBEEB.§.FAyETTE.BAIlBC.AB_CO«
 PW    631 PBOVIDENCE & HOECESTEH CO.
 PBTH fil? pnn-TTiMn TR>CTTnn en.  (PCETHHD  BR A  TEBMTBit
 PMH  634 THE EEESCOTT £ NOB1HHESTHBN SB CO.
 PB7 ._636..PEABI.BIVEB _VALLEY. BB..CO.
 PSB  639 PETALUHA & SANTA fOSA BB  CO.
 PHS._.640 PHILADELPHIA, 6_ NOBfCLK. Slf AHSHIJL
 PVS   644 THE fECOS VALLEY SOOTHEBH Bil. CO.
 PPO	645.PIORIA.S_PEKI»_«»IQH_BRIJu-Cfl*	
 PIC   646 PIORIA TEBHINAL CO.
 PHD   647 POST HUBCN. AD.-DEI£OII._BB_CCu	
 PJB   64S POBT JEfiSEY
 BFCP 650 BBEHZB10H PBBIGHl.CAfl.FEBBI	,	
 PCS   651  PCIM1 C09FOBT & SOfTHEBM  ill. CO.
 QAP._655_QDAHiH^ACtt£.6-PA£XJlC  fill. CO.	
 QBB   656  QDINCI BB CO.
 QC    658  QUEBEC CENTBAL BAILHAI  CO. .  .   .  	
 PBME 659  PHIL*., BETHLEHEH 6 HEH EBGLAHD BB  CC.
      662 BCCHISlEB.SOBWATt	,-
      663 BICHBOND, FEEDEBICKSEOEG  £  PCTOHAC HE CO.
     -664-BAHHAr-yALLE3L-B..a^-BAHHAJL-VALT.r.T  CO. , T.BSST.B
      665 THE BIVE5 TEBHINAL B1IL1AI  CO.
      -666. IBB.. BAlLiAX .TBAMSf ££. CO.-JI-JE-CITT OP
      669 THE EOBEBVAL AHD SAGOENAI Bit.  CO.
 BR	f,11 BlBTTiM ETVEP BAIL BO1.C CC.	
 BSP  673 BOSCCE, SNYDEB 6 PACIFIC  fil. CO.
 RSS"'675 BOCKtALE, SAtlDtfiTe "S'SdTfflTii EB  CO.
 BCB  676 BOCK1CH & BOM BIX.
 PBVtf"677"THE EOBt "BIESViL'LfiTB
 SfiM  678 SAEIHE BIVEB 6 NOBTHEBN BE  CO.
 SSDK 679 SA?AHNAH STATE"DOCKSTBiTCC.
 SJB  680 SI. JOSEPH BE1L BHT.JCO.
 SC   681 SOHTEB'6 CHOCTAW~BliX. CO.
 SB _682 SI.MABY'S BB CO.  	
 SJT'  683 "Sli" JOSEPH" TEBHiNAl BB CO.
 SJBT 685 SI. JOHNS BITEfi TEBfllHAL
 S B C ~ 6 8 6~ S1BA S B 0 B G BB" CO.7"
 SCH  687 SIBOODS CREEK 6 HODDLETY  EB
 SLGI 690 SALI LAKI, "GAIIELD" 6 BESTIBS  BIX.  CO.
 SAM  691 SANOEBSVILLE BB CO.
 SLSP'693~S3.~ ttiOiS-SAS'FBASClseo  BBX.  CO.
 SSI  694 SI. 10UIS SODTHHESTEBH BIX. CO.
 SLC ~696' THE"SAM"LOIS CEMTBAL'BB  cc.
 58   697 SACRAHENIO NOBTHEfiK BHX.
 SDAE 702" SAH EIEGO" 6" ABIZOHA  EASIEEB  BIX.  CO.
 SSH  704 SOOTB SBOBE
 SLA8~70S SI. LAVBENCE* BB, DIT. Of  KAT'L.  BHX.  OTILIZAIOI COBP.
 S^LtT 706 SOOTBEBH SAH LOIS 7ALLEY  BB  CO.	;	
 SS  ~707 SANO SffilNGS BHY. COi
 TSO  709 TOLSA-SAEOLPA UNION  BiY.  CO.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                 D-10

-------
 12             3
DVB  711 CAPE EEEION DBV. COBP.  (CCAL  01V.>  DBVfO BHY.
SCL  712 SEABCABD COAST LINE  BE  CC,	
S1L~714~ SEATEA1K LIKEST'IBC,
SEBA 716 SIEBBA BAILBOAD  CO.  	
SBK ~718 SOOTB JBEOOKLTII BHY.  CO.
SZRD 720 SOUTBEEN INDIANA  BIT.,  IRC.
SP  ~72inSCUTBEBH~PACIPiC~ TBABSPOBIATIOII CO.
SOD  724 SOUTBEEN BHY.  SYSTEB
SI   727" SEOKAKE'lNTEBNAliOBAL BB CO.
STBT 729 TBE  STEHAETSTOHH  BE CO,	
SON  734 SONSET  &AILHAY  CO.
SCI  735 SIOOI CITY TEBfllIllL_BiI.	
SOPB 736 SCU1B PIERCE  BB	""
FCP  738 FEBRCCA&BIL DEL PACIFICO,  S-A.  DB C. V. (PAC 1C DEL P)
STE  739 SIOCR10N TEEIiINAl"&~£AST*E£¥* BB
SB?  741 SANTA HABIA yALLEI_BB_CO.	
TEXC 750 TEXAS CENTBALBB CO.
OKI  754 ORTAF10 HOBTHLAND BHY.	
TAG "755 TZNNISSEE,'ALABAHA" 6  G'A.  BHY. co.
TRPA 757 TIBMIKAL HE ASSOC.  Of ST.  LOUIS	
TASD 758 TERdlNAL  BUY.«  AIABABA 51A1E DOCKS
TfiBL 759 IACOBA  HONICIPAL  BELT IIHE BBI.
TP   760 HISSCDBI  PACIFIC  BB'' CO"."
TCI  761 IEXA£ CITY TERU1NAL  BHY.  CO.
Tfl   762 THE  1E1AS  HEXICAK BWY.  CC.
TPMP 763 TEXAS  PACI^IC-llISSODBI  PACIFIC TEBtHHAl BB 01 H. .OBLBAS
TOE "764"TEXAS, OKLAHOMA  & EASTEBK BB co.
TSE  765 TEXAS  SCOIH-EASTEBM BB_CC.	
IENN 767 TENNESSEE  BAILHAZ CO.
TPH  769 TC1EEO,  PEOBIA 6 HESTEBH IB CO.	
TT   771  THE  ICLEDO TEBHIHAL BB CC.
THE  770_THE  1CBOHIO,  BABILTCH 6 EDFFiLO BBY. CO.
ZPI  778  CCKS1IDATED  BAIL COBf.
TBC  779  TBOH1  Bit. CO.   	
TOV  7B2 TOOEIE  VALLEY  BHY.  CO.
TC6  783 TOSCCH^COBHELIA  fi_GILA EIID Bfl CO.
IS   784 TIDEIATEB SOOIHEB'H  PHY. CC","
TAB  785 IBE  1C1EDO,  ANGOLA  &  HESIEBB BHY.  CO.
THJJ	788.IIIAS'BEi.MEXICO  BHY._CQ«	
SB   791 SCUTE BUfFALO  BAILHAY  CO.
SOT .792 SOOIB OMAHA TEBBIHAL BH.Y*._C,Q,_
SJL  793 ST. JOUNSBDBY  6  LAHOILLE CIX.  BB.
SHA  _794 SAD BANUEL ABIZOMA  BB  CO,	
TN   795 TEXAS £  MOBTbEEN BHX.  CC.
TYC  796 TILBBDALE CONNECfIH5	
BRBK 797 HABHICK  BHX. CO.
TB   798 TKIN EBABCH BB CO.
SU   799 STEELTOH 6 HIGHSPIBE  BB  CC.
DP  . 802 0»IOH SAC. BB CO. fQREGOH SHOBT LIBE:CB2--BASE BB & 1AVIGAT.I
OBB  803 ONIOR £B CO.  (PII1SBOB6H« Si.)
OBY_804 OtHON BY. pP .
ONI  805 UNITY BHYS. CO.
OT ..._.807. ONIOB TERMINAL BHY. . tQT  ST.  JOSEPH,.  MO.)
OBP  808 OCPEE 0EBION 6 PLXBOOXB  BB CO.
OTB  809 ONIQfl TBANSPQBTATJLOJL
OTAU 811 DIAH BHY. CO.
VALE 61U THE VALLEY BB CO.
 1.  Uniform Alpha Code

 2.  ACI Code

 3.  Railroad Coit5>any Name
                                D-ll

-------
 VAHD 815 VIRGINIA  &  HARYLAND 8B
 VSO  816 VALDCSTA  SOUTHEBN_Bfi	
 Vlfi  817 VERMONT BHY.  IMC.
 VBB  819 VIRGINIA  BLOB BIDGE BUY.
 VC   320 VIRGINIA  CENTBAL BHY.
 VCT  821 VENTCRA.CTY.  BHY...CO.	
 VNOB 822 VEEMCN1 HOBTHEEN BB CO.
 VB _82U VISALIA .ELECTBIC_BB_CO.	
 WUV  826 WALLA  NALLA  VALLEY Bil.  CO.
 WAR .._827 HARBEN10K  BB CO.	
 WS   828 HABE  SHOALS  BB  C.
 HO?	829 NARREN.&  QUACHITA  VALLEY BiT. CO.
 HIS  830 HIANEOTTE S001HEEBN BB C.
 HIfl__831 HASUINGTCH, .IDAHQJ&. HONTAHA BHT. CO.
 HSB  832 WABREN &  SALINE BIVEB BB CO.
 911  833 HYANCCITE TEBHINAL. BB...C.Q*	
 WAL  834 iZSTEBN ALLEGHENY  BB CO.
 HLO... 835 HATEfLOO_RB.CO.	
 HtJHN 837 THE  HEATHEBFOBD,  HINEAI iELLS & NOBIBHBSTEII BII. CO.
 HBBC 838 HESTEBN  BAIL  BOAD CO..	
 HH   839 HES1EBN  MABYLAND BWI.  CO.
 HP_  840 THE  SESTEBN.PACIFIC_BB. CO.	
 HA   841 THE  WESTEBN  BHX.  Ot ALABAMA
 HHH .,842 COHSCLIDAIBO BAIL_CQBE.	
 HCUB 844 HCTU BHY. CO.
 HPY  845 IHITE PASS 6 YUKON  BOOIB	
 HSYP 846 NUI1E SUIfUOB SPRINGS  & YILLCHSTOBB BHT. CO.
 HMSC 847 WHITE HOONTAIN SCEMIC.BH	
 HAG  848 HELLSVILIE, ADDISON  S GAIETOH BB COBt.
 HA1C .849 -JHE. SASHIMGIOU. lEitHTMAT, CC.	
 Hi   85C HINCHESTEfi & HESXEEN  BB CC.
 HHP. 851-THE.IIH£lElD_.BB_.Ca.	
 HNfB 852 HINFBEDE BB CO.
 HSS  854 BmsiOMTSAlBB-SOOTflflflaHa. EHT. CCU.
 W10U 865 RESTEBN OHIO  BB CO.
 BVli_ 866_iEST_VIBGlMIA_NOBTHl!flH-JLB_C*	
 HBTS 867 HACO, BEAUMONT,  1BNI1Y £ SABIHB BBI CO.
 iLFB 869 ICLPLBOEO fifi CO.,
 Y11  872 YAKIBA VALLEY TBAHSPOBTAIIOH CO.
 II	87J -IBEKJL-iE51EBH_BB._jCO«	
 IS   875 YCUHGSTOiH 6  SOOTHEBH EHY« CO,
 YA8~876'YAHC!Y BB C. ----
 IH   877 THE  IOOHGSTOWH 6  NOEIHEBI BB CO.
 B1CO" 950 BCSICS TIBJ!INAL""Co;
 COST 951 CHICAGO ONION STATION CO. _
 FSOD 952" t OBI SIBEEi ONION DEfOl  CC.
 J1CO 953 JACKSONVILLE  TEBHINAI CO.
 LAP! 95«~IOS~INGELES~UNlOM~eA'S~S"^51fi  TEBMIMAL
 H1CO 955 H1COB lEBfllNAL CO. _
 OOBD 956 'THE  CGDEH UNIOH BMZ.  & DIECT CO.
 SPOO 957 SI.  EAOL ONION DEPOT  CO.
 TOST "958 "TE*ABKANA ONION sTATl
 DOTC 959 DA11AS OHION  TEBHINAl
 NOT  "960 BEN  CBLEANS TBBHINAL
 HCSC 961 BEHPHIS ORION STATION CO,
 M BBC~
 NPT_96a POBTIAND TSBHINAL BB CC,  
-------
 AA   010 ANN ARBOR
 ABB  002 TI-E AKRON £ BARBERTCN BELT PAILRCAD CCMPANY       _
 ABCK 017 ALASKA BRITISH CCLUMEIA TPANSPORTATICN CCKPANY	
 ABL  014 ALAMECA EELT LINE	
 AC   008 ALGOA CENTRAL RAILWAY
 ACBL 007 AMERICAN COMMERCIAL EAFGE LINESt INC.   	      	 _
 ACY  003 THE AKRON, CANTON £ YCUNGSTCfcN RR CO.
 AD   580 NCRFCLKi FRANKLIN £ DANVILLE RAILWAY CO.	
 ACN  021 ASHLEY. CREW £ NCRTHEEERN RAILWAY CO. "
 AEC  031 ATL. G EAST COAST RAILWAY CC.            _     	  _
 ACS  029 THE ALABAMA GREAT SCLTHEPN RAILRCAD CO.
 AHT  039 ALASKA HYDRO-TRAIN                      _
 AHh  033 THE AHNAPEE £ WEST. RWY. CC. CIV. OF MCCLCLC RIV.  RRCO.
 AL   046 ALMANCR FAILRCAD CO.                     	 	
 ALM '016 ARKANSAS £ LOUISIANA MISSOURI RWY. CC.
 ALQS 018 ALIOLIPPA & SOUTHERN RAILPCAC CC.   	 	
 ALS  032 THE ALTCN fi SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
 AMC  019 AMAOCP CENTRAL RAILRCAO CC.          	     	 	
 AMR  020 THE ARCATA AND MAO RIVER FAIL RCAD CC.
 AN   012 APALACHICLA NCRTHEPN RR CC.     	
 ANR  035 ANGELINA £ NECHES RIVEP PP CC.  *
 APA  Oil THE APAChE RAILWAY CCHPANY      _     	
 APD  043 ALBANY PCRT DISTRICT
 AR   009 ABERCEEN fi ROCKFISH RAILPCAC CO.          _      	  _
 ARA  013 ARCADE ANC ATTICA RALPCAC CCPP.
 ARC  049 ALEXANDEER RALROAC CCMPANY    __  _  	
 ARR  005 THE ALASKA RAILRCAD
 ART  051 AMERICAN REFRIGERATCR TRANSIT CO.                _
 ARU  036 TI-E ARKANSAS WESTERN RAILWAY CC.            	
 AS   001 ABILENE € SOUTHERN RALbAY CC.
 ASAB 042 ATLANTA G SAM ANDREWS EAY P/ILWAY CC.
 ASOA     ASBESTOS £ DANVILLE                   _  	
 ASML     THE /TLANTA STONE MTN. £ LITKNIA RWY. CO.
 ATCO 04B U.S. ENEFGY RESEARCH C DEV. ADHIMSTFATCK	
 ATSF 022 THE ATCHISON, TOPEK/ G SANTA FE PkY. CO.
 ATfc  025 ATLANTIC £ WESTERN RAILWAY CC.
 AUG  044 AUGUSTA RAILROAD CO.
 AUS_     AUGUSTA E SUMMERVILLE PAILPC/C CC. 	
 AVL  038 ARCCSTCOK VALLEEY RALRCAC CC.
 AkP  023 ATLANTA G WEST POINT PAILFCAC CC.      	
 AMH  004 ALGESt MINSLOW £ WESTERN PAILUAY CO.
 AYSS     ALLECHENY £ SOUTH SICE      '              __  _  	
 BAP  078 BLTTE, ANACONDA £ PACIFIC RAILWAY CO".
 BAR  Q56 BflNGCR AND AROLSTCOK PAILFOAD CC.     	
 BCE      BRITISH COLUMBIA HYCRC £ FOVER ATHORITY
 BCK  059 CCNSCLIDA1ED RAIL CCRPCRA10N  _       _  __   	
 BCCL 991 BRITISH COLA. RWY. CC.      "       	"""
 BCRR     BCYNE CITY RAILROAD CO.          _       _  	
 BE   052 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CCRP.
 BEOT 091 BROOKLYN EASTERN DISTRICT TERMINAL  	
 BEEM 060 BEECH HCLNTAIN RAILRCAC CC."
 BFC  054 BELLEFCNTE CENTRAL PR CC.         _	
 BFCF 650 BREMERTON FREIGHT CAP F6FFY'"	""  '
 BH   079 BATH £ HAMMONDSPOPT PR CC.
 ?!•£  X? ThE EALT1MORE £ ANNAPCLIS PR CO.
 BLE  .061 BESSEMER fi LAKE ERIE PR CC.
 BLKM 063 BLACK MESA £ LAKE POhELL   	
 BM   069 BCSTCN £ MAINE CCRP.
1.  Uniform Aloha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-13

-------
 BME  073 BEAVER. HEADE fi ENGLEV.CCC
 6MH      BEAUFORT £ MOOREHEAC RR CC.
 BHL  087 BELFAST £ MOOSEHEAO LAKE PR CC.
 BMS _ 073 BEERLIN MLLS       _          _	
 BN    076 BIRL1NGTCN NORTHERN CO.
 BNML  457 BURLINGTCN NORTHERN (HANITCEA)  LIMITED.	
 BO    050 THEE  BALTIMORE  fi  OHIC RR CC.
 BCCT  064 THE  EALTIMORE £ OHIC CHICAGC  TERM. RP  CC.
 BRC  083 THE  EELT RAILWAY  CO. CF CMCAGO
 BRFO  088 BPANFORO STEAM  RAILRCAO  _       	
 BRR  207 BELTCN  RR CO.
 BRh  066 BLACK RIVER £ WESTERN CORF.
 BS    065 BIRW1NGTCN SOUTHERN RR CC.
 BTCO  950 ECSTCN  TERMINAL CO.            _ _    	
 BVS  055 BEVIER  fi SOUTHERN RR CG.
 BXN  084 BAl'XITE C NORTHERN RAILWAY  CC._    	
 CACV  114 CCOPERSTCWN C CHARLOTTE VALLEY  RR~COFP.
 CAC  092 CADIZ RR CO.                  	  	
 CAGY  177 CCLUPBUS £ GREENVILLE RWY.  CC.t  INC*
 CARR  113 THE CARRCLLTOM  RP.                _      _
 CBC  104 CARBCN  CCUNTY RWY.  CC.
 CBL .215 CCNEfAUGh £ BLACK LICK  RP CC.   	
 CCC      CLINCHF1ELO RR  CO.
 CCR  201 Tt-E CORINTH £ COUNCE RR CC.
 CCT  112 CENTRAL CALIFCRNIA  TPACTKN CC.
 CEI  129 HISSCURI  PACIFIC  RR  CO.      _        	
 CF    099 CAPE  FEAR RAILWAYSt  INC.
 CGA_     CENTRAL CF GEORGIA  RAILRCAC CC.   _  	
 CGT  115 THE CANACA £  GULF TERMINAL  RAILWAY CC.
 CHH _142 Ct-ESfcICK  £ HARMAR                	   	
 CHP  470 FEERPCCARRIL  CHIHUAHUA  AL FACIFICOt S.A.
 f.HR  H7 CHESTNUT  RIDGE  RAILWAY  CC.
 ChTT  139  CHICAGO  HEIGHTS TERMINAL TRANSFER RR CO.
 CHV  124  CI-ATTAHOCCHEE VALLEY  RfcY. CC.
 CHk   179  CHESAPEAKE WESTERN RAILWAY
 CI   101  CAMBPIA  £  INDIANA RR  CO.             _ 	
 CIC   111  CEOAP RAPIOS  fi  IOWA  CITY PAILWAY  CO.
 CIL   137  LCUISVILLE  £  NASHVILLE  RR CC. (CHIC. INDIAN fiLCUIS.I
 CIM  130  CHICACO  fi  ILLINOIS MIOIANC PWY. CO.
 CINO  116  CCNSCLIOJTEO  RAIL CORP.	
 CIRC  185  CENTFAL  IOWA  TRANSP.  COOP. CBA CENT.  IQkA PWY. CO.
 CIRR 222  ChATTAHOCCHEE INDUSTRIAL PR     	
 CIW   150  CHICAGO  £  ILLINOIS WESTEM RR
 CKSO  107  CCNOCN,  KINZUA £  SCUTHER* PR CC.     _ 	   	
 CLC   163  CCLA. £ COWITZ RWY.  CO.
 CLCO  188  CLAREMOKT  £ CCNCORO RWY._CC._f. INC.	
 CLIF 181  CLIFFSIDE RR  CO.
 CLK  093  CAOIUAC  £ LAKE CITY RWY. CC.	
 CLP   169  THEE CLARENDON £  PITTSFCPC PR CO.
 CMER 180  CIRTIS.  MLBURN £ EASTERh PP CO.	
 CN   103  CANACIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
CNJ   119  CCNSCHOATEO RAIL CCRP.	
CNL  159  CCLUfBIAt NEWBERRY C LAUPENS'RR CC.
CNOR  167  CINCINNATI NORTHERN	
CNTP 153  Tt-E CINCINNATI,  NEW CRLEANS £ TEXAS FACIFZC PkY. CO.
CNfc  131  CHICAGO fi NORTH WESTERN TPAKSP._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
                               D-14

-------
CCLI 164 CCLONELS ISLAND
CCP _166 CITY OF PRINEVILLE RWY.	
CP   105 CP RAIL (CANADIAN PACIFIC LTC.)
CPA	CLCUCERSFCRT 6 PCRT ALLECHANY	
CPLJ     CAHP LEJEUNE RAILROAC CO.
CPLT 141 CAMINOf PLACERVILLE C LAKE TAHOE RJl CO.       	
CPTC 149 CHICAGC PRODUCE TERflNAL CC.
CR   190 CCNSCLICATED RAIL CORP.   _     _  	  	
CRE  189 CCNSCLIDATEO RAIL CORP. (EASTERN DISTRICT)
CRI _143 CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.    _    	
CRN  106 CAROLINA C NORTHWESTERN PWY. CC.
CRP      CENTRAL PR OF PENNSYLVANIA     	
CS   157 THE COLORADO £ SOUTHERN FVY. CO.
CSL  147 CHICAGC SHORT LINE RWY.. C_C_.	
CSP      CAPAS PRAIRIE RR CO.
CSS  168 CUCAGO SCUTH SHORE C $CLTH_BENp RR	
CSSL 090 CANACA STEAMSHIP LINES
C1N  097 CANTCN RAILROAD CO.             _  _    	
CLRB 184 CLRTIS 8AY RR CO.
CUST 951 CHICAGO UNION STATICN CO.         	  	
CUVA 186 THE UYAHOGA VALLEEY RWY. CC.
CV   120 CENTRAL VEERMCNT RWY. CC.	_	
CW ~ 158 THE COLORADO £ WYCMING RfcY.'CC.
CWC  095 SEA6CARC COAST LINE RR (CHARLESTCN C UEST._C/RQLINA)
Ckl  132 CHICAGO 6 WESTEN 1NCIANA RR CC.
CVP_ 172 CHICAGO, WEST PULLMAN £ SCLT.HERN _RR CO.	
CUR  100 CALIFORNIA WESTERN RR
CZ       CCAHLLIA £ ZACATECAS RW.          _               _
OA   209 CP RAIL (CANADIAN PAC. LTC.HCOH. AfL. RWY. CO.)
DC   1S6 OELRAY CONNECTING RAILRCAC CCfPANY            _
DCI  362 DES tCINES & CENTRAL ICWA RAILWAY CO.
OH  _195 DELAtARE £ HUDSON RAILWAY CC.	
DKS  210 OCNIFHAN, KENSETT & SEARCY RkY. ~
OLC      DRUMf-CNO LIGHTERAGE	
OK   204 DETRCIT C HACKINAC RWY. CC.
OMIR 213 DtLUTH, HISSA6E £ IFCN RANGE RWY. CO.
OHM  220 THE CANSVILLE AND MCCNT PCRR1S RR CO.
OHL_.202. DES *CINES UNION RWY. CC.     	            	
ONE  212 OILUTH fi NORTHEASTERN RR CO.
OCE  200 CE (KEEN £ EASTERN RP CC.            _      	
OR   191 DARDANELLE £ RUSSfLLVILLE RR CO.
DRGW 197 THE CENVER £ RIO 6RANCE kESTEN RR CO.
ORI  192 CAVEENPGRT. ROCK ISLAND € NCFTWESTEEN RWY. CC.
OS   217 DLRHAH C SOUTHERN RWY. CC.      _   	  	
DT   219 DETRCIT TERMINAL RR CO.
DTI  208 DETRCIT, TCLEOO € IRCNTCN PP CO.
OTS  205 THE CETRCIT AND TCLECC SHCRE LINE RR CO.
DITC 959 DALLAS UNION TERMINAL
DVR  711 CAPE BRETON DEV. CORP. (CCAL OIV.J"OEVCC
DVS  193 DELTA VALLEY £ SCUTHERN FfcY. CO.
DW       DETRCIT £ WESTERN     	
OWML     DUE WEST MOTOR LINE                  _
DWP  216 DLLU1H. WINNIPEG £ PACIFIC PWY."
EACH 242 EAST CAMCEN £ HIGHLAND RP. CC.
ECW  247 EL OCRAOC £ WESSON RWY. CC.   ""       '"
EEC  229 EAST ERIE COMMERCIAL RR

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name


                               D-15

-------
 EJE  238 ELGINt JCLIET C EASTERN PVY. CO.  (CHIC,  fi  CUTER  BELT)
 EJR  245 EAST JERSEY RR AND TERMINAL CC. __  	
 EL   240 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP.            ~   "      ---.-,
 ELS  241 ESCANABA £ LAKE SUPERIOR PR CC.       _         _
 EM       ECGEFOOR fi MANETTA RUY.
 EN   246 ESCUIMALT £ NANAIMO RWY. CC. _  	
 ETL  228 TKE ESSEX TERMINAL RWY. CC.
 ETWN 234 EAST TENNESSEE £ WESTERN N.C. RR  CO. 	
 EV   231 ThE EVERETT RR CO.
 FBL  508 FEOEPAL EARGE LINES	   _
 FCDN     FERRCCARRIL OE NACOZARI, SCT.        "	
 FCIN 272 FRANKFORT £ CINCINNATI  RP CC.	
 FCM  275 FERPCCARRIL MEXICANC  (MEMCAN)        "~  "   "
 FCP  738 FERRCCARRIL DEL  PACIFICOt S.A. OE C.V. (PAC _FC_DEL P)
 FCOM 266 CHIC.  6  NU  TRANSP.  CC.  
-------
 HBT  342 HCLSTON tfcLT £ TERMINAL PfcY. C0._ ____
 HCRC 326 HILL50ALE CTY. RWY. CO., INC.
 HDH _.    HLCSCN £ MANHATTAN         _ _
 HE   328 HCLLIS £ EASTERN RR CO. " ""
 HI  _339 HCLTCN INTER-URBAN RHY. CC.
 HLNE 338 HILLSBCRC £ NORTH EASTERN RWY. CO.
 HMR __335 HCBOKEN MANUFACTURERS             _
 HN   332 ThE HJTCHINSON £ NORTHERN RhY. CO. ~
 HPTD_366_.HICh PCINTf THOHASVULE « _CENTO.N RR CC.
 HRDL     HLOSCN RIVER DAY LINE     "    "
 HR_I_334 H«TkELL RHY. CO.
 HS   336 HARTFORD £ SLOCOMB RIP CO.
      131 HHENA SCUTHWESTERN PR CC.
 HI       HGWAFO TERMINAL
 HLBA     HUOSCN BAY
 IAT   513 ICWA  TEMINAL  RR CO.
 IBT_358 THE  INTENATONAL BRIDGE £  IERHNAL  CO. ____
 1C    351 ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF  fiftCC.  (ILLINOIS  CENTRAL)
 ICG_35Q ILLINCIS CENTRAL GULF  PR  CC ._ ___
 IGN       INTEFNATIONAL-GREAT  KCRTKERN"
 IHB   357 INDIANA fARBOR  BELT  RR CC.   _  _
 INT "361 INTESTATE  RR  CO.
 IRN _364_CCNSCLIDATEED RAIL  CORP.     _______
 1SU       ICWA  SOUTHERN UTILITIES (SCCThERN  INC.  RR(  INC.)
 ITB_      I5LANC TUG AD BARGEE      _  __  ____ ___
 ITC   354 ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO. ""
 !*•   _353_ INOI/NAPCLIS  UNICN               __ ____
 JE        JERSEYVILLE £ EASTERN   ..... ""
 JGS __ J«HE< GRIFFITHS L SCNS       ______
 JSC       JCHN5TCMN  £ STONY CREEK PP CC.
 JTCO  953 JACKSCNVILLE  TERMINAL  CC.     _________
 KC    410 Tt-E  KANAhHA CENTRAL  RUY.  CC .
 KCC   _    KANSAS CITY CONNECTING RR CC.
 KCMC      KANS/S CITYi  MEXICC  £  CRIENT
 KCNH  All KELLEY»S CREEK  £ KORThKESIEPN RR CO. __
 KCS   400 TI-E  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN  Fk.  CO.' ......
 KCT   401 KANSAS CITY TERMINAL RWY. CC.     ______   _
 KCfcB      KANS/S CITY WESTPCRT BELT
 KENN  403 KENNECOTT  COMPANY RR
 KIT   402 KEENTUCKY  £ INDIANA  TERMINAL  RR  CO.
 KM    414 THE  CANSAS £  MISSOURI  RWY. £  TERMINAL j:C^_
 KNC   412 KINGCQME 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_LIVGMA, AVON £ LAKEVILLE RR  CORP.  _____
 LAPT  954 LCS  ANGELES UNION PASSENGER  TERMINAL
 LASB  409 L0CK4ttAXEN £  STOURBRICGE  FR  CCRP.
 LAHV  437 ThE  1CRAIN £  WEST VIRGINIA RhY.  CC.
 LER   447 THE  LOteVlLLE  £  BEAVER  RIVER RR CO.
 LC    426 LANCASTEER £  CHESTER RWY. CC.
 LCCE      LEE  CCUNTY CENTRAL  ELECTRIC          _
 LORT  407 THE  LAKE FRONT  DOCK  fi  RR  TERMINAL  CO.
 L01C  439 LAWNCALE TRANSPORTATCN CC.        _
 LE        LCUI5IANA  EASTERN RR
 LEE   406 THE  LAKE ERIE £ EASTERN PP CC.

1. Uniform Alpha Code

2. ACI Code

3. Railroad Company Name

                           D-17

-------
LEF  423 LAKE ERIE, FRANKLIN € CLAPICN RR CO.
LEFW 424 LAKE ERIE £ FT. kAYNE RR CO.	
LEN  42L THE LAKE ERIE £ NORTHERN FfcY. CO.
LhR  429 CCNSCLICATED RAIL COPP.           _    	   _
LI   436 THE LCNG ISLAND RR CC.
LM   127 LITCHFIELO & MADISON (CHIC. C V.W. TPANSP. CC.}_
LHT  488 LCUISIAN/ HIOLANC TRANSPORT
LN   444 LCUISVILLE C NASHVILLE RP CC.       _   	
LNAC 446 LCUISVILLE, NEW ALBANY & CCRYCCN PR CO.
LNE  413 CONSOLIDATED RAIL CCRP.             	
LNC  434 LAGNA £ NORTHERN RfcY. CO.
LNW  442 THE LOUISIANA £ NORTHWEST RR CO.     	
LCAM 448 LOUISIANA MIDLAND RWY. CC.
LPB  443 THE LOUISIANA C PINE BLUFF PUY. CC.   	
LPN  450 LCNGVIEWt PORTLAND 6 NCRTHERN RWY. CC.
LPSG     LIVE OAK, PERRY £ S. GEORGIA- RWY. CO.	
LRFA 435 LITTLE RCCK PORT RR
LRS  427 LAURINBURG & SCUTHEFN RR CC.           _   	
LSBC 420 THE LA SALLE £ BUREAU CTY. PR CO.
LSI  425 LAKE SUPERIOR fi ISHPEMING PR CC. _	
LSO~~445 LOUISIANA SOUTHERN RhY. CC.
LSTT 417 LAKE SUPERIOR TEMINAL € TRANSFER FWY. CC.	
LT   404 THE LAKE TERMINAL RR CC.
LTC  422 LAFFERTY TRANSPORTATION   .    _	
LLN  430 LLDINGTON £ NORTHERN RUY.
LV _431 CCNSCLICATEO RAIL CCPP.	
LW   451 LCUISVILLE £ WADLEY PWY. CO.
LhV  419 CCNSCLICATED RAIL CCRP.	
MAA      PAGMA ARIZONA RR CO.
MAYW 469 MAYWCOO fi SUGAR CREEK   .  . .._     _ ._	
MB   509 HCNTFELIER £ BARftE RR CO.
MERR     MERICAN C BIGBEE RR CO. 			
MBT  468 MARI/NNA £ BLCUNTSTCkN RR CC.
MC   472 CCNSCLICATEO RAIL CORP.   _.		
MCER 461 HASS/CHLSEETTS CENTRAL
MCR  466 MC CLCUO RIVER RR CO.               	   .  .	
MCRR 498 THE f-ONONGAHELA CONNECTING PR CO*
MCSA 548 HCSCCVi, CAMOEN £ SAN AUGCSTIKE RR.	
MO   465 MLNICIPAL DOCKS
MOP _285 M.EXICANN PACIFIC RR CO.iiKC. .CFERRQC4RR.IL »LE>fOEL_P_A_CIFIC01
MOBY 455 HACIJON ffhY. CO., INC.
MOV»_ 510 MINNESOTA, DAKOTA fi fcESTEP.K RWY. CO.	
ME   511 MCRRISTOkN £ ERIE RR CC.
MEC_ 456 MAINE CENTRAL RR CC.    .	
MET" "    MCCESTO fi EMPIRE TRACTION CC.
METW 523 MUNICIPALITY OF EAST TROYt JhlSCONSJN	
MF       MIDDLE FCRK
MG       THE ^OB^L£ fi GULF RR CC.          		
MGA  497 THE fONONGAHELA RWY. CC.
MGRS 292 FERRCCARRILES NACIONALES CE MEXICO CMT«1. RfcVS OF MEXICO!
MH   552 MCLN1 HCOD RtoY. CO.
MHCO 584 MARQLETTE £ HURON MTN. RR CC.» JNC.	
MUM  581 CCNSCLIOATEO RAIL COPP.
MI   515 MISSCURI-ILLINCIS RR CC.  ._    	
MID      MIDWAY
MIDH 479 MIOOLETOUN £ HUMMELSTCfcN FR.CC.	
MIGN SOL MICHIGAN NORTHERN RWY. CC.,  INC.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                             D-18

-------
MILW 140 CUC/GO, MILWAUKEE, ST. FAUL £ PACIFIC PR
MINE 474 MINNEAPOLIS EASTERN RWY. CC.
MIR  522 MINNEAPOLIS INDUSTRIAL RkY. CC.     _ __
MISS 502 PISSISSIPPIAN
MJ _ 459 MANUFACTURERS' JUNCTION FKY. CO. _ 	
MKC  583 MCKEESPCRT CONNECTING RR CC.
MKT  490 MISSCURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RR CC.    	
MLO      MIDLAND
MLST.  .  MILSTEAD                        	 	
MNJ  475 MICDLETCWN £ NEW JERSEY RhY. CO., INC.
MNS_480 MINNEAPCLlSt NORTHFIELO C JCLtHERJL_PJ«Y-i	
MOT      MARINE CIL TRANSPCRTATICN
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 PASSENA TERMINAL RR CC.
MSV_5.03 MISSISSIPPI £ SKUNA VALLE>LPP CJJ._
MIC  467 MYSTIC TERMINAL CO.
MTCO 955 NJCON TERMINAL CC.
MTFR 484 THE MINNESOTA TRANSFER RkY. CC.
MTR__500 MCNTCUP PR CO.	
MTV.  520 MARINETTE, TOMAHAWK C WESTERN RR
MUSC_96i MEMPHIS L'NION STATCN CC.	
MVT      MT. VERNCN TEMINAL
MWR  464 MUNCIE £ WESTERN RR CO.            	
MWRC 962 MT. WASHINGTON RWY. CO.  ~
NAP  525 ThE NARRAGANSETT FIER RR CC., INC. 	
NAR  563 NCRThERN ALBERTA RAILWAYS CC."
NB   554 NORTHAMPTON AND BATH RP CC.	
NBST 567 ThE NEW ERAUNFELS £ SERVTEX RpT'CO."~"
NC   449 LCUIJVILLE £ NASHVILLE RR CC. (NASHVLE|_ CMTINOOGA £_ST._LOyiSj	
NCAN 356 INCAN SUPERIOR LTC.
NCM  286 FERRCCARRILES NACIONALES CE *EX(NATL.RWYS_.CF MEX.XCARS MKD.NDEM)
NCT "291 FERRCCARRIL NACICMAL OE TEKUANTEPEC(TJEHUANTE'fEC KAT*L.)
NE2P 537 NEZPERCE RK CO.             '     	
NFO  582 NCRFCLK, FRANKLIN £ DANVILLE RWY". CO.
NHIR 585 NEK KOPE £ IVYLANC RP CC.
NIAJ 538 CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.
NJ   562 NAPIERVILLE JUNCTION RWYl CC.  	
NJII 533 N.J., INDIANA £ ILLINCIS FR CC.
NLC  534 NEW CRLEANS £ LOWER COAST RR CC._  	
NIG  553 NCPTh LCLISIANA £ GULF RR CC.
NN   530 NEVACA NCRTHERN RWY. CO.            _
NCOM     MEXICC NCRTHWESTERN    '       	
NOKL 591 NCRUWESTERN OKLAhOH* RR CC.	
NCPB 536 NEW CRLEANS PUBLIC BELT PP
NCRM     NCRMETAL                            _
NCT  960 NEW CRLEANS TERMINAL
NCTH     NEW CRLE/NS, TEXAS £ MEXICO
NPC  549 KCRFCLK £ PORTSMOUTH BELT LINE RP CO."
NPT_ 964 PCRTLAND TERMINAL RR CC. (CPE.I	
NS   551 NCRFCLK SOUTHERN PHY. CC.
NSC      NEKTEX S.S.                        	
NSCT     NIAGARA, ST. CATHARINES fi TCFCNTO
NS«r 570 NCRTI- STRATFORD PR CCRP.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                D-19

-------
 Nbi>  111 Ihfc ItkWBCRbH £ StUTh SHCPE RWY. CO.
 Nh    550 NCRFCLK £ WESTERN RMY. CC. (N £ _H Q1ST.I.
 NViP  559 NCRTHHESTERN PACIFIC RR CC.      '"
 NYCN     NEW VORK CONNECTING PR          	
 NYO  542 NEK WJRK DOCK RWY.
 NYLB 539 CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CORP.
 NYSW 546 N.Y. ,SUSCUEHANMA C NEST. FR CC.' (HALTER G.  SCOTT, TRUSTEE)
 OCE  603 CPEGCN,  CALIF.,  fi EASTERN FhY. CO.	
 OC1R 587 OCTOPARO RWY.  INC.           ~
 OE    600 OREGCN ELECTRIC  RWV. CC.            	
 OLB  598 OfAH/. LINCOLN £ BEATRICE RhY. CO.    "
 OHLP     OHIO  MIDLAND  LIGHT fi PCWEF           _   	
 CNRY 592 CGCENSBUFG BRIDGE fi PGRT AUTHORITY              '"
 ONT  754 CNTAMC  KCRTHLAND BUY.            _     	
 OM»  596 CPEGCN £ NORTHWESTERN PR CC.                     ~~~
 OPE  597 CREGCNt  PACIFIC  £ EASTERN RfcY. Cr,       	
 OR    604 CUASCC RIVER                                	" "" "
 OT    601 CPEGCN TPUNK RAILWAY
 OTR  586 TE  0/KLANO TERMINAL RWY.
 OURO 956 ThE CGDEN UNION  RV.Y. £  OEFCT  ».0.       _ _    	
 PAE  615 CCNSCL10ATEO RAIL CCPP.                    "
 PAH  607 PGH.,  ALLEGHENY  £ MCKEES PCCKS RR CO.	
 PACT     CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.
 PBL      UE PHILADELPHIA BELT LINE RR  CO.	
 PBNE 659 PHILA.,  BETHLEHEM € NEW  ENGL/NO PR CC.        "
 PbK_609 PATAFSCO  £  BACK  RIVERS  RR CC.           	
 PBVR *677 THE FORT  BIENVILLE RR
 PC _  622 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CORP.            	
 PCN   651  PCINT  CCHFCRT  £  NCPThERN FkY.  CO.
 PCY   629 PGh. t  CHRTIERS  fi YGUGhlCChEKY RhY. _CO.		
 PER       PCRT EVERGLADES  RWY.
 PF    630 ThE FICNEER £  FAYETTE RAILPCAC CO.	
 PFE   595  PACIFIC  FRUIT  EXPRESS CC.
 PHD__647  PCRT HURON AD  DETROIT RR_ CC.	
 PI    614  PACUCAH  C  ILLINOIS RR
 PICK 624  TI-E FICKENS RR CC.                    	
 PJR   648  PCRT JERSEY
 PLE_626 THE PITTSBURGH £ LAKE ERIE FR  CO.	
 PM    610 TJ-E CHESAPEAKE C OHIC RWY. CC. (PE*RE MARCUET1E OIST.)
 P*-KY     PITTSBURGH, MCKEESPCflT  fi VCLCHOGHENY	
 PNS   640 PHILADELPHIA fi NORFOLK  STEAMSHIP
 PWW  _634  TI-E FRESCOTT £ NOPTt-WESTEFN RR CC.	
 POV   616  PITTSBURGH fi OHIO VAILEY FhY.  CO.
 PPBO _    PCRT OF  PALM BEACH DISTRICT	t	
 PPU   645  PECRIA £  PEKIN UNION RWY. CC.
 PRSL  027  CCNSCLIOATED RAIL CCRP.  _ 	
 PR1   606  PARR TERMINAL  RR
 PRTO 632  PORTLAND  TRACTION CC. (PCPTIAKO RR e_Tf.RMJLN*i_QIJ/.J	
 PRV   636  PEARL  RIVER VALLEY  RR CO.
 PS_627  TI-E FGH.  C SHAWMUT  PR CO.	
 PSFL      PLGE1  SOUND FREIGHT  LINES
 PSR_639  PETALUMA  £ SANTA ROSA RR  CC.    		
 PST       PHILADELPHIA SUBURBAN TRANSPORTATION
PS1B  ___ PLGE1  SOIND TUG  fi BARGE
PT        PENINSULA TERMINAL  CC.
P1C_*46  PEORIA TERMINAL  CC.        	
PTM  619  PCRTLANO TERMINAL CC. (ME.)
 PTRR      PCRT TCWNSENO  RRt  INC.
PLCC      PCRT UTILITIES

 1.   Uniform  Alpha Code

 2.   ACI  Code

 3.   Railroad Company Name
                               D-20

-------
PVS  644 ThE FECOS VALLEY SCUThERN PfcV. CO.   _ 	
PU   631 PROVIDENCE £ WORCESTER CC.
OAP__655 OL'ANAh, ACME & PACIFIC Rfc. CC._	
QC   658 CLEBEC CENTRAL RAILWAY CC.
QRR  656 QIINCY RR CO.	
RC       RCSSLYN, CONNECTING PR CC.
RCG  623 CCNSCL1CATEO RAIL CORP.                 	
RFP  663 RICHMOND, FREOERICKSBURG  £ FCTOMAC RB  CC.
RI__145 CHICAGCt ROCK ISLAND fi PACIFIC. RR_LiL*	•_	
RCR  676 RCCK1CN £ RON RWY.
RR   671 RARITAN FIVER RAIL RCAC CC.	
RS   669 THE F08ERVAL AND SAGCENAY RWY. CO.
RSB  662 RCCHESTER SUBWAY                  	
RSP  673 RCSCCEt SNYOER £ PACIFIC  FfcY. CO.
RSS  675 RCCKCALE, SANDOW 6 SCUTHEPN PR CC.	;	
RT   665 THE FIVER TERMINAL RAILWAY CC.
RTM  666 THE RAILWAY TRANSFER CC.  CF TE CITY CF MINNEAPOLIS	
RV   664 RAHW/Y VALLEY R.R. RAHWAY VALLEY CO.,  LESSEE
SAN  691 SANOERSVILLE RR CO.
SB   791 SCLTI- BUFFALO RAILWAY CC.
SBC.__.283 FERRCCARRIL SONORA BAJA CALIF., S.A. DE C.V.
SBK  718 SCUTh BRCCKLYN RWY. CO.
SBM.	  .ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE €  fEXICO	
SC   681 SLMTER C CHOCTAW RWY. CC.
SCL _7.12_SEA8CARD COAST LINE RR CC.
SCM  687 STROLDS CREEK £ MUOOLETY  PR  ~ ~~
SCT  735 SIOUX XITY TERMINAL RHY.
SDAE 702 SAN CIEGO £ ARIZONA EASTEFN FkY. CO.
SEE  281 FERPCCARRILES UNICOS DEL JLRJESTJE, S.A. CE C.V.	
SERA 716 SIEPFA RAILROAD CO. 	
SFPP     SPRUCE FALL PCWER £ PAPEF   	
SH   799 STEELTOM £ HIGHSPIFE RR CC."
SI   727 SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RR  CC.   	  	
SIND 720 SCUTI-ERN INDIANA RWY., IKC.  ~
SIRC     THE STATEN ISLAND RP CCRF. 	
SIRR 367 SCUThERN INDUSTRIAL PR IKC.
SJB  680 ST. JOSEPH BELL RWY. CC.          _____
SJL  793 ST. JOHNS6URY £ LAMCILLE  CTY. RR."
SJRT 685 ST. JOHNS RIVER TERMINAL                	
SJT  683 ST. JOSEPH TERMINAL RR CC.     "  	"
SLAW 705 ST. IAWREMCE RR, CIV. OF  *AT*L. RWJT. UTIL1ZATCN CORP.
SLC  696 ThE JAN LUIS CENTRAL RR CC.
SLGW 690 SALT LAKf, GAFIELC £ WESTERN PWY. CO.	
SLS      SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC.
SLSF 693 ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RfcY. CO.       	
SM   682 ST.M/RY»S RR CO.
SMA  794 SAN MANUEL ARIZONA PR CO.          _   _       	
SMV  741 SANT/ MARIA VALLEY RP CO.
SN   697 S/CR4MEMC NCRTHERN PWY.              _
SNBL     SIOU> CITY £ NEW CRLEANS  CARCE LINE
SNCO     SEAPCRT NAVIGATION
SOO  482 SCC LINE RR CO.
SCFR 736 SCUTh PIERCE RR                	
SOT  792 SCU> OMAHA TERMINAL RWY. CC."  "
SOU  724 SCUTI-ERN RWY. SYSTEP
SP   721 SCUTI-ERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION CC.
SPUD 957 ST. FAUL UNION OEPCT CC.
SRC  686 STRAS6URG AR CO.
sftN.  678 SA6INE RIVER £ NGRTI-ERN PR CC.

1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-21

-------
 1    2                3
SRN  678 SAEINE RIVER £ NGPThERN PP CC.	
SS   707 S4ND SPRINGS RWY. CC.
SSDK 679 SAVANNAH STATE DOCKS PR CC.		„
SSH  704 SCUTI- SHCRE
SSL      SKANEATELES SHORT LINE RF CCPP.  ._ .__		
SSLV 706 SCUTHERN SAN LUIS VALLEY fP CC.
SSW  694 SI. IOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RfcY. CC.      	
Si       SPRUGFIELO TERMINAL RWY. CC. (VERMONT)
S1E  739 STOCKTON TERMINAL £ EASTERN FR_	....
S1L  714 SEATPAIM LINES, INC.
STRT 729 THE JTEhARTSTOkN PR CC.     		
SIN  734 SUNSET R/ILWAY CC.
SLR  578 SLN CIL CO. OF PENNA. ...  	
TAEA     TANGIPAHCA £ EASTERN
TAG  755 TENNESSEEi ALABAMA 6 GA. PWY. CC.		
TAS      TAfPA SCCTHERN RR
TASD 758 TERMINAL RWY., ALABAFA STME CCCK$   		
TAM  785 THE TOLEDO, ANGOLA £ WESTERN PMY. CO.
TB   798 TUN BRANCH RR CO.              	
TCG  783 TL'SCCN, CCftNELIA £ GILA EENC PR CO.
TCT  761 TEXAS CITY TERMINAL RWY. CC.        	
TEM      TEMISKAMING £ NORTHERN CNTAPIC
TENN 767 TENNESSEE RAILWAY CC.            . . .. 	
TEXC 750 TEXAJ CENTRAL RR CO.
THE  774 THE ICRONTOt HAMILTCN £ BLtftLG RWY. .CO.	
TM   762 THE TEXAS MEXICAN RKY. CC.
THBL 759 TKOM MUNICIPAL BELT LINE RhY.    	
TN   795 TEXAJ £ NCRThERN RWY. CC.
TNM  788 TEXAS-NEW MEXICO RWY. CO.        		
TOE  764 T£XA<, OKLAHOMA 6 EASTERN PR CO.
TOV  782 TCOEIE VALLEY RWY. CC.      .  .	
TP   760 MISSCURI PACIFIC RR CC.
TPMP 763 TEXAJ PACIFIC-MISSOURI PACIFIC TERMINAL RP  OF N. ORLEAS
TPT  778 CCNSLIDATEO RAIL CORP.
TPh  769 TCLECC, PEORIA £ WESTERN PR CO..		
TRC  779 TRCNJ RWY. CO.
TRRA 757 TERMINAL RR ASSOC. CF ST. .LCyiS	
TS   784 TICEfcATER SOUTHERN RUY. CC.
TSE  765 TEXAJ SOLTH-EASTEPN RR CC.	
TSU  709 TULSJ-SAPULPA UNION RWY. CC.
TT   771 THE TCLECO TERMINAL RR CC.	
TTR      TIJU/NA € TECATE RWY. CC.
TLST 958 TEXARKANA UNION STATICK JPJLST	    __
TYC  796 TYLEPOALE CONNECTING
UCR      UTAH COAL ROUTE              .._		:	
UfP  808 UPPEF MEPICN £ PLYMOUTH PP CC.
UNI  805 UNITY RWYS. CO.                        	.	
UO       UNICN RR CF CREGCN
UP   802 UNION PAC. RR CO.(CREGCN JhCRT LINEtCRE.-hJSt- RR £ NAVJGAT_.i
URR" 803 UNICN RR CO.  (PITTSBURGH* PA.)
URY  804 UNION RY. CF MEMPHIS     _ _	
UT   807 UNION TERMINAL RWY. (OF 5T. JCSEPHt HO.)
UTAH 811 UTAH RWY. CO.                    _    	      	
UTR  809 UNION TRANSPORTATION
VALE 814 THE VALLEY RR CO.	
VAMO 815 VIRGINIA £ MARYLAND PR
VBR  819 VIRGINIA BLUE RIDGE PWY.	
VC   820 VIRGINIA CENTRAL RWY.
VCV  821 VENTURA CTY. RWY. CO.		
1.  Uniform Alpha Code

2.  ACI Code

3.  Railroad Company Name

                                D-22

-------
 12             3
Vt   B24 VISALIA ELECTRIC RR CO.
VNCR 822 VERHCM NORTHERN PR CO..		
VS       VALLEY AND SUETZ RP CO.
V«0  816 VJLOCSTA SOUTHERN RR         		
V1R  817 VERMCNT PHY. INC.
HA   841 ThE VESTEPN RWY. CF ALABAPA
WAG  848 WELLSVlLLEt AOOISON € GALETCK RR CO»F.
HAL  834 WESTERN ALLEGHENY RR CC.      _		
MAR  827 ViARRENTCN RR CO.
WAS      WAYNESBURG SOUTHERN    .	
WATC 849 TI-E VASHINGTON TERMINAL CC.
HATR     WATEPV1LLE                	
WAk ~    CCNSCLICATED RAIL CORP.
WBC      WIKES-BARRE CONNECTING RR
WBTS 867 WACO, BEAUMONTt TRNITY £ SAfilNE P.WY CO.
WCTR 844 WCTU RVlY . CO.   ._ . .	
WHN  842 CCNSCLIDATED RAIL CORP.
"'*      WEST INDIA FRUIT G  STEAMSUP    _. 	
HIM  831 WASH1NGTCN. IDAHO € PGNT/KA RkY. CO.
WLE      WHEEUNG C LAE ERIE	
ULFB 869 WCLFEBCRC RR CO.t INC.
HLG  835 UJTEPLCC RR CC.              	  	
HM   839 WESTERN MARYLAND RWY. CO.
WMSC 847 Wt-ITE MOUNTAIN SCENIC RR
WMWN 837 THE kEATHERFORO* LINEAL WELLS t NCRTt-WESTEN FMY. CO,
WNF  851 TI-E kINFIELD RR CC.	
MNFR 852 WINFFEOE RR CO.
WOV  829 WARREN & OUACHITA VALLEY PhY. CO,	
HP   840 THE VESTERN PACIFIC PR CC.
WPY  845 WHITE PASS C YUKCN RCUTE        __  	
HRRC 838 WESTERN RAIL ROAC CO.
HRkK 797 UJPH1CK RWY. CC.
MS    828 WARE  SHOALS RR C.
MSB   832 WARREN  C  SALINE RIVER  RR  CC.
 WSS   854  UINS1CN-3ALEM SOUThBGUNC PkY. CC.
 WSYP  846  WHITE SULPHUR SPRINGS 6 YELLCWSTCNEJiJY._CC.
 Wl        WELCtOCD TRANSPORTATICN ITC.
 WTCO      WESTERN  TRANSPCRTATICN CC.     _   	
 HIGH  865  WESTERN  CHIO RR CO.
 WVN   866  WEST  VIRGINIA NORThEPN RP C.	
 WW    850  WINCHESTER  & WESTEFN  RR CC.
 HViR       hAHUGTCN WESTERN	
 WkV   826^WALL/ hALLA VALLEY RhY. CC."
 WYS   830  WYANCCTTE SOUTHEEPN  PR C.        	
 WYT   833  MYANCOTTE TERMINAL RP CC.
 VAN	876  VANCEY RP C.                   	
~YN    877  TKE  YOUNGSTOWN C NCFTHEPN PR  CO.
 YS	  875  YCUNCSTGfcN  C SOUTHERN RfcY.  CC.  	
 YVT   872  YAKIfA VALLEY TRANSPCRTATICN  CO.
 YW    873  YJEKA WESTERN Rft CO.
 1.  Uniform Alpha Code

 2.  ACI Code

 3.  Railroad Company Name
                                D-23

-------
             APPENDIX E







ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY RAILROAD COMPANY

-------
                                APPENDIX E
                    ECONOMIC IMPACTS BY RAILROAD COMPANY

     Impacts of the railyard noise abatement regulations were calculated
for each of 49 Class I and II railroads and 14 switching and terminal com-
panies.  These Impacts were summarized In Section 6*  The tables In this
appendix present Impacts by railroad*  The order of presentation follows the
summary discussion In Section 6.  One should exercise caution Interpreting the
figures In these tables; as explained In Section 6, the residential only and
residential/commercial Impacts were calculated assuming a proportional reduc-
tion In the costs associated with the technologies Involved applied equally to
all railroads.  Consequently, Individual Impacts may be overstated for some
railroads and understated for others*
                                 E-l

-------
           Table E-l

Present Value Total Capital Costs
           ($ in 000)

1. ATSF
2. BO
3. BAR
A. BLE
5. BH
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. cm
10. CNW
11. HILW
12. Rl
13. ceo
IA. CS
15. CONRAIL
16. DH
17. ORCW
18. OTI
19. DTS
20. OHIR
21. DUP
22. EJE
23. FEC
23656
1164.51
2501.13
116U. 61
106.1H7
106. 6«3
fl'i(i5.97
116. 221
315. C1U
20 t. 721
196.312
11 1.66
0.
U3 1. £91
106.643
10 3. 451
3.10265
140. 394
1764. 90
10 1. 17
242.477
303.611
1054.52
210.094
1 2 2 . 6 07
1243. 16
2420. 66
0.
130. 36
30 9. HOi
535. 69«
429.955
1264.06
221.953
3624.05
2156,95
0.
100.714
1295. 17
2S7.22d
105. 275
Residential /Commercial
Receiving Property
1 7 39 . 1 9.045
4304. 67
0.
1744.76
3.50467
1240. 38
2774.46
1276.91
109.866
110. 451
10504 .4
122. 717
361.U52
24*. 32«
2 35. HI '4
116. 376
0.
Ui3'l. 753
110.451
106. 362
4.0f)P7R
153. 675
1961 .04
103. 441
258 .2P4
3'J6. 849
1234. «3
216.812
130.»'9i»
1U13.9
2753.98
0 .
UO.B24
479 .P06
628.224
4R1.24U
1414.^4
231. C99
4045. 1 8
2541.29
0.
102.057
1400. 78
338.671
109.698
          E-2

-------
          Table E-2
Total Annualized Capital Costs
          ($ in 000)

1. ATSF
2. BO
3. BAR
4. BLE
5. BH
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. CIH
10. CNW
11. HILU
12. Rl
13. ceo
14. CS
15. CONRAIL
16. DH
I?. DRGW
18. DTI
19. DTS
20. DHIR
21. DWP
22. EJE
23- FEC
24. FV/0
25. CA
26. GTW
27. ICC
28. ITC
29. KCS
Irt II
30. LI
« i * u
Jl . LN
32. HEC
33. KKT
34. HP
4C tn i
35. Nw
36. HWP
37. PLE
38. RFP
39. SLSF
40. SSW
41. SCL
42. SOO
43. SP
44. SOU
45. TH
46. TPW
Ii7 IIP
™ / • u»
48. WM
49. WP
Residential
Receiving Property
234.745
307. 255
2 1.8925
1 1.86 19
50.6836
655.727
0.
214.97
2.73656
191.434
3C2.717
195.833
17.335
17.7911
1748.75
27.3691
52.7544
31.3145
23.1048
22.8082
0.
80.5796
17.7911
14.5985
3.1«265
51.5421
27 1 . 61 5
12.318
64.7722
4 1 . 35 2
1H3.1P9
32.3896
33.7544
278.679
407.143
0.
4 1.508
52.595
100.032
77.843
210.724
44.240
638.258
329.731
0.
11.0619
246.137
34.9667
16.4228
Residential/Commercial
Receiving Property
271.617
355. H31
28.0374
12.1 143
70.2139
771.404
0.
250.602
3.50467
215.609
426.082
225.532
19.1236
19.7077
2121.48
31 .9741
62.6204
38.2398
27.7258
26.1 33
0.
95.1786
19.7077
15.6189
4. 08878
62.932
312. «05
12 .6984
76. 7986
43.0176
220.996
35.3267
40. 1517
335.921
480.679
,
50.0816
63.6292
121.304
91.674
24S.816
50^5136
747.106
396.272
A
12.' 1143
295.458
39.8401
17.9554
          E-3

-------
                 Table E-3

Annual ized Operating and Maintenance Costs
                 ($ in 000)

t. ATSr
2. BO
3. BAR
1|. BLE
5. BH
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. CIM
10. CNW
11. MILU
12. Rl
13. ceo
14. CS
15. CON RAIL
16. OH
17. OftCW
18. OTI
19. DTS
20. OMIR
21. DUP
22. EJE
23. FEC
2k. FUD
25. GA
26. GTU
27. ICC
28. ITC
29. KCS
30. LI
31. LN
32. HEC
33. HKT
34. HP
35. NW
36. HUP
37. PLE
38. RFP
39. SLSF
40. SSW
111. SCL
42. SOO
43. SP
44. SOU
45. TM
46. TPW
47. OP
48. WH
49. WP
Res idential
Receiving Property
38 r>. 4U2
3<)2. C12
103. ^89
7.C873
133. 291
1364.6
0.
293. P25
12.9967
361. "Ott
59.3. 42fl
393. CO"
33. 08U6
35.2511
4 29 2. 32
80.7464
105. 127
52.5«a4
13. 5484
51.082
0.
18fl.CU
35.2511
20.086
15. 1651
195. 56H
i>62. mm
9.2537U
209. 1f>5
50,9659
386.835
55.337
111. 077
788. 8U2
817. 223
0.
1U7. 906
57.U27
233. U97
17 5. OKI
416.802
111.665
i.m. 51
552.656
0.
7.0B73
587. 325
20.6357
28. 7518
Res idential /Commercial
Receiving Property
U76. 388
479. 6*>«
133. 1 79
7.23H09
167.772
1707.27
0.
361 .6 3T
16.6172
U 55 .961
721.703
488.264
U0.5325
43.307
5427.2
101.572
131.703
66 .1996
16.258
73.8260
0.
236.05
43.307
23.8853
19.4217
248.622
571.326
10.0126
264. 184
62.3316
487.365
67.1922
1U0.416
99"».785
1022.41
0.
107. 5H3
71.3595
295.011
219.402
519.401
139.33
1719.7=
692.423
0.
7.23809
740.45
23.4961
34.9Q34

-------
      Table E-4
Total Annual I zed Cost
     ($ in 000)

1 . ATSF
2. eo
3. BAR
4. BLE
5. en
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. cm
10. CNW
1). MIlW
12. Kl
13. ceo
111. CS
1$. COMRAIL
16. DH
17. ORCW
18. DTI
19. OTS
20. DMIR
21. OUP
22. EJE
23 . FEC
2k. FWD
25. CA
26. GTV
27. ICG
28. ITC
29. KCS
30. LI
31. UN
32. MEC
33. MKT
3«l. MP
35. NW
36. HWP
37. PLE
38. RFP
39. SLSF
40. SSW
III. SCt
42. SOO
43. SP
44. sou
45. TH
46. TPW
1 ft I*A
47. UP
48. UH

Residential
Receiving Property
620.187
699.267
125.882
18.9492
191.974
2020.32
C.
508. 7"5
15.7352
561.239
976.144
588.841
50.«196
53.0422
6041.07
108.115
157,881
83.6 5*)f)
36.6532
81.8901
0.
268.619
53.0422
34. 6^44
18.3578
2U7.11
73U.139
21.5717
273.927
92.3179
570. 02U
R7.7266
144.831
1067.52
1224.37
0.
189.414
110.022
333.529
252.8114
627.526
155.913
2013.76
BR2.386
0.

833.461
55.6024
45.17U6
Residential/Commercial
Receiving Property
748.025
835.515
161 .215
19. 3524
237.985
2479. 19
G.
612.241
20.1518
671.572
1147.86
713.796
59,fc561
63.0147
7548.68
133. '346
194.323
104.439
43.'»838
99.9597
0.
331. 22!)
63.J147
39.5042
23.5105
311.554
884.131
22.7 1 1
340.982
110.357
708.36
102.519
180.567
1333.71
1503.38
0.
237.664
134.989
416.315
311.076
765.297
1H9.H4U
2466.06
1088.69
0.
19.3524
1035.91
63.33G1
52.9388
    E-5

-------
                Table  E-5
Average Annual Cost Increase per Ton-Mile

1 . ATSF
2. BO
3. BAR
It. BLE
5. BH
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. CIM
10. CMW
II. HILW
12. Rl
13. ceo
U. CS
1$. COKRAIL
16. DH
17. ORCW
J8. DTI
19. OTS
20. OMIR
21. OWP
22. EJE
23. FEC
2
0. 023<>22
0. C007Q7
0. 00770ft
0. 001161
0.
0.00212B
O.C055Mfl
O.JO 2 11
0. C054P3
0. OOU027
0. 001544
0. 00 1271
0. 006501
0.003142
0. C01S4
0.005636
O.CIfiSU
0. 003482
0.
0. 03041 1
0.002223
0. 000863
0. 002463
0. 006007
Q. C02235
0. 004123
0. C02PK4
0. 2 16201
0.001502
0. 009*138
0. 002400
0. 00 23 4 r)
0.00325
0.
0.015324
0. 000803
0.002027
0.002476
O.C0181
0.001425
0.002055
0.001721
0.
0.002905
0. 001220
0. 002fi5R
0.000802
Res ident ial /Commercial
Receiving Property
0.001 13
0.00323
0. 030649
0.0008 14
0. OC9553
0.002293
0.
0. 002561
0.007 156
0.002764
0.006447
O.C048H2
0.001827
0.001513
0.008123
O.OC3882
O.OOW6
0.037019
0.022248
0.00425
0.
0.017499
0.002041
0.0009H3
0.003154
0.008329
0.002691
0.004341
0.00359
0.25U4'48
0.001866
0.011146
0.003104
0.002555
0.00199
i).
0.019227
0.012126
0.00253
0. C03046
0.00220H
0. CG1735
0.003b2
O.OC2123
0.
0.002967
O.OC1527
0.003255
0. 001033
                 E-6

-------
            Table E-6

Net Decrease in Revenue Ton-Miles
  (in  million  revenue  ton-miles)

1. ATSF
2. 80
3. BAR
<4. BLE
5. Brt
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9. cm
10. CNW
11. MIL'J
12. Rl
13. ceo
l«t. CS
IS. CON RAIL
16. DH
17. DREW
18. DTI
19. OTS
20. DHIR
21 . OWP
22 . EJE
23. PEC
2
-------
                Table E-7

          Net  Decrease in Employment
{round to nearest  unit for employment  decrease)

1. ATSF
2. BO
3. BAR
It. BLE
5. BM
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
5. CIH
10. CNW
11. MILU
12. ftl
J3- CCO
U. CS
15. CONRAIL
16. OH
17- DRGW
18. OTI
19. OTS
20. OMIS
21. OWP
22. EJE
23- FEC
24. FUO
25. GA
26. GTV
27. ICG
28. ITC
23. KCS
30. LI
31. LN
32. HEC
33. MKT
3^. HP
35. NW
36. NWP
37. fit
38. RfP
35. SLSF
40. SSU
<*1. SCL
1|2. SOO
H3. SP
<|i|. SOU

-------
                Table E-8
Weighted Average Price Elasticity of Demand

1 . ATSF
2. 80
3. BAR
4. BLE
5. BM
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9- CIM
10. CNVI
11. Ml LW
12. HI
13. CCO
14. CS
15. CONRA1L
16. DH
17. DRGW
18. OTI
19. OTS
20. DHIR
21. OWP
22. EJE
23. FEC
24. FWO
25. GA
26. GTU
27. ICG
28. ITC
29. KCS
30. LI
31. IN
32. NEC
33- MKT
34. HP
35. KW
36. NUP
37. PLE
38. RFP
39. SLSF
40. SSW
41. SCI
42. SOO
43. SP
44. SOU
45. TM
46. TPW
47. UP
48. WH
49. UP
Low
C.512i*19
0.257183
C. 437934
0. 2e 1523
C.37C734
0.31H33Q
0.524895
0.21K716
C. 12 03 9
0.413542
C. 302449
0.2765fJ
0.1U7069
0.250629
0.283926
0. 144545
0.196311
0.214323
C.39021U
0.3'.' 35 73
0.561906
0.14256R
C.5b895
0.3H0833
0.197221
0.54H007
C. 374621
0.211255
C. 3194 09
0.255631
C. 231 59
0.524537
C. 516706
0.431452
0.240609
0.571384
C.229U62
0.20^)822
C.405U27
O.U30022
C.30081b
0.603755
C.42241U
0. 200207
O.U32611
0. 372H67
0.385431
0.2" 31 12
0.4r>366H
High
1.42426
O.fi 36474
3.1 1165
0.658019
2.28098
O.BU65f>4
2.0931"
0.706617
0.382981
1.09097
0. 465978
1.04237
0.575666
0. 651455
0.475693
2. 2226«
0.634537
1.0753
1. J3765
0.352824
2.48045
0.741033
2.36452
0.836897
0.825U86
1.51035
1.08125
0.669337
0.943963
1. 44907
O..J51482
3.00167
1.62559
1. 38401
0.779914
2.84751
0.62879
2. '43 115
1.31238
1.56641
1.69715
1.70884
1.34367
1.38703
1.91183
0.347562
1.J3043
1. )215
1. 4*445
              E-9

-------
I
o
                                                  Table E-9

                                        Average Revenue per Ton-Mile
                                             (in e per ton-mile)
	 	 	 	 ' 	 	
1 . ATSF
2. BO
3. BAR
4. BLE
5. BM
6. BN
7. CV
8. CO
9- CIM
10. CNW
11. MILW
12. R|
13. ceo
14. CS
15. CONRAIL
16. DH
17. ORGW
18. DTI
19. DTS
20. DMIR
21. DWP
22. EJE
23. FEC
2k. FED
25. GA
2.253
3.111
N/A
3.549
3.460
1.768
4.521
2.660
3.232
2.401
2.220
2.501
1.862
1.507
3.026
2.395
2.080
4.428
5.817
3.358
2.228
8. 490
2.812
1.525
2.441
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35-
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.

GTW
ICG
ITC
KCS
LI
LN
MEC
MKT
MP
NW
NWP
PLE
RFP
SLSF
SSW
SCL
SOO
SP
SOU
TM
TPW
UP
WH
WP
4.769
2.094
4.071
1.916
40.983
2.114
4.924
2.222
2.222
2.545
4.351
4.894
3.189
2.284
2.190
2.541
2.244
2.371
2.185
4.926
3.205
2.160
3.119
2.759


-------
            Table E-10

Present Value Total Capital Costs
           ($ in 000)

1 . ALQS
2. ALS
3. BOCT
It. BRC
5. BSRR
6. CUVA
7. IH3
8. LT
9. MGA
10. PBR
11. PTRR
12. SB
13. TRRA
1
-------
      Table E-ll

Annualized Capital Cost
      ($ in 000)

1 . ALQS
2. ALS
3. 80CT
It. BRC
5. BSRft
6 . CUVA
.7. 1KB
8. LT
3. MGA
10. PBR
I \ . PTRR
12. SB
13. TRRA
14. URft
Residential
Receiving Property
8.66578
32.681'B
0.
68.1021
0.
6.3H531
12V. 066
7. 2V 75
47.8898
NA
0.
NA
63.2445
79.6604
Res i den t i a 1 /Comme r c i a 1
Receiving Property
11.0981
39.9921
0,
83.488V
0.
8.17757
156.623
9.3458
61.3318
Nrt
0.
NA
76.055
100.156
           E-12

-------
               Table E-12

Annualized Operating and Maintenance Cost
               ($ in 000)

1 . ALQS
2. AUS
3. BOCT

-------
     Table E-13

Total Annualtzed Cost
     ($ in 000)

1 . AIQS
2. ALS
3. BOCT
k. BRC
5. BSRR
6. CUVA
7. 1MB
8. LT
9. HGA
10. P8R
11. PTRR
12. SB
13. TRRA
\k. URR
Residential
Receiving Property
49.8282
91.7265
0.
199.1PM
0.
36.7156
UOU. 275
U1 ,<»606
275. 366
MA
0.
MA
218. 2
361 ,'!4f)
Res i dent ia I/Commercial
Receiving Property
£3. til 42
114.iilii
0.
249,183
0.
47.0'Jl
503. 9A1
53.7383
352.658
NA
0.
NA
271.572
460.45A

-------
      APPENDIX F
INDUSTRY PROFILE DATA

-------
             Table F-l
LOCOMOTIVE AND FREIGHT CAR INVENTORY
 CLASS  I LINE-HAUL RAILROADS  (1976)



ROAD
EASTERN DISTRICT
BALTIMORE £ OHIO
BANGOR G AROOSTOOK
BESSEMER £ LAKE ERIE
BOSTON G MAINE
CANADIAN PACIFIC - IN MAINE
CENTRAL VERMONT
CHESAPEAKE C OHIO
CHICAGO G ILLINOIS MIDLAND
CONRAIL
DELAWARE G HUDSON
DETROIT £ TOLEDO SHORE LINE
DETROIT, TOLEDO £ IRONTON
ELGIN, JOLIET £ EASTERN
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN
ILLINOIS TERMINAL
LONG ISLAND
MAINE CENTRAL
NORFOLK G WESTERN
PITTSBURGH £ LAKE ERIE
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURC C POT.
WESTERN MARYLAND
TOTAL EASTERN DISTRICT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
CLINCHFIELD
FLORIDA EAST COAST
GEORGIA
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF
LOUISVILLE fi NASHVILLE
SEABOARD COAST LINE
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
TOTAL SOUTHERN DISTRICT
WESTERN DISTRICT
ATCHISON, TOPEKA S SANTA FE
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
CHICAGO G NORTH WESTERN
CHICAGO, MILK., ST. PAUL G PAC.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND G PACIFIC
COLORADO C SOUTHERN
DENVER G RIO GRANDE WESTERN
DULUTH, MISSABE C IRON RANGE
DULUTH, WINNIPEG £ PACIFIC
FORT WORTH £ 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 G WESTERN
UNION PACIFIC
WESTERN PACIFIC
TOTAL WESTERN DISTRICT-
TOTAL UNITED STATES
NUMBER OF LOCOMOTIVE UNITS

YARD
SERVICE

143
3
1
61
1
2
90
8
1.856
39
6
21
58
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
6.330
ROAD
FREIGHT
SERVICE

800
32
62
104
20
14
874
13
2,898
125
10
50
45
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
7
27
1.171
134
10,030
20.699
ROAD
PASSENGER
SERVICE

0
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
0
0
24
0
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
8.460
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
556
889
67,944
5,372
635,140
1,496,164
                  F-l

-------
               Table F-2
CLASS I SWITCHING AND TERMINAL COMPANIES
Uniform
Alpha Code

ALQS
ALS
BOCT
BRC
BS
CBL
CUVA
HBT
IHB
IU
KCT
KIT
LT
MCRR
PER
PBNE
PTM
SB
TRRA
TPMP
URR
Uniform
Alpha Code

URR
(1977)
Aliquippa and Southern RR Co.
Alton & Southern RR Co.
Baltimore & 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.
take 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.
                F-2

-------
                      Table F-3
TABULATION OF RAILROAD COMPANIES, INCLUDING ICC CLASS
DESIGNATION, REGION AND DISTRIBUTION OF YARDS BY TYPE
 Legend:
    IRR
    ARR
      C  =
      R  =
    NHM
    NFC
    NFI
    NFS
AC I Code
Uniform Alpha Code
1 if Class I
0 if Class II  (1976/77)
Region for Class I:  1 if Eastern
                     2 if Southern
                     3 if Western
Number of Hump Yards
Number of Flat Classification Yards
Number of Flat Industrial Yards
Number of Flat Small Industrial Yards
 ITOTAL  =  Total Number of Yards



IRR
2
3
4
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
18
19
20
21



ARR
ABB
ACY
AUW
AR
AA
APA
AN
ARA
ABL
ALM
ALQS
AMC
AMR
ADN
3
o 2
r-» 3
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  NF!   NFS   ITOTAL
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
2
3
2
1
4
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
                          F-3

-------
Table F-3 (Continued)


IRR
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


ARR
ATSF
AUP
PRSL
AEC
ALS
ANR
AVL
ASAB
ARC
BO
BAR
BCK
BLE
BOCT
BS
BH
BN
BAP
BH
#
BRC
BXN
*
BML
BEDT
CAD
CTN
CF
CUR
CI
CN
CBC
CP
CRN
*
#
CIC
CCT
CARR
CACV
CHR
3
0 o
^^
^A ^B
r» u
C R
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
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
              NUMBER OF YARDS
          NHH  NFC  NFI   NFS   I TOTAL
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
         F-4

-------
                Table  F-3  (Continued)
                               NUMBER  OF  YARDS
IRR ARR   C  R
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
MXLU
CPLT
CRI
RI
CSL
CIW
CNTP
CS
CU
CLC
*
COP
CSS
CLP
CAGY
CHW
CLIP
CUVA
CLCO
DR
DRI
DVS
DH
DC
DRGW
DQE
CCR
DMU
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
1
2
1
23
2
30
2
1
1
4
2
13
9
                         F-5

-------
Table F-3 (Continued)




IRR
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




ARR
CBL
DWP
DS
DT
DMM
CIRR
ETWN
EJE
EL
ELS
EACH
EJR
EIiW
*
FPE
FEC
FJG
FP
FWD
FRDN
FUB
FOR
GCU
GM
GHH
GANG
GA
GSF
GRR
GNA
GTW
GUIR
GBU
GMRC
GUIN
GNWR
GJ
GU
#
HE
3
o at
«» 2
ii
C R
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
              NUMBER  OF  YARDS




          NHH  NFC  NFI  NFS   I TOTAL
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
         F-6

-------
              Table F-3 (Continued)
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
HSU
HRT
ICG
*
ITC
1MB
*
IRN
HPTD
LAL
KCS
KCT
KIT
KENN
LT
LDRT
LNE
LSTT
LWV
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
                      F-7

-------
Table F-3 (Continued)




IRR
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




ARR
LBR
LPN
LUI
*
MEC
MJ
MRS
*
MCR
MSTR
MNJ
MNS
SOD
MTFR
MKT
*
MP
MGA
MCRR
MTR
MISS
MSE
MOV
MB
MDU
ME
IAT
MI
METU
*
NAP
NN
NLC
NEZP
NYD
NYSW
*
MCSA
NPB
NU
3
0 X
o
r-. u
2? £•
C R
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
                NUMBER OF YARDS
            NHM   NFC  NFI   NFS   I TOTAL
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
         F-8

-------
               Table F-3  (Continued)
IRR ARR   C  R
    NUMBER OF  YARDS




NHH   NFC  NFI  NFS   (TOTAL
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
NS
MH
NLG
NB
NWP
*
*
NSS
NFD
OTR
OCTR
OCE
PDV
PTM
PC
RDG
PLE
PS
PCY
PW
PRTD
PNW
PVS
PPU
PHD
PJR
PCN
QAP
GRR
PBNE
RFP
RV
RT
RR
RSP
RSS
SRN
SM
SJT
SLGLJ
SAN
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
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
2
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
I
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
2
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
2
1
0
1
0
2
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
                         F-9

-------
Table F-3 (Continued)
IRR ARR   C  R
                 NUMBER OF YARDS




            NHM   NFC NFI  NFS   I TOTAL
693
694
696
697
700
702
705
706
707
709
712
716
718
719
720
721
724
727
730
739
741
746
750
755
757
758
759
760
761
762
765
767
769
771
779
782
783
784
785
788
793
SLSF
SSW
SLC
SN
*
SDAE
SLAW
SSLV
SS
TSU
SCL
SERA
SBK
*
SIND
SP
SOU
SI
*
STE
SMV
*
TEXC
TAG
TRRA
TASD
TMBL
TP
TCT
TM
TSE
TENN
TPW
TT
TRC
TOV
TCG
TS
TAW
TNM
SJL
1 3
1 3
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
1 3
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
1 3
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
8
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
29
30
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
10
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
19
1
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
88
0
1
1
0
58
48
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
5
3
0
4
1
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
38
10
1
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
51
1
0
0
2
116
58
3
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
15
1
1
0
0
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
76
22
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
180
1
1
1
2
211
144
5
2
1
3
1
1
1
8
3
1
30
2
3
1
1
7
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
        F-10

-------
Table F-3 (Continued)
IRR ARR   C  R
794
795
799
802
803
807
808
809
811
815
817
826
828
829
830
831
832
833
838
839
840
841
846
848
850
851
854
872
873
875
876
877
SNA
TN
SH
UP
URR
UT
UMP
UTR
UTAH
VAMD
VTR
WWV
US
WOV
WYS
WIM
USB
WYT
WRRC
WM
UP
UA
WSYP
WAG
UU
UNF
USS
YVT
YW
YS
YAN
YN
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
0 0
1 1
1 3
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   I TOTAL
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
31
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
31
12
1
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
i
6
0
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
70
0
0
0
1
3
2
1
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
14
10
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
136
16
1
2
1
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
22
21
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
       F-ll

-------
                      Table P-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.

UNIFORM
ALPHA
CODE
BAR
CP
CV
CEI
DTS
DWP
GA
ITC
MEC
NWP
RFP
TM
TPW
Class II
ACI
CODE
056
105
120
129
205
216
299
354
456
559
663
762
769
1976/77
UNIFORM
ALPHA ACI
CODE CODE
1.
2.
3.
4.
AGS
CGA
CNTP
LA
029
118
153
441
RAILROAD NAME
Bangor fi 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
                         F-12

-------
         APPENDIX G
FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE

-------
                               APPENDIX G
                       FRACTIONAL IMPACT PROCEDURE

     An integral element of an environmental noise assessment is to determine
or estimate the distribution of the population exposed to given levels of
noise for given lengths of time*  To assess the noise reduction Impact of a
proposed project or action, the existing noise exposure distribution of the
population in the area affected should first be characterized 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^n).  Next, estimations
or projections should be made of the distribution of people who may be exposed
to noise levels generated after the adoption of various projected abatement
alternatives.  The environmental impact can be Judged by simply comparing
these successive population distributions.  This concept is Illustrated in
Figure G-l which compares the estimated distribution of the population prior
to inception of a hypothetical project (Curve A) with the population distri-
bution 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 evaluated by measuring
the degree of noise exposure against 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 statis-
tically predicted from knowledge of the noise exposure incurred.  Illustrative
examples of the different forms of noise effects criteria are graphically dis-
played in Figure G-2.  In general, dose-response functions are statistically
derived from noise effects information and exhibited as linear or curvilinear
                                      G-l

-------
          _J	I	I
                                         I   I	I	I
               Magnitude or Lerel of  Eiposure,  Li in  dB
FIGURE G-l.
EXAMPLE ILLUSTRATION OF THE NOISE DISTRIBUTION OF
POPULATION AS  A FUNCTION OF NOISE EXPOSURE
                             G-2

-------
tst
09
                                          .  .
                                         I J+~
	,100%
                          u
           (a) LINEAR,   (b) POWER,   (c)  LOGARITHMIC
 FIGURE G-2.  EXAMPLE OF FORMS OF NOISE  EFFECTS CRITERIA
                           G-3

-------
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
magnitude of an effect at a given noise exposure can be estimated using the
appropriate function.  For example, as shown in Figure G-2 using the linear
function, if it is established that a number of people are exposed to a value
of Lj, 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 performed
by cross-tabulating the indices of extensity (number of people exposed) and
intensity (severity) of impact.  To perform such an assessment we must first
statistically estimate the given level, L^, by applying suitable noise
effects criteria.  At each level, L^, 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 anticipated response.  As illustrated in
Figure G-l, 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
L± is plotted against the number of people exposed at that level.  Table G-l
presents a hypothetical example of such an array.

                              Table G-l
         EXAMPLE OF IMPACT MATRIX FOR A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
                                          Magnitude or Probability
    Exposure        Number of People       of Response in Percent
      L±               1,200,000                      4
      L1+l               900,000                     10
      Li+2               200,000                     25
      L1+3                50,000                     50
      • • •
      Li+n                 2,000                     85
                                      G-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 somewhat subjective*  Clearly, what is required is a single value which
interprets the environmental noise impact and which incorporates both attributes
of extensity and intensity of impact*  Accordingly, the National Academy of
Sciences, Committee on Bioacoustics and Biomechanics (CHABA) has recommended a
procedure for assessing environmental noise impact which mathematically takes
into account both extensity and intensity of impact.*  This procedure, the
fractional impact method, computes total noise impact by simply counting the
number of people exposed to noise at different levels and statistically
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, facili-
tates trade-off studies and comparisons of the impact between different pro-
jects or alternative solutions.  To accomplish 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 func-
tionally derived from relevant noise effects criteria.  The total community
impact is then determined by simply summing the partial impacts of all neigh-
borhoods.

     It is quite possible, and in some cases very probably, that a large
proportion of a noise impact may be found in subneighborhoods which are
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 living further away, this does not imply that the latter should be
totally excluded from an assessment where the purpose is to objectively and

                                      G-5

-------
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 small in magnitude.  The fractional impact method considers
the total Impact upon all people exposed to noise recognizing that some in-
dividuals incur a significantly greater noise exposure than others.  The pro-
cedure 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 exten-
sive (i.e., it may 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 exppsure, 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.

     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,
                                     G-6

-------
     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 increasingly
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 G-3.1  The nonlinear weighting
function is arbitrarily normalized to unity at Ldn - 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 IP"6]  [IQO'103
                 [0.2]   [10°«03 Ldn] +  [1.43 x 10~4]  [10°'°8 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 G-3 and is defined as:

                0.05 (Ldn -55) for Ldn >. 55                          m
                  0                 for Ldn < 55                     u'

Using the fractional Impact concept, an index referred to as the Equivalent
Noise Impact  (ENI)* may be derived by multiplying  the number of people
exposed to a given level of noise by the fractional  or weighted impact
associated with that level as follows:
                                                                     (3)
                                     G-7

-------
                40     50      60     70     80

              Day-Might Average Sound Levml - Decibels
90
FIGURE G-3.  WEIGHTING  FUNCTION  FOR ASSESSING THE
              GENERAL ADVERSE RESPONSE TO NOISE
                           G-8

-------
where Wl± is the magnitude of the impact on the population exposed at
Ldni» W^dn1) is tne fractional weighting associated with a noise
exposure of Ldn^ and P.J_ is the number of people exposed to Ljn^.

     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 - Z ENIi - S WCLdn)   P±                                (4)
     The average severity of impact over the entire population may be
derived from the Noise Impact Index (Nil) as follows:
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:
           ENIj. - ENI^                                             (6)
     RCI
where ENIjL and ENIj are the calculated impacts under two different
conditions.

     An example of the fractional impact calculation procedure  is presented  in
Table G-2.
*  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*
                                       G-9

-------
     Similarly, using relevant criteria, the fractional impact procedure
may be utilized to calculate relative changes in hearing damage risk,  sleep
disruption and speech interference.

(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, Hampton, Virginia,
17-19 October 1977, pp. 79-98).
                           REFERENCES
1.  Guidelines for Preparing Environmental Impact Statements on Noise National
    Academy of Sciences, Committee on Bioacoustics and Biomechanics Working
    Group Number 69, February 1977.
                                      G-10

-------
(1)
                                              Table G-2
              EXAMPLE OF FRACTIONAL IMPACT CALCULATION FOR GENERAL ADVERSE RESPONSE
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Exposure
Range
0-dn>
55-60
60-65
65-70
70-75
75-80
Exposure
Range
adn>
57.5
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
W(Ldn) W(Ldn) (Curvilinear)
(Curvilinear) (Linear approx) (Column (3) x (4))
1,200,000
900,000
200,000
50,000
10,000
2,360,000
0.173
0.314
0.528
0.822
1.202
0.125
0.375
0.625
0.875
1.125
207,600
282,600
105,600
41,100
12,020
648,920
(Linear )
(Column (3) x (5))
150,000
337,500
125,000
43,750
11,250
667,500
                              ENI  (Curvilinear) - 648,920
                              ENI  (Linear) = 667,500
                              Nil  (Curvilinear) - 648,920  7  2,360,000  -  0.27
                              Nil  (Linear) - 667,500  7  2,360,000  -  0.28

-------
             APPENDIX H
RAILCAR COUPLING NOISE MEASUREMENTS

-------
                                 APPENDIX H
                    RAILCAR COUPLING NOISE MEASUREMENTS

1.   Introduction

     One of the major sources of noise In railroad yards Is the coupling
of railcars during routine classification operations.  However, the data
base of the noise levels generated during such operations is not very ex-
tensive — 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 investi-
gate 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
railcars.

     This appendix documents the results of these tests as well as test
procedure and measurements.  Tables H-4 and H-5 present actual car coupling
speed data collected by Conrail which was used as a guide in formulating the
car coupling standard.  Attachments  H-l  through H-4  contain information and
correspondence  on  industry  car coupling  rules  and practices (see  p.  H-16).
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
car, with one empty box car and one fully-loaded box car being used as
                                    H-l

-------
 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 A 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 railcar 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 teat 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 3.3  meters  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.

     Noise data were collected  at  three locations  (A, B and C)  as  shown in
Figure H-l.  At each of these  locations for  each test  the  noise was recorded
on magnetic tape using the measurement instrumentation shown  in Figure H-2.
In addition, at location A a  sound level meter was  included to provide a
                                       H-2

-------
Test Car
                                                   Buffer Cars
                         7.6m
                              7.6m
                      30m
                  92m
                          0D
                 FIGURE H-l.  NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
                                    H-3

-------
               GENRAD
               1562A
               Calibrator
              GENRAD  1560-9522
            '  Windscreen
            1  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 H-2.
SCHEMATIC OF NOISE MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTATION
AT LOCATIONS A, B, AND C
                              H-4

-------
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 H-l.

     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.

     The temperature and wind direction and magnitude were also measured at
regular intervals.  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 H-3
for a diagram of the playback Instrumentation).  Table H-l lists these two
maximum values (Lmax, 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 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 measured
at each of six different speeds (tests 1 through 30), Figure H-4 shows the
maximum A-weighted slow noise level plotted as a function of speed*  Figure
H-5 is a similar plot, for the maximum A-welghted fast noise level.  These two
figures clearly show that the maximum noise level is a strong function of
car-coupling speed.  The maximum level can be expressed as a function of
speed, V, as follows:
                                      H-5

-------
      NAGRA
     IV STS
    RECORDER
                                       GENRAD
                                        1982
                                     SOUND LEVEL
                                       METER
                                      BBN 614
                                       NOISE
                                      MONITOR
FIGURE  H-3.  SCHEMATIC OF DATA PROCESSING INSTRUMENTATION
                             H-6

-------
                       Table H-l
MEASURED A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS  DURING COUPLING TESTS

Test
Number
Coupling
2
Speed ,
nph
Position A
Ljnax ^max SEL
Slow Fast
Position B
Lmax Lmax SEL
Slow Fast
ONE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FIVE EMPTY BOX CARS
1
2
3
4
5
6
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
ONE LOADED BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FIVE EMPTY BOX CARS
7
8
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
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
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

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

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
Position
A D"
Lmax L-n
Slow3 Fast3

(80. 6)6 68.3
80.7 70.2
85.6 74.9
88.7 76.7
90.9 81.0
96.7 88.0

80.4 72.0
85.1 75.0
(89. 8)6 79.9
92.6 82.7
94.5 85.4
96.0 87.4

82.0 73.4
85.7 75.3
90.1 81.3
93.1 82.4
96.1 87.3
98.8 89.6

-------
                                                  Table  H-l

                            MEASURED A-WEIGHTED NOISE  LEVELS   DURING  COUPLING TESTS  (Continued)
•rest
Number

19
20
21
22
r23A
23B
24

25
26
27
28
29
30

31
32
33
34
Coupling
Speed
mph
Position A
Lmax Lmax SEL
Slow Fast
Position B
^max Lmax SEL
Slow Fast
ONE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH ONE LOADED COAL CAR
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
Position C
^max ^max 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
Position
A D1*
Lmax kmax
Slow3 Fast3

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
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
ONE EMPTY BOX CAR COUPLING WITH FOUR EMI
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
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 11B.2
TY BOX CARS
98.9 106.3 99.7
99.0 106.2 99.9
99.8 106.2 100.6
98.8 105.9 99.5
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

95.2 103.7 96.3
94.8 103.3 95.9
96.5 104.8 97.8
96.1 104.7 97.2
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
00
      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--
                O Empty Box Car —»• 5 Box Cars
                O Loaded Box Car —+• 5 Box Cars
               O Loaded Coal Car —•• 5 Box Cars
                • Empty Box Car —»• Coal Car
                • Loaded Box Car —*• Coal Car
          95--
a
vo
     (0
          90--
                                                                           O
          85- •
          80- -
          75.
                                                 4-
                                                               4-
-I-
-f-
 9
                          FIGURE  H-4.
                                                                                        8
                                        4            56
                                      Car Coupling Speed,  MPH
                               MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS VS. SPEED (Slow Meter Dynamics)
                   10

-------
                 110
                 105. .
                 100--
I
M
O
               4J
               VI
                *  95
                 90--
                 85
Q Empty Box Car —
O Loaded Box Car -
OLoaded Coal Car
• Empty Box Car —
• Loaded Box Car -
 5 Box Cars
- 5 Box Cars
•*• 5 Box Cars
 Coal Car
-  Coal Car
                                                                        00
               4           5
          Car Coupling Speed, MPH
                                                                                              -4-
                                                                                               8
                                                                                    10
                       FIGURE H-5.  MAXIMUM NOISE LEVELS VS. SPEED  (Fast Meter Dynamics)

-------
     - A + B log V, where V is in mph and 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 H-4 and H-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 H-2 lists the weights of all
test and buffer cars used during the measurements).  For the two configur-
ations 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 H-4 and H-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 H-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.

     Comparison of the 30 and 92 meter slow noise data shows an average
difference of 9.8 dB.  For a point source, one would expect a change in

                                      H-ll

-------
                         Table H-2
              MASS OF RAIL CARS USED  IN  TESTS

         CAR(S)                          MASS. KILOGRAMS

     Empty Box Car                             20,045
     Loaded Box Car                            63,988
     Loaded Coal Car                          100,000
     5 Empty Box Cars                         103,590
     4 Empty Box Cars                          83,636
                           Table H-3
           ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SETS OF
                  CAR COUPLING NOISE LEVELS
                            AVERAGE          STANDARD       NO.  OF
DATA SETS                DIFFERENCE, dB   DEVIATION,  dB    SAMPLES

I-niax at Location B -

Lmax at Location C          3.1              2.1            35

  (slow)


Lmax at Location A -

Lniax at Location D          9.8              1.1            35

  (slow)


     Fast -                 8.5              1.5           101

     Slow


     Slow -               " °'6              1»6           10°

  SEL


     Fast -                 7.9              2.4           100

  SEL
                                  H-12

-------
level of 9*5 dB between measurement positions located 30 and 92 meter 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
H-1 shows that there is minimal difference in the noise level generated when
the buffer cars are compressed versus stretched versus randomly positioned.
Although the number of measurements is in reality too small to draw statisti-
cally 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 somewhat higher; this
may be due to meteorological effects which would be more pronounced as the
distance from the source to the microphone increases.
                                       H-13

-------
                                   Table H-4

      SUMMARY OF CONRAIL SYSTEM  CAREFUL  CAR  HANDLING PROGRAM*
xl
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
17.0
Coupling Speed
(mph)
X2
0.9
1.9
2.9
3.9
4.9
5.9
6.9
7.9
8.9
9.9
10.9
- 11.9
12.9
13.9
14.9
15.9
- 17.9
Average
Coup ling
Soeed
X
.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
14.5
15.5
17.5
Frequency
of Car
Coupling
f
52
2147
5606
10889
15589
16433
6143
2380
1087
407
139
54
14
12
4
1
1
Weighted
Average Car
Coupling Speed
fX
26.0
3220.5
14015.0
38111.5
70150.5
90381.5
39929.5
17850.0
9239.5
3866.5
1459.5
621.0
175.0
162.0
58.0
15.5
17.5
                local  60958
                                                          289,299.0
Total Impact Average
total  Overspeed Average
fX  - 289.299.0 -  4.75   Average Coupling Speed of
n      60958             cars which made coupling


fX  -  73394    -  7.17 (Average)
n      10242 (Cars  over 6mph)
*Meaauremenea taken  third and fourth quarter 1978, flrat  and second quarter 1979.
                                       H-14

-------
                                             Table  H-5
                   SUMMARY OF CONRAIL CAR COUPLING SPEED DATA  BY QUARTERS





ac
in




Speed
FreauencT
3rd Qtr.1978
4th Qtr.1978
1st Qtr.1979
2nd Qtr.1979
A Total*
3rd Qtr.1978
4th Qtr.1978
1st Qtr.1979
4th Qtr.1979
B Total*
3rd Qtr.1978
4th Qtr.1978
1st Qtr.1979
2nd Qtr.1979
C Total*

Total
Z of Total
Sample

Total
7173
6970
7682
7772
29.597
5583
4987
5115
6753
22.438
3209
2084
2395
4256
11.944

63.979


-1 1
2 303
3 297
6 331
279
11 1210
11 184
141
2 204
- 127
14 656
17 115
36
9 47
1 83
27 281

52 2147
.001 .034

2
809
625
731
635
2800
440
404
613
463
1920
277
115
192
302.
886

5606
.088

3
1300
1193
1328
1372
5193
1004
818
754
1062
3688
543
376
495
644
2058

10889
.170

4
1619
1751
1935
1988
7293
1229
1282
1205
1700
5416
614
554
706
946
2880

15587
.244

5
1489
1763
1769
2004
7025
1353
1187
1263
1970
5873
803
596
624
1512
3535

16433
.257

6
706
619
656
718
2699
593
494
498
680
2265
380
208
131
410
1179

6143
.096

7
283
205
261
268
1017
256
215
196
281
948
149
66
58
142
415

2380
.037

8
108
85
178
114
485
124
55
98
140
417
77
38
25
45.
185

1087
.017

9
40
45
57
33.
175
67
28
32
51
178
23
9
7
15
54

407
.006

10
9
9
17
19
54
13
9
20
26
68
9
4
2
2
17

139
.002

11
it
-
5
11
20
17
1
3
9
30
-
-
2
2
4

54
.001

12 13
1
1 5
1 I
2 5
4 12
1 1
3
4 1
3
8 5
1
1
-
1
2 1

14 18
.

Stall
5OO
369
406
324
1599
290
249
222
241
1002
141
81
97
101
420

3021
.047
*A - daytime hours (7a» - 3pm);   B - afternoon hours (3p» - Up");   C - nightine hours  (11 pa - 7am)

-------
                             REFERENCES

1.    Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc.;  Report No.  3873,  1978, Cambridge,
     Massachusetts.
     Preface to Attachments H-l through H-4

     The Agency solicited information from rail carriers regarding their oper-
 ating rules, operating practices or recommended practices concerning locomotive
 and rail car coupling speeds (Attachment H-l).  The Association of American Rail-
 roads (Attachment H-2), as well as some eighty(SO) rail carriers responded to
 our request for information (Attachment H-3).  Attachment H-A provides a sum-
 mary of these responses.
                                       H-15  A

-------
                         Attachment H-l

   r
    *i     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
   •J                     WASHINGTON. D.C.  20460
Dear

The Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA)  is in the  process  of broadening
the scope  of its railroad  noise emission standards  to  include interstate
rail carriers'  equipment  and facilities.   This action was ordered  by  the
United  States  Court of  Appeals  for  the District  of Columbia Circuit  on
August  23,  1977, in  response  to a  petition for  review:   Association  of
American Railroads'  (AAR)  v. Douglas M.  Costle, Administrator of  the  EPA,
(copy of Court Order enclosed).

In  the information we have obtained on railroad yard operations, rail
car coupling speed  can be a factor  in  the  total noise level  of  the yard.
We have  information  which indicates  that at  least  some rail  carriers  have
established 'operating rules that  couplings should not  occur at  speeds
greater than  four miles  per  hour.    This speed of coupling  impact  being
necessary to  minimize  lading damage  for certain .commodities  being  trans-
ported by rail.

Pursuant  to Public Law 92-574,  as  amended, we are requesting that you
inform us  as to  whether  your  firm, as  a rail  carrier, has  at this  time
in  effect  an operating  rule,  operating  practice  or recommended  practice
relating to  locomotive and  rail car coupling speed.   A copy of such  rule
or recommended practice, if  there  is one  in effect,  is requested.

In  view of  the court order,  earlier  referenced,   with  which  the  Federal
Government must  comply,   your  response  with  the requested information  by
January 19,  1979, would be appreciated.

Thank  you for your prompt attention in this  matter.  If  there are any
questions relating  to  this  request  Mr.  Richard Westlund  may be contacted
at (703) 557-7666.
Sipcerely yours,
      A *'
  try EX Thomas,  Director
Standard) and Regulations
 Division (ANR-490)
                             H-l 6

-------
„ ^OVATION OF              Attachment H-2



LAW DEPARTMENT
AMERICAN RAILROADS BUILDING  • WASHINGTON. D. C 20036  •  202/293-4086
HOLLIS G. DUENSING
Guttnl Attorney
                                                January  19,  1979
        Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
        Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, DC    20460

        Dear Mr. Thomas:

                  Thank you for your letter to Mr. Peter Conlon of January 5,
        1979, regarding car coupling speed  limits.  I would  like  to point out
        that your letter  was not received at AAR until January 15, 1979.

                  The Association of American Railroads has  no rules or
        standards applying to car coupling  speeds.

                  Discussions with members of the AAR staff  on this subject did
        yield some information on the subject which may be useful.  The minimum
        speed required to assure complete coupling, under free rolling conditions,
        is about 3 mph.   A speed of 4 mph for car coupling has been an operating
        practice in the railroad industry for several decades, and is primarily
        related to preventing lading damage of fragile commodities.  In reality,
        however, achieving the optimal speed of 4 mph is difficult.  Studies by
        AAR and freight car builders of car coupling impact  speeds show about
        50 percent of the events fall into a range of 4.5 to 6.5 mph.  About
        25 percent of the impacts are above 6.5 mph, and 25  percent are less than
        4.5 mph.

                  The variability in key factors affecting car coupling speeds
        makes it virtually impossible to maintain consistent car coupling speeds.
        Human factors play a large role in speed control, as well as mechanical
        conditions such as reliability of the car, car weight, wheel bearing
        conditions, track conditions, and foreign substances on wheels and
        retarders.  Tests comparing identical cars under the same conditions find
        each car reacting differently.

                  The alternative to free rolling coupling is to "shove to rest";
        a term meaning pushing cars together by a locomotive with enough force
        to close the couplers.  To implement this alternative as a noise reduction
        technique would be totally impractical due to several fundamental reasons.
        The capacity of a railroad system depends on optimal usage of the facilities,
                                     H-17

-------
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
January 19, 1979
Page Two

which is based on the maximum number of cars which can be moved  In a
certain time period.  To classify all cars by the shove to rest  method
would result in an  increase  in the time required to classify each car
by at least an order of magnitude.  The net result would be that the
classification yards would not be able to handle the present or projected
traffic flows.

          Thank you for the  opportunity to  comment on  this matter,   If
we can assist you with any more questions you may have,  please  let us
know.

                                        Sincerely,
                                         Ho11is G. Duensing
                              H-18

-------
                Four Miles Per Hour is the stand-
                ard maximum safe coupling speed.
                It is a speed equivalent to that of
                a  brisk walk.
   Be alert—Pay attention at all times white car
 movements are being  made. Proper switching re-
 quires and is worthy of your best attention at all
 times.

   The shipment in the car you are handling may
 be the one you are waiting for.

   It is a fact loaded cars run farther than empties.

   Treat EMPTIES  the same  as LOADS,  when
 switching.

   Observe the lading on open top loads. If some-
 thing does not look, right—Report it at once—Do
 not take chances.

   Don't let the car you are riding control you—
 Controlling it is a part  of your job.

   The right way is the only way to do a job prop-
 erly.

   Give all signals clearly so that'your meaning will
 be readily understood.

   Give your engineman a chance by giving  him
 steady signal before you give him the stop signal.
   Failure to give the engineman your full  face or
 full back when giving signals mekes it difficult for
 him to interpret signals. Position yourself  so that
 engineman can see you.
   Remember the importance of  proper signals.
 Take a few minutes to study your own signaling.
 Improper signals contribute  much  to overspeed
 impacts.
   In -flat switching avoid having too many  cars in
 your cut— authorities say not more than 20 cars
for best results.
  . Violept signals are  undesirable and  unneces*
saryV1
   AVOID accidents to man. car or lading.
   Keep knuckles open. It's easier on you, the car
and the lading.
    Don't kick cars when not necessary. Oftentimes
 aJitUe slack is all that is required to make the cut.

/•  Use the hand brake when  necessary to control
 the speed of cars when engine is not attached. Do
 not  permit car  to  couple at a speed  exceeding
 4  M.P.H.	  -

    Before shoving a cut of cars,  know there' is
 sufficient room on the track to hold  the cars and
 make sure all  cars are coupled by taking slack be-
 fore beginning the shoving  movement. Be sure
 hand brakes  are  properly  set  when cars  are
 spotted.

    Cars should not be left with close clearance to
 adjacent tracks  creating  the  hazard of personal
 injury or property damage. Be sure that car on any
 track will not foul cars on an  adjacent track.

    Countless thousands of switches  are correctly
 operated  each day but  setting a switch in  the
 wrong position or running through  a  switch has
 resulted in serious and extensive damage.

    Serious damage has resulted  from  efforts to
 "drive" stalled cars on ladder tracks.

    Do not permit cars to run too fast out of
 retarders.

  •  Hump  riders  should ride  cars  to a coupling.
 Haste makes waste.

    Hand  brakes should be tested before cars, are
 cut off at apex of hump.

    Report mechanical defects in cars to your con-
 ductor  or yardmaster  so  that  they can  be
 corrected.

    Much damage is caused by leaky air hoses. You
 can see and hear them—Correct the condition or
 •see that it is corrected.

    Comply with your operating rules.  They are the
 result of experience and have  been  tested  many
 times.

    The road-man who brings in a train with the air
 cut out of some car and fails to say anything about
 it is a creatot of excessive impacts. The conduc-
 tors should make report of any cars brought into
 terminal with air brakes inoperative.
                                                  H-19

-------
                                Attachment H-3
              AKRON, CANTON &YOUNGSTOWN
                                8 North Jefferson Street
JOHN R. MCMICHAEL                 ROANOKE, V1RG.N.A 240U
 f»re»idenr»nd Chief Executive Officer
                                                January  17,  1979

                                                A - 270-4
    Mr. Henry  E.  Thomas
    Director
    Standards  and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
    United  States Environmental Protection Agency
    Washington,  D.  C.   20460

    Dear Mr. Thomas:

    Please  refer to your letter to me of January 3 seeking advice
    as  to AC&Y's rules, operating practices, or recommended prac-
    tices which  relate to locomotive and rail car coupling speed.

    AC&Y has adopted the operating Rules of its parent company,
    Norfolk and  Western Railway Company.   Hence, the response of
    Norfolk and  Western to this same inquiry is equally applicable
    to  AC&Y.   A  copy of Mr.  Fishwick's letter of January 11 is
    attached for your easy reference.

                                      Yours very truly,
     /rwg

     Enc.
                                  H-20

-------
                              January 11, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This refers to your letter of January 3 requesting  information
concerning any Norfolk and Western operating rule,  operating
practice or recommended practice relating to locomotive and
rail car coupling speed.

The only written provision among NVJ's operating Rules which
relates to speed of car couplings is the following  paragraph
from Rule 103(h):

          "When coupling or shoving cars, proper
          precaution must be taken to prevent
          damage."

In the course of instructing NW train and engine service
personnel, it is our practice to explain this requirement
as prohibiting a coupling speed exceeding that of a brisk
walk, or approximately four miles per hour.

                              Sincerely,


                              (Signed) John P. Fisliwick
                           H-21

-------
OCNCIUL SUPCMMTCMOCNT
   ALIQUIPPA  AND  SOUTHERN  RAILROAD  COMPANY
                                 P. O. BOX 28O
                            ALIQUIPPA.  PA.  15OO1
                                                    January  17, 1979
         Henry E. Thomas, Director
         Standards £ Regulations
         Division (ANR-490)
         U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency
         Washington, D. C. 20460

         Dear Mr. Thomas:

               In response to your request of January 3, 1979, our Rule 52 is
         quoted below:

               "52.  Employes performing switching must do so efficiently
                     and in  a manner which will avoid personal injury,
                     damage  to contents of cars, equipment, structures
                     or other property.

                     (a) Before coupling to or moving cars or en-
                         gines, it must be known that they are
                         properly secured and can be coupled to
                         and moved with safety.

                     (b) Before coupling to or moving cars on
                         tracks where cars are beir-j loaded or
                         unloaded, gangplanks, conveyors, tank
                         couplings, elevator spouts  and similar
                         loading or unloading devices, must be
                         removed and clear for the movement.
                     (c) Before shoving cars, the cars must, be
                         coupled and slack stretched to be sure
                         all couplings are made.  Before shoving
                         cars/ it must be known there is suffi-
                         cient room to hold the cars.

                     (d) Cars must not be shoved out to foul
                         other tracks unless the movement is
                         properly protected.

                     (e) When switching or placing cars, they
                         must be left where they will fully clear
                         passing cars on adjacent tracks and where
                         they will not cause injury  to employes
                         riding on the side of cars.
                                   H-22

-------
   ALIQUIPPA  AND  SOUTHERN  RAILROAD  COMPANY
                                 P. O. BOX 280
                            ALIQUIPPA, PA.  15OO1
   J.J.OCVAK
OCNMM. SUPtftMTCNOCNT
         Henry £. Thomas, Director                         Page 2
         U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency              January 17, 1979
                     (f)  Where crews may be working at both ends
                         of a track or a set of associated tracks,.
                         the Yardmaster (or Yardmasters) in charge
                         shall assure that the involved crews are
                         properly and timely advised of such situa-
                         tion so as to assure proper protection.
                     (g)  When cars are left on any track, they
                         must be properly secured.  When cars are
                         detached from other cars, it must be known
                         that the cars left -are properly secured.
                         In setting brakes on cars dn a grade,
                         brakes must be set on low end of the cut
                         of cars/ and slack must be bunched to know
                         cars will stand when engine is cut off.

                     (h)  When cars are being pulled or shoved by
                         an engine, yardmen shall take such positions
                         as necessary to pass signals to the engine
                         and to assure the safe and proper movement
                         of such cars."

               Should you desire anything further, please advise.

                                         Very truly yours,

                                ALIQUIPPA 6 SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
                                            JSDeyak
                                         General Superintendent
                                   H-23

-------
           THE ALTON &  SOUTHERN  RAILWAY  COMPANY
                          1000 SOUTH OMO STrarrr. EAST ST. tout*, lu- «UO7
                                Tn_ AMCJk COOC «!• 171-OXJ
  H. D.. HUFFMAN
       • OCMCIUL MAMAOCM
                                              January 15, 1979
                                              File:  A-15-3
Mr. Henry E. Thomas,  Director
Standards and Regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

           Your letter of January 3, 1979, received this office January 11,
1979, concerning coupling speeds not to exceed 4 miles per hour.

           Our Uniform Code of Operating Rules effective June 2, 1968, Rule
103: "Precautions  in  Switching" reads in part, "(2) . . . Make couplings at
a speed of not more than 4 miles per hour".

                                     Yours very truly,
HDH:vw
                                H-24

-------
    National Railroad Passenger Corpoianon. 400 North Capitol Street. NW. Washington. DC. 20001 Telephone (202) 333-3000
Amtrak _jH5S                                January 16, 1979
    Mr.  Henry E.  Thomas
    Director
    Standards and Regulations
      Division (ANR-490)
    United States Environmental
      Protection Agency
    Washington,  DC  20460

    Dear Mr. Thomas:

         Your letter of January 3 to Mr. Boyd has been forwarded
    to me for handling.

         Amtrak  operates under contract with various carriers
    to provide switching throughout the country.   Under these
    contracts, the railroads operate under  their  own-Book of
    Rules,  which prescribe coupling speeds.   On the Northeast
    Corridor,  Amtrak currently operates under Rule 130 of the
    Penn Central  Rules for Conducting Transportation (copy
    enclosed)  which stipulates:

              "Engines and cars must be coupled at a
              speed not to exceed 4 mph."

    This rule is  a common one.  In our own  rule book which will
    take effect April 30, 1979, the coupliiig speed is also 4 mph,
    per  Rule Number 130 (copy enclosed).

         If there are any further questions,  please contact my
    office.

                                    Sincerely,
                                    Robert A. Hermat
                                    Vice President  -  Operations
   Enclosures
                               H-25

-------
    DRAFT--AMTRAK BOOK OF RULES
           A passenger train  routed  to  a  track  which  will  result
 in a station stop for receiving  or  discharging traffic  across  a
 track between that  train  and  the station  platform must  stop  and
 obtain assurance  from the Train  Dispatcher  or  Operator  that
 other trains involved have been  advised  of  the situation  and
 given instructions.   When assurance  has  been previously fur-
 nished in  writing or  by radio, the  stop  need not  be  made.

           When a  regular  train running on its  assigned  track
 must  discharge and  receive passengers  across a track between
 that  train and the  station platform, protection against other
 trains  is  not required when the  train  is  running  on  schedule.
 When  such  a  train is  running  behind  its  schedule,  the Train
 Dispatcher must provide protection against  all  other 'involved
 trains.

        110.  On secondary tracks where  Block  Signal System
 rules are  not in effect, trains  and  engines may proceed at
 Reduced Speed after receiving signal indication,  permission
 of employe  in charge, or in an emergency under  flag  protection.
 When movement has been completed, it must be reported clear
 except when  clearing  at an interlocking" or  block  station.
 Trains and engines will not protect  against following move-
 ments unless specified in the Timetable.

        111.  Unle-s  otherwise specified  in the Timetable,
 trains and enj,..'.s using a siding may proceed  at  Restricted
 Speed and  '.:i'l net protect against following movements.

          A  siding of an assigned direction must  not be used
 in the reverse direction without proper signal  indication,
 authority  of the employe in charge, or in an emergency  under
 flag protection.

          Trains or engines using a controlled  siding will
 operate in accordance with signal indications.

        112.  On a running track, movements may proceed at
 Restricted Speed after receiving signal indication,  permission
 of employe in charge, or as specified in the Timetable  and in
 an emergency under flag protection.   When movement has  been
 completed, it rmst be reported clear except when clearing at
 an interlocking or block station.  Protection against following
movements will not be provided unless specified in the Timetable

        113.  Movements on tracks other than main, secondary,
 running tracks,  and sidings may proceed at Restricted Speed
unless otherwise  specified in the Timetable.
              Engines and cars must be coupled at a speed not
to exceeo4 miles per hour.
                             H-26

-------
not  protect  against  following  movements  unless
specified in  tlic  timetable.

  111.  Unless  otherwise specified in the timetable,
trains and engines using n  siding may proceed  at
Restricted Speed and will not protect against follow-
ing movements.
  A siding of an assigned direction must not be used
in the reverse direction without proper signal indica-
tion  authority  of the employe in charge, or in an
emergency under flag protection.
  Trains or  engines  using  a controlled siding will
operate  in accordance with  signal  indications.

  112.  On a running track, movements may proceed
at Restricted Speed, on signal  indication, permission
of employe in charge or as specified in  the timetable
and in  an emergency under flag protection.  When
movement has  been completed it must  be  reported
clear; except, when clearing at an interlocking,  block
station or where switch tenders are on duty.  Pro-
tection against following movements will not be pro-
vided unless  specified  in the timetable.

  113.  Movements on tracks other than main, sec-
ondary,  running tracks and sidings may proceed  at
Restricted Speed  unless otherwise specified in the
timetable.

 Q30>X Engines and cars must be coupled at a speed
not to exceed 4  miles per hour.

  130a.   A stop must be made just prior to coupling
occupied  passenger  equipment.  Cars  occupied  by
passengers and cars placed on tracks occupied by such
can must be handled with air brakes in service.

  130b.  Cars placed for loading or unloading, must
not be coupled  to nor moved until all  persons in  or
about them  have been notified and all obstructions
under or about the cars, transfer boards, and attach-
ments have. been  removed.  When  such cars are
moved  they  must be returned to  original  location.
  Sign reading "Stop-Tank Car Connected," indicates
tank cars arc connected for loading or unloading and
must not  be coupled to  or moved.  Cars must not
be  placed on the same track that may  obstruct the
view of a sign  without first notifying the person  in
charge.
                                       H-27

-------
BANGOR AND AROOSTOOK RAILROAD COMPANY
Northern Maine Junction Park  RR 2 Bangor, Maine  04401    (207)  848-5711



                                             February 9, 1979
       Henry E. Thomas,  Director
       Standards and  Regulations Division
       United States  Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington,  D.  C.   20460

       Dear Mr. Thomas:

                At  the request of Mr. Travis, I an enclosing
       a copy of a  portion of our Operating Rules relative
       to switching cars.   You will note that the rule  in
       question requires  that a speed limit of two miles per
       hour be imposed when coupling cars.

                                             Very truly  yours,

                                              /
                                             .William M.  Houston
       Enclosure                             Vice President  and
                                                General  Counsel
       WMH/p


       cc:  Walter  E.  Travis
                                   H-28

-------
             THE BELT RAILWAY COMPANY OF CHICAGO

             eeoo SOUTH CENTRAL. AVENUE •  CHICAGO. ii_i_iNoie eoesa


RICHARD r. KOMtOCKt                                                        »1t-4»»-4O4O
  •CMkHAL. COUNCIL.
                                             January 31, 1979
          Mr.  Henry E:  Thomas,  Director
          Standards and Regulations Division
          United States Environmental Protection Agency
          Washington,  D. C.  20460
          Dear Mr.  Thomas:

          Pursuant  to your request for whatever rules we may
          have concerning operating practices relating to
          locomotive and rail car coupling speed, please find
          attached  a copy of the appropriate sections of The
          Belt Railway Company'-s special instructions.
                                             Sincerely
          RFK:jms
          encl.
          cot   H.  6.  Duensing, Gen. Attny.
               Law Department
               Association of Amer. Railroads
               American Railroad Building
               1920 L Street N.W.
               Washington, D. C. 20036
                                     H-29

-------
   43. AVOID  DAMAGE  -  SWITCH  CUSTOMERS
CARS CAREFULLY
                 JUDGING SPEED
   Accurate judgment of coupling speed depends upon
correct timing. An excellent way to get accurate timing
without a watch is to count "one hundred and thirty-
one, one hundred and thirty-two" and so on as the car
passes a stationary point. With a little practice counting
can be done at the rate of one a second. Try it.
   Ability to closely estimate speed at time car strikes is
extremely important because the resultant destructive
effect builds up in  direct ratio  to the square of the
speed. This means that impact delivered by a car coupled
at 8 MJPJ1 is  not four times that at 2 MJ.H. but  16
TIMES AS GREAT. Damage to freight  and car can be
avoided  by always keeping coupling  speed within the
safe  range of - NOT OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR -
about the speed of a BRISK WALK.
                                           44. SPEED GUIDE - To find coupling speed of 40
                                        foot and SO foot car.
                                           Sight vertical end of car body on a fixed point and
                                        note the number of seconds it takes car to pass. Speed in
                                        miles per hour is shown below.
                                           Damage as a result of Rough Handling makes up 3
                                        large  part of the claim  bill  for Loss and Damage  to
                                        Freight. From the Railroad standpoint it is  the major
                                        item in the expense. We all know that Rouen Handling
                                        can be reduced, often eliminated. It  is hoped that this
                                        guide will be helpful  in your efforts to prevent Rough
                                        Handling.
                                           Switch  crews must function as a team. Clear signals
                                        properly given are mighty  important:
                                           Talk it over — prevent Rough Handling — it can be
                                        done.


                                                        40 foot car      SO foot car
                                            Seconds   (Miles per Hour)  (Miles Per Hour)
  Impact force at various striking speeds:
     Car Coupled at        Units of Destructive Force
         1MPH                        1
        2MPH                        4
        3MPH      SAFE             9
        4MPH                       16
         SMPH
         6MPH
         7MPH
         SMPH
         9MPH
        10MPH
DAMAGING
 25
 36
 49
 64
 81
100
1 28 35
2 14 17.5
3 9J 11.6
4 7 8.7
5 5.6 7
6 4.7 5.9
7
8
9 gtn
!° COOLING
II avfn
12 "^
13
14
4 5
3.5 4.4
3.1
2.8 SAFE
2.5 COUPLING'
23 SPEED
2.15
2
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.7
2J
                                 Car  retarder  operators are  responsible to  use  the
                               accessary judgment  essential to maintain  continuous
                               hump  operation  classification, proper position of
                               switches, before  a car is permitted to enter retarders. set
                               up car retarders to  the position required to properly
                               retard and control  the speed of cars that will permit the
                               required coupling or required entrance to mechanical car
                               stopper not to exceed a 4 mile per hour speed.

                                                    H-30

-------
                                AND LAKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
600 GRANT STREET  •  P. O. BOX 536   •   PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA  15230
M. SPALDING TOON
    PRESIDENT
                                            January 15,  1.979
 Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
 Standards and Regulations
  Division (ANR-490)
 United States Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D. C.  20460

 Dear Mr.  Thomas:

         This is -in response to your letter of January 3 requesting
 information relating to locomotive and rail car couplings.

         Industrial switching is placing cars for loading and unloading
 at various industries.  Couplings are  made at slow speeds with the
 engine attached and at speeds of no more than three to four miles per
 hour:

         Classification yard switching is  usually for line haul movement
 and consists of: series of tracks with each one designated for a
 different destination.  Cars are allowed to move onto  these tracks
 detached from the locomotive and couple  to other cars already on the
 tracks at speeds averaging  five to six miles per hour. Empty cars are
 even permitted to couple to other cars at speeds up to seven and eight
 miles  per hour and do so without damage.

         We do not have an  operating rule specifying coupling speeds,
 but as a matter of practice, the speeds under these two types of
 switching are as stated above.

                                        Yours very truly*
                                        Pres ide nt
                            H-31

-------
                 BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
                                       POST OFFICE BOX 579
                                     F AIRFIELD. ALABAMA 35064
 JOHN L PARKER
OMNIUM. SUPERINTENDENT                            March 19, 1979
          Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
          Standards and Regulations Division
          0. S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Washington, D. C. 20460

          Dear Mr. Thomas:

          In response to your letter of January 3,  1979, regarding rail
          car coupling  speeds, please be advised that  the Birmingham
          Southern Railroad Company does not have in effect an-operating
          rule, operating practice or recommended practice relating to
          locomotive and rail car coupling speeds.

                               Sincerely,
                               John L. Parker
                            17
         JLP:ems
                                     H-32

-------
  MOBTH BIUBB1CA. UA8SACHUBRTB O1*M

           • I7/M74IOO
BOSroH«n,«ACn5CORPOHAT,0H.DEBroa    ^v"',^-,            
-------
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
JOHNH.HERTOG                                  176 East Filth Street
Senior Vice President - Operations                       St. Paul. Minnesota 55101
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director                    March  27,  1979
  Standards 6 Regulations Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

Please refer to your letter dated March  16 addressed  to Mr.  J. D.
Giallombardo, with which you forwarded a copy of your letter
dated January 3' to Mr. Muelder requesting car coupling  information.

Burlington Northern Inc. has no formal operating rule or written
practice regarding coupling speed.  As a recommended  practice,
Burlington Northern does follow the AAR recommendation  of four
miles per hour coupling speed in order to minimize damage to equip-
ment and lading.  A chart of the coupling speed and resulting impact
forces are on the back page of all our timetables.  A copy  of the
page is enclosed for your information.

Sincerely,
Attachment


File 40-18 Noise
                            H-34

-------
BURUNGTON
NORTHERN
            THE COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY
            A SUBSIOlAPV OF eU"LINGTON NORTHERN
            2000 EXECUTIVE TOWER/1405 CURTIS STREET/DENVER. COLORADO 80202
           GEORGE F. DEFIEL
           President
                                                          January  16,  '979
                                                          AAR-Research
           Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
           Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
           U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington,  D.  C.  20460

           Dear Mr.  Thomas:

           Reference Is  made  to your January 3,  1979 letter concerning
           railroad  noise  emission standards and request for Information
           as to locomotive and rail car coupling speed.

           The Colorado  and Southern Railway Company's current Timetable
           and Special  Instructions dated October 31,  1976  provides on
           page 16,  copy attached, that switching will be performed in a
           manner which  will  avoid damage to contents  of cars and equip-
           ment and  the  maximum safe coupling speed is 4 MPH.

           Yours very truly,
                                    H-35

-------
f C
PERFORM SWITCHING IN A MANNER
WHICH WILL AVOID DAMAGE TO
CONTENTS OF CARS AND EQUIPMENT
Safe Coupling Speed
(MPH)
1
2
3
4
Damaging Coupling Speed
(MPH)
6
6
7
8
9
10
Impact Force
1
4
9
16
Damaging Force
26
36
49
64
81
100
SPEED TABLE

Time Miles Time Miles
Per Mile Per Per Mile Per
Minutes Second Hour Minutes Second Hour
1 12 60 2 40 22.6
1 15 48 2 46 21.8
1 20 46 2 60 21.2
1 25 42.3 3 .... 20
1 30 40 3 9 19
1 40 36 3 20 18
1 45 34.3 3 31 17
1 60 32.7 3 46 10
2 .... 30 4 ._ 15
2 10 27.8 6 — 12
2 15 26.« 6 .... 10
2 20 26.7 7 30 •
« 30 24 10 .... «

H-36

-------
BURLINGTON
NORTHERN
           FORT WORTH AND DENVER RAILWAY COMPANY
           A SUBSIDIARY OF HUHLINGTUN NUHIMIHN
           FORT WORTH CLUB BUILDING. POST OFFICE BOX 043. FORT WORTH. TEXA-, 7,,i01
           GEORGE F. DEFIEL
           President
          Mr. Henry  E.  Thomas                      January  16,  1979
          Director,  Standards  and
          Regulations  Division
          (ANR-490)
          United States  Environmental
          Protection Agency
          Washington,  D.C. 20460


          Dear Mr. Thomas:

          Please refer  to your letter of January  3,  1979  requesting
          Information  and documents pertinent to  operating rules  or
          practices  governing  locomotive and rail car  coupling
          speeds.

          FW&D Timetable and Special  Instructions is attached  and
          your attention is directed  to page 16.  Also  attached is
          photo-copy of  Rules  808 and 810 of "The Consolidated
          Code of Operating Rules."  I  trust these documents will
          furnish the  information you desired.
          Yours truly,
          G. F. Defiel


          cc:  Mr. W. L. Peck



          File: 6700-3A1
                                   H-37

-------
able, boom  must be trailing. Such  equipment
must be inspected before being moved.

  Spreaders and dozers being moved in trains
must, when practicable, be headed in lite direc-
tion train is moving, wings must be properly
secured.

  The conductor and engineer must be notified
when such equipment is in their train.

  805  (E).  Open-top or flat cars foaded with
pipe, lumber, poles or other  lading which has
a tendency to  shift, must  not be handled  in
train next to engine, caboose, occupied outfit
cars or passenger cars.

  80G.  Before  coupling to or moving outfit
cars, notice must first be  given  all  occupants,
and all ladders and other  equipment cleared
before moving.

  When  occupied  outfit cars are set out or
taken into yards in trains, the train dispatcher
and the yardmaster must be promptly notified.
When practicable, occupied outfit cars should
not  bo placed  adjacent to  or in  buildings or
structures.

  Tracks upon  which occupied outfit cars are
located should not be -used for meeting or pass-
ing trair.s. if it can be avoided.

  807.   Except  in  emergency, cars  must  not
be left on sidings without authority.  The train
dispatcher must be immediately notified when
cars are left on  sidings.

  808.   Employes  performing switching must
do  so efficiently and in a manner which  will
avoid personal  injury, damage to contents of
cars, equipment, structures or other property.
Inched from other cars it must be known that
thc-cars  left arc properly secured. If the tr.ick
is on a grade and  hand brakes are not suffi-
cient, wheels nur.t  also be blocked or  chained
and; when practicable, cars must be  coupled
together. In sotting brakes on cars on a grade,
brakes must be set on low end of the cut of
cars and slack nnisl be bunched to know cars
will stand when engine is cut off.

  810.  The following  equipment must  not  be
unnecessarily  switched with  nor  couplings
made in  such a  manner as may cause  damage
to equipment or load:
    Flexivan or TOFC cars;
    Outfit cars;
    Passenger equipment;
    Cabooses;
    MuIti-level .loads;
    Cars containing livestock;
    Open (op loads  subject to shifting.

  811.  Before  making a running «'.v:tch. all
me::ibei> of  the crew mu.-t  understand  the
movement to be mad>v  It  must be  known that
switches and brakes are in working order. The
engine must  be run on straight track  when
practicable.

  Running  switches must not be  made under
the following conditions:
    With cars containing explosive, flanunaV>lcs
      or  poison  gas;
    Over or through spring  switches or within
      interlocking limits;
    Over or through remote  control or dual
      control switches  when the power is  on.
                                            H-38

-------
       PERFORM SWITCHING IN A  MANNER
         WHICH WILL AVOID DAMAGE TO
      CONTENTS OF  CARS AND EQUIPMENT
Safe Coupling Speed
(MP11)
1
2
8
4
Damaging Coupling Speed
(MPil)
6
6
7
8
9
10
Impact Fore*
1
4
0
16
Damaging Forc«
25
86
49
64
81
100
            MAINTENANCE  OF WAY
              CONDITIONAL STOP
                 Form Y Train Order
The following forms of oral authorization by the Foreman and
acknowledgment of understanding by the engineer ore to be
used to permit trains to pass a red flag without stopping- with*
in the limits of a Form Y train order.
Foreman will state: "FW&D Railway Foreman calling Extra
232 East about Order  No. (Form Y Train Order No.)"
Engineer must respond, identifying  his train as:  "This is
FW&D engineer. Extra 232 East."
When engineer has answered as above, the foreman will state:
"Extra 232 East may pass red signal at (Location) without
•topping."
The foreman may also authorize a  different speed from that
shown in the Form Y train order by adding to his instructions:
"Proceed at	MPH." or "Proceed at normal speed."
The engineer must repeat back to the foreman the instruc-
tions ™** an given h'"i,
                SPEED TABLE
Time
Per Mfle
Minutes Seconds













12
15
SO
»S
80
40
46
(0
•MB
10
18
SO
80
Mile*
Per
Hoar
W
48
48
4X4
40
86
S4J
82.7
80
VA
264
25.7
S4
Tim*
Per Mfle
Minutes Seconds
2 40










46
80

"•
SO
81
46

^ B-

7 80
10 —
MOM
Per
Hour
99 K
2UB
SL2
SO
19
18
17
16
16
18
10

6
                                                                                   COMPANY  DC.
                                                                        t
                                                                         Dr. W. P. Higgins, Jr., Chic ."
                                                                        Dr. James P. Lee, Division .S .
Abilene	
Amarillo-
Anson _*..
Bowie	
Childress _
Clarendon
Dalhart —
Decatur .
Dimmitt	
Electra ,,..,_._.
Fort Worth .
Fort Worth .
Henrietta	
Houston ___
Iowa Park —
Lockney ___.
Lubbock	
Memphis	
Memphis —
Memphis ~~
Munday ____
Plainview —
Qu&nah —
Stamford —
Vernon	
Wellington —
Wichita Falls,
                                            H-39

-------
 JOHN C. ASHTON                                          )™ (East
 Vice Present .nd Secretary
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director                          January 17,  1979
Standards and Regulations  Divisions
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C^ 20460
Dear Mr. Thonias:

Please refer to your letter dated January  3,  1979,  in  connection  with
freight car coupling speed restrictions.

Burlington Northern practices govern train  operations  on  the Oregon
Electric.

BN has recommended safe coupling speeds, not  to exceed 4  mph.  These
recommendations are published on the back page of all  time  tables.
Copy of the front and back pages of Seattle Region  Time Table  16  is
enclosed as an example of the coupling speed  requirements which
are meant to govern operations over the Oregon Electric.
Yours very truly,
President, Oregon Electric Railway Company
Attachment
                                 H-40

-------
PERFORM SWITCHING IN A MANNER
WHICH WILL AVOID DAMAGE TO
CONTENTS OF CARS AND EQUIPMENT
8«f* Coupling
(MPH)
1
3P«.d


8
8
4
D«ma|tn( Coupling Sperd
(MPH)

6
6
7
8
9
10










Impact Pore*
1
4
»
10




Damaging Force
26
36




49
64
81
100














SPEED TABLE
Tbn.
Per Mile
jtM Second*
4B
48
47
48
49
60
61
62
68
64
68
68
. 67
68
69










10
Mile.
Per
Hour
80
78.8
79.0
76
78.6
78
70.6
6».s
67.9
66.6
46.4
64.2
68. t
62.0
61.0
60
69
88
67.1
66.2
65.8
64.6
68.7
62.9
6J.1
61.4

Time Mile*
Per Mil* Per
Minutes Second* Hour








2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
I
a
a
>
a
4
6
6
7
10
12 60
16 48
20 46
26 42.8
30 40
40 36
46 84.8
60 32.7
30
10 27.A
16 28.8
20 26.7
30 24
40 22.6
46 21.8
60 21.2
20
9 19
20 18
31 17
46 16
16
12
10
80 8
6

              MAINTENANCE OF WAY
                 CONDITIONAL  STOP

                 (Form Y Train Order)

     The following forms of oral authorization by the Fore-
     man  and acknowledgment of understanding by  the
     engineer are to be used to permit trains to pass a red
     flag without stopping within the limits of a Form Y
     train order.

     Foreman will state: "Burlington Northern Railway
     Foreman calling Extra 232 East about Order No. (Form
     Y Train Order No.)"

     Engineer must respond, identifying his train aa: "This
     is Burlington Northern engineer, Extra 232 East."

     When engineer has  answered as above, the foreman
     will state: "Extra 232 East may pass red signal at (Mile
     Post  Location and specify Track  involved) without
     stopping."

     The foreman may also authorize a different speed from
     that shown in the Form Y train order by adding to his
     instructions: "Proceed at	MPH," or
     "Proceed at normal speed."

     The engineer must repeat back  to the foreman the
     instructions that are given him.
H-41

-------
                                                   Central Vermont Railway, inc.
                                                    2 Federal Street
                                                    St. Albans, Vt., 05478
                                                    January 12,  1979
Mr. Henry  E.  Thomas,  Director
Standards  and Regulations
Division (A.'a-490)
United States r>ivironnent;il  Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Mr. Tho.Tas:

In reply to your letter of January 3t  1979  requesting a copy of
our instructions relating to rail car  coupling speed, we are pleased
to be of assistance arid have enclosed  a copy of our General Operating
Instructions  which have been in  effect on the Central Vermont
Railway,inc.  for a number of years.
   icerely Yours,
P. C. Larson
General Kanajer

QIC.
                                      H-42

-------
CENTRAL VEUiONT  RAILWAY,INC.
              GEN31AL  INSTRUCTIONS

   1.20 COUPLING  REGULATIONS
        (A)  When coupling cars. spi-i'd of  lour miles
             per hour al time ot r.ouplmq muit not he
             exceeded to avoid dam,vi>' 10 equipment
             and lading.  This  applies  to all  cars
             including  those  with cushioned  under-
             frames.
        (B)  Before making  a coupling to occupied
             passenger  equipment, stop must first be
             made not less than six, and nut more than
             twelve feet from the point  where cou-
             pling is to be made.
         (C)  Before  making a coupling to occupied
             service  equipment,  persons m or about
             these cars must be warned, stop must first
             be made  not less than six, and not more
              than twelve feet from  the point where
              coupling is to be made.
         (D)  Vyhen coupling an engine consist  of three
              or more  units, with or  without cars to a
              train or cut of cars, a stop must first  be
              made not less than six. and not more than
              twelve  feet from point  where coupling is
              to be made.
         (E)  Before  coupling is  made with  or  onto
              cars equipped  with  cushion underframes
              and/or  long  shank type couplers, the
              drawbars must be checked to ei.sure that
              they are properly  lined up.  Wherever
              possible, this type of car should be left on
              straight  track for  coupling. If  not pos-
              sible, extreme caution must be used when
              coupling.
         (F)  Before coupling to or  moving passenger
              •nd service equipment cars, crews must
                           H-43

-------
    Operating Department

                                                Chessie System
                                                           2 North Charles Street
                                                        Baltimore, Maryland 21201
 January  17,  1979
 File:  741-3
 Mr.  Henry E. Thomas, Director
 Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
 United  States Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D. C.  20460

 Dear Mr. Thomas:

 This is in response to your letters of January 3, 1979, regarding "operating
 rule, operating practice or recommended practice relating to locomotive and
 rail car coupling speed," to the following Chessie System Officers:

         H. T. Watkins   - Chessie System
         J. T. Collinson - Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
         J. T.- Collinson - Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
         J. T. Collinson - Lake Front Dock and Railroad .Terminal
         W. P. Coliton   - Western Maryland Railway Company

As a member of the Association of American Railroad (A.A.R.) Chessie System
 subscribes to the carrier loading rules developed and published by the Opera-
 tions and Maintenance Department of the A.A.R.  These rules require that shipper
blocking and bracing proposals be subjected to impact tests, as well as field
tests, prior to rail industry acceptance.  The impact test calls for satis-
factorily subjecting the test shipment to a series of 4, 6,  8 and reverse
8 MPH impacts.

Chessie recognizes that the objectives of car handling standards and loading
rules are to minimize damage and that shippers, like carriers,  are not always
consistent in meeting optimum levels of performance in every shipment trans-
ported.  While we strive to keep impacts within the 0 to 4 MPH range as ac-
ceptable for desired handling, we recognize that factors other than human
element influence the speed at which a car couples,  such as  track gradient,
equipment condition,  hump retardation techniques,  weather conditions,  and the
occasional failure to any of the previously mentioned subjects.  We attempt to
define these factors,  use good judgment and provide educational assistance to
crews through an aggressive careful car handling program.  Chessie's program
is just one of many in the rail industry and includes a measurement system that
quantifies impacts of 5 MPH or more.

We agree with your statement that railroad yard operations and  rail car coupling
speed can be a factor in the total noise level of  a yard.  However,  there are
many variables that also bear some relationship to the noise generated during
switching operations.   Some are:
                                       H-44

-------
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
January 17, 1979
File: 741-3
Page 2
         A.  Loaded car versus empty car.
         B.  Type of car.
         C.  Type of coupler.
         D.  Car coupling to solid cut.
         E.  Car coupling to another free standing car.
         F.  Geography surrounding yard.
         G.  Lading in car.
         H.  Weight of car and lading.
         I.  Number of cars on adjacent tracks.
         J.  Human factor (Judgment).

Every switching move, coupling, uncoupling and doubling up trains for dispatch-
ment hinges on judgment, by crew members individually and collectively numer-
ous times per hour and hundreds of times per tour of duty with 10 to 20 crews
per hour in more congested areas working within or into or out of a yard area.
There is no alternative to our present technique, based on the present tech-
nology, without crippling effects to the rail industry.

As stated above, for a variety of reasons, not all cars are consistently
coupled within the same range of speed.  Since it is impractical because of
the influence of other variables on the amount of noise generated by an in-
dividual coupling(s), we feel that it is not realistic to establish a coupling
speed standard as a control of yard noise levels.

Yours very truly,
R. G. Rayburn
Vice President-Transportation
                                      H-45

-------
Operating Department
                                                        ie  System
                                                      2 North Charles Street
                                                   Baltimore, Maryland 21201
 January 23,  1979
 File:   741-3
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This is in response to your letter of January 3f 1979,  to Mr. -B.
G. Lawler, Assistant Vice President, Baltimore and Chicago Terminal
Railroad Company, regarding "operating rule, operating  practice or
recommended practice relating to locomotive and rail car coupling
speed."

My letter of January 17, 1979, covered similar letters  to other
officers on the Chessie System.  That letter would also apply to
operations on the Baltimore and Ohio Chicago Terminal Railroad
Company.
                                  Yours yeryjtruly,
                                  Vice President-Transportation
                            H-46

-------
CHICAGO & ILLINOIS MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY
                             »O»T OMICI tox itt
                        SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS 62705
                                               January 11, 1979
        Mr. Henry E. Thomas,  Director,
        Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
        United States Environmental Protection Agency,
        Washington, D. C.   20460

        Dear Sir:

             Reference is made to your  letter of January 3 requesting
        information as to whether or not we have in effect an operating
        rule relative to locomotive and  rail car coupling speed.

             Enclosed is a copy of our  Stations and Special Instructions
        for government of our employees  in which you will note on pages
        27 and 28 that we do  have a recommended coupling speed of 4 miles
        per hour.

                                       Yours truly,
                                       W. G. Harvey/'
                                   Executive Vice President
                                    and General Manager.
        WGH:K
        End.
                               H-47

-------
CHICAGO  AND  frrl^Tl l^liifc^  TRANSPORTATION  COMPANY
                                                               JAMES A. ZITO
                                                          VIC« PRMIOBNT - OP«HATIOH«
                                                   February  26,  1979
   Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
   Standards and Regulations Division
   U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
   Washington, D. C.  20460

   Dear Mr. Thomas:

            Your letter of February 20 addressed to Mr. J. R. Wolfe on the
   subject of "Coupling Speed" has been referred to me.

            We do not have an operating rule that specifically states the
   maximum speed for coupling cars.  Our Consolidated Code of Operating Rule
   808 reads as follows:

            808.   Employes performing switching must do so efficiently
                   and in a manner which will avoid personal injury,
                   damage to contents of cars, equipment, structures
                   or other property.

            While we do not specify that couplings should not occur at speeds
   greater than 4 MPH due to the varied physical characteristics of our many
   yards, we recognize that this is the ideal coupling speed and this speed
   is our goal wherever conditions permit.

            Since the year 1971 we have had a "Car Handling Program" to
   eliminate the rough handling of cars and loss and damage to freight; our
   yard forces are taught and Instructed to use minimum coupling speeds.  This
   la enforced by both Freight Damage Prevention and Division Officers by the
   use of "radar".  Violations are handled in the same manner as any other rules
   violation.

            This program has resulted in 84% of all coupling speeds made at
   4 MPH or less systemwide.  We have also spent large sums correcting the
   grades in yards on the Iowa and Lake Shore Divisions so that it was
   practicable to enforce our stated goal of 4 MPH or less speed in coupling
   cars.

                                                   Very truly yours,
                                        H-48

-------
Chicago, Milwaukee, St Paul
and Pacific Railroad Company
516 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Phone 312/648-3000
     January 18, 1979
     Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
     Standards and--Reculations
     Division (Aim-490)
     United States Environmental  Protection Agency
     Washington, D. C.      20460

     Dear Mr. Thomas:

     Your letter of January 3, 1979  to Mr.  B.  J.  Worley,
     Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul &  Pacific Railroad
     Companyj requesting information on  coupling speeds
     has been referred to me.

     This carrier does not have an operating rule
     indicating a specific coupling  speed.   Our trainmen
     and enginemen performing switching  must do so effi-
     ciently and in a manner which will  avoid  personal
     injury, damage to contents of cars,  equipment,
     structures or other property.
     W.  P. Plattenbercer
     AVP - General Manager
     cc:  Messrs.  B. J. Worley
                   G. J. Barry
                          ti-49

-------
       CHICAGO UNION STATION COMPANY
                        CIO SOUTH CANAL STRKCT

                       CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 6O6OO

                          FINANCIAL 0-920O
WILLIAM M. FRCUND
                                           T-.,,.,.*—.. 11   1 O 1Q
                                           January 11,  1979
     Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
     Standards &  Regulations Division
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
     Washington,  D. C. 20460

     Please refer to your letter of January 3, 1979 to
     Mr. N. H.  Goodrich, asking if the Chicago Union Station
     Company has  in effect an operating rule, operating
     practice or  recommended practice relating to locomotive
     and rail car coupling speed.

     The Chicago  Union Station Company does not have a
     specific rule governing coupling speed.

                              Yours very truly,
     WMF/mb
                                H-50

-------
                              229 Nolichucky Avenue
THOMAS D. MOORI. JR.                SlBSiESS^ US£              UWIN, TENNESSEE 37600

 Kuetitfr* Vic* Fmldcnt •
   Cvacral Manager

                                              January 11,  1979

                                                 File:  995-1


 Mr.  Henry E. Thomas, Director,
 Standards and Regulations,
 Division (ANR-490),
 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
 Washington,  D. C.  20460.


 Dear Mr.  Thomas:

       In response to yours of January  3,  1979, relative  to four
 miles  per hour coupling requirement,  I 'attach copy of our current
 Operating Rule Book effective September 15, 1955, and current
 Time Table  No. 32 effective February  16,  1975.

      You will note Rule 103 (d)  on Page 38 of the Rule  Book and
 the  inside  front cover of the Time Table contain our rule and
 policy regarding coupling speed.


                                      Sincerely yours,
                                        Executive vice President
                                          General Manager
                               H-51

-------
 a trainman must afford protection at crossings opened unlit such
 crossings are closed.

  103 (c).  When necessary to control can by hand brakes, it
 mnt be ascertained that such brakes are in good order.
  When cars are left standing, sufficient hand  brakes  must be
 applied to keep them from moving, or other precautions taken.
 if necessary, to assure that they are properly secured.
  Cars left standing on any track must clear other  tracks,  in-
 sulated joints  and clearance  points.   Road crossings must be
 (feared 100 feet where practicable.

  103 (d).  When coupling or switching  cars, or  when cars
 •re Cut off in motion, coupling speeds must.be held within safe
 limits (not to exceed four miles per hour if possible)  and proper
 precautions taken to  prevent damage or fouling  other  tracks.
 When engines  are working at both ends of a track, movement
 •tost be made  carefully to avoid injuries or damage.   Before
 •taring slack must be stretched  to insure that cars are coupled.

  104.  Conductors are responsible for the  position of switches
 esed by them and their trainmen, except where switch tenders are
 Stationed.  Switches must be properly lined after having been
 wed,
  A switch must not be left open for a following train or engine
•nless in charge of a trainman of such train or engine,
  When practicable, the engineman must see that the switches
•ear the engine are properly lined.
  Employes lining switches must see tha: tne points fit properly
and that switch targets are in the proper position.
  A train  or engine must not foul a track until  switches con-
•ectcd with the movement are properly lined, or in the  case of
 •prinf switches,  until  the  normal route is seen  to be clear.
When waiting to cross from one track to another and during the
approach or passage of a train or engine on tracks involved, all
 •witches connected with the movement must be secured in normal
position.  Switches must not be restored to normal position until
•Jkt movement is completed or clear of the main track involved.

  Where trains or engines are required to report  clear of main
•rack, such report must not be made until  switch has been  se-
     1 in its normal position.
   Notl—Rut*  104 artplin onlf to hand eprratrd  iwnehr*. When ipring
 •r dual control *w:tcnr« ire operated IIJT band, ibrjr arc  cotulrucd to be
 hand operated awitcbei and rule 104 ipplict.

   104 (a).  After an employe changes a switch  to let  a  train
 or engine into or out of a track,  he must, tike a position not less
 than 20 feet from the switch.  Employes must not  stand  in such
 a position as to obscure the view ot switches or signals  as seen
 from an approaching train or engine.
   No  attempt must be made to change a switch  until the last
 wheels are clear of the points.

   104  (b).  A  switch found damaged or defective must be  se-
 curely spiked in proper position, notice given to the section  fore-
 man and a report made at once to the Chiet Dispatcher.
   Every main track  switch  in normal position must he  locked.
 Employes  locking  the switches must  check  the lock and know
 that it is secured.  After opening switch eqi-ipped  with lock the
 lock must  be placed  in the hasp.  Switch locks found  detective
 or missing must be  replaced promptly if practicable,  a report
 made to the chief dispatcher and  the section foreman notified if
 possible.

   104  (c).  Derails must be set  to derail and locked in that po-
 sition, except when lined to permit movements.   Employes must
 be on  the look out lor derails on all side tracks, except passing
 sidings.
   104  (d).  A hand  thrown switch, pipe-connected with derail.
 must not be restored  to normal position until the movement has
 cleared the derail.
   104  (e).   When a train backs in on a siding to be  met or
 passed by another  train and is in the  clear the  engineman must
 see that the switch is set lor the  main track.  Enginemen must
 know  that  derails  and other switches are properly set before
 using them.
   104  (f).  When a  trailing movement through a  spring switch
 is stopped before passing entirely through the switch, the move*
 meat must  not  be  reversed, nor  slack taken,  until it  has  been
 ascertained that the switch is properly set.

   104  (f).  Running switches are prohibited except when  thef
Can  be made without danger to  employes, equipment, or  con*
     i of cars.  It must be known that  the track is clear and the
                                                                rN52

-------
                                       1275 Daly Avenue
                                       Bethlehem, Pennsylvania  18015

                                       January 19, 1979


Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-U90)
United Stages Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20^60


Dear Mr. Thonas:

          In reply to your letters of January 3»  1979>  relating to  car  coupling  speed

in railroad yard operations, all the railroads listed below are small terminal and

switching railroads.  They do not have any humping operations and flat  switching vith

rolling couplings is held to an absolute minimum because there ere no larje classi-

fication yards.  Most switching to assemble cars is performed at local points involv-

ing small numbers of cars rather than in concentrated yard areas.  For these reasons

the railroads do not have written operating rules or recommended practices relating

to locomotive and rail car coupling speed.  Their operating practices, however, are

such that all railroad movements are made at moderate speeds seldom exceeding tha+. of

a walking pace and the speed of coupling impact is considerably less than that  so as

to minimize, really to eliminate, car and lading damage.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        CONEMAUGH & BLACK LICK RAILROAD COMPANY
                                        PATAPSCO Si BACK RIVERS RAILROAD COMPANY
                                        PHILADELPHIA, BETHLZH3M AND HZW ENGLAND
                                          RAILROAD COMANY
                                        SOUTH BUFFALO RAILWAY COM>AJTY
                                        T. H. Se;rjncl
                                        President
                                         H-53

-------
CON RAIL
•ICHAIO I. HASJUMAN
SENIOI VICE ritSIOENT
      OrftATIONS
           January 12,  1979
           Mr.  Henry E.  Thomas
           Director
           Standards and Regulations Division
           U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, D.  C.  20460

           Dear Mr. Thomas:

           This refers  to  your January 3 letter to former President
           Spence inquiring whether Conrail has an operating rule
           or practice  relating to coupling speeds.

           This subject  is covered in Rule 130 in our present Book
           of Rules. Copy of the applicable pege is attached.
           Sincerelyj
                                 H-54

-------
not  prolix I   against  Inflowing  movements  unless
specified in (lie limrtaMc.

   111.  Unless otherwise specified in I lie timetable,
trains  and engines  using  a .siding may proceed  at
ItcMricled  Sprcd and will  not  protect against follow-
ing movements.
   A siding of an assigned direction must not be used
in (lie reverse direction without proper signal indica-
tion,  authority of the employe in charge, or in an
emergency under flag protection.
   Trains or  engines using a  controlled siding  will
operate in accordance  with signal  indications.

   112.  On a running (rack, movements may proceed
at llestnVted Speed, on sign.il indication,  permission
of employe in charge or as specified in the timetable.
and  in an emergency  under  Hag protection.  When
movement  lias been completed it must be  reported
clear;  except, when  clearing .it an interlocking, block
station or  where switch  tenders  are on  duty.  Pro-
tection against following movements will not be  pro-
vided  unless .specified in the timetable.

   1J3.  Movements  on tracks  other  than  main,  sec-
ondary, running  tracks and sidings -nv»y proceed  at
Restricted  Speed unless  otherwise  specified in the
timetable.

   130.  Engines  and cars must l>c coupled at a .speed,
not to exceed 4 miles per  hour.

   130a.  A stop must he made just prior to  coupling
occupied  passenger  equipment.  Cars  occupied  by
passengers and cars placed  on tracks occupied by such
car:  must  be handled with air brakes  in service.

   130b.  Cars placed for loading  or unloading, must
not IK; coupled  to nor moved  until  all persons in or
almut  them have been notified and  all obstructions
under  or about the cars, tiansfer  hoards, and attach-
ments  have  been  removed.   When  such  cars  are
mrvtxl  they  must be returned to original  location.
  Sign reading "Slop-Tank Car Connected," indicates
lank cars arc connected for loading or unloading  and
must  not  be  coupled to or moved. Cars must  not
be placed  on the .sainr track  that may obstruct  the
view of a  sign without first notifying the person in
charge.
                      H-55

-------
Windsor SMf'O/i Montreal, Quebec H3C 3E4
lei (514) 861 -ear;
 CP Rail

January 11, 1979

File No. 59-1-00
Mr. Henry E. Thomas,
Director,
Standards and Regulations
  Division  (ANR-490),
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.  20460
U.S.A.
Dear Mr. Thomas:

In reply to your letter of  January  3  requesting
copy of any instructions  in effect  on CP  Rail
dealing with coupling speeds.

The following instruction contained in Form  CS 44
is included for the guidance of  employees:

"When coupling cars together,  speed of four  miles
 per hour at time of coupling  must  not be exceeded
 to avoid damage to equipment  and lading.  After
 coupling, it must be known that locking  blocks
 and pins of the coupler  have  dropped into place.
 Slack must be taken or seen to  run out to ensure
 a proper coupling has been made."
Yours truly,
       Chief Engineer.
                    H-56

-------
            Tin: CL-VAIIOCJA VATJ.EY  RAII/WAY COMPANY
                                 Sin CLAUK AVKNVK
                                   p.'o. nox 
-------
                                                  rcnaoagrf^fe*^ \ T»« ...oo. u..« /
                                                   J(*X?V^>^A1  Ul*(KClUDJ
DELAWARE AND  HUDSON RAILWAY  COMPANY
              ALBANY. NEW YORK 12207
                                                       DepenJablr Tranlpartalion Sifiu 18^
   KKS'T P. SIIORUAKHK
I'rriiJrn! 
-------
         THE DENVER ANoRio GR
                                                    D COMPANY
 JOHN J. VESB
 8UPT. BArCTY. RULE* & TRAINING
 COLO. DIVN. - DCNVCM, COCO.
                   r. d. BOX
               DKNVCR. COLORADO 8Q217
                     ROY 8. END
                      DIRECTOR
               •Arrrv, RULCS & TRAININO

                  January 17, 1979
           JOHN E. ABERTdN
BUPT. SAFETY. RULCB & TRAINING
     UTAH OIVN. — ROPCR. UTAH
Mr.  Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations  Division
United States Environmental Protection Agencv
Washington, D.C. . 20460

Dear Mr.  Thomas:

     Mr.  E. P. Horrick, our Environmental Engineer,  referred your letter of Jan. 3,  1979
to me  for handling.  This  refers to operating practice or recommended practice relating to
locomotive and rail car coupling speed.

     Under our operating niles for Enginemen,  rule 9-39 reads, quotej  "While switching,  they
must give close attention  to signals.  The locomotive must be handled with great care when
making couplings1.', end cjuote.

     When it comes to specifying the actual speed  when making a coupling, we rely on our
time-table rule 25, as pictured below.
                                                                     55
35.      AVOID DAMAGE ~ SWITCH CUSTOMERS'
                CARS CAREFULLY
   OVKKSI'KKI) Coupling nri- DAMACIXC — Mvro's what

 4 mile* per hour U      SAFE COUPLING SPEED
 5 nil!*1* I*1' hour f~l ••
 H mile* |wr Imur I I •••
 7 mile* per hour O •••
 H nilk-n pi-r hour D H^
 9 niik-» IHT hour D ^^mm
10 mile* per hour O MHM
   DnniiiKi* lo fri'iK^l *>r t*
niuiiliuK >|Mvil within tin- MI
HOUR-A BRISK WALK.
                                           '-' I/I llllH'N UN lIlllllllKllIK OH -I MI'll
                                           3   Ilmi-» a* dumiiKinK n« 4 MI'll
                                           •4   tiiiM-s im (lamiiKiiiK IID 4 MI'll
                                           f>   link's ui> danniKiKK »» 4 MI'll
                                           O   liim-s as dumnKinu as 4 MI'll
                                          .ir ran Itr iivoiilcd liy nlwiiv> kir|iinu
                                                 NOTOVKR 4 MH.KS PKR
                               HANDLE FREIGHT CAREFULLY AND
                                    KEEP OUR CUSTOMERS!
     Throughout our rule structure in Operating and  Safety rules and instructions, we mfer
to safe coupling speeds, handling locomotives and cars carefully when making a coupling* etc.,
but tine-table rule 
-------
      THE  DETROIT AND TOLEDO SHORE LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
                           131 WCST LAFAVCTTK AVCNUC

                           DETROIT. MICHIGAN 48226
W. O. BLADES                                            Fol-ir-iiar-v 1 ^
viceMISIOINT4«NI«*IMANUCR                                   teDruary ID,
        Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
        Standards and Regulations
        United States Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, D. C.  20460
        Dear Mr. Thomas:

        Referring to your letter of January 3, 1979, addressed to
        President Adams of the Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Rail-
        road, which he has forwarded to me to answer concerning
        your request for any information we have relating to loco-
        motive and rail car coupling speed.

        Enclosed please find copy of page 19 of current DTSL Time-
        table No. 34 which, under Equipment Restrictions, Paragraph
        4, Sub-paragraph C, Item 2, states "When coupling cars,
        speed of 4 miles per hour at time of coupling must not be
        exceeded to avoid damage to equipment and lading".
                                  Yours truly,
                                  Vice President and
                                    General Manager
                                  H-60

-------
                                 TIMETABLE No.  34 — SEPTEMBER 12,  1976
(Continued from page IS)
                                    D&TSL FOOTNOTES  (Continued)
             INTERLOCKINGS (Continued)

     3.4 Drawbridge.
         N&W.... Mileage 46.9 (River Rouge)	Me-
         chanical.

     3.5 Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 46.8 (Victoria Avenue)	Con-
         trolled.
         Contact Operator River Rouge Bridge for instruc-
         tions.

     3.6 Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 43.5  (Ecorse)	Mechanical.
         Operated by CR Trainman.
         Normal position clear for D&TSL.

     3.7 Railway crossing at grade.
         CR/DT&l... .Mileage 37.3 (FN)	Mechanical.

     3.8 Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 34.7 (Edison)	Controlled.
         Contact D&TSL Train Dispatcher for instructions.

     3.9 Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 34.1  (Denby)	Controlled.
         Contact D&TSL Train Dispatcher for instructions.

    3.10 Railway crossing at grade:
         CR	Mileage  18.7 (Ford  Crossing)	Con-
         trolled.
         Contact D&TSL Train Dispatcher for instructions.

    3.11  Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 17.4  (Monroe)	Controlled.
         Contact D&TSL Train Dispatcher for instructions.

    3.12  Railway crossing at grade.
         CR	Mileage 16.8 (Plum Creek)	Controlled.
         Contact D&TSL Train Dispatcher for instructions.

    3.13  Railway crossing at grade.
         TT	Mileage 0.6 (Boulevard)	Controlled.
         Contact TT Train Dispatcher for instructions.
            EQUIPMENT RESTRICTIONS

     4.1  (A) Back-Up  and Forward Pushing Movements
             (Freight Equipment):
             (1) To prevent jack-knifing of Uicscl units (lur-
                ing these movements, the following limits
                are placed on the number of working units
                permitted whenever 20 or more cars are in-
                volved:
                     1800 H.P. or smaller — 3 units
                    2000 H.P. or larger —2 units
                The units allowed to  work  must be those
                leading in the direction of  the movement
                (next to the cars) and the then trailing units,
                if any, must be  isolated until movement
                completed. Any dead or idling units located
                between the  operating units and the cars
                must be set off before movement is started.
EQUIPMENT RESTRICTIONS (Continued)

   (B)  Engine and Tonnage Restrictions:
       The maximum number of working units per-
       mitted in any engine consist is restricted to 24
       motorized axles and the permissible tonnage is
       restricted to an amount which can be handled
       by 18 motorized axles.

   (C)  Coupling Regulations:
       When coupling an engirt •  consist of 3 or more
       units to a train, or cut of cars, a stop must first
       be made between 6 and 12 feet from point of
       coupling. The'coupling is then to be made as
       gently  as possible.

       (1) Before  making  a coupling  to passenger
          equipment or outfit cars  that may be oc-
          cupied, stop must first be made not less than
          6 feet and not more than 12 feet from the
          point where coupling is to be made.

       (2) When  coupling  cars,  speed of four miles
          per hour at time of coupling must not  be
          exceeded to avoid damage to equipment and
          lading.

   (D)  To guard against damage to equipment or injury
       to employees or others, cars equipped with tie-
       down chains must not be moved until chains are
       properly secured in a manner that they can not •
       fall off and drag.
       On cars equipped with storage boxes, chains
       must be stored therein when not in use.
       On cars equipped with chains attached to top of
       stakes, chains must be suspended inside stake
       and positioned behind retaining bar when not
       in use.

   (E)  When  handling multi-level, TOFC, hydro-
       cushion roller  bearing equipment  and all cars
       60 ft. and longer, extreme care must be taken
       to couple, uncouple, separate cars on straight
       track, and insure that cars are standing at rest.

       (1) Due to  the length of such cars and the fact
         that the trucks are recessed (rom the  end,
         special care must be given to see that they
         are shoved into clear when switching is to
         be performed on adjacent tracks.

       (2) Before coupling onto such cars, a stop must .
         be made not more than 10 feet away and
         draw bar alignment checked  to determine
         if the draw bars line up and will not slip by.

      (3) Extreme care must be exercised through
         turnouts and sharp curvature to insure that
         such can will not be truck-bound or that .
         the comers will not  bind due to curvature
         of track.

      (4) Sensitivity of roller bearing or delayed slack
         action in hydro-cushion underframc or
         •hock absorbing drawbar equipment, and
                              (ContinueJon page 20)
                                                    H-61

-------
DETROIT, TOLEDO ARID IRONTON RAILROAD COMPANY       , ,:
ONE PARKLANE BOULEVARD • DEARBORN, MICHIGAN 48126 • (313J 336-9600  ///•'  "*«r;
                                                           MM 3
                               January 16, 1979
      Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
      Standards and Regulations Division
      United States Environmental Protection Agency
      Washington, D. C.  20460
      Dear Mr.  Thomas:

               In  response to your letter of January 3rd requesting
      Information  on rail car coupling speeds,  please find attached
      the inside rear cover of DT&I's latest Time Table.  I have
      also attached the front cover for your ease in identification.

               I trust this Information will prove helpful to you.

                                           Yours truly,
                                          G. L. Stern
                                          Vice President-Operations
      GLS:ea
      Attchs.

      CC:  Mr.  W. H. Oemsey - AAR
                                      H-62

-------
AVOID    DAMAGE— SWITCH  CUSTOMERS CARS  CAREFULLY
           JUDGING  SPEED
   Accurate judgment of coupling speed depends
upon correct liming.  An excellent way to get ac-
curate timing  without a  watch is to count "one
hundred and thirty-one, one hundred and thirty-
two" and so  on as the  car passes a  stationary
point. With a  little practice counting can be done
at the rate of  one a second.
   Ability to closely estimate speed at  time car
strikes  is extremely important because impact
force builds up. as the square of the speed. This
means that impact delivered by a car coupled at 8
• mph is not four times that at 2 mph but 16 TIMES
AS GREAT. Damage to  freight and car can be
avoided by always keeping coupling speed with-
in the safe range-NOT OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR
-A BRISK WALK.
  Impact
   Force
At Various
  Striking
  Speeds
 Cw
       •« D*.
  1 mph
  2   "
  3   "
  4   "
  5   "
  6   "
  7   "
  8   "
  9   "
 10   "
  I
  4
  9
 16
 25
 36
 49
 64
 81
100
  To Find Coupling Speed of 40 Foot and
  Sight vertical end of car body on a
fixed point, and note the number of
seconds it takes car  to pass. Speed in
miles per hour is shown opposite.

  Damage as a result of Rough Hand-
ling makes up a large part of the claim
bill for Loss and Damage  to Freight.
From the Railroad standpoint il is "the
major item in  the  expense. We all
know that Rough Handling can  be re-
duced, often eliminated.  It is hoped
that this table will be helpful in your
efforts to prevent Rough Handling.

  Swjtch  crews must function n •
team. Clear  signals properly given are
mighty  important; talk  il over .  .  .
Prevent Rough Handling ... It can bo
50 Foot Cars
 .  €•»
    •M«
    r-w
                                                   Mitn
 1.. 28   ..35
 2.. 14   ..17.5
 3..  9.3 ..11.6
 4..  7   .. 8.7
 5..  5.6 .. 7
 6..  4.7 ..5.9
 7..  4   ..5
 8..  3.5 .. 4.4
 9..  3.1 .. 3.9
10..  2.8 .. 3.5
II. ' 2.5 .. 3.1
12..  2J .. 2.9
13..  2.15-2.7
14..  2   ^ 2.5
                                                                                                                                              «o

-------
                             DO IT THE SAFE WAY
DULUTH S,Jli&&m!&C AND IRON RANGE RAILWAY COMPANY

                               SUPERINTENDENT'S OFFICE • PROCTOR, MINNESOTA  558JO
•. U WAGNER
  Superintendent
                                      January 10, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

     This is in response to your letter dated January 3,  1979, wherein you
requested information on whether the Duluth, Missabe and  Iron  Range Railway
Company has at this time in effect an operating rule, operating practice
or recommended practice relating to locomotive and  rail  car coupling speed;
and also requesting, copy of such rule or recommended practice, if there is
one in effect.

     Operating employees in switching service on this carrier are governed by
several published rules, as concerns  the manner in  which  couplings are to be
made.  Photo-copies of each of the following applicable  rules are attached to
this paper, and all such' rules have previously been furnished to employees
engaged in yard switching service:

     Exhibit 1.  Consolidated Code of Operating Rules, Edition of 1967,
                 Rules 808, 810, 812.
     Exhibit 2.  TimeTable No. 92, General  Instructions Rules A-22, 35.
     Exhibit 3.  B.E. Pamphlet 20-B,  1976,  Section  174.589, Part (c)
     Exhibit 4.  B.E. Pamphlet 20, 1977, Section  174.83,  Parts (a,b)
                 and Section 174.84.

     This carrier also has impact recording devices  that  are positioned on
freight cars periodically to determine the  impact of coupling speeds  in yards,

     Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

                                       Yours  truly,  ,
                                      SUPERINTENDENT

Attachments: 4

cc:  Mr. M.G. Alderink,  Gen'l Sunt
     D.M.&I.R. Railway Co      Upt>
                                 H-64

-------
     Consolidated Code of Operating Rules

   The rules herein set forth  govern  the rail-
 roads  operated  as listed.  They  take effect
 June 1, 1967, superseding  all previous rules
 and instructions inconsistent therewith.

   Special instructions rr.iy be  issued by proper
 authority.
    DULUTH, MISSABE AND IRON RANGE
            RAILWAY COMPANY
        p. B. SHANK, Vice President and
               General Manager
  808. Employes performing switching must
do so efficiently and in a manner which will
avoid personal  injury,  damage to contents of
cars, equipment, structures or other property.

  810. The following equipment must not be
unnecessarily  switched  with  nor  couplings
made in such a manner as may cause damage
to equipment or load:
    Flexivan or TOFC cars;
    Outfit cars;
    Passenger equipment;
    Cabooses;
    Multi-level loads;
    Cars containing livestock;
    Open top loads subject to shifting.


  812. Trains and engines must be handled in
a manner that  will avoid shock from abrupt
stopping, starting, or slack action, which might
result in discomfort  or injury to persons or
damage to property.
  Conductors must call the attention of engi-
neers to any rough handling as soon as the
information  can  be given, and  will make
prompt report to the Superintendent of any
improper handling of trains.
                  H-65

-------
   n   -1     m*
   iJy-Tib,   4m
              EFFECTIVE
            12:01  A.M.
         CENTRAL STANDARD TIM!
                        , 1979
       (Including Spiciil Instructions)
 FOR THE COVERNMENr OP EMPtOVECS ONLY
 M. S. TOON             D. B. SHANK
   President        Viet Pres. •> Cineral Utmgtt
   M. C. ALDERINK
Ceneul Suptrintendtnt
B. L WAGNER
Suptrintendenl
                                                                    GENERAL  INSTRUCTIONS

                                                             All Locations or Both Divisions:
                                                         22. When handling can Inndrd with wire mesh, rail, or
                                                            tie*, can must lie shoved to eouplin-. Tliese cars mu»l
                                                            not be kicked or dropprd while switching under  any
                                                            circumstances.
                                35. FUA Emergency Order No. 5 issued Oelolier 27, 1974,
                                   require* thai DOT specification* 112A nnd 114A Tsmk
                                   Can, not  equipped with FKA approved head shields
                                   transporting /lammutl* E"""> must not he cut oil
                                   while in motion and no  car  moving under in own
                                   momentum thai! be allowed to Mrike these ears. Such
                                   can must not  be coupled to with more force than  I*
                                   necessary to complete the  coupling.
                                   Shipping papers must carry the notation "DOT 112A
                                   or 1)OT  114A must be handled  in  accordance with
                                   FUA E.O. No S." Employees must be informed of the
                                   presence of these ears and instructed to handle them
                                   in accordance with the requirements of this  order. All
                                   •witch )iM» and train lists must be plain!/ marked 10
                                   indicate when  car*  are loaded with /JnmmnUe £">•
                                              H-66

-------
                        B. E. Pamphlet 20-B


                        Revised January 1.1976
                                FOR
                         YARDMASTERS
                          YARD CREWS
                                AND
                          YARD CLERKS

    This pamphlet, containing excerpts from the D.O.T. Regulations.
has been prepared for the employees designated above to assist and edu-
cate them in their particular duties. It is essentially a ready reference for
normal conditions and R. M. Graziano's Tariff No.  30 should be avail-
able for information not contained in this pamphlet.
Section Reference
       (c) Switching can containing explosives, poison gas. or flam-
     mable poison gas or placarded trailers on flat cars. A car plac-
     arded "Explosives." "Poison Gas." or "Flammable Poison Gas."
     or any flat car carrying a trailer placarded "Explosives." "Poison
     Gas." "Dangerous." or  "Dangerqus—Radioactive Material"
     shall not be cut off while in motion.  No car moving under its
     own momentum shall be allowed to  strike any car placarded
     ""Explosives,". "Poison Gas." or "Flammable Poison Gas." or
     any flat car carrying a trailer placarded "Explosives." "Poison
     Gas." "Dangerous." or "Dangerous—Radioactive Material."
     nor shall any such car be coupled into with more force than is
     necessary to complete the coupling.
                            H-67

-------
                  B. E. PAMPHLET 20
        HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
                REGULATIONS
                  EXCERPTED
                        FOR
         RAILROAD  EMPLOYEES
                PART VII SWITCHING

  | 174.83  Switching of cars containing hazardous materials.
(•} In switching operations where the use ot hand traces is necessary.
a loaded placarded lank car. or a dr.ifi which includes a loaded plac-
arded tank car. may not be cut oil until the preceding car or cars clear
the ladder track and the draft containing the loaded placarded tank car.
or a loaded placarded tank car. shall in turn clear the ladder before
another car is allowed to (ollo.v. In switching operations  where hand
brakes are used, it must be determined by trial whetner a loaded plac-
arded car. or a car occupied by a  rider in a drali containing a plac-
arded car, has its hand brakes in proper working condition belore it is
cutoff.
• (b) Acarplacarded "EXPLOSIVES A"or"POISON GAS"maynot
be cut off while in motion  or coupled into with more force than is
necessary to complete the coupling. No car moving under its own mo-
mentum shall bo allowed to strike any car placarded "EXPLOSIVES '
A" or "POISON GAS".
NOTE — OOF tpeei'icmen 112A mv) 114A I** can. ret earopnf «*u> *»»a titcUt.
COMaMng nammaSi* gat. and puci-fi«d FlimmaWt G«l. MUST NOT:
(t) B» cut dl «t (iwt.o/1;
(2) Bo tlruch by any ca> nowng wi0w ill own morwolum; at
P) Btcouplrl^ will more forctlnanlinecMMiy la canipMt III* coupling.
             '   Telephone 202 29W04g

       (This number may be reached on a 24 hour basis)
DIM
                                                        1977
                                                                    I 174.84  Switching ol llatcars carrying placarded trailers or
                                                                  freight containers, (a) A placarded flatcar or a flatcar carrying a
                                                                  placarded trailer or freight container thai bears arty placard prescribed
                                                                  by Part 172 of this subehspter may not be cut oil while In motion.
                                                                    (b) No rail car moving under its own momentum may be permitted to
                                                                  Strike any placarded flalcar or any flatcar carrying a placarded trailer or
                                                                  fretQht container.
                                                                    (c) No placarded flalcar or any flatcar carrying a placarded trailer or
                                                                  freight container may be coupled Into with more force than is necessary
                                                                  to complete the coupling.
                                                        H-68

-------
                                                 Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway Co.
                                                 J. f. Corcoran
                                                 General Manager
                                                 72nd Ave. West & Raleigh Street
                                                 Duluth, Minnesota 55807
                                                  January, 18,  1979

Mr. Henry E.  Thomas
Director
Standards &  Regulations
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington,  DC  20460

Dear Mr.  Thomas:

Per your  request letter dated January 3, 1979.   A copy of our
Special Instructions of our  current Time Table  #17 dated April
30, 1978  is  attached.

I hope this  meets your requirements.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  J. P. Corcoran
                                  General Manager
JFC:dll
                                   H-69

-------
                                       TIME TABLE No. 17-APRIL 30lh, 1978
                    SPECIAL INGTRUCTESHS—Continued
DWP 3.0   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS—Continued .
  3.11  ICE OR MATERIAL IN FLANGE
       When required  to mjKe switching movements  over
       road crossings where the road surface is covered with
       snow, ice or mud. crews must drsl inspect the track in
       area of the crossing to ensure such movement can be
       made without derailing,  il in doubt, the engine must
       first be run carefully o*er the crossing.

  3.12  DERAILMENT-PASSENGER AND
       SERVICE  EQUIPMENT
       In case ol derailment  or accident involving  service
       equipment, passenger cars, refrigerator cars and in-
       sulated boxes, and with due consideration being given
       to conditions and their safety, employees affected will
       shut off supply ol propane, oil or mcthanol at the storage
       tank outlet.

  3.13  PROTECTION-UNATTENDED ENGINES
       When diesel units are let! unattended. Engmeman must
       be lamihar with and adhere to instructions regarding the
       procedures for protection against the operation ot such
       units by unauthorized persons.
       When instructions are received to set off one or more
       units from a multiple unit consist. Engmeman must en-
       sure corresponding reverser levers  are  left  with a
       responsible person, or in a sate location, advising the
       Train Dispatcher, so they will be available when re-
       quired.

  3.14  BACK-UP  MOVEMENT—THREE OR
       MORE UNITS
       When an engine consist ot three or more units is re-
       quired to make a back-up movement, a member ol the
       crew must  be on the leading unit in direction of move-
       ment and in position from which signals necessary to
       the  movement can be properly given. He must also be
       in position to warn persons standing on. or crossing, or
      about to cross the track.

  3.15  EMERGENCY VALVES
      All employees concerned must  familiarize themselves
      with the location ot  emergency valves on engines.
      cabooses and cars so equipped. These valves are to
       be used only in case ol emergency, and when used.
      must be fully opened and left open until the movement
       is stopped.

  3.16  SPEEDOMETERS
       Employees must familiarize themselves with the location
       of speedometers m engines, and in cabooses so equip-
       ped, and must check speed  frequently.

  3.17  OBSTRUCTION ON TRACK
       Any movement wnich strikes an obstruction  on  the
       track which may  cause damage to the movement or
       which may lodge itself in the running  gear must be
       stopped as soon as possible and be luily inspected. Train
       Dispatcher must be advised of ail such occurrences as
       quickly as  possible.
                                                H-70
DWP 3.0   GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS-Contlnued
  3.18 COUPLING REGULATIONS
       (A)  When coupling cars, speed ol four miles per hour
           at time of coupling must not be exceeded to avoid
           damage to equipment and lading  This applies to
           all  cars  including those with  cushioned under-
           frames.
       (B)  Before making a coupling to occupied passenger
           equipment, stop must first be made not less than
           Six. and not more than twelve feet from the point
           where coupling is to be made.
       (C)  Before making^a coupling  to occupied service
           equipment, persons in or about these cars must be
           yarned, stop must first be made not less than  six.
           and not  more than twelve  feet from the point
           where coupling is to be made.
       (D)  When coupling an engine consist of three or more
           units, with or without cars to a train or cut of cars,
           a Stop must lirst be made not less than six, and not
           more than twelve feet from point where coupling is
           to be made.
       (E)  Before coupling is made with or onto cars equip-
           ped with  cushion undertimes and/or long shank
           type couplers, Jhe drawbars must be checked to
           ensure that they  are properly lined  up. Wherever
           possible,  this type ol car should be left on straight
           track for coupling. If  not possible extreme caution
           must be used when coupling.
       (F)  Before coupling  to  or  moving passenger  and
           service equipment cars, crews must ensure that
           there are no wayside electrical cables or sewer
           pipe connections connected, and that steps from
           car to ground are removed. They must also ensure
           that all electrical lines running between cars  are
           connected or otherwise secured before any move-
           ment is made.

  3.19  AIR BRAKES IN SERVICE
       (A)  To ensure safe handling of equipment placed on
           turntables,  air  brakes or hand brakes must  be
           applied, or equipment properly secured, before  en-
           gine is uncoupled.
       (B)  Air brakes must be in service while switching  oc-
           cupied passenger equipment and occupied service
           equipment, and when switching cars on or  off such
           equipment.
       (C)  Air brakes  must  be  in service  on all cars when
           switching industrial tracks where there are gates or
           doors to be opened, or descending grades on any
           of the tracks to be used.

  3.20  EYEGLASSES AND GOGGLES
       Eyeglasses or goggles lilted with tinted glass which  will
       not adversely allect either acuteness ol vision  or color
       perception may be used  tor protection against bright-
       ness and glare.
       Tinted lenses similar to American Optical Cruxite "A"
       tor indoor use. Medium Colorbar for outdoor use.  are
       recommended The use ol lenses whore the tint changes
       according to the amount ot  light  present nuy  be
       Jwuardous in working situations where there are sudden

                   (Continued on page 9)

-------
        ELGIN, JOLIET AND EASTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

                    P. 0. BOX 860 • JOLIET, ILLINOIS 60434

 M.R.SE.PLER                      815/728-6900
 OCNERAL UAMAOCft
                         January 30, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Divn.
United States Environmental
   Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

          In response to your letter of January 3, 1979
concerning recommended operating practices or operating
rules on the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway which would
limit coupling speeds on our railroad, the following infor-
mation is offered.

          At present, the only rule on the "J" which limits
coupling speed is Safety Rule #63 of the Transportation
Department.  This rule was formulated to minimize lading
damage during switching or humping operations due to over-
speed impacts and not to limit noise.  The speed of four
(4) miles per hour was arrived at through tests carried
out by the Damage Prevention Section of the Association of
American Railroads.

          This rule did not appear in print on the "J"
until the most recent issue of the Transportation Depart-
ment's Safety Rule Book which was effective January 1, 1978.
However, the speed of four miles per hour has been used in
training session and safety meetings for many years on the
itJN when discussing safe coupling speeds.

          Attached you will find a copy of "Safety Rules
Governing Transportation Department Operating Employes of
the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway".  Should you require
any further information, please contact me.

                                   Yours truly,
                                   M. R. Seipler
                                   General Manager
                           H-71
Attachment

-------
                            FLORIDA  EAST  COAST RAILWAY  COMPANY
r.  ...Ur^V                                           ONE MALAGA STREET. ST AUGUSTINE *LOHIOA3»M
                                                       ! Of SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

                                                   January 19, 1979

                                                   File:  79.14
     Mr.  Henry E.  Thomas,  Director
     Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
     Washington, D.C.  20460

     Dear Mr.  Thomas:

     This has  reference to your letter of January 3, 1979, to Mr. W. L. Thornton,
     President, Florida East Coast Railway, pertaining to Environmental Protection
     Agency broadening the scope of its railroad noise emission standards to in-
     clude interstate  rail carriers'  equipment and facilities, and with particular
     regard to your inquiries concerning coupling speeds in yard operations on FEC.

     Florida East  Coast Railway does  not have any rules specifying specific speeds
     at which  couplings should be made in switching operations.  Our Operating
     Rule 103(a),  however, does specify as follows:

               "Care must  be exercised in handling cars to avoid damage
               to  equipment or lading."

     As you can understand, switching speeds vary depending upon types of equipment
     being handled and whether or not the equipment is loaded or empty.  For that
     reason, we have not specified any specific rail car coupling speed, but instead
     require that  our  employes exercise care in their switching movements in order
     to avoid  damage to the equipment or lading being handled.
                                                  Tours very truly,
                                                   R.  W.  Wyckoff
                                                   Senior Vice President
     RKW/w

     cc:   Mr.  Hollis  Duensing,  Attorney
          Association of  American Railroads
          1920 "L" Street,  N.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20036
                                        H-72

-------
                                  GEORGIA RAILROAD
                           THE WESTERN RAILWAY OF ALABAMA
                      ATLANTA AND WEST POINT RAILROAD COMPANY
M. •! JONES. JR.

PNMIDINT—4CNIMAU UANAOt*
IBBO MARIETTA BOULEVARD, N. W.

   ATLANTA. GEORGIA 3O3IB
                               January 29,  1979
    Mr. Henry E.  Thomas
    Director
    Standards & Regulations  Division
    (ANR-490)
    U. S. Environmental Protection  Agency
    Washington, D.  C.
    20460

    Dear Mr. Thomas:

         PI ease.refer  to your two letters  of January  3»  1979  addressed  to  me as
    General  Manager -  Georgia Railroad  and President  - Atlanta  & West Point
    Railroad Company - The Western  Railway of Alabama, concerning the Agency's
    plans to broaden the scope of its Railroad Noise  Emission Standards  to
    Include interstate rail  carriers' equipment and facilities  in compliance
    with Court Order of August 23,  1977.

         Attached is copy of Page 1 from our System Operating Time Table
    folder which  shows the recommended  practice which our people are  encouraged
    to follow closely  when coupling cars and locomotives.

         If we can  be  of further assistance in any  way,  please  let us know.
                                          Sincerely,
    AAU/am
                                      H-73

-------
                     STANDARD CLOCKS

   Augvtro-Harrlionvlltt. Camok. Union Point, Maeon, Atlanta Yard,
 AriaMa Shop. Ofxllka. Omiw. Sclma.
           Location

         Harrbomiao

         Caraak

         Camak Quarry
         Atlanta
         Stlma
TRACK SCALES

         Capacity
         ISO Tea

         100 "

         US "

         100 "

         US •

         ISO •

         us •
Length
 so a

 SO "
 so-
 42 •
 so-

 so "

 SB-
                       SPEED TABLE'


  This table is for information in determining speed per mil* and in no way
•fleets roles governing speed ol trains.
U
• 1
«









:
i
!
!
;
i
i
!
:
nu
•er
our

1
1
10
2
S
1
1
1 •
»
0
1
2
3
4
S
1
7
111


•In.
10
















It In


Sec.

30



45
31
20
9

SI
4)
j6
30
24
U
13
Miles
p«r
Hour

28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3S
39
40
41
42
43
44
lU


Bin.
2
2















loin


Sec.
8
4

56
52
49
45
42
40
37
34
33
30
27
25
23
2!
Ullas
per
Hour

45
46
47
U
49
50
51
52
S3
54
55
56
57
53
59
60

IN


Bin.

















Uln


Sec.
20
18
18
15
13
U
10
9
7
6
S
4
3
2



                                                                                ABBREVIATIONS

                                                                         B -One ridio station -UN frequency
                                                                         C -Base radio suiion -dispatcher control
                                                                         DO-Delect detector
                                                                         0-Track other thin siding
                                                                         R-Base radio station
PIGGYBACK
Location
Augusta
Thomson
Union Point
Covington
Conyeri
Athens
Ltthonla
Stone Mountain
Atlanta
College Park
LaCrange
Montgomery
RAMPS
Trailer must be pointed
Cast
Cast
flit
Cast
West
Cast
Cast
East
West
West
West
West
 HOW TO JUDGE IMPACT FORCE AND SPEED OF FREIGHT
                            tARS
  For the benefit of those engaged in train or yard service, there is shown
 below the impact force at various speeds, together with meihodi of calculjt-
 Ing speed of 40-foot car. This information should  enable switching crews
 to couple cars at proper speed, thereby reducing damage to lading and sub-
 sequent claim payments.
  The factor behind damage resulting from rough coupling of cars is: impact
 delivered by coupled cars increases in proportion to squire of the speed
 IR other  words, a car coupled at 8 miles per hour delivers IE times as mucri
 impact force as a car coupled at 2 miles per hour,
  The coupling  speed of a 40-foot car may be determined by sighting tht
 vertical end of  car aipinst some stationary object  like a telegraph pole
 switch stand or crosstie and noting the seconds it takes to pass. Speed in
miles per hour is shown below. (A good way to count seconds without using
I stop watch is to count "one hundred and  thirty  one, one hundred anrj
thirty-two" and  so on as the car passes a stationary  point.)
                                                                                         Figuring Speed
                                                                                         el 40-Foot Car
                                                                                                       Miles
                                                                                Second*              Per Hour
                                                                                   1                   21
                                                                                   I                   14
                                                                                   I                   U
                                                                                   4                   7
                                                                                   9                   U
                                                                                   I                   4J
                                                                                   7                   4
                                                                                   I                   U
                                                                                   I                   U
                                                                                  10                   U
                                                                                  11                   19
                                                                                  12                   U
                                                                                  II                   US
                                                                                  14                   2
                                                                                                 Impact Forcai at
                                                                                                 SUIklng Speeds
                                                                                                               Units of
                                                                                              Car            Destructive
                                                                                          Coupled at           Fern
                                                                                             Imph                1
                                                                                             2mph                4
                                                                                             Jmph                I
                                                                                             4mph               1C
                                                                                             Smph               25
                                                                                             «mph               36
                                                                                             7mph               4)
                                                                                             Smph               64
                                                                                             Jmph               II
                                                                                            lOmph             100
                                                                                 A safe range ol Speed is a brisk walk, which is about 4 miles per now.
                                                                    H-74

-------
                                        Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co.

                                        W. Glavin
                                        Vice President-Administration

                                        131 West Lafayette Boulevard
                                        Detroit, Michigan 48226

                                         January 18,  1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas,  Director
Standards & Regulations  Division
   (ANR-490)
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

         The Grand Trunk Western Railroad, like many  rail
properties, in the interest of protecting lading and  equip-
ment, subscribe to a  coupling speed of 4 MPH or—less.

         While we do  not have any operating rule, it  has
been and continues to be our practice for our operating
supervisors to observe switching operations and 'to make
sure the coupling speed  of no greater than 4 MPH is fol-
lowed.  Coupled with  safety meetings, loss and damage
meetings are held with train and engine crews in attend-
ance.  At these meetings the 4 MPH or less coupling speed
is discussed with the reasons for compliance pointed  out.

         Loss & Damage Supervisor makes spot checks in
switching yards using a  radar gun, making a report to the
top operating officer.   This report shows actual coupling
speeds, and any excessive speeds are handled for correction
with the local supervision in charge.
                                       Very truly yours,
                          H-75

-------
                                                        J. J. BRULEY

                                                        Superintendent


GREEN  BAY  AND  WESTERN   RAILROAD   COMPANY
P. 0. BOX 2507                 GREEN BAY, WISCONSIN 54306                 414-497-5114

                            January 8,  1978

                            File:   840-14
           Mr.  Henry E. Thomas, Director
           .Standards and Regulations Division
           United States Environmental  Protection Agency
           Washington, D. C.    20460

           Dear Mr. Thomas:

           Your letter of January 3, 1979,  directed to Mr. H,
           W. McGee has been turned over  to me  for handling.

           The  Green Bay and Western Railroad Company has an
           operating practice of freight  car coupling speeds
           not  to exceed four (4) miles per hour.

           These instructions are contained in  our curr.ent
           Timetable No. 92, page seven (7).  A copy of this
           page is attached.

                                        Yours very truly,
          JJB/bd
          Enclousre
                                  H-76

-------
AVOID  DAMAGE - Switch Customers  Cars  Carefully
- JUDGING SPEED -
Accurate judgement of coupling speed depends upon correct timing.
An excellent way to get accurate timing without a watch is to count
"one hundred and thirty-one, one hundred and thirty-two" and so
on as the car passes a stationary point. With a little practice counting
tan be done at a rate of one a second.
Ability to closely estimate speed at time car strikes is extremely
important because impact force builds up as the square of the speed.
This means that impact delivered by a car coupled at 8 miles per hour
is not four times that at 2 miles per hour, but 16 TIMES A3
GREAT. Damage to freight or car can be avoided by always keeping
coupling speed within the safe range - NOT OVER 4 MILES PER
HOUR - A BRISK WALK.
OFFICE HOURS OF OPERATORS
Manawa 	 7:45 AM to 4:45 PM Mon. thru Friday
Plover 	 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM Mon. thru Sat
Wis. Rapids.. .8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Daily
4:00 PM to Midnight Mon. thru Friday
Call for No. 1 Sat. and Sun.

Ktwmnff ,,,, T ,...,,,... 2 .. Call
OFFICE HOURS OF TRAIN DISPATCHERS
Wats Phone Number 	 800-242-2937

IMPACT FORCE AT VARI01
Car Units of
Coupled Destructive
•t Force
11 mph 1
2 » 4 g>
3 - 9 -a
4 " 16 g
JS STRIKING SPEEDS
Or Unit» of
Coupled Destructive
•t Force
5 mph 25
6 " 36
7 " 49
8 " 64
9 " 81
10 " 100
- SPEED CARD -
To Find Coupling Speed of 40 Foot and SO Foot Car
Sight vertical end of car body on a fixed point and note the
number of seconds it takes car to pass. Speed in miles per
hour is shown opposite. Damage as a result of Rough
Handling makes up a large part of the claim bill for Loss
and Damage to Freight. From the Railroad standpoint it is
the major item in the expense. We all know that Rough
Handling can be reduced, often eliminated. It is hoped that
thii card will be helpful in your efforts to prevent Rough
Handling.
Switch Crews must function as a team. Clear signals
properly given are mighty important; talk it over - prevent
Rough Handling - it can be done.
40 Ft. Car
Miles Per
Seconds Hour
1 	 28 ..' 	

2 	 14 	
3 	 9.3 	
4 	 	 7 	
5 	 5.6 	
6...'... 	 4.7 	
7 	 4 	
g 	 3.5 	
9 	 3.1 	
10 	 2.8 	
11 	 	 	 2.5 	
12 	 23 	
13 	 2.15 	
14... 	 2 	
50 Ft. Car
Miles Per
Hour
	 35
	 17.5
	 11.6
	 8.7
	 7
	 5.9
	 5
	 4.4
	 3.9
	 j. 3.5
	 3.1
	 2.9
	 2.7
	 2.5
                       H-77

-------
          HOUSTON  BELT & TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
                             UNION STATION BUILDING

                           OPCRATINO THI TCDMINALt Of
MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD CO
 WORTH AND DENVER RAILWAY CO.

 L. B GRIFFIN
   AHO OIUCHAI. M«M*CCI»
  ATCHISON. TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY CO..
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILROAD CO

            HOUSTON. TEXAS 770O2'
                                January 30, 1979

                                File:  140.31-2
       Mr.  Henry  E.  Thomas,  Director
       Standards  and Regulations Division
       U.  S'.  Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington,  D.  C.   20460

       Dear Mr. Thomas:

           Reference  is  made to your letter of January  3 with
       respect  to our  speed  of impact requirements in rail car
       coupling.

           The Houston* Belt & Terminal Railway Company  is a
       party  to a Code of Operating Rules in which Section
       103 (a) reads  as follows:
           Precautions  in  switching.  	x X X X X
      XXXX  (1)  XXXXXXXXXXXXX
               (2)  When  coupling or shoving cars, take proper
      precaution  to  prevent  damage or fouling of other tracks
      by stretching  coupling,  and setting sufficient hand
      brakes.  Make  couplings  at a speed of not more than 4
      miles per hour.
                                Yours very trul
                                 H-78

-------
 ./T*S  Illinois
       Central
       Gulf
An 1C Industries Cornpany                    WHIIam F. Bum             Illinois Central
                                   General Solicitor             Gulf Railroad
                                                        Two Illinois Center
                                                        233 North MchKjan A/enue
                                                        Chicago. IL 60601
                                  January 17, 1979
 United States Environmental
     Protection Agency,
 Washington,  D. C. 20460

 Attention:   Henry E. Thomas, Director
             Standards and Regulations
                Division (ANR-490)

 Gentlemen:

          Receipt is acknowledged of  letter from Mr. Thomas
 to  our President W. J. Taylor dated  January 3, 1979 and
 requesting  information regarding Illinois  Central Gulf
 operating rules, operating practices or  recommended prac-
 tices  relating to locomotive and rail «ar  coupling speed.

          Our General Superintendent  Administration J. F.
 Reents has  called my attention  to  two operating rules that
 vould  bear  upon this subject.   Copy  of his letter to me
 dated  January 17, 1979 is forwarded  in that regard.  He
 also informed me that instructions are issued to train,
 yard and engine service employees  to avoid impact between
 locomotives  and cars, or between cars in excess of four
 miles  per hour.  This is exemplified by  such pamphlets as
 the attached "Responsibilities  of  the Yard Engine Foreman1;1
 and "Careful Car Handling Guide" and the several posters
 that have issued out of the ICG Freight  Claim Department.

          With every good wish,  I remain

                                   Very truly yours,
                                               Bunn

Attach.
                                  H-79

-------
Chicago, January 17, 1979



TO:       Mr. W. Bunn

FROM:     J. F. Reents

SUBJECT:  Request for Information from Environmental
          Protection Agency for Information in Connection
          with Rules, Operating Practices or Recommended
          Practices Relating to Locomotive and Rail Car
          Coupling Speed
Referring to letter, dated January 3, 1979, addressed  to
Mr. W. J. Taylor from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), concerning scope of railroad noise emissions.

The Operating Department and Transporation Department  rules
have general regulations in connection with coupling of
locomotives and cars.  Rule 103(a) states:

          "Running switches will be made only when
          they can be made without danger to employ-
          ees or damage to equipment or contents of
          cars.  Before making the switch, it must be
          known the tracks have sufficient room; and
          that the switch and hand brakes must be
          teste-j and known to be working properly.
          Cars must have sufficient momentum only to
          move them into clear.  The switch must not
          be thrown unless there is sufficient room
          between the equipment for it to be done
          safely.  Employees must be on the alert to
          avoid collision if the switch is not
          thrown.  Engine must be run on straight
          track when practical."

Rule 804 states in instructions to engineman:

          •They must exercise good judgment in start-
          ing and stopping trains and coupling and
          switching cars, to avoid discomfort or in-
          jury to passengers or employees or damage
          to property.  Slack in trains must be
          properly controlled to avoid rough
          handling."
                            H-80

-------
Mr. W. Bunn
January 17, 1979
Page 2
He also have instructions  issued  to  train,  yard  and  engine
service employees to avoid  impact between  locomotives  and
cars, or between cars  in excess of four miles- per  hour
because of the possibility  of damage  to locomotives- dam-
age to lading in cars, and  to the cars themselves.

The freight claim prevention people  have issued  numerous
practicfif'guidelines to train and yardmen in connection
with the desirable coupling speed.  Attached is  a  calendar
covering the year 1979.  If you will  review the  backside,
you will observe the findings covering safe coupling
speed.  In addition is a copy of  the  careful car handling
guide, responsibility of yard enginemen, and numerous
posters that have been prepared and  issued  to train, yard
and engine service employees.

Sincerely,

    /

J./F. Reents
General Manager - Administration
                          H-81

-------
                    UMtOBmUt.
      RESPONSIBILITIES OF TIC YARD ENGINE FOR£MAN
  X.  Responsible for the performance  of ill crew
      Mmbtrs in performing safe,  efficient, damage-
      free switching.

 II.  Prepares to perform switching.

     .A.  Sees t—»t all neabers of the craw report
          to work on tine,  properly dressed and
          •quipped to p«rfom duties.

      I.  Receives Instruction from the  yardmaiter
          or trainmaster concerntrig the  priority at
          •witch function*  to be perform*!.

      C.  Mans switch work to be don*.

      0.  Shares plan with  crew.

      I,  Insures that all  crew members  are faniliar
          with Operating Department rules and_safety
          rale*.

      F»  Insures that crew members are  faniliar
          with their duties, instructing if necessary.

      G.  Reviews switch list* for  cars  requiring
          special handling.

III. Avoids or reduces switching impacts.

     • A.  Shore or reswitch stalled car* rather than
          driving them to a coupling with followir.j
          car*.

     B.  Secure ears In  tracks with hand brake or
          chock.

     C.  B* sure hand  brake is released and air
          released when switching.

     0.  See knuckles are open to assure coupling
          •ad eliminate jaaoed knuckl**.

     8.  Candle as snail a cut a* possible in
      •   switching to minimize slack action within
          the> cut.

     9»  Hake-coupling 1-1/2 m.p.h. or less when
          •otlve power  1* attached.
 IV.  Make free rolling couplings 4 M.p.h. or less.

      A.  Civ* clear signals and require prompt re-
          sponse to signals given tot

          1.  engineer for control of  engine.

          2.  Helper for switch alignment.

      B.  Estimate speed at which car  must be re-
          leased by using knowledge of:

          1.  Grade variance of yard and switching
              lead.

          2.  Distance the car must travel to couple.

          3.  Loaded or empty.

          4.  Approximate weight of car.

          5.  Wind and temperature.

          C.  Type of journal bearing.

 V.   Gives  special handling to cars designated or
      observed to  require special handling.

      A.   Obey* rule* governing Orange "X" bad order
          ear*.

      B.'   Doe* not move or gives minimum movement to
          •  leaking car — notifies proper authority
          for  repair.

      C.   Doe* not move car* with refrigerator or
         plug door open.

      0.   Doe* not move or gives minimum movement to
         ear* which are observed to be unsafe for
         normal movement —notifies proper author-
         ities for repair.

VI.   Sets pace of switching to produce quality ser-
      vice - quality transportation service.

     A.  Considers safety.

     B.  Considers sequence of switch moves to
         •ffect efficiency.

     C.  Considers careful car handling.

M. X. Oeterdock. Gen. Supt. Yard* C Terminals'
                                                      H-82

-------
           Illinois TWoMruil    ailroa
W.  J. CASS1N                       V\gJU.m.ll!H^                 "0 *. TWELFTH BOULEVARD
                                  ^«l«i»S^
PRESIDENT
 "ISIOEN                                                        ST. LOUIS. MO. 63177
                         'The Road of Personalized Services

                              January 13,  1979
      Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
      Standards and Regulations
      United States Environmental Protection Agency
      1921 Jefferson Davis Highway
      Arlington, Virginia  202*60

      Dear Mr. Thomas:

            Reference your letter of January 3,  1979, regarding railroad
      noise emission standards.  The Illinois Terminal Railroad Company
      has the following operating rules and special instructions relating
      to locomotive and rail car coupling speed:

            103:  "When cars are shoved by an engine, and  the conditions
      require, a trainman must take a conspicuous  position on leading car',
      and at night he must display .a white light."

            103(a)'  "Running switches will be made only when they can be
      made without danger to employes, or damage to equipment or contents
      of cars.  Before making the switch it must be known  that tracks have
      sufficient room; and the switch and hand brakes must be tested and
      known to be working properly.  Cars must have sufficient momentum
      only to move them into clear.  The switch  must not be thrown unless
      there is sufficient room between equipment for it  to be done safely.
      Employes must be on the alert to avoid collision if  the switch is not
      thrown.  Engine must be run on straight track when practical..

            Cars containing explosives, poison gas or dangerous-radioactive
      material, must not be kicked or dropped.  Other cars must not be kicked
      or dropped into a track against such cars.

            Running switches must not be made when movements are controlled
      by interlocking."

            103(b): »K3ars left standing on a track must  be secured, applying
      sufficient hand brakes when necessary;  they  must be  clear of other
      tracks; when practical, they must be coupled to. other cars and, if on
      heavy grade, the wheels must be blocked;

            When cars are picked up, hand brakes must be released.

            When necessary to secure or control  cars by  hand brakes, it must
      be known that such-brakes are working properly. '"If  hand brakes are
      defective and cars ad left*, the cars mustSbe blocked securely and train
      dispatcher or yardmaster nciified.

                                         H-83

-------
       Before coupling to cars  where derailment,  damage or Injury-
 might result if coupling should miss and  cars  roll,  sufficient hand
 brakes must be applied on standing cars to  prevent them from rolling."

       103(c):  "When coupling,  shoving or  switching cars,  precaution
 must be taken to prevent damage or fouling  other tracks.  'It must  be
 known there is sufficient room in track to  hold  the  cars;  when neces-
 sary,  the  slack must  be stretched to ensure that cars  are coupled.
 When there is  a possibility of cars being shoved the entire  length of
 a track or cars rolling entire length of  a  track, a  trainman must  go
 ahead to protect the  movement,  unless otherwise  protected.

       When an  engine  is coupled to a train, coupling must  be tested
 by slacking the engine ahead."

       103(d):  "When cars are shoved,  kicked or dropped over  public
 grade  crossing not protected by gates, the  crossing  must  be  protected
 by a member of the crew.   Switching cars  over  such crossings shall
 be only on signals of a member of the crew  at  the crossing.

       Public grade crossings must  not be  blocked longer than five
 minutes when, it can be avoided.   When parting  trains or cuts of cars
 at such locations, the cars should be left  not less  than fifty feet
 from each  side 'of crossing,, when  practical.  Before  movement is made
 to recouple, the crossing must  be  protected by a trainman.

       When a train or cut  of cars  is  parted to clear a public  grade
 crossing or is  standing near such  crossing, a  member of the  crew must,
 when practical, protect the crossing  when a train is approaching on
 another track.   Unnecessary operation of  automatic public grade cross-
 ing signals due to engines or cars  standing on circuit  is prohibited.

       When a train or engine has been stopped  on a main track,  or is
 using  a track other than a main track, near a  public grade crossing
 where  an automatic grade crossing  signal  is in service, movement over
 such crossing must be  protected by a  trainman, unless  it is  known
 that the automatic protection has been operating a sufficient time
 for vehicular traffic.

       After passing over public grade crossing protected by  automatic
 grade  pressing signals, reverse movement must not be made over the
 crossing unless the movement is protected."

       103(e): "When coupling or switching cars, or cars are cut off in
motion, coupling speed must be within safe limits and proper precaution
 taken  to prevent damage.  When engines are working at both ends of a
 track, movements must be made carefully to avoid injury or damage."

      I03(f)s  "Before coupling to or moving cars on tracks where cars
are being loaded or unloaded,  trainmen must see that vehicles and other
obstructions are clear of cars; stage boards,  elevator spouts, pipe
connections to tank cars and similar devices are removed; persons in
 or about such cars are warned and requested to vacate cars while being
 switched; and when practical,  that the contents of cars are properly
trimmed or braced to prevent damage.  Information from industry employes
does not relieve compliance with these requirements*
                             H-84

-------
     Cars not taken must be returned to their original location,
unless otherwise instructed."

     103(g): "Passenger or camp cars must not be kicked or dropped.
Cars must not be kicked or dropped into a track on which there are
passenger or camp cars.

     Before switching occupied cars, air must be cut in, the system
charged and, if dining or camp cars are involved, occupants of such
cars notified.  Automatic brakes must be used in such switching."

     Tour particular attention is directed to the above Rule 103(e).
He also have a bulletin order which reads as follows:

     "Every effort must be made to keep coupling speed of diesel
engines to 3 MPH or less; however, when a heavy impact is made by
a diesel engine and damage is indicated, it must immediately be shut
down and inspected by a member of the Mechanical Department before
it is restarted.  Such cases must be reported by the quickest avail-
able means of communications to the Train Dispatcher, or when they
occur in a yard, to the Yardmaster or other employe in charge of the
yard."

                                       Yours truly,


HJC:sks
                              H-85

-------
                                                      IHi
          INDIANA HARBOR BELT RAILROAD COMPANY
1740 Transportation Center
Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania
January 12,  1979
Mr. Henry E.  Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This refers  to your January 3 letter inquiring whether
Indiana Harbor Belt has an operating rule or practice
relating to  coupling  speeds.

This subject  is covered in Rule 130 in our present
Book of Rules.  Copy  of the applicable page is attached.


Sincerely,
R. B. Hasselman
President
                    H-86

-------
 not  prolrct   against  following  movements  unless
 specified in the timetable.

   111.  Unless otherwise s|>ccificd in tin* (iinctnl)lc,
 trains  and engines  ming  .1 siding may proceed at
 Restricted Speed ;nul will not protect against follow-
 ing movements.

   A siding of .111 assigned direction must nnt be used
 iu (lie reverse direction without proper signal indica-
 tion, authority of the employe in charge,  or in an
 emergency under Hag protection.

   Trains or  engines using  a controlled siding  will
 operate in accordance with .signal indications.

   112.  On a running track, movements may proceed
 at Iteslricled Speed, tin .signal  indication, permission
 of employe in charge or  as  specified  in the  timetable
 and  in  an emergency under il;«g  protection.  When
 movement has  heen completed it  mn.st  he  reported
 clear; except, when clearing at an interlocking, hlock
 station or where switch tenders  are on duty.  Pro-
 tection against  following movements  will not be  pro-
 vidc«l unless specified in  the timetable.

   113.   Movements  on tracks other  than'main,  sec-
 ondary, running tracks and sidings may proceed at
 Restricted Speed unless  otherwise specified in  the
 timetable.

   130.'  Engines and cars must be  coupled at a speed,
 not  to exceed -4 miles per hour.

   130a.  A stop must be made just prior to coupling
 occupied passenger  equipment. Cars occupied  by
 passengers and cars placed on tracks occupied by such
 cars must  IMJ handled with  air brakes, in r.crvicc.

   130b.  Cars placed for loading or unloading, must
 not be  coupled to nor moved until all persons in or
 about  them have hern notified  and all  obstructions
 under or about  the rars, transfer hoards, and attach-
 ments Iwvc  been femovrd. When  such  cars  axe
 moved  they  must be returned  to  original  location.

  Sign reading "Slop-Tank Car Connected." indicates
 tank cars arc connected for loading or unloading and
must  not be  coupled to  or moved.  Cars must not
be placet! on  the .tame track, that  may obstruct the
view  of  A sign without first notifying the person in
charge.
                       H-87

-------
               THE  KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY

                     LOUISIANA &  ARKANSAS  RAILWAY COMPANY
                               114  WEST ELEVENTH STREET
                              KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 641Q5

THOMAS S. CARTER

                                   January 16, 1979
              Mr. H. E.  Thomas, Director
              Standards  and Regulations Division  (ANR-U90)
              United States Environmental Protection Agency
              Washington, D. C.  20U60

              Dear Mr. Thomas:

                        Reference to your letter January 3, 1979. concerning
              our regulations with respect to coupling speeds.

                        Please find enclosed two attachments shoving Kansas City
              Southern Lines Operating Rule 103 (a) (2) which does prohihit our
              crews from making couplings at speeds greater than four (U) M.P.H.

                        We received this request in two separate letters, one
              addressed  to the Louisiana and Arkansas Railway Company, the other
              Kansas City Southern Railway Company.  The Operating Rule Book and
              the appropriate rule does apply for each of these two lines.

                                          Tours very truly,
                                      H-88

-------
                       Copied from Operating Rule Book, effective July 1, 1951*
    ually controlled crossing signals, and they are
    known to be functioning.
    (2) When cars are shoved over crossing and
    facing end of leading car is equipped with a
    back-up air brake hose  or  pipe, and air
    whistle handled by the trainman.
    (3) When yard  to yard or long  switch or
    transfer movements  shoving  cars are pro-
    tected by a member of the crew on leading car
    and movement over the crossing is made only
    on his signal.

  When a train or cut of cars is parted to clear
• public crossing at grade, a trainman must, when
practicable, protect the crossing against trains or
engines approaching on  adjacent tracks, unless
crossing Is protected by a watchman or gates.

  Trains, engines or cars  must not block a public
crossing longer than 5 minutes when it  can be
•voided.
  Unnecessary operation of automatic  public
crossing signals due to engines or cars standing
in circuit should be avoided.
  103  (a). Precaution! in  Switching.—When
cars are shoved  by an engine  and conditions re-
quire, a trainman must take conspicuous position
on the leading car.
  •Employes must  observe the following  precau-
tions in switching movements:
   (1)  See that cars left on tracks are properly
secured, clear other tracks and, when practicable,
.clear public crossing at least 75 feet.
   (2)  When coupling or  shoving cars, take proper
precaution to prevent damage or  fouling of other
tracks by stretching coupling, and setting suffi-
cient hand brakes. Make couplings at a speed of
not more than 4 mileTper hour.
  (3) Before shoving yard tracks, know there is
sufficient room to hold the cars. When shoving
entire length of track, see that cars are coupled
and, unless  otherwise provided,  send a man to
head end to protect the movement.

  (4) When necessary to control cars by hand
brakes, know that sufficient brakes are in working
order before cars are 'cut off.

  (5) Make running switches only when can be
made without danger to employes, equipment or
contents of  cars. Know  that the track is suffi-
ciently  clear, switches and brakes  in  working
order and run engine on straight  track, when
practicable.

  Running switches must not be made with  cars
containing inflammables, explosives or other dan-
gerous  articles, nor through spring or remote
control switches.

   (6)  Where engines may be working at both
ends of a track, have proper understanding be-
tween crews involved.

   (7)  Before coupling to or moving cars on tracks
where cars  aye being loaded or unloaded, - ee that
running boardstoil tank couplings, elevator spouts
 and similar connections  are removed and clear,
 and persons in, on or about cars are warned and
 requested to vacate cars while being switched. ^,-

   (8) Passenger qars and occupied outfit  cars
 must not be kicked or dropped.  Other cars must
 not be kicked or dropped into a track  on which
 passenger or occupied outfit cars are standing.

   (9)  Before switching  passenger equipment or
 occupied outfit cars, see that brake  pipe connec-
 tions are made, angle cocks opened between the
 cars and brake system charged.  Automatic brake
 valve  only must be used by engineers in  such
 switching.

-------
                      CITY TKIOZIXAI* I€AIH*WAY COMPAXY
v. K. <;<>«
I*KK«ii»:>nr * OBX
                                                                 CITY, MO.
                                                         January 9, 1979
       Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
       Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-U90)
       United'States Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington, D.C.      20h60

       Dear Mr. Thomas:

                       Referring to your letter.of  January 3, 1979, in regard
       to noise levels with respect to car coupling  speed,

                       A copy of Kansas City Terminal Rules and Regulations
       No. 853 is attached.
                                                Tours
      att.
                                    H-90

-------
        In the event a penalty application oc-
'ii», a full service brake application will result.
        To obtain u release of a safety ecmtrol
vnalty application, it is necessary to  place the
utomatic brake v.ilvc  handle  in  the  "supprcs-
on" position  until  pressure is restored, after
 hieh the brake valve handle may be returned to
release" position provided  the safety control
odal is depressed.
        The safety  control pedal must not  be
il out,  unless defective or otherwise instruc-
•il.  When   necessary to cut  out a  defective
• Icty control pedal the engineman must notify
:e nearest maintenance point  us  soon us prac-
eable.
        The cut  out  cock for  this  device is
entitled by the red valve and may be  found on
.0 Engineer's side in front of the cub above the
'Sine walk-way.
        The use  of a  weight or a  device  to
•Id down the safety control pedal or defeating
 o safety control feature is prohibited.
        When  locomotive is left standing, an
.lepcndcnt  brake application of approximately
  pounds or more will keep the safety control
 vice from actuating.

  TRAIN, ENGINE AND YARD SERVICE
   850. Conductors and engine  foremen  re-
 rt to and receive instructions from the Super-
'endent and his  designated officer. Trainmen
J helpers  are subordinate  to conductor and
 iinc  foreman,  and  fireman to engineman
 :ile on duty.

   851. Conductors and engine  foremen are
 ponsible for  the strict performance of duty
  all  persons  employed on  their trains or
 •ines. Each must require the safe management
  his train or  engine, and report  to the Yard-
master or Superintendent any misconduct, in-
subordination  or neglect on the part of others
whose duties require their cooperation.

     852. Employes must see  that cars left on
tracks are properly secured, clear other tracks
and,  when  practicable,  clear public crossiims
at least 75 feet.

     853. When  coupling or shoving ears,  take
   per precaution to prevent damaue or foulin;:
of  other tracks  by  stretching  coupling  and
setting sufficient hand  brakes. Make couplings
at a speed of not more than 4 miles per hour.

     854. Before  shoving yard   tracks, know
there is sufficient room to hold the cars.
         When  shoving entire length of track,
see that  cars are coupled and, unless otherwise
provided, send a man to end of cars to protect
the movement.
         When shoving cars on tracks equipped
with  bumping post, wheel stops, etc., a safety
stop must be made at least one car length fiom
bumping post, wheel stops, etc., before com-
pleting the movement.

     855. When  necessary  to  control  cars by
hand brakes,  know that sufficient  brakes are
in working order before cars  are cut off.

     856. Make running switch only when it can
be  made without danger to  employes, equip-
ment or  contents of cars. Know that the track
is sufficiently clear,  switches  and  brakes  in
working  order and run engine  on straight track,
when practicable.
         Running  switches must not be made
with  cars containing flammables, explosives  or
other dangerous articles, nor through spring or
remote control switches.

     857. Where  engines  may  be  working  at
                                            H-91

-------
                      tOlO NOMTH WISTCKN PARKWAY
  JOSEPH J. OAYNOM

mt•IOCHT • atNIHAL MANAOCH
1.4C2/2      February 26, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations
  Division (ANR-490)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

          This refers to your letter February 9 which was
received on February 20 requesting information concerning  rules
or practices relating to couplings speed.

          It is our practice to perrorm car couplings at a
proper safe speed but we do not have a rule indicating  that
couplings should not occur at speeds greater than  four  miles
per hour.  The applicable rule in effect on our railroad re'ads
as follows:

               Switching crews must pay special at-
               tention to the commodities with which
               cars are loaded and see that lading,
               liable to damage by rough handling, is
               properly protected.  Bad order cars in
               a cut, with defects that would endanger
               the safety of crew or cause further
               damage to equipment by switching, should
               be set out.

               Extreme care must be taken in switching
               trailers and flat car loading, especial-
               ly at Market Street, to avoid damage.


                                      Very truly yours.
 cy:   R.  L.  Adkins
                           H-921

-------
                LAKE SUPERIOR & ISHPEMING RAILROAD COMPANY
                             IOS EAST WA8HINOTON STREET
                           MARQUETTE, MICHIGAN 49859
    JAMES J. SCULLION
PHMIOINT AND CMIIF CJIICUTIVC orriccH
January 25, 1979
       Mr.  Henry E.  Thomas, Director
       Standards and Regulations
            Division (ANR-490)
       United States Environmental
            Protection Agency
       Washington,  DC  20460

       Dear Mr.  Thomas:

              In reply to your letter dated January 3 inquiring  as
       to whether or not we have rules on coupling speeds.

              We make available to all of our people a small card
       calendar, issued by the Association of American Railroads, which
       indicates the safe coupling speeds for various length cars.
       For  the most part, this would average about four miles per hour.

              On our particular railroad, we do practically no flat
       switching and have no retarder yards, which are the most  common
       sources of impact noise.  Approximately 99% of our traffic is
       iron ore.  We normally handle cuts of anywhere from 35 to 55 cars
       and  shove to a coupling.  This applies at both the mines  and boat
       loading dock and reduces impact noise to an absolute minimum.

              On the basis of our operation, we have never felt  that
       rules to cover coupling speeds were necessary.
       JJS:baw
                                           Executive Officer
                                   H-93

-------
                  THE LAKE TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY
                           6OO GRANT STREET        P. O. BOX 336
                              PITTSBURGH. PA. 15230
M. SPALDINO TOON
   PHCSIOtNT
                                                January 12, 1979
         Mr. Henry E.  Thomas,  Director
         Standards and Regulations
          Division (ANR-490)
         United States Environmental Protection Agency
         Washington, D. C.  20460

         Dear Mr. Thomas:

                 This is in response to your letter of January 3  requesting
         whether or not the Lake  Terminal Railroad has in effect at this
         time an operating rule, operating  practice, or a recommended
         practive relating to locomotive and rail car couplings.

                 We do not have  an operating rule specifically designating
         a coupling speed.  Crews have always been instructed .to handle cars
         carefully when making couplings to prevent damage to contents
         and equipment.

                                            Very truly yours.
                                            President
                                   H-04

-------
M
The Long Island
Rail Road
Jamaica Station   Jamaica. New York 11435
Phon. 212 658-1700
    212 S26O900
                                Members of the Board

                          Chairman Harold L. Fisher
                       Vice Chairman Leonard Braun

                                Lawrence R. Bailey
                                Donald H. Elliott
                                Juttin N. Feldman
                                Mortimer J. Gleeson
                                Edwin G. Michaelian
                                Daniel T. Scan n* 11
                                Conttantine Sidamon-Erinoff
Thomai M. Taranto
General Count*! and
Secretary
    January 22, 1979
    Mr. Henry E. Thomas
    Director, Standards and
     Regulations Division
    United  States Environmental
     Protection Agency
    Washington, D.C.  20460

    Re:  Rail Coupling  Speed

    Dear Mr.  Thomas:

    Pursuant  to your letter request dated January 3,  1979/
    please  be advised that The Long Island  Rail Road  Company
    conforms  to the general industry standard recommended
    coupling  speed of 4 miles per hour.  The special  rules
    for coupling LIRR equipment are enclosed herewith.

    If you  have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
    me at  (212) 658-1700.

    Sincerely yours.
    Laurence  H.  Rubin
    Attorney
    LHR/kaw
    encls.
                                     H-95

-------
 the  independent brake  should  be applied.  Before  the
 brake  pipe  hoses between the locomotive and  the train
 have been coupled, condensation must be  blown from
 the  brake pipe. The locomotive  brakes must remain ap-
 plied while the train is being charged.
 To cha^e a train, use the "rcleaise" position of  DS-24 or
 26-C brake .valves and the "running" position of all other
 types of brake valves.
 During the initial charging of a  train,  the output of the
 air compressor on a diesel locomotive  may  be  increased
 when necessary by moving the throttle  to "number four"
 or "number five" position. Before opening the throttle,
 the  generator field or motor  control switch  must be in
 "off position  and the reverse lever in "neutral" position.
 When  the main reservoir gauge indicates normal cycling
 between cut-in and cut-o-: pressures, the throttle should
 be  reduced  to "idle" position for the  remainder of the
 charging time.
 If, after coupling the locomotive to the train,  it is not
 the  intention  to immediiidy begin charging the  train.
 the  automatic  brake vaive handle should be placed  in
 "lap"  position  ("handle-off position on 26-L equip-
 ment)  until the signal to charge the  train has been re-
 ceived.
 Reducing valves for ground air  lines used for  charging
 and  testing air  brakes of trains or cuts of can should be
 set for  a maximum pressure  of  70 Ibs. for  freight and
 110 Ibs. for passenger.
 PASSENGER TRAINS
 Note: a safety  stop must be made just  prior  to coupling.
 Connect the brake  pipe  and signal line by coupling the
 air hoses between the cars. Starting with the end nearest
 the locomotive, first open the  brake  pipe  angle cock
slowly,  and second, open  the signal line cut-out cock.
Then, in a similar manner open the angle cocks and cut-
out cocks on  the balance of the cars. On  all  cars, see
 that the cut-out cocks in the brake pipe branch  pipes are
open, and that all hand brakes are released.
    The graduated release  feature on all passenger cars must
    be set for graduated release.
  J. PASSENGER TRAINS - FREIGHT CARS HANDLED
    When freight cars are to be operated cither permanently
    or temporarily in passenger service, the brake cylinder or
    its pipe should be equipped  with a safety valve adjusted
    to open  at approximately 60 Ibs.  Cars may be operated
    without this safety valve, but the engineer in charge of the
    train  must be so notified. In such cases, the engineer will
  • operate the train brakes under normal conditions in such
    a  manner as to avoid a service brake c> linder pressure in
    excess of 60 Ibs. at speeds of less than 23 mph.
    The  pressure-retaining valves must be set in the "direct
    exhaust" position (handle pointing downward).
 4.  PUSH-PULL TRAINS
    a.  Follow the instructions contained in Paragraphs 1 and
      2, except in the case of the signal line hose.
   b.  Brake pipe and main reservoir cut-out cock handles a^e
      accessible on the car step riser and are interlocked. To
      cut in the air. pull out the brake pipe handle (upper rod),
      then pull out the main  reservoir handle (lower  rod).
      This locks  the  brake  pipe cock  in  the open position.
      To cut  out the  air. push in'the  main reservoir handle
      (lower rod), then push in the brake  pipe handle (upper
      rod).
   c.  Before coupling or uncoupling electrical jumpers, it is
      imperative  that the  power  car  isolation  switch  be
      turned to the "idle" position.
5. M-l TRAINS
   Brake  pipe and electrical connections are automatically
   made up when pairs of cars are coupled.
   a. Coupling
     Make a complete stop just prior to coupling and check
     for  proper coupler alignment. Bring the two cars gently
     together to couple and latch to each other. It will be
     known that brake pipe communication has been estab-
     lished when a brake pipe emergency application takes
     place.

-------
          LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY
          • 08 W. BROADWAY • LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 4O2O3   TELEPHONE  967-9478
LAW DEPARTMENT                ,       , „  i ntf\                  ROY L. SHERMAN
T       10  in-? ft                  ROY L.SHERMAN
January 18, 1979                  OINMAL ATTOMNCV
    Mr. Henry E.  Thomas,  Director
    Standards and Regulations Division
    United States Environmental Protection Agency
    Washington,  D.  C.   20460

    Dear Mr.  Thomas:

           This  refers to your letter of January 3,  1979,. inquiring
    whether this Company has in effect an operating  rule, operating
    practice or  recommended practice relating to locomotive and
    rail car coupling speed.

           The L&N does not have a published operating rule in effect
    relating to  coupling speed.  However, this Company follows the
    practice recommended by the Association of American Railroads
    that cars not be coupled at a speed greater than, four miles per
    hour.  Enclosed is a copy of a pamphlet entitled Careful Car
    Handling published by the AAR.  You will note therefrom that the
    recommended  practice is contained on both pages  four and five.

           This  pamphlet is used by our Loss and Damage Prevention
    Section for  dissemination in its program to minimize lading
         je.

                                      Sincerely yours,
                                             L. Sherman.
                                          *rf»

    Enclosure
                                 H-97

-------
            MAINE CENTRAL  RAILROAD  COMPANY
                          242 ST. JOHN STREET   PORTLAND. MAINE O41O2
                          TKLCPHONC (207) 773-4711      TCLCX 04-4422
JOHN r. CERITY                                           .„„-
                                          January 15, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations
Division (ANR-490)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington,  D. C.   20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

         'Pursuant to the request contained in your letter
of January 3,  1979, for information with respect to rules in
connection with rail car coupling speed, attached is copy
of Rule 113 of Maine Central Railroad Company's "Rules of
the Operating Department."

         I trust this will give you the desired information,

                                  Yours sincerely,
                                  John F. Gerity
JFG/ms
Enclosure

cc: Mr. A.J.Travis,
      Executive Vice President
                               H-98

-------
 exceed speed restrictions applying on that track, and
 must not exceed a maximum speed of 30 miles per
 hour.

   IIOb. The following maximum speeds must not
 be exceeded:
 Over any drawbridge  	 30 MPH
   And brakes must not be applied on
   drawbridges except in an emergency.
 Circus and Carnival trains :
   On Main Lines	 30 MPH
   On Branch Lines	 25 MPH

   111. In switching passenger equipment the air
 brakes must be in use while handling occupied equip-
 ment,  and when coming  onto passenger  trains  or
 drafts made  up  for occupancy or placed  on station
 tracks regardless of whether occupied or not.
   Cars must not be uncoupled while in motion.
   Engines or drafts coming onto occupied passenger
 equipment must make full stop before coupling on.
   In switching caboose cars, under no circumstances
 are they to be kicked.  Follow the same plan switch-
 ing caboose  cars as passenger equipment, not un-
 coupling caboose until it  has stopped, and in  cou-
 pling onto caboose cars that  are occupied, or that
 may be occupied, engines  will come to full stop be-
 fore coupling on.

   Ilia. Tracks   at  various  locations   must  be
 switched with air brakes in use because of grades or
 other conditions.  Such tracks are  identified  by a
 sign  near the switch indicating air brakes must be
 used while switching.
   Other locations where air brakes must be coupled
 and in use while  switching  will be indicated in Time-
Table Special Instructions.
   112. A sufficient number of hand brakes must be
 applied on cars  left  at any  point to prevent them
 from moving.  If left on a siding they must be cou-
 pled to other cars, if any, on such track unless neces-
 sary to separate  them at  public crossings or other-
 wise. Before coupling to cars at any point care must
 be taken  to insure that cars  being  coupled  to arc
 properly secured.
   113. When coupling cars together, speed of four
 miles per hour at time of coupling must not be ex-
 ceeded to avoid  damage  to equipment and lading.
   During  flat  switching  operations when  cuts of
 twenty or more cars, including loads subject to dam-
 age  from overspced impacts,  arc to be coupled to
 other cars, the cut must be stopped one car length
 from point of coupling before  the coupling is made.
   Open loads subject to shifting while being switched
 must not be  dropped onto other curs or other cars
 dropped onto them; if necessary, such cars should
 be set to one side, then shoved to rest when classi-
 fying with other cars.
   11-1. Flat or gondola cars, not equipped with bulk-
heads  or gates, loaded with pipe,  poles, lumber or
any  other type of lading which has a tendency to
shift in transit should not be handled in trains next
to engine, caboose or occupied work outfit cars when
it can be avoided.

   115. Engines, loaded placarded tank cars or other
cars  containing explosives, must not be stopped over
open flame switch beaters unless unavoidable due to
an emergency, in which case cars should be moved
off promptly, or switch heaters extinguished. Con-
ductors will advise engineers of the presence of such
cars  in trains.
                                                  H-99

-------
                    MISSOUKI-KANRAK-TKXAH RAILROAD COMPANY
U. V. RISTER  .
  ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT
  MECHANCIAL
D. S. KUKU1X
    T CARS fc LOCO*
                                     101 E. MAIN STREET
                                    DCNISON. TEXAS 75020
                                      (214)  46S-SOSO
M. D. WOODROOF
  •UPT. AIR EQUIPMENT
  AND DIESEL OPERATION
J. B. ROBINSON
  •UPERINTENDENT CAP SHOP
                                                            Denison, Texas
                                                            January 16, 1979

                                                            523
             Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
             Standards and Regulations
             Division (ANR-490)
             United States Environmental Protection Agency
             Washington, D. C.  20460

             Dear Mr. Thomas:

                  This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 3,
             1979 concerning the Environmental Protection Agency broadening
             the scope of its railroad noise emission standards to  include
             Interstate rail carriers' equipment and facilities.

                  The Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company  has an operating
             rule in effect relating to coupling speed of locomotives and
             cars.  I am attaching copy of our rule 103(a)  zeroxed  from the
             current effective Uniform Code of Operating Rules which became
             effective June 2, 1968.  Please notice item (2).
                                               Tours  very  truly,
                                         H-100

-------
        (1)  See that cars left  on tracks arc  properly
     secured,, clear  other tracks and, when  practicable,
     clear, public crossing at  least 100 feet.
        (2)  When coupling or shoving cars,  take proper
     precaution to prevent damage or fouling  of  ctlur
     tracks by stretching coupling, and setting  suuicicnt
     hand brakes. Make couplings at a speed  of not rr.orc
     than 4 miles per hour.
        (3)  Before  shoving yard  tracks,  know  there is
     sufficient  room to hold  the cars. \Vhca  shoving en-
     tire length of track, see  that cars are coupled and,
     unless otherwise provided,  send a man  to head end
     to  protect the movement.
        (4)  When  necessary  to  control  cars  by  hand
     brakes, know that  sufficient  brakes  are in working
     order  before cars'are cut off.
        (5)  Kicking or dropping of cars will be permitted
     only when  such movement  can be made  without
     danger to employes, equipment, or contents of cars.
     Know that the track is sufficiently clear, and when
     dropping cars, know switches and brakes arc working
     properly  and  run  engine  on straight  track  when
     practicable.
        Cars containing  flammables, explosives,  or other
     dangerous articles, must not be  dropped or kicked.
       *Gars must  not be dropped through spring or re-
     mote control  switches.
        (6) When engines may  be working at both ends
     of a track, have proper understanding between crews
     involved.
         (7) Before coupling to or moving cars on tracks
     where cars are being loaded or unloaded, see that
     running boards, oil tank couplings,  elevator spouts
     and similar connections  are removed and clear, and
H-101

-------
                MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD Co.
                                 •10 N. 13TII STREET

                          ST. Louis, MISSOURI oaioa
                                Tn.. ARC* Cooc 114 •22-1412
   R. K, DAVIDSON
•noon vie* racuocMT—OTCIUTIOM
                                              January 15, 1979

                                                   Q-A
          Mr. H.'E. Thomas, Director,
          Standards & Regulations Division,
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
          Washington, D.C. 20460

          Dear Mr. Thomas:

                Your letter of January 3 inquiring if Missouri Pacific has
          in effect an operating rule relating to locomotive and rail car
          coupling speed.

                Section (2) of Rule 103(a) of our Uniform Code of Operating
          Rules governs the speed in which rail cars will be coupled.  It
          reads as follows:

                    "when coupling or shoving cars, take proper pre-
                caution to prevent damage or fouling of other tracks
                by stretching coupling,  and setting sufficient brakes.
                Make couplings at a speed of not more than k miles per
                hour."

                                             Yours very truly,
                                       H-102

-------
                        ffiflKM WI1OTK m
                                   3541 SECOBB ftVOTI
RICHARD L. McCoMts
  GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT
                                          January 24, 1979
 Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
 Standards & Regulation Division
 United States Environmental Division
 Washington, D.C.  20460

 Dear Sir:

          I have spent some time researching old records to determine if we have ever
 had a published operating rule or even a bulletin which addressed the circumstances
 of locomotive and freight car coupling speeds.  We have-no such published rule or
 bulletin.

          Ours is a short line switching railroad, with no hump yard operation in service
 at this time. We have a maximum operating speed limit of 10 mph.  At  one time we did
 have a hump operation including a retarder. I have discussed this operation with a
 number of our transportation personnel. They all agree that the understanding was that
 cars over the hump should not couple at speeds in excess  of 4 mph, because of possible
 damage to lading or to equipment.  This understanding still prevails as it applies to
 flat switching.  To that extent, we have an unofficial practice in effect.
                                          Very truly yours,
                              . -- .         '     .• "       i •
                          THE MONONGAHEIA CONNECTING RAILROAD COMPANY
                                          R. L. McCombs
                                          General Superintendent
 RLM:seh

 cc: T. L. Hadley
                                         H-103

-------
                              January 11, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

This refers to your letter of January 3 requesting information
concerning any Norfolk and Western operating rule, operating
practice or recommended practice relating to locomotive and
rail car coupling speed.

The only written provision among NW's operating Rules which
relates to speed of car couplings is the following paragraph
from Rule 103(h):

          "When coupling or shoving cars, proper
          precaution must be taken to prevent
          damage."

In the course of instructing NW train and engine service
personnel, it is our practice to explain this requirement
as prohibiting a coupling speed exceeding that of a brisk
walk, or approximately four miles per hour.
                               incerely
                         H-VQ4

-------
           PEORIA AND  PEKIN UNION RAILWAY COMPANY

                            Omcc or THC PRESIDENT AND QCNCRAU MANAO'R
r. j. OUOOAN
  r*C«IO«MT AMD SCMIHAl MAMABCH
                                            PEORIA, ILLINOIS 61611
                                                           January 19, 1979
           Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
           Standards .and Regulations Division
           United States Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, D. C.    20460

           Dear Mr. Thomas:

           This has reference to your letter of January 3, 1979, addressed in
           error to Mr. Spence of ConRail, the content of which is asking for
           a report in connection with Public Law 92-574, and which file was
           forwarded to me by Mr. Hasselman of ConRail, his letter of Janu-
           ary 12, 1979.

           Rule 103 (e) of the Transportation Rules of this company, revised
           August 1, 1977, reads as follows:

                       "When coupling or switching cars, or cars are
                        cut off in motion, coupling speed must be with-
                        in safe limits not to exceed 4 MPH and proper
                        precaution taken to prevent damage.  When engines
                        are working at both ends of a track, movements
                        must be made carefully to avoid injury or damage."
                                             Tours tru
                                      H.I 05

-------
        THE PITTSBURGH & LIKE ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY
            THE LAJCE ERIE 8c EASTERN RAILROAD COMPAoYY
T. C. NETHERTON
  VICE PRESIDENT-GENERAL MANAGER
PITTSBURGH. PA. U2i»
                                 January 11, 1979
        Mr.  Henry t.  Thomas, Director
        Standards and Regulations
          Division (ANR-490)
        United States Environmental
          Protection  Agency
        Washington, DC   20460
        Dear Sir:
                  Please refer to your letter to Mr.  H.  G.
        Allyn, Jr., President of the Pittsburgh § Lake Erie
        Railroad, dated January 3, 1979, concerning coupling
        speeds of cars.
                  Rule 130 of our Transportation Operating
        Rules says, "Engines and cars must be coupled  at  a
        speed not to  exceed 4 miles per hour."
                  I  trust this is what you need.
                                 Yours truly,
                                H-106

-------
Form 7                  PORTLAND TERMINAL RAILROAD COMPANY
                              ROOM 209 UNION STATION
                                 PORTLAND. OREGON 97209
                                                  January 9, 1979

                                                  File: 122-5
        Mr.  Henry E. Thomas, Director
        Standards & Regulations Division
        United States Environmental Protection Agency
        Washington, D. C. 20460

        Dear Mr. Thomas:

               Please refer to your letter dated January 3, 1978, addressed
        to Mr. T. C. DeButts, President, Portland Terminal Railroad Company,
        in .which it was asked if our Company has in effect an operating rule,
        operating practice or recommended practice' relating to locomotive and
        rail car coupling speed, has been referred to the undersigned for reply.

               Enclosed is a copy of Manager's Instruction Bulletin No. 27
        which is dated January 1, 1979, which is an annual reissued bulletin
        regarding coupling speed.  The original instruction bulletin was issued
        several years ago and, as indicated above, is reissued annually.

               It should also be noted that each switch list form is printed
        with the following information:

               "Safe Coupling Speed not more than 4 M.P.H."

               It is hoped that this is the information you have requested.

                                                  Very truly yours.
                                                     iger
         Enclosure
                                       H-107

-------
              PORT TERMINAL RAILROAD  ASSOCIATION
                           f. O. mo* »S04. HOUSTON. Ttx»t 77011

T. E. WIMBERLY
      »NAOfK                  —        ...   _ _ _ n
                           January  10,  1979
    Mr.  H.  E.  Thomas, Director
    Standards  and  Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
    U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
    Washington,  D.C. 20460

    Dear Mr. Thomas:

         Reference yours of Jan. 3, 1979 concerning railroad
    noise emission standards and rules  or practices governing
    coupling impact speeds .

         PTRA  does have such a rule (70 (e)) governing and copy
    is attached  hereto  as per your request.
                                     Yours truly,
                                     T. E. Wimberly
                                     General Manager
   Attach.
                                H-l 08

-------
  PORT TERMIMAL RAILROAD
          ASSOCIATION
                  A

      Rules and Regulations
         Effective May 1, 1947
        Revised February 1,1957
  The rules herein set forth govern the em-
ployes of the Port Terminal Railroad Asso-
ciation, and employes of the railroads using
the property and facilities of this Association.
They supersede all previous rules  and  in-
structions inconsistent therewith.
  Special instruction may be issued by the
proper authority.

                   C. E. Bullock,
                   General Manager
Ol
o

-------
made carefully and with an understanding to avoid
injuries or damage.

  (d) Before shoving cars on tracks, it must  be
known  there  is sufficient room in the track  to
•hold all of the cars. When shoving entire length
of track,  see  that cars  arc coupled and unless
otherwise provided, send a man to end of cut  to
protect  the movement.
  (e) When coupling or shoving cars, take proper
precaution to  prevent damage or fouling of ot,her
tracks by stretching coupling,  and setting suf-
ficient hand brakes.  Make couplings at a speed of
not more  than four miles por hour.

  (f) Cars containing livestock must not be kicked
or  dropped  or other  cars  kicked  or  dropped
against them.

  (g) Warning  or  commodity   cards  must  be
observed  and their Instructions  complied with.
Yardmasters and yardmen must familiarize them-
selves with the Bureau of .Explosives instructions
governing the  handling of  explosives.   Inflam-
mables  and ncids.  or other dangerous articles.

  Cars will be dropped only  xvhcn necessary, and
when practicable  engine must  be  kept  on  the
straight track. Before making a drop, stop must
be made,  brakes and switch tested.

  71. Cars  must  be left with  sufficient hand
brakes set. after the air Is released from auxiliary
 reservoir, to prevent moving. Cars with defective
 hand brakes must be securely blocked and. when
 possible, coupled to cars having scrviceab'i? hard"
 brakes.  In switching, cars must not be stopped
 or retarded through use  of blocks or chocks.

   72. Cars  must be left clear of any  street or
 public crossing, and  at least one hundred feet from
 the  crossing when  practicable, and must not be
 50 left as to obstruct view of approaching cars or
 engines by  the public.

   73. It  must  be known that  engines  or cars
 standing on parallel or  industry tracks are clear
 of main track  and  that  nothing protrudes there-
 from.

   71. Employes must control or stop cars by hand
 brakes when necessary.

   7."5. Engine foremen will report to car inspectors
 any  defects observed on cars  bring  handled  or
 in yard.

   7G. In case of extraordinary rain storm or high
 water, engines and  cars must  b«  stopped, and
 bu'c;:-'*. irc-silcs.  culverts or other points subject
 to damage, examined by competent employe  to
ascertain if safe before proceeding.

  If  track ,or structure  has  he-en  dnmnccd and
which may  cause an accident, the condition must
promptly  be repotted to proper officer,  and If
necessary a flagman must be left to  protect other

-------
STUART SHUMATE
                          RICHMOND,  FREDERICKSBURG AND  POTOMAC RAILROAD  COMPANY
                                     2134 WEST LABURNUM AVENUE    RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23227
                                                TELEPHONE: (804) 257 3221


                                                   January 12, 1979
                 Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
                 Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
                 United States Environmental Protection Agency
                 Washington,  D.C.  20460

                 Dear Mr. Thomas:

                      This will acknowledge your letter of January 3, 1979 regarding noise
                 emission standards applicable to interstate rail carriers' equipment and
                 facilities.

                      We do not have an operating rule in effect at our Acca Yard (Richmond,
                 Virginia) facility or on-line of road which publishes a specific coupling speed
                 for locomotives or cars.  In practice, we encourage the industry standard
                 of coupling speeds not in excess of four miles per hour or speeds not exceeding
                 a "brisk walk".  This practice is promoted during training of new employees
                 and other training sessions as well as in the continuing personal contact and
                 instructions by supervisory personnel.

                      At the Potomac Yard (Alexandria,  Virginia) facility,  the Special
                 Instructions do contain rules relating to coupling  speeds.  This facility is,
                 as you are no doubt aware, a hump yard and coupling conditions include many
                 variables.  The instructions, depending upon circumstances involved, refer
                 to use of good judgment,  retarder exit speeds and a flat switching speed not
                 to exceed four miles per hour.

                      As you requested,  an example of each of these rules is attached and
                 we trust this will supply the information desired.
                                                   President
                                           H-111

-------
    ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF CAR
             RETARUEROPERATOR

1.  Car rctarder operators  must stay in close prox-
    imity  to their control machine  unless they have
    received permission to do otherwise.
2.  Car   retarder  operators  are  responsible  to
    verify car initials and  numbers on the cutslip and
    observe  movements  into  proper  classification
    tracks.
3.  He  must  constantly  monitor the  model board
    and keep all undesircd information (bugs) cleared
    in the system. He must utili/.e the warning lights
    to assist in locating close clearance or cars fouling
    adjacent tracks in the classification yard in order
    to avoid sideswipes  or cornering cars undergoing
    classification.
4.  He  must be  alert  to  prevent catch-ups,  derail-
    ments  or  cornering,  and  when  necessary  will
    override  automatic switching  or stop cars to
    prevent these occurrences.
5.  He is  responsible to inform the  hump conductor
    of  conditions  in the  classification yard  which
    need attention  or which will affect the normal
    operations.  He  must be  particularly  alert to
    tracks that need shoving and cars not  in proper
    classification.
6.  He  must  have a complete understanding with
    the  conductor on movements to be made from
    the  hump  ends of the classification yards. He is
    responsible  to  line  routes for all movements
    from classification yard toward the hump, put the
    retarders in the "off" position,  inform the hump
    conductor of clear route,  and observe movement.
7.  The car  retarder  operator  on the southward
    hump  will select proper speeds for car to  exit
    from the  group retarder based on the weight
    indication  that registers on the weight indicator
    on  the  model  board,  weather  conditions,  the
    distance to travel and the knowledge of whether
    the  car is  protected  by a single skate or the
    minimum number of hand  brakes. In any case.
    he  should  utilize his experience  and  any infor-
    mation  available  to  him   to  exercise  good
                     H-112

-------
    judgment in the selection of speeds.
8.  Car retarder operators on northward hump must
    keep the car  retardcrs in fully automatic mode
    of  operation  while  cars  are undergoing  class-
    ification,  except  when  safety  of  operation,
    efficiency  of  operation,  or specific  instructions
    noted elsewhere in this book require otherwise.
    (That is, long tank  cars, cabooses,  extra heavy
    cars, or multiple cuts of heavy cars.)
9.  Car retarder operator on northward hump must
    have proper understanding with hump conductor
    on  mode to be used when it is  known that cars
    are to be cut off on the hump.
                                 H-113

-------
 load, including the location  of  and prevailing  con-
 ditions in the track in which it is to be classified.
   A single load with an overhang on one or both ends,
 with  idlers,  must not be allowed to move into  any
 track in either classification  yard  where  there  is a
 possibility of the overhang coming in contact with a
 car  or  fixed structure.  Special attention must be
 given to moves of this kind,  keeping in mind sharp
 curves, locations of other cars  in track, etc.
   In  no case should triple loads or  loads  with an
 overhang be allowed to move to or from the north end
 of No. 39 track in the southbound classification yard.
 Loads of this type must not be forwarded in outbound
 trains  until  all  current instructions  relating to
 clearances and measurements of the respective  ten-
 ant lines have been complied with.
   (11) On both the northward and southward humps,
 when classifying heavy cars in excess of ninety  (90)
 tons in multiple cuts, the cut lengths will be limited to
 DO more than four (4) cars, unless the cut is ten (10) or
 more cars,  in which case they may be classified in
•multiple.
   On the southward hump, when classifying  multiple
 cuts of extra heavy cars, the exit speed selected must
 not be in excess of five (5) miles per hour.
   (12) When classifying exceptionally  long tank cars
 over  the  northward  hump, no selection  should be
 made by the hump conductor for a following route un-
 til each exceptionally  long tank  car is north of the
 master  retarders  and  the route selection for that
 tank car has disappeared.
   (13) The circuits on  the tracks into the southward
 classification yard from the hump are not designated
 to handle cars in excess of 75  feet. In all cases where
 long cars (in excess of 75 feet)  are to be classified, the
 following procedure must be adhered to;
      1. A route selection should be punched by  the
         hump conductor for the  long car  and no
        additional selection punched  until the long
        car is south of the master retarders.
      2. The hump conductor  must control  the hump-
        ing so that a following cut is not cut off until
        the  long  car  has  cleared  the master  re-
        Urders.
                       H-114

-------
inspectors must see that doors on all empty cars are
securely fastened before trains leave Terminal.
  (14) Handling occupied cabin  cars while humping
train or kicking occupied cabin cars is prohibited.
  (15) Dual control switches will not be thrown  by
any  other  means than  the  lever  attached  to the
machine for the purpose of manually operating the
switch.
      The  practice of punching  these switches over
by opening the covers and manipulating  the valves is
not  authorized  and  furthermore,  is  extremely
dangerous  in  that  it sets up the  probability of a
derailment for the next crew approaching the switch,
and it can result in a personal injury to the individual
manipulating the switch.
  (16) Trailing point movements must not be made
through  either electrically  controlled or dual con-
trolled yard switches until they  have been properly
aligned or on specific instructions from the Assistant
to Trainmaster at Desk 223, and  upon receiving such
instructions,  movement will  only  be made after a
member of the crew has established that there are no
obstructions  in  the  switch points and  no obvious
defects with the switch.
  (17) In flat switching, trainmen  must at all times
protect movement so as  to  avoid personal  injury,
damage to equipment and lading.
      Engines and cars must  be coupled at a speed
not to exceed four (4) miles per hour.
  (18) In  an effort to prevent  potential accidents,
yard trainmen are requested to endeavor to make cer-
tain all plug type doors on box  cars are closed and
secured prior to making movement.

  (19) Employees are prohibited from riding the sides
or tops of engines or cars while  moving through the
enginehouse sanding  facilities located between the
B&O motor storage track and the Penn Central motor
storage tracks No. 2 and No. 3.

  (20) The old No. 1 Shore Track (the stub-end track
leading off the turntable adjacent to and on the west
side of the roundhouse) is used to store covered hop-
pers containing sand for the sanding towers.
                       H-115

-------
                                                                      "  •»-,


                                                                     » j     •
                                                                     E   k->.
 January 22,  1979
 Mr.  H.  E.  Thomas,  Director
 Standards  4 Regulations Division(ANR-lJ90)
 United  States Environmental Protection Agency
 Washington, D.  C.   20460

 Dear Mr. Thomas:

 Please  refer to your letter of January 3* 1979 concerning noise generated
 in railroad yard operations.

 The  Rock Island uses the "Uniform Code of Operating Rules" to control its
 train operations.   Rule 103(02) of these Rules states:

 "When coupling  or shoving cars, take proper precaution to prevent damage or
 fouling of other  tracks by stretching  coupling,  and  setting sufficient
 hand brakes.   Make couplings at speed of not more than four MPH."

 I hope  this information will fill your needs.   If you have any further need
 for  information, please let me know.
   'K.  Beatty//"
'Director Rules-Safety

 ef
                                     H-116

-------
IEORGE E. BAILEY
 General Solicitor

X3NALL. TURKAL
:RIC A. CUNNINGHAM. JR.
 Associate General Counsel

SERALD D. MORRIS
X3NALD E. RANSOM
 Assistant General Counsel
                            ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCIS.CO RAILWAY COMPANY
                            906 Olive Street - St. Louis, Missouri 63101 — (314) 241 • 7800
    DONALD E. ENQLE
Vic* President and General Counsel
DENNIS T. RATHMANN
GERALD J. HARVATH
  General Attorneys

ANDREW F. REAROON
THOMASH. MUG
  Attorneys
                                  January 17,  1979

                                  85875-C
  Mr.  Henry E. Thomas,  Director
  Standards and Regulations  Division
  United States Environmental Protection Agency
  Washington, DC 20460

  Dear Mr. Thomas:

        This is in reply to your letter of  January 3, 1979,
  requesting information regarding operating rules, operating
  practices, or recommended  practices relating to locomotive
  and rail car coupling speed.

        Please be advised that St. Louis-San Francisco Railway
  Company has no formal operating rule or  written practice
  regarding coupling speed.   As a recommended practice, Frisco
  does follow the A.A.R. recommendation of 4 miles per hour
  coupling speed in order to minimize damage to equipment and
  laoxng.  However, Frisco does consider coupling speeds up to
  6 wiles per hour to be safe.

        You have indicated that it is your  Intention to use this
  information in the establishment of railroad yard noise emission
  standards.  It is our opinion that coupling speed will have only
  a slight effect on overall yard noise, and that to adopt a
  recommended operating practice as a noise guideline without
  serious study could be a mistake.

        If I may be of further assistance,  please advise.

                                  Very truly yours,
                                    f rwv r-vvw) / t  r --wx-4*

                                  Thomas H.  Mug    
-------
            The Atchiion, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
            	A Santa Fe Industries Company —^—————^—^~
            80 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago. Illinois 60604,Telephone 312/427-4900


                        January 18, 1979
Mr. Henry E. Thomas,  Director
Standards and  Regulations
 Division  (ANR-490)
United States  Environmental
 Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

     Please refer to  your  letter dated January 3, 1979,
sent certified mail,  requesting copy of Santa Fe's
operating rule relating  to locomotive and rail car
coupling speeds.

     Rule 112 (c) of Rules  - Operating Department, The
Atchison, Topeka and  Santa Fe Railway Company, effective
January 5, 1975, and  currently in effect, reads:

     "Before coupling to or moving cars or engines it
     must be known that  they are properly secured and
     can be coupled to and moved safely.  Cars and
     engines must not be permitted to couple at a
     speed in excess  of  four miles per hour.  Unless
     previous inspection has been made, cars picked
     up must be inspected  and determined that they
     are in condition to be handled."
                          Very  truly yours,
                          L. Cena
                          President
                           H-118

-------
         The Atchlson,Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company
         	:	A Santt Ft Industries Company	—
         80 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,Telephone 312/427-4900

                       January 25, 1979
Mr.  Henry E.  Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

      Please refer to your request of January 3, apparently
addressed to  railroad presidents.  I have just received a
copy of a reply from Mr. L. Cena, President of Santa Fe
Railway, in which he quotes one of our operating rules
regarding coupling speed.  I am somewhat surprised you did
not  request this  information from the AAR representatives
who  have been working with you and your staff on noise
regulations.

      I am sure you realize that while ideal coupling speeds
may  be 4 ra.p.h.,  the rule was not issued with noise consequences
in mind.  Careful handling of lading is an important program
on Santa Fe,  however minor variations in coupling speed are
not  unknown.   They have little effect on potential damage to
lading.   Similarly,  slight variations in this coupling speed
have no discernible  effect on the noise levels produced by
coupling.                                                 '

      One rather obvious objection to an attempt to relate
coupling speeds to noise regulations is that attempts to
differentiate noise  produced by couplings at 4 m.p.h., as
opposed to perhaps 5 or 6 m.p.h., appears to be an extremely
difficult task.

      If you intend to consider this matter further, you may
wish to contact the  AAR Environmental Staff which may be able
to assist you in  your efforts to obtain meaningful data.
                         Ve
                                  Attorney
JCP/jmw

cc:  Mr. L.  Cena,.
     Hollis Duenalng,-Esq. AAR

-------
          SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY
JOHN W. WELDON
  VICC PHMIOKNT - LAW
   Law Department
   BOO Water Street
Jacksonville. Florida 32202

January 18, 1978
A*IA COOC »O4
                                                    IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE
                                                    LEGAL: Legislation
                                                    US: Pollution
                                                    Noise

          Mr. Henry E. Thomas
          Director
          Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
          United States Environmental Protection Agency
          Washington, D. C.   20460

          Dear Mr. Thomas:

                   This letter is written in response to your request
          of January 3 addressed to Prime F. Osborn.  Mr. Osborn asked
          that I furnish you with the desired information.

                   Enclosed is a copy of SCL Operating Rule 103-D.  It
          prohibits couplings at speeds in excess of 4 miles per hour.

                   If further information is desired by the EPA, please
          do not hesitate to contact me.
                                                   ially,
                                                 ihn W. Weldon
          CC:

          Mr. Prime F. Osborn
                                  H-120

-------
flag  protection  has been afforded.  At  railroad
crossings protected by interlocking*, such  cars
must  stop clear  of the crossing and  must not
proceed over the  crossings until proper protection
has been  afforded.

   103. In, switching,  employees  must  observe
the position  of  engines or cars on other tracks
and must know that such  engines  or cars are  in
the clear before permitting engine or cars  to move
past them.

   103-A. Cars and engines left on  tracks must
be properly  secured,  clear  of  insulated joints,
and clear of other tracks where conditions permit:
and  when practicable,  cars  and engines should
be left at least  100 feet  from a public crossing..

   103-B. Employees leaving cars in a track must
set sufficient  hand  brakes to prevent them from
rolling away  when other cars  are  dropped  or
kicked against them.  When additional  cars  are
placed in the track,  sufficient  additional hand
brakes must be set.

   103-C. When  practicable, cars will not be un-
coupled on curves or in switches. When necessary
to couple to  cars  on curves  or in  switches, it
must be known that couplers match and coupling
speed must  be  controlled to  avoid jackknifing.
Special care must be given when coupling cushion
underframe or long cars.

   103-D. When coupling or  shoving  cars, pre-
cautions must be taken to  prevent accidental foul-
ing of other tracks, public crossings and derails.
and to avoid runaway cars.
   Before coupling to cars  or engines  standing
near  end of tracks, derails, public c'ossings, or
cars  in process  of  loading or  unloading, it must
be known that they are secured and will not roll
away  and cause damage  in  event coupling  is
missed.  Couplings  should not be made at speed
greater than  four  miles  per hour.  When condi-
tions  require,  before  shoving  cars, it  must  bo
known by stretching the couplings that all coup-
lings ar« made.
                    H-121

-------
Soo Line Railroad Company
Soo Line Building

Box 530

Minneapolis. Minnesota 5S44Q
(612)332-1261

GILBERT A. GILLETTE
Assistant Vice President

Operations-Planning
                                    January 15,  1979
  Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
  Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
  United States Environmental Protection  Agency
  Washington, D. C.   20460

  Dear Mr. Thomas:

       Your January 3, 1979 letter addressed  to Mr.  L.  L.  Wasnick,
  wherein you discussed railroad noise emission standards  as they
  relate to coupling speeds, has been referred  to me for reply.

       Editorially, it is our experience  that factors such as the
  type of car and nature of load  (empty covered hopper cars tend to
  have a "drum" effect, even at low coupling  speeds), atmospheric
  conditions and the direction of the wind £ave as much or more
  contribution to noise annoyance as coupling speed  alone.  Also,
  it has been our experience that under certain conditions, slack
  adjustment in coupled trains (from buff to  draft and back again)
  can cause complaints of noise.

       Nonetheless, Soo Line has had for many years  mandatory
  instructions governing proper coupling speeds (not to exceed
  4  M.P.H.).   Railroad mandatory operating instructions are commonly
  issued in the following forms on the Soo Line:

       1.   The Consolidated Code of Operating Rules  (1967),
           mandatory rules.

       2.   Time Tables for each division, including  a set  of
           mandatory special instructions for each division.

       3.   General Orders, for mandatory instruction of crews
           with regard to operating conditions  of a  temporary
           nature but of a month, or more duration?  also,  for
           changes to the Consolidated Code,  time tables or
           special instructions pending reprinting.

       4.   Train Orders for mandatory orders  on a daily or
           short range basis.
                                H-122

-------
Mr. Henry E. Thomas
January 15, 1979
Page Two
     Soo Line has incorporated its mandatory coupling speed
instructions in each of its divisional special instructions and
believes this is the proper format for these instructions.

     Attached are copies of:

     1.  SIE-6, Special Instructions for the eastern division;
     2.  SIC-6, Special Instructions for the central division;
     3.  SIW-3, Special Instructions for the western division.

In each case, the cover sheet is included for identification
purposes and the page containing the coupling speed instructions
is shown to the right of the cover sheet.

                                 Yours truly/
GAGrcsk
Attachments
                             H-123

-------
           SOO  LINE
          COSVJPAMY
               WESTERN
               DIVISION

    SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
                    and
     SPEED  RESTRICTIONS
                 JUDGING SPEED
Accurate  judgment  of coupling speed depends upon correct
'timing. An excellent way to get accurate timing without • watch
it lo count "one hundred and thirty-one, one hundred end thirty-
two"  «nd so on as the car passes • stationary point. With •
little practice counting can be done »t the rate of one a second.
Ability to closely estimate speed at time car strikes is extremely
important because impact force builds up as the square of the
• peed. This meant  that impact  delivered  by a  car coupled at
8 miles per hour is  not four times that at 2 miles p
-------
                                                JUDGING SPEED
                                                    Accurate judgment of coupling speed depends upon correct
                                                    timing. An excellent way to get accurate timing without a
                                                    watch is to count "one hundred and thirty-one, one hundred
                                                    thirty-two" and so on as the car passes a stationary point.
                                                    With a little practice counting Can be done at the rate ot one a
                                                    second.
                                                    Ability to closely estimate speed at' time car strikes Is
                                                    extremely important because impact force builds up as the
                                                    square of the speed. This means that impact delivered by a
                                                    car coupled at 8 miles per hour is not lour times that at 2 miles
                                                    per hour, but 16 TIMES AS GREAT. Damage to freight or car
                                                    can be avoided  by always keeping coupling speed within the
                                                    safe range — NOT OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR — A BRISK
                                                    WALK.      " ' ammm [••••••••••••••••^M,—-
          CENTRAL
          DIVISION

   SPECIAL  INSTRUCTIONS
                  and
     SPEED RESTRICTIONS

               NO.
          EFFECTIVE 12:01 AM
       CENTRAL STANDARD TIME

      SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 1,  1976
    »oupiea
        (1
        2i
        3i
        <<
IMPACT FORCE AT VARIOUS STRIKING SPEEDS
Car Coupled at                   Units of Destructive Force
        I mph                                1 j'
        2 mph                                4
        3 mph                                9
        4 mph                                16
        5 mph                                25
        6 mph                                36
        7 mph                                49
        8 mph                                64
        9 mph                                81
      '10 mph                               100


SPEED CARD
      To Find Coupling Speed at 40 Foot and SO Foot Car
Sight vertical end of car body on a
fixed point and note the number of         40 Foot   50 Foot
seconds it takes carlo pass. Speed           Car      Car
in miles per hour is shown oppo-          Miles    Miles
site.

Damage as a result of Rough Han-
dling makes up a large part of the
claim bill for Loss and Damage to-
Freight. From the Railroad stand-
point it is the major item in the ex-
pense.  We all know that Rough
Handling can be reduced, often
eliminated. It is hoped that this
card will be helpful in your efforts
to prevent Rough Handling.

Switch  Crews must  (unction as a
team. Clear signals properly given
are mighty important; talk it over
— prevent Rough Handling — it
can be done.
                                                                          Seconds Per Hour Per Hour
                             1
                             2
                             3
                             4
                             5
                             6
                             7
                             8
                             9
                            10
                            11
                            12
                            13
                            14
28
14
 9.3
 7
 5.6
 4.7
 4
 3.5
 3.1
 2.8
 2.5
 2.3
 2.15
 2
35
17.5
11.6
 8.7
 7
 5.9
 5
 4.4
 3.9
 3.5
 3.1
 2.9
 2.7
 2.5
     For the  government  and

 information of employees only.

C.C. LEARY — Superintendent
  J. D. DARLING — Director of Transportation-Operations
   D. M. CAVANAUGH — General Superintendent
     T. R. KUNGEL — Executive Vice President
                                             H-125

-------
           EASTERN
           DIVISION

     SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
                   and
       SPEED  RESTRICTIONS
            EFFECTIVE 12:01 A.M.
         CENTRAL STANDARD TIME.

        SUNDAY. JANUARY 22.1978
       For the government and

  Information of employees only.

H.W. ELLEFSON. Superintendent
  A.W. DURTSCHE. Director ol Transportation Operations
    C.C. UEARY. General Superintendent
     D. M. CAVANAUGH, General Manager-
       Transportation & Maintenance
 JUDGING SPEED
    Accurate judgment of coupling speed depends upon correc
    timing. An excellent way to get accurate timing without .
    watch is to count "one hundred and thirty-one, one hundre<
    and thirty-two" and so on as the car passes a stationary point
    With a little practice counting can be done at the rate of on>
    • second.
    Ability to closely estimate speed at the time car strikes i
    extremely important because impact force builds up a* th.
    square of the speed. This means that impact delivered by .
    car coupled at 8 miles per hour is not four times that at 7
    miles  per hour, but 16 times as great. Damage to freight o-
    car can be avoided by always keeping coupling speed withir
    the same range - NOT OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR - f-


     IMPACT FORCE AT VAHIOUS STRIKING SPEEDS
                      Units of Destructive Force
                                 -

                                 4
                                 9
                                16
                                25
                                36
                                49
                                64
                                81
                               100
SPEED CARD
     To Find Coupling Speed at 40 Foot and 50 Foot Car
Sight vertical end of car body on
a fixed point and note the number
of seconds it takes car to pass.
Speed in miles per hour is shown
opposite.
Damage as a result of Rough Han-
dling makes up a large part of the
claim bill for Loss  and Damage to
Freight. From the  Railroad stand-
point it  is a major item  of ex-
pense. We all know that  Rough
Handling can be  reduced, often
eliminated. It is hoped that this
card will be helpful in your el/orts
to prevent Rough Handling.
Switch Crews must function as  a
team. Clear signals properly given
are mighty important; talk it over
—prevent Rough Handling-it can
be done.
Car Coupled at

j>
«/5


I™




!1 mph
2 mph
Sfnph
4 mph
5 mph
!' 6 mph
7 mph
8 mph
9 mph
10 mph



Seconds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
40 Foot
Car
Miles
Per Hr.
28
14
9.3
7
5.6
4.7
4
3.5
3.1
2.8
2.5
2.3
2.15
2
50 Foot
Car
Miles
Per Hr.
35
17.5
11.6
8.7
7
5.9
5
4.4
3.9
3.5
3.1
2.9
2.7
2.5
                                            H-126

-------
p. R. MCNIAM
MUIDINT
     Southern Pacific

   Transportation  Company
Southern Pacific Building • One Market Plaza • San Francisco, California 94105

                   January 17,  1979
   Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
   Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-490)
   United States Environmental Protection
     Agency
   Washington, D. C.  20460

   Dear Mr. Thomas:

          Referring to your letter January 3  concerning the EPA
   broadening the scope of its railroad noise emission standards to
   include interstate rail carriers'  equipment and  facilities.

          With respect to your request for information concerning
   coupling speeds, wish to advise that on Southern Pacific Trans-
   portation Company, St. Louis Southwestern  Railway Company and all
   subsidiary Company property, the recommended  coupling speeds are
   not to exceed 4 MPH.  This is the  recognized  industry standard
   that has been in effect for many years. Your information is correct
   that this standard was established primarily  to  minimize damage to
   lading and equipment.

          In addition, part of Rule 837 of the Rules and Regulations
   of the Transportation Department reads as  follows:

                "Switching must be carefully  done,  and trains
                and engines must be carefully handled, to avoid
                shocks from abrupt starting or stopping; from
                impact in making coupling, and to prevent personal
                injuries, and damage  to equipment or contents."


                                        Yours very  truly,
                                             OK
                                    H-127

-------
                                   4808
                                   ?€. 20043

L. STANLEY CRANE            JanUErV 12  1979              020 15TM STREET. N.W.
  PRESIDENT                     y   »                    TEL: <202) 628-4460

  Mr. Henry E. Thomas
  Director
  Standards and Regulations Division
  United States Environmental Protection Agen/»-
  Washington, D.C.  20460

  Dear Mr. Thomas:

           This replies to your letter of January 3, 1979 , asking
  if Southern has an operating rule, operating practice or
  recommended practice relating to locomotive and rail car
  coupling speed.

           It is our practice to try to keep the coupling speed
  to1 4 miles per hour or less.  However, it is not always possible
  to do so, and coupling can take place at slightly higher speeds
  with no adverse effect on the equipment or lading.  We have no
  operating rule setting a limit on coupling speed, nor is this
  practice reflected in any written document.

           In your letter, you state that you have information
  that rail car coupling speed can be a factor in the total noise
  level of a railroad yard.  In our view, while coupling speeds
  could theoretically have some small effect on the noise level,
  in practice it is unlikely that the restriction of all coupling
  speeds to 4 ra.p.h. or less would have a significant effect on
  the level of yard noise.

                                   Yours sincerely,
  cc:   Mr.  William H.  Dempsejy,
       Mr.  Hollis  G. Duensirjg,  A£R
                                  H*128

-------
                            9.C. 80* 4808
JAMES L. TAPtEY                                            •«• ' *TH «™«T. N.w.
  vice FRKSIOCNT • LAW        February 26,  1979  pec           Teu <.«*>««-44«°
                          58057

Mr. Henry E. Thomas
Director
Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

         Please refer to your letter of February 9,  1979  to Mr.
H. W. Hobson, asking if The Cincinnati, New Orleans  & Texas Pacific
Railway Company (CNO&TP) has an operating rule,  operating practice,
or recommended practice relating  to  locomotive and rail coupling
speed.

         The CNO&TP is a subsidiary  of Southern  Railway Company and
a member of Southern Railway System.  Mr.  L.  Stanley Crane  is the
President of both companies.  On  January  12,  1979-, Mr. Crane wrote
in response to your letter of January 3,  1979, replying on behalf
of Southern to the same question  asked again  in  your letter of
February 9 to Mr. Hobson.  The answer on  behalf  of the CNO&TP is
the  same as that given on behalf  of  Southern  in  Mr.  Crane's letter
of January 12, 1979.  A copy of Mr.  Crane's letter is attached for
your ready reference.  We did not make a  separate reply on behalf
of the CNO&TP because our reply for  Southern  serves  for all of the
carriers which are members of the Southern Railway System.

                          Yours sincerely,
                          James L.  Taplej
                          Vice President - Law
Att.

cc:  Mr. William H. Derapsey, AAR
     Mr. Hollis G. Duensing, AAR
     Mr. H. W. Hobeon
                                H-129

-------
           TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF ST. Louis
L. JEFF KINO                     faMHmU'/li                *>• OLIVE STREET
                                                   »T. LOUIS, MO. 63101
  February 21, 1979
  Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
  Standards and Regulations Division  (ANR-490)
  United States Environmental  Protection Agency
  Washington, D. C. 20460

  Dear Sir:

  Please refer to your letter  of  January 3,  1979,  and follow-up
  of February 9, addressed to  "Mr.  L.  K. Press," in connection
  with the noise level of railroad  yard  operations.  There was
  some uncertainty as to the person for  whom your letter was
  intended.

  Operating forces of Terminal Railroad  Association have, over
  the years, recognized that impacts  in  excess  of 4 mph contribute
  to lading damage, and while  we  do not  presently have such a rule
  in our Book of Operating Rules, consideration is being given to
  covering the subject by a General Order for the future.

                                    Yours very  truly.
  LJKsgca
                               H-130

-------
                       THE TEXAS  MEXICAN RAILWAY COMPANY

                                       P. O. BOX 410

                                 LAREDO, TEXAS 76O4O
A.R. KAM03                                                                Tet.NO.I8l«l7»a-e«ll
 »HC«IOCMT                                                                   TCLCX NO. 74O4-II

                                     January 12, 1979


                                                                   077
       Mr. Henry  E. Thomas,  Director
       Standards  and  Regulations  Division  (ANR-490)
       United States  Environmental  Protection Agency
       Washington, D.C.  2046Q

       Dear Mr. Thomas:

            Reference is made to  your letter dated January 3, 1979, addressed to
       former President, Mr. B. F.  Wright,  Jr.,  regarding the Environmental
       Protection Agency, railroad noise  emission standards.

            In answer to your question regarding an  operating rule, operating
       procedures, or recommended practice  relating  to locomotive and rail
       car coupling speed, I am attaching herewith a copy of our Rule No. 837
       of The Texas Mexican  Railway Company's Rules  and Regulations of the
       Transportation Department.

            While the rule does not specifically state the speed at which cars
       must be coupled, it has been the  operating procedure on this Railroad
       that coupl-ing  speed must not exceed  4 m.p.h.   To fully comply with the
       Federal government, we are in the process of  amending Rule 837 to
       Include the speed limit restriction.

                                                 Yours very truly,

                                                   M

                                                 A. R.  R*amos

       ARRrssw
                                         H-131

-------
  837. Switching must be carefully done, and
trains must be  carefully handled, to avoid
shocks from  abrupt  starting  or stopping of
cars, or from impact  in making coupling, and
to prevent damage to cars or contents.
  Before fouling any track, it must be known
that engines  or  cars on  adjacent tracks will
clear.
  Before  shoving cars into spur tracks, any
cars standing on the spur  must be properly
secured by setting hand brakes, irrespective of
grade conditions, before  coupling or shove is
attempted.
  Cars  must not  be  shoved  or  coupled
without  a definite  knowledge  that lead or
adjacent tracks will not be fouled.
  Cars standing on grade  must not be coupled
onto,  in   descending   direction,   without
knowing sufficient  hand brakes are set to
prevent uncontrolled movement of any such
cars,  should coupling fail or  cars not be
securely coupled.

    Before beginning to  shove cars, they must
 be stretched   to  insure  that  all cars  are
 properly coupled.
    Occupied outfit  equipment must  not be
 switched unless air  brakes are in service on all
 ears,  and must not be  detached while  in
 motion, nor other  cars  kicked  or dropped
 against  them.  When making coupling to such
 cars, air brakes must be cut in and operative
 on all cars being handled.
                 H-132

-------
TOLEDO, PEORIA & WESTERN RAILROAD  COMPANY

           2000 EAST WASHINGTON STREET • EAST PEORIA. ILLINOIS 61611
                           PHONE 309-699-3941

                                             January  15,  1979
       Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
       Standards and Regulations
       Division (ANR 490)
       United States Environmental Protection Agency
       Washington D. C. 20460

       Dear Mr. Thomas:

              In answer to yours of January  3,  1979,  the Toledo,
       Peoria and Western Railroad Company had  published in its
       Timetable No. 1, that was in effect from May 20, 1973.
       until December 30, 1978,  to be observed  by  its operating
       personnel as a recommended practice,  the enclosed instruction.

              Since Timetable No. 1 was  superseded December 31, 1978
       by Timetable No. 2, similar instructions were  issued to
       operating employees in Bulletin form  (copy of Bulletin No. 251
       enclosed).
                                           Yours trj&ly,
                                           A. W. POLICH
                                           Vice President-Operations
       JRB:AWP:baa
       Enclosure.
                                 H-133

-------
        TOLEDO,  PEORIA AND  WESTERN  RAILROAD  COMPANY

                                      East Pcoria, Illinois

                                      January  15, 1979



                    BULLETIN NO. 251



ALL CONCERNED:



       While switching coupling speed in excess of 4 MPH

is prohibited.


         A SAFE COUPLING SPEED IS	4 MPH

         DAMAGE BEGINS AT	5 MPH

         2^ times more damaging	6 MPH

         4 times more damaging	......8 MPH
       DON'T LET DAMAGE BEGIN, ALWAYS KEEP COUPLING SPEED
WITHIN SAFE RANGE - NOT OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR - A BRISK WALK.
                  SWITCH CARS CAREFULLY
                                       J. R. BROWN
                                       Assistant Superintendent
                          H-134

-------
              AVOID DAMAGE
         SWITCH CARS CAREFULLY
SAFE COUPLING SPEED IS	4 mllM per hour
DAMAGE BEGINS AT	5 mil* per hear
2H timu man damaging ,—	....,.fi mlltt per hoar
4 titan morv damaging	t mflM par hour
  DONT  LET DAMAGE  BEGIN,  ALWAYS KEEP
COUPLING  SPEED WITHIN SAFE KANGE — NOT
OVER 4 MILES PER HOUR—A BRISK WALK.
         SWITCH CARS CAREFULLY
                                        H-l 35

-------
                    UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

                               OPERATING DEPARTMENT



A. D.WILLIAMS                            /TTT l\                           1416 DOOOE STREET
 DIRECTOR ENEROY AND ENVIRONMENTAL               (III I)                        OMAHA. NEBRASKA 66179
 WtOOPAMS-PLANNINO                        Hljl*7
                                          January 19, 1979

                                               500-552-Research
   Mr. Henry E. Thomas,  Director
   Standards and  Regulations Division (ANR-490)
   Environmental Protection Agency
   Washington, D.C.   20460

   Dear Mr.  Thomas:

             In  reply  to your letters  of January 3,  1979, to Mr. R. L.
   Richmond and Mr. D. Catalan inquiring as to whether the Union Pacific
   has in effect an Operating rule or practice relating  to locomotive and
   rail car coupling speed:

             The Union Pacific does not include in its general rule pertain-
   ing to switching any specific maximum  coupling speed.   Our switchmen/
   trainmen are  instructed through the use of the enclosed publication
   from. the AAR which does specify a 4 MPH maximum  recommended coupling
   speed.

             Trust this answers your question,  but should you need  any
   further information, feel free to call on me.

                                          Yours truly,
                                          A. D.  WILLIAMS
                                       H-136

-------
                       GENERAL OFFICES- e OO G R A N T S T R E ET-

                             PO«T OFFICE BOX 936
SPAUDIN^GTOON            PlTTSHt'HGII, PA. 1523O
                                                 January 12;  1979
   Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
   Standards and Regulations
     Division (ANR-490) '
   United States Environmental Protection Agency
   Washington, D.  C.  20460

   Dear Mr. Thomas:

            This  is in response to your letter of January 3 ..request ing
   information relating to locomotive and rail car couplings.

            Industrial switching is placing cars for loading and unloading
   at various industries. Couplings are made at  slow speeds with the
   engine attached and at speeds of no more than  three to four miles per
   hour.

            Classification yard switching is usually for line haul movement
   and consists of a series of tracks with each one designated for a
   different destination.  Cars are allowed to move onto  these tracks
   detached from the locomotive and couple to other cars already on the
   tracks at speeds averaging  five to six miles  per hour. Empty cars are
   even permitted to couple to other cars at speeds up to seven and eight
   miles per hour and do so  without damage.

            We do not have an  operating rule specifying  coupling speeds,
   but as a matter  of practice, the speeds under these two types of
   •witching are  as stated above.

                                      Yours very truly,  .
                                       President
                                    H-137

-------
                    Waj
                  UNION STATION  •  WASHINGTON, D. C 20002
CV.SHAV.JB.
                                            January  11,  1979
     Mr. Henry E. Thomas, Director
     Standards and Regulations
        Division (ANR-490)
     United States Environmental Protection Agency
     Washington, D. C. 20460

     Dear Mr.  Thomas:

              Your letter of January 3rd to Mr. A. M..Schofield
     regarding railroad operating rules governing coupling speeds
     Has been  referred to me.

              Rule 96, Rules and Regulations of The Washington
     Terminal  Company reads as follows:  "Before coupling cars,
     safety stop will be made approximately five fee.t from the
     cars to be coupled to avoid rough coupling.  When switching,
     engine or cars will not be detached until MOVEMENT is
     stopped	"  Therefore, on Washington Terminal property,
     coupling  speeds are considerably less than four  (A) miles
     per hour.

                                      Yours very truly,
                                 H-138

-------
          THE WESTERN PACIFIC RAILROAD  COMPANY
                      SACRAMENTO NORTHERN RAILWAY
                     TIDEWATER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO.
               WESTERN PACIFIC BUILDING. 526 MISSION STREET
                     SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94ID5
                             TILIPHONC 082-2tOO

                           January 9,  197?

                                             File:  076


Mr. Henry E.  Thomas, Director
Standards and Regulations Division (ANR-^90)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20^60

Dear Mr.  Thomas:

              This  is in response to your  January 3, 1979 letter requesting

information regarding recommended coupling speeds on Western Pacific.

              Attached  is copy of Rules  103 and  103-A pertaining to

coupling.

              Also  attached is copy of Page 5& and the inside back cover

of our current operating timetable setting forth the safe coupling speed.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       C. G. YUND, Chief Engineer


Enc.
                                   H-139

-------
  When in doubt, as to the wisdom of proceeding.
train must he moved if safely will permit', to  the
safest available place  and  there  held until deter-
mined that it can  proceed  with safety. The train
dispatcher must be kept informed  of conditions
from nearest available point of communicatio'n.
  Detectors that check for defects'do not relieve
employees of making required visual inspections.
  101-1). (T)  During  and  immediately following
stormy  weather which may impair the roadway,
engineers must take extraordinary precautions to
insure  safe  movement of  their train,  reducing
speed where in their judgment it may be required.
  Where  normal visibility is impaired, trainmen
and  enginemen must take extraordinary precau-
tions to operate their trains-safety.
  102. (T)  When a train is disabled or makes an
emergency stop, radio communication must  im-
mediately be used  to stop trains on any adjacent
track.  Also,  such tracks must  immediately  l>c
protected by flag  until it  is ascertained  there is
no obstruction  and that they are safe for passage
of trains.  The train must be inspected  before it
is moved. When a train air brake system goes into
emergency application  and the cause  is not known.
no  movement  will  IK.-  made until hand.  lamp, or
radio signal is given.
  102-A. (T)  When for  any  reason  an  engine
leaves its train or part  of its train on the main
track,  a  sufficient number of hand brakes must
be  set  to keep train  from  moving.  When safety
requires, torpedoes must be placed n sufficient dis-
tance  ahead of the standing equipment to serve
as  a warning and a crew  tiieniln-r must protect
the returning movement.
   103. (T) When shoving cars, precaution must be
taken to. prevent damage or fouling other tracks.
When  conditions require, a member of the crew
must take a conspicuous jwsition on the leading
                                     car. with  the proper signals. When  shoving cars
                                     over crossings not protected by crossing gates in
                                     lowered position, a trainman must ride the leading-
                                     end or "be ahead to protect  the crossing. When
                                     kicking or dropping cars over  crossings- not pro-
                                     tected  by  crossing gates in lowered position, a
                                     member of the crew must protect the crossing.

                                       103-A. (T) Switching must he done in a careful
                                     manner to avoid severe shocks by sudden starting
                                     or stopping or by impact in  making  couplings
                                     and to prevent personal injury, damage to equip1
                                     mcnt or lading.
                                       Kicking or dropping of cars must  be done in a
                                     careful  manner  to avoid  injuries  and  damage.
                                     Such  movements  must not  bo made with  cars
                                     placarded  "Kxplosives" or "Dangerous" with cars
                                     occupied by persons or livestock, or  lo tracks oc-
                                     cupied by such  cars. Loaded T.O.F.C. or multi-
                                     level cars  must not be kicked or dropped against
                                     other cars nor other cars against them.
                                       Tank cars containing Flammable Compressed Gas
                                     (FCG)  shall not be cut off when  in motion. No
                                     car moving under  its own momentum .shall be
                                     allowed to couple to a car containing Flammable
                                     Compressed Gas (FCG).
                                       Before making  a drop it must  be determined
                                     that there is adequate room and that  hand brakes
                                     and switches to be used are in working order. Kn-
                                     gine must  be run on straight truck when practicable.
                                       When cars arc cut off  lo  an open track, prc^
                                     cautions must be taken to prevent fouling  other
                                     tracks. When necessary to control cars  by  hand
                                     brakes it must be known, before cars arc cut off,
                                     that such brakes arc in good order.
                                       Cars must not  be shoved or kicked or left  to
                                     foul leads  or adjacent tracks until it is known that
                                     it is safe to do so. Engines and cars must not be
                                    'left to foul adjacent track if possible to avoid it.
                                i
 Revisit!
 Jan. 1. I'JTU
'14
                                     Revived
                                     June I), IV78
75

-------
              ASSISTANT AM) Rr I.IKK

                CIIIKF DISPATCHERS
    J. E. Taylor
    R. L.  Niclson
    J. P. Wirick
                                  W. J. Goolsby
                                  D. F. Meyer
                                  R. C. Ditmamon
               TRAIN DISPATCIIKKS
    R. M. Heard. Jr.
    R. A. Ditmanson
    D. D. Bradford
    J. C. McCall
    M, E. Edgcman
    C. I.. Foss
    P. C. Sanchc/
    A. Kinicki

    C. T. Mallory
    J. M. Baird
                                 J. R. Summers
                                 R. G. Coiton
                                 A. G. Mcndo/a
                                 G. Wiglcy. Jr.
                                 M. G. Lusk
                                 G. M. Arnoldsen
                                 K. F. Arnoldsen
                                 A. R. Mi/c

                                 W. B. Robblcc
               WATCH INSPECTORS
Location
ijnj 	
J»^c 	
.'klon 	
ItfSlO 	
nonl 	
umenio 	
oille 	
rdk 	
•••T 	
•emutva 	
i 	
Ukcdl) ....
LaU-Cily. .
Name
A llphni Jcuvlcrx 	
Le^tk's Jcuclr\ ...
l-rjuk Sfluilus& S>>n 	 """
Mjilin\ jcuclcrs
t'hui k °s Time Shop
Rullit JeuvL>r« 	
lljn KJIIUMII 	
HKtliiH JeuelcM
II. K. Millet lo 	
Buiik-ll Jewelry 	 "mm
Title
Wjii'h ln\|reenville   One retainer for each ISO Tons in train.
(Ruling (ir.uk' 2.2'<)

                       EASTWA-RD
HALLS KLAT to Little Valley
train. (Ruling 000 Ton - 150 Ton per • 40 Retainers   *
                                                                                 vs.  i oov;
     AVOID DAMAGE-SWITCH CUSTOMERS'
               CAILS CAREFULLY

OVERSPEED Couplings arc DAMACING-Here's what
vie* per hotirD
jjfcw per hour(Tr-
tiles IM.MT hourf>—
nlex per hour
tfto |ier hour
iil*» |wr hour
utai |«r hour
                         SAFE COl'PLIXn SPEED
                         Purruijje begins
                           iiinuttasilamaRineas 4 MPH
                            timwajulanwKinK'as 4 MPH
                            tim«*astlnmat:inKay 4 MPH
                            linKttasdamajtjnRaii 4 MHH
                            limtt>nsdam.i|nni:a» 4 MPH

     .,  U> freiuht or car can be avoided, by nlway.it keen-
 rwt|i|inc jiiK-wl wiihin thi- *af> rnnire —' NOT ~	
KS PEK IIOi:»_A imiSK WALK.

      HANDLE FREIGHT CAREFULLY AND

            KEEP OUR CrSTOMERS!
                                                           H-141

-------
     AVOID DAMAGE-SWITCH CUSTOMERS' CARS CAREFULLY
      Hamate lo freight, or car can he avoiikil liy
      always kivpinK  coupling  speed within  thy safe
      raniw.—NOT OVKK -I  MILKS I'Kli HOUR—A
      HKISK WALK.
         Handle freight carefully and keep our customers.
                     SPEED TABLE
TIME
1'KR
MILK
4G" 	
47* 	 	
48" •
49" 	
50" 	
SI" 	
52" 	
53" 	
54" 	
55" 	
56" 	
57" 	 	
58" 	
59" 	
roo" 	
I'Ol" 	
1 02" 	
103" 	
ro4" 	
1'OS" 	
roe* 	
re?" 	
ros" 	 	
I'M" 	
no- 	
Ml" 	
M2" 	
M3" 	 -. ...
M4* 	
M5" 	

116" 	
M7" 	
M8" 	
M9" 	
('20' 	
T25" 	 	 	
1'30" 	
1'35" 	
1'40" 	
K45" 	
I'SO" 	
1'55- 	
200" 	
2'15" 	
2 30" 	
245" 	
300".. 	
3'30" 	
4'00" 	
5'00" 	
800" 	
700" 	
7'30" 	
g'OO" 	
10 00" 	
MILKS
PER
HOUR
	 78.3
	 76.G
75
	 73.5
	 72
	 70.6
	 69.2
	 67.9
	 66.7
	 6S.5
	 64.3
. . . : . 63.2
	 62.1
	 61
	 60
	 59
	 58.1
	 57.1
	 56.2
	 5S.4
	 54.5
	 53.7
	 52.9
	 52.2
	 51.4
	 50.7
	 50
	 49.3
	 48 6
	 48

	 47.4
	 46.8
	 46.2
	 45.6
	 45
	 42.4
	 40
	 37.9
	 36
	 34.3
	 32.7
	 31.3
	 30
	 26.7
	 24
	 21.8
	 20
	 17.1
	 15
	 12
	 10
	 86
	 R
	 7.3
	 ft
H-142

-------
                           Attachment H-4
                               SUMMARY

Railroad Responses  to  Car Coupling Request
     The following 1s  a  categorization of responses to  the coupling
speed request by EPA  to the  major  rail  carriers  on  January  3;  1979,and  a
subsequent  follow-up  1n  February 1979.

Response by R.R.
                                                Number      % of Total
. Have operating  rule  or special Instruction
  of 4 mph  maximum  coupling speed	  34          42.5%
. Have recommended  practice of 4 mph
  maximum coupling  speed	  20          25.0%
. Follow AAR recommended 4 mph
  coupling  speed	  10          12.5%
. No rules  or recommendations on coupling
  speed	  16          20.0%
  Totals                                          80          100%

Therefore, 64 of  the  80 rail carriers  (80%)  have either  a rule or
recommendation of  not-to-exceed  4ir.ph  In  coupling.    42.5% have  direct
rules governing  coupling  speed of  not-to-exceed 4mph.   In no  case was
there a  rule or  recommended coupling  speed  maximum greater than  4 mph.
     All rules and recommendations  are  In terms of  a maximum  safe speed
to minimize or prevent freight loss  and damage.
                                    H-143

-------
                             REFERENCES

1.   Bolt Beranek and Newman,  Inc.;  Report No.  3873,  1978,  Cambridge,
     Massachusetts.
                                      H-144

-------
          APPENDIX I






U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

-------
               APPENDIX I


     U. S. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
  Notice:  This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication
In the Federal Exporter or U.S.App.D.C. Reports. Users are requested
to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be
•mad* before the bound volumes go to press.
      Hnitrti States  ffimcrt nf  Appeals
          FOR TEE 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

                          T.

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
Judgaent entared
    this data
 Bills of costs must be filed within 14 days after tntry of judgment The
 court looks with disfavor upon motions to file bills of costs out of time.
                         1-1

-------
  Richard J. Ftynn,  with whom Lee  A.  Monroe  and
Joseph  B. Tompkina,  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  (AAJR)  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 28, U.S.C. § 294
(c).
  * This petition for review is properly before the court pur-
suant to 42 U.S.C. § 4915.
  s The State of Illinois was allowed to intervene as a party
respondent by order of this court on 18 May 1976.
  4 The regulations are stated at 40 C.F.R. §§ 201.11, 201.12,
201.13.
  * 42 U.S.C. §4916.
                         1-2

-------
                          3

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 ail 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:J
       (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
  *ld.
                           1-3

-------
     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 th> 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, the 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
                         1-4

-------
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) (1), however,   Congress went  beyond  com-
manding the  Administrator  to establish standards  and
sought to specify  the subject matter to be regulated.  In
so specifying  the  subject matter, Congress also used the
language of  command—the  regulations "shall include"
standards  setting limits on noise emanating from "the
equipment  and facilities" of interstate  rail  carriers.'  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
        e.g., Boyden v. Comm. of Patents,  441  F.2d 1041
(D.C. Clr, 1971).
  •42U.S.C. §4916(a)(l).
                           1-5

-------
                           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?'
  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.10  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 what is to be regulated.
  *• S€«, e.g., Florida Lime &  Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul,
373U.S. 132 (1963).
                          1-6

-------
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-
  » 42 U.S.C. §4916(c)(2).
                           1-7

-------
                          8

sional  intent behind this phrase,  we  shall examine the
definition provided by the Administrator during the course
of the  rulemaking proceedings here under review.

             IL  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.1*  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.14
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.
  »Id. at 24580-81.
                        1-8

-------
                           9

     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

  *• The document is reproduced In the Joint Appendix (J.A.)
at 28-51. See  also  text and notes at notes 45 to 48, infra.
                          1-9

-------
                          10
hearing  was held  and further written comments  were
solicited  and  received."  The AAB  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.w
  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. . .

  w 39 Fed. Reg. 24585.
  » JJL at 117-160.
  »S««42U.S.C. §4915.
  » See JJL at 18, 24-25.
                       1-10

-------
                          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 he preempted . . .
      M... EPA believes that design or equipment stand-
    ards on federally regulated equipment—viz., locomo-
    tive and rail cars—are preempted  Design or equip-
    ment standards on other pieces  of equipment  such
    as  retarders  or cribbing  machines,  are not  pre-
    empted.  Similarly, design standards on facilities not
    federally regulated are not preempted, even though
    locomotives and rail cars may operate there, because
    they do not require the modification of  locomotives
    or rail  cars. An example of this type of regulation
    would be a local ordinance  requiring that noise bar-
    riers be installed  along  the rights of way  running
    through that  community."
Thus, although EPA recognized the need  for additional
regulation,  the agency  did not take it upon itself to  meet
this need through EPA-sponsored  regulations.  In addi-
tion, the encouragement of local regulation  was subject
to the 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 HI, infra.

  In summary, the administrative process described above
resulted in  standards  regulating  noise from only three
sources:  1)  locomotive operation under stationary condi-
tions;11  2)  locomotive operation  under  moving condi-
tions;11 and 3)  rail car operations.11  No other  types of

  "40OFJL8201.il.
  "tt. at §201,12.
  " Id. at § 20L13.
                           i-li

-------
                          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.:t  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.
                    III.  ANALYSIS

A.  Statutory Langitage

  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;"
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)(l)  that  Congress
intended to vest discretion in the EPA to decide which
  14 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 48, infra.
  u See text and notes at notes 7 to 8, supra.
                        1-12

-------
                          13

of the equipment and facilities would be subject to regu-
lation.  Nothing in the  statute  diminishes  or qualifies
the generality of these two key words—equipment and
facility.  Nothing in the  statute states that only certain
kinds  of  equipment or facilities need  to be  regulated.
The plain and natural meaning of the phrase "the equip-
ment and  facilities"  is that the power of the EPA is
plenary with respect  to those  objects  and  places  cus-
tomarily thought  to be included in the definition of the
phrase. To read this  language  otherwise would be  to
distort a relatively clear signal from the national legisla-
ture.  Indeed, in the context of this case,  the EPA chose
not to  regulate  any "facilities" at  all;  this  action  in
effect reads  this word  out of the statute.  We are not
prepared to label this word as being superfluous to the
statutory mandate.3'

  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.'"tr 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 chose who find
themselves in  the  unenviable position  of having to argue
  M Of course, the EPA has reserved the option to regulate
'facilities" in the future (see note 15, supra). The EFA 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.
                         1-13

-------
                          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 Act."
  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.**
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.40  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
  ** 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).
         e.g., Yazoo Railroad Co. V. Thomas,  132 U.S. 174,
 188  (1889).
                       1-14

-------
                          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: "
   11S. Rep. No. 92-1160, 92d Con?., 2d Seas. (1972).
   «H. Rep. No. 92-842, 92d Cong., 2A Seas. (1972).
   « S. Rep. No. 92-1160, supra, note 31. at 18-19.
                           1-15

-------
                           16

     "Part B—Railroad Noise Emission Standards

       This part  (Sections 511 through  514) provides a
     Federal regulatory scheme for noise emissions from
     surface carriers engaged in  interstate  commerce  by
     railroad.  The Administrator of the Environmental
     Protection Agency is  retired  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 accor'ded  to
the  railroad   noise emission  standards.   Congress  was
clearly concerned  about "the burdens imposed on inter-
                        1-16

-------
                          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. EARTKE. 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 noiso 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).
                           1-17

-------
                          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 'haos.  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." "
This concern for "maximum  practical uniformity" is cer-
tainly  consistent with a broad  definition  of  "equipment
and  facilities."  But the EPA has put forth a curious
notion as to which equipment and facilities are in need
of such uniform treatment with respect to noise  emission
standards.
  EPA justifies its narrow view of equipment and facili-
ties by arguing that if a source of noise is subject to  the
regulation of only one jurisdiction, there  is no need  for
national uniformity.  EPA  believes  that national uni-
formity is needed only in those situations in which  the
noise source is potentially subject  to noise regulation by
more than one jurisdiction  (such as  locomotive or  rail
cars) .*• This view ignores the fact that, although a physi-
cal source of noise—for instance, a particular  yard or
terminal  ("facilities")—may be permanently  located in
only one jurisdiction, the railroad  that owns  it will own
other yards and terminals in many other jurisdictions -
through  which its system extends. The  railroad itself
(the carrier specified in Section 17(a) (1) of the Act), as
distinguished from the single yard, will be-subject to con-
flicting or differing  noise regulations of the jurisdictions
in which all of the various yards are located. Such multi-
  "118 Cong.  Rec.  35881  (1972)  (Remarks of Senator
Hartke).
  " Set Background Document, J.A. at 37-45.
                        1-18

-------
                           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"  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,' " " this principle has no application where, as here,
the  agency  has  misinterpreted its statutory mandate.1'
  " 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).
                         1-19

-------
                          20

In such cases of misinterpretation, it is our duty to cor-
rect the legal error of the agency as we have done here.
In  this regard, we  also  note that the Interstate  Com-
merce  Commission,  the Department  of Transportation,
and the  Department of Commerce—three  federal  agen-
cies which can all  lay claim to  considerable expertise
relative to the railroad industry and its role in interstate
commerce—all strongly disagreed  with the EPA's deci-
sion not  to regulate aU "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 thfo 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**-
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." *•
  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

  «S««JJL at 214-16, 210, 189.
  41 Brief for Respondents at 22.
  «Id. at 23.
  -/d at 22-23
                          1-20

-------
                           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 AAE 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."4t 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) .**  As noted previously,  the EPA chose to regulate
 only this last category relating  to  locomotives and rail
 cars."  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."

  44 Reply Brief of Petitioners at 3-5.
  M Background Document, J.A. at 37.
  ««.,  J.A. at 37-44.
  *r St«  text at notes 14 to  19, supra.
  *• 5«<  note 46, supra.
                         1-21

-------
                          22

  Two points of significance emerge from the foregoing
discussion.  First, the EPA has  demonstrated that it is
capable of defining 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 EPA's  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).
                        1-22

-------
                          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?' w
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 floribility 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 S«e note 46, supra.
                         1-23

-------
                          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 Act 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.
                           1-24

-------
                          25

     sums, 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 nu-uner 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

  n This definition will, of course, be renewable in the courts.
                        1-25

-------
                          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.14 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  standards
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).
       at §4916 (a) (2).
                           1-26

-------
     APPENDIX J
RAILROAD CASH FLOW MODEL

-------
                              APPENDIX J
                         RAILROAD CASH FLOW MODEL

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 46%

     5.  Pollution abatement equipment is depreciated by the straight-line
method, with a salvage value equal to zero*  Equipment is replaced when fully
depreciated, except for mufflers for switch engines.  Replacement mufflers
represent a current maintenance expense after the initial muffler is worn out
(in accordance with ICC accounting principles).

     6.  All pollution abatement equipment qualifies for an investment tax
credit under Section 38 property.  The tax credit is equal to 10 percent of
capital expenditure.  It Is assumed that the full investment tax credit
will be taken in the year In which equipment is acquired and put into use.

Computations

     1.  Cash Flow — The 1973 through 1978 average is assumed to be the
first observation in the annual stream beginning January 1, 1980.  Cash flow
is defined here as net income after taxes, interest and extraordinary items
plus deferred taxes, less equity in earnings of affiliates; depreciation is
not added back In the baseline cash flow estimate.

                           CF - NI + DEFT - EQ.

                                      J-l

-------
For each railroad, the cash flow average was inflated by 6% per year, discounted
by 10% and summed to derive a net present value of the twenty-year stream of
cash flows.  This is equivalent to a present value of annuity calculation.
Present values of future cash flows appear in the first column of Table J-5.

     2.  Net Worth — The 1973 through 1978 average was assumed to be the
net worth as of January 1, 1980.  This appears in the second column of Table
J-5 as average net investment.

     3.  Net present values of future cash flows are calculated by reducing
the present values of future cash flows by net Investment or net worth.  This
is listed by railroad in the last column of Table J-5.  Those railroads
displaying an average negative net worth are eliminated from further net
present value analyses.  However, their abatement cash flow charge is calculated.

     4.  Capital Expenditures are detailed by yard type for each railroad,
showing the year in which the expenditure is made.  The cost of each treatment
that is applicable to each noise source is multiplied by the number of sources.
Equipment Is replaced and additional expenditures made when fully depreciated.
Table J-6 lists capital expenditures for all railroads. In addition, Table J-8
lists initial capital expenditures for all railroads; this differs from Table
J-6 in that Table J-8 shows no replacement when equipment is fully depreciated.

     Present values of capital expenditures are computed by inflating cost
data at 6% per year from January 1, 1980 and discounted to the present at a
10% rate.  Present value factors appear in Table J-4.

     5a«  Annual Operating Costs Due to Abatement — Noise related O&M,
out-of-service and depreciation costs are computed for each year of the
analysis, using O&M and out-of-service cost estimates for each source and
capital expenditure and useful life data for each fix applicable to each
source.  These data appear in Tables J-3A and J-3B.  A listing of total O&M
costs and depreciation cost (in the accounting sense) appear in Tables J-9,
J-10 and J-ll, respectively.  The effect of taxes is considered in the
                                      J-2

-------
analysis and thus the before and after tax cost must be determined*  O&M and
out-of-service costs have an after tax cost of (1-t); depreciation has a tax
"shield" in the sense of cash flow, equal to tax depreciation expense.  These
costs are separated by source, before and after taxes, and are totalled for
each railroad.  These costs are in 1979 dollars.

     Because the abatement cost data are to be used in the cash flow analysis,
they must be adjusted for the impact they have on cash flow.  Out-of-service
costs, because they are treated as a period cost with the same tax Impact as
O&M, will be included hereinafter in the general discussion of O&M costs.

     5b.  O&M Costs — In the abatement scenario, adjusted cash flow (CF) is
reduced by the additional O&M costs, offset somewhat by the reduction of taxes
which arise because of the reduced net income (from the increased O&M costs),
that is,

              CF0&M - -AO&M + t(AO&M)
                    - -AO&M(l-t)

where t - tax rate.

     5c.  Depreciation — In a similar manner, increased depreciation for
abatement equipment changes baseline cash flow*  Depreciation is a non-cash
expense which reduces taxes and thus has a positive effect on railroads' cash
flow.  Initially,

              CFDEp - -ADEP + t(ADEP)
                    - -ADEP(1-t)

     However, a basic premise in cash flow analysis is that flows are considered,
not accounting charges and credits.  Thus, all non-cash items are added back
to after-tax net income*
                                      J-3

-------
             ACF - -AO&M(l-t) -f  [-ADEP(l-t)] +  ADEP
             ACF - -AO&M(l-t) -ADEP(l-t) +  ADEP
reduced,
             ACF - - AO&M(l-t) +  ADEP(t).

      Abatement-related depreciation expense is shown in Table J-ll by noise
source for each railroad.  The net after tax effect for cash flow analysis
appears on the right side of this table ( ADEP x t).  The tax rate, denoted by
t, is assumed to be 46% (the marginal rate for corporate income above $100,000
for years beginning after 1978).

     5d.  Investment tax credits, generated by capital expenditures, are
treated as an annual item to Increase cash inflows (or decrease cash outflows).
Investment tax credits are taken at the full rate of 10% of capital expenditures
and are taken the year in which the asset is acquired and assumed put in place
(original acquisition or replacement year).  It is assumed that there are no
limitations on Investment tax credits, and all equipment is eligible for full
tax credit.  Table J-12 lists total investment tax credits available to each
railroad in 1979 dollars.

     6a.  The total change in cash flow is finally derived by increasing
CF by the investment tax credit in those years in which equipment is acquired.
The present value is computed for each year by applying the present value
factor and summing this stream of Incremental cash flows.

            ACF - - AO&M(l-t) +  ADEP(t) + ITC
                       1999
             PVACF -   I PV   (-AO&Mid-t) +ADEPi(t) +
                      1-1980
     6b.  The net present value of abatement cash flow is then determined by
reducing the present value of change in cash flows by the present value of the
capital expenditures.
                                      J-4

-------
            NPVACF - PVACF - PVCAP
                      1999                                          1999
                      V^    PV(-A06Mi(l-t) + ADEP^t) + ITC^  -  \^
                     1-1980                                        1-T980
     6c.  Table J-13 lists the net present value of change In abatement cash
flows by yard type for each railraod*

     7.  In Table J-13, when the net present value of abatement cash flow
(NPVACF) (Column 4) is subtracted from the net present value of future cash
flows (NPVFCF) (Table J-5, Column 3), the net present values of future cash
flows with abatement (NPV) are determined.  This final net present value is
listed in the last column of Table J-13.

            NPV - NPVFCF -(-NPVACF)

            NPV - NDVFCF + NPVACF

     8.  Table J-14 lists all railroads with a positive net present value of
future cash flows after abatement.  Table J-15 lists those with a negative or
zero net present value.  This net present value of future cash flows is an
indication of the ability of a railroad to implement changes required by the
regulation.  Further, the net present value of future cash flows before
abatement (Table J-5) gives a basis for comparison to assess how much of an
impact, positive or negative, the regulation will have on the railroad's
future cash flows.

     9.  To examine further, the net present value of abatement cash flows
Is compared to the net investment (average net worth).  If the net -present
value is positive but relatively small, potential financial difficulty may
be present.  For this analysis, relatively small is interpreted to mean a
difference which is positive but less than 10% of net worth*
                                      J-5

-------
     For railroads with a positive difference greater than 10%f further
analysis is suggested only if abatement costs appear unusually large relative
to other data.

     A ratio is calculated by dividing the net present value of abatement
cash flows by the net worth.  Those railroads with a ratio greater than zero
but less than 0.10 are listed in Table J-16, those with a ratio greater than
0.10 are listed in Table J-17, and those with a ratio less than zero are
listed in Table J-18.
                                    J-6

-------
                      Table J-l
                 REGULATORY SCENARIO
EFFECTIVE DATE
A-WEIGHTED
SOUND LEVEL
 REGULATED SOURCES
 January 15, 1984
   83 dB
   78 dB
   70 dB (idle)
   90 dB (moving)
   92 dB
Retarders
Load Cell Test Stands
Switch Engines

Car Coupling
                            J-7

-------
                         Table J-2  (Option 1)

              CASH FLOW ANALYSIS BASED ON ONAC SOUND
                 EMISSION STANDARDS  MODEL (CABOOSES)
                                                 VOISE SOURCE
RAILROAD NABE
                                       RETABUEPS
                                                   IOAD Clill
                                                  ThST SUES
                                                               SWITCHBBS
1 BO
2 Oil:
3 BLE
I BH
5 CP
(, CI
7 CO
6 CIH
9 CR
10 OH
1« BTS
12 DTI
13 EJE
U GTH
15 ITC
•6 LI
17 DEC
18 •«
19 PLFI
20 irt-
21 vn
22 CCO
23 FEC
2« CA
25 ICG
26 LN
27 SCL
28 SCO
29 »TSf
30 DN
31 CMH
32 MILK
33 fil
34 CS
35 PhiJB
16 DHII
37 OHP
38 HID
39 ICS
10 NKT
11 HP
42 VHP
43 SLSr
it ssv
45 son
• 6 sr
07 TM
Ha TVV
«9 UP
SO HP
si »is
S2 BRC
S3 IHB
54 TRRA
55 OER
56 IS
BALTIHORE C OHIO RR CO.
BANCOR C AROOSTOOK ER CO.
BKSSRIIER t LAK| ERIE 81 CO.
BOSTON t HUME CORP.
CAiUDIAN flCjriC (IK BAINKI
CENT»«l VERHCNT RHI CO.
CIIESAPIAXE 6 OHIO RHI CD.
CHICAGO C ILUVOIS HIDLIMD RUT CO.
CONHtll
OELtVJtRZ C HUOSOM RUT O.
CBTROIT t TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO.
DETROIT. 1OI.EDO t IKOIOM ER CC.
ELGIN, JOUET t EAST Efll RUT CO.
CPtUb TRUIIIC HESTERN *R CO.
ILLINOIS TERNim IR CO.
LOMS ISLAND «R CO.
H»II(t CEKTRIL RR CO.
NORrOLK E KCSTERN BUI CO.
PITTSDUHGH C LAKE ERIE RR CO.
»ICimo«D, FREOEfllCRSBURS ( POTOMAC RR CO
vrSTERN DIFTLAMD BUI CO.
CLINCHriELO RR CC.
riORIC* I»ST COUST RHI :o.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CCNTRAL GULf RR CO.
LOUISIILLt f RASIIVULE BR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE PR CO.
SOUTHER! »T. StSTEH
ATCHISOH, TOPEKA t SANTA tt RUI CO.
BURI.INUTOII ROR1UERR CO.
CM 1C A CO t NOHTHNKSTERN m*SP. CO.
CHICAGO, nil*., ST. PAUL t PACIFIC fR CO
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND t PACIFIC RR CC.
COLORADO C SOUTHERN EVI CO.
PEMVER C RIO GRANDE VESIEBN RR CO.
DOLIITH. HISSABE t IPON RANCH RHI CC.
DIUUTH. HINNIPEa t PACIFIC RHI
PORT UOBTH C »RNVBb KHI CO.
KANSAS C1TI SOUTHERN RHI CO.
aiSSOURI-KANSAS-TEIAS RR CO.
ni 3 so in. i PACIFIC ik co.
NORTMHESIIRR PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN PRAICISCO RHI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTIlHeSTtRN RM! CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEIAS MEXICAN ONI CO.
TOLEDO, PEOR1A t HBSTKUN Rk CO.
DNION PACIFIC RR CO.
UXSTEIN PACIFIC RI CO.
ALTON f SOUTHERN RR
BELT (R CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BBIT RR CO.
TfRDKAL SB ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UBION RR CO.
IOUNGSTOHR 1 SOUTHERN INI CO.
<
0
0
1
0
0
3 1
0
19 1
0
1 I
1
1
«
0
1
0
«
0
1
1
o
o
0
2
2
2
« ;
2 !
6 1.
1 1
2 14
« >
0 C
t 1
0 <
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 t
2 1
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 1
•> 1!
0 0
0 1
2 1
0 1
1 0
i a
2 1
1 1
1 0
1 a
t 63
) 2
1 0
1 30
> 1
9 1
> SO
> 3
1 980
t 19
> 0
> 10
• 2
SO
1
e
ti
173
37
8
0
7
7
4
»1
««
88
100
> in
29«
77
110
83
7
22
1«
0
3
51
27
108
5
52
39
2*
300
0
0
133
«
U
27
60
35
71
0
101AL
                                              79
                                                         133
                                                                    359*
                                    J-8

-------
                        Table J-2  (Option  2)
             CASH FLOW ANALYSIS BASED ON ONAC SOUND
                EMISSION STANDARDS  MODEL  (CABOOSES)
                                                 NOISE SOURCE
CAILROAD RARE
                                       CITARPERS
                                                   LOAD CELL
                                                  TEST SITES
                                                               SKirCUEIS
1 BO BALTIMORE ( OUIO RR CC.
2 BAP BANGOR t 1IOCSTOOK KB CO.
3 PL I BESSEMER E 1AKE ERIE ill CO.
« Bit BOSTON t RAIRE CORP.
5 CP CANADIAN PACIFIC (IK HUNE)
6 C» CENTRAL VERNCNT CHI CO.
7 CO CHEStPIAKC 6 OHIQ RUT CD.
e cm CHICAGO t ILLINOIS MIDLAND mi CQ.
9 CR COBHAIL
10 DH DELAHARE t HUDSON RHI CO.
11 DTS DETROIT C. TOLEDO SHORELINE «R CO.
12 DTI DETROIT, TOLEDO C liONTON RR CC.
13 EJE EL01N, JOLIIT t EASTERN RUI CO.
U OTH OR AID TtUlK RCSTERR RR CO.
IS ITC ILLINOIS 1ERMNAL RR CO.
'6 LI LONG I SI AN t RR CO.
17 HEC MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
16 t!W NOnrOLK t. VEST El! N SMI CO.
19 PLB PITTSBURGH t LAKE ERIE RR CO.
20 RFP RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURC C POTOMAC
21 KH NESTKRR NAKTLAND RUI CO.
22 CCO CLINCHFIELD RR CO.
23 flT FLORIDA EAST COIST (VI CO.
2« 6A GF.ORGIA RR CO.
25 ICG ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR CO.
26 IN LOUISVILLE G NASHVILLE RR CO.
27 SCL SEABOARD COAST LIIE RR CO.
28 SOU SOUTHERN RT. SISTER
20 A1SP ATCI1ISON, TOPERA I SANTA FE RHI CO.
39 BN BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
31 CHN CHICAGO r. NCRTHHCSTRHN IfcAKSP. CO.
32 fllL* CHICAGO. HILV., ST. PAUL C PACIFIC
33 XI CHICAGO. POCK ISLAND 6 PACIFIC IR C
3« CS COLORADO t SOUTIIKRI RHI CO.
35 URGN DENVER t RIO OhANDE VESfEIlN RR CO.
36 liHIR DULUTU. NISSABE C IVOR RANGE IDT CC
37 CHP DULOTH, HINNIPBO C PACIFIC SKI
36 FHD FONT VORtH C OEHVER RHI CO.
39 ICC3 KANSAS CITf SOUTHEIM RHI CO.
DA HKT AI3SOURI-KANSAS-TEIAS RR CO.
11 HP HISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
12 HUP NORTHHE5TERN PACIFIC RR CO.
O SLSF ST. LOUIS-SAK FRANCISCO HU1 CO.
4 0
) 0
1 11
> 0
1 H
) 1
0
0
2
) 1
) 1
1
) 2
i 7
) 1
1 0
0
) 1
) 1
) 0
7
2
S
3
S
13
7
14
S
0
1
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
1
0
2
15
0
1
'A
.
0
0
1
1
0
0
at
2
0
30
1
1
C4
4
1255
25
0
13
54
14
1
10
14
222
47
10
0
$
9
5
111
107
112
136
95
376
99
141
107
9
26
10
0
4
6C
35
240
7
67
SO
33
3U4
0
0
170
7
15
35
77
US'
91
0
1O1AL
                                              93
                                                         140
                                                                     4601
                                  J-9

-------
                                  Table J-3A

                1979 ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND
               ASSOCIATED USEFUL LIVES OF NOISE ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT
                                    ($OOOs)

Reg
Level
1




Fix
1
2
3
NOISE SOURCE
Retarders Load Cells Switchers
Cap Exp Life Cap Exp Life Cap Exp Life
348.6 10
97.5 10
7.92 4
                                  Table J-3B

                 1979 ESTIMATES OF AVERAGE O&M  COSTS OF NOISE
                         NOISE ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT
                                    ($OOOs)
Reg
Level
1

Retarders
9.60
NOISE SOURCE
Load Cells
7.30

Switchers
1.73
                                 Table J-3C

                  1979 ESTIMATES OF OUT-OF-SERVICE COST*
                                   ($OOOs)
Switcher Engines Only         2.8
*Cost applied to each switcher engine.
                                       J-10

-------
                 Table J-4 (Option 1)
                 PRESENT VALUE FACTORS
INFLATION FACTOS=  6%
DISCOUNT FACTOE = 10%
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1983
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1. 000000
0.963636
0. 928595
0.894828
0.862289
0.830933
0.800717
0.771600
0.743541
0.716504
0.690449
0.665342
0.64H47
0.617833
0.595366
0.573716
0.552854
0.532750
0.513377
0.494709
0.476720
PRESENT  VALUE TOR A TWENTY  YEAR ANNUITY*  13.866940
                         J-ll

-------
                 Table J-4  (Option 2)
                PRESENT VALUE FACTORS
INFLATION  FACTOR=
DISCOUNT FACTOF. =
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
••9814
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1.000000
0.963636
0. S28595
0.894828
0.862289
0.830933
0.800717
0.771600
0.743541
0.716504
0.690449
0.665342
0.641147
0.617833
0.595366
0.573716
0.552854
0.532750
0.513377
0.494709
0.476720
PRESENT VALUE FOR A TWENTY  YEAE ANNUITY=  13.866940
                          J-12

-------
                          Table  J-5 (Option 1)

          CASH FLOW SUMMARY BEFORE ABATEMENT PRESENT VALUE
               AT JANUARY 1, 1980 (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
BA7LROAD
IALT1HORE E OBiO II CO.
BANOOR £ UOOSTOOK Rl CO.
BESSEMER E Ull llll II CO.
BOSTON ( RUN* COIP.
CAUADIAI PACII3C (I* »AIBE|
CENTRAL VERMONT R«» CO.
CHESAPEAKE £ OHIO RBI CO.
CHICAGO e ILLINOIS BIDLAND RNI co.
CONRAIL
DELAWARE C HUDSON IVI CO.
DETROIT £ TOLIDO SHOBELIBI Bl CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO t 1 1(11 TDK U CO.
ILGIir, JO1IET C EASIER * BUI CO.
GRAND TRBII HESTERB Bl CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL BR CO.
10 MG ISLAND Bl CO.
HAINE CENTRAL 81 CO.
BONPOLK 6 UESTKRR BUI CO.
PITTSBURGH t ucr BRIE RR co.
BICHHOHD, PRIDKBICKSBU BG ( POTOMAC BR CO.
NBSTZRN KARILAND RHI CO.
CLZBCHHELD BR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RUT CO.
GCOBCII BB CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL OULI IB CO.
LOU1SVILLK S NASHVILLE BB CO.
SEABOARD COAS1 LIBE Bl CO.
SOUTHERN RI. STSTBH
ATCIUSCN. TOPIKA I SANTA fB RBI CO.
BUfiLINQTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO £ NORTHVESTIBN TBANSt. CO.
CHICAGO, HUH.. ST. PAWL ( I'ACIflC tk CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND 6 FACIflC RB CO.
COLOR* BO ( SOUTHERN BUI CO.
DENVER t RIO GfcANOE HESTEkN RM CO.
DUUITH, HISSkll C IRON RAIOE INI CO.
OULUTH, IIINHItEG C PACIFIC RH(
fONT NORTH 1 DEHVEK BRI CO.
KANSAS C1T» SOUTHERN DVT CO.
HlUSOUIl-ttlSIS-TEIlS RR CO.
mssouiii PACIIIC RR co.
•OKTIINBSTBRN PACIflC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-JAN IRARC1SCO BUI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUtHVeSTEBR BRI CO.
SOC LIBE RB CO.
SOUTHERN PAClflC CO.
TEXAS HEIICAN »UT CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA t HESTELN RB CO.
UNION PACIFIC BR CO.
HESTERI TACiriC RR CO.
AITOE C SOUTRIBN RR
BELT It CC. OF CUKIOO
INDIAN* HARBOR RKLT BR CO.
ItBRIBAL IB ASSN. 01 ST. LOUIS
UNION BB CO.
YOUNGSTOMN £ SOUTHERN CHI CC.
PRESENT moi or
PinUBB CASB ILOHS
6«J733.
8808.
177622.
-85(35. »
0.*
9226.
C 12288.
22190.
-8062216. »
-61525. »
11775.
-22915.*
183573.
-«361«.*
3610.
-i«oi
-------
                          Table J-5  (Option  2)

           CASH FLOW SUMMARY BEFORE  ABATEMENT  PRESENT  VALUE
               AT JANUARY  1, 1980  (DOLLARS  IN  THOUSANDS)
IAILBOAD
PALTINOEE C OHIO IR CO.
RANCOR t AROOSTOUK Rl CO,
BESSEHE* t LAKE BIIF IR CO.
BOSTON t MAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PICIHC (II RUNE)
CENTRAL VZgHOIT RUT CO.
CHISAPEAKE C OHIO RNI CO.
CHICAGO r. ILLINOIS MIDLAND RUT CO.
CCJUAIL
DEHII « BE f. HUDSON RUT CO.
OI1BOI1 t TOLEDO SHORELINE II CO.
DEIIOIT, TOLEDO S IRONTON III CO.
ELGIN, JQLIET t EASTERN RUT CO.
GRIND TRUNK HESTEIN RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
LCN6 ISLAND RR CO.
HUME CENTRAL IR CO.
NORrOLR C U ESI UN BUT CO.
PI1TSBURCH t LAKE ER1
-------
                           Table J-6 (Option  1}
               CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
           (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)  REPLACEMENT ASSUMPTION APPLIED
                                                     •01 st sou ace
ftAUROAD NAHE
EALTIKOi: R OHIO III CO.
BANCO! I AROOSTOOK HI CO.
BBSSEHER 1 LAKE ERIF II CO.
BOSTON C NAIHE COIF.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN BA1IE)
CENTRAL VERHONT IHI CO.
CHESAPEAKE t OHIO Mil CO.
CHICAGO G ILLINOIS NICIAND INT CO.
CONRAIL
DELANIBE t HUDSON RNI CO.
DETROIT f. TOLiDO SUOIEL1IE tB CO.
DETROIT. TOLEDO C IPONTON M CO.
ELGIN. JOLIET C EASTER 1 INI C9.
BRAND TRUNK NESTED* II CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL IR CO.
LONli ISLAND II CO.
HA1NF. CENTRAL RR CO.
NORFOLK 6 WBSTIIN INI CO.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE ERIE BR CO.
RICIINOKD, FREOER1CKSOUIQ C POT01 AC II CO.
WESTERN HARILAND BUI CO.
CL1NCHF1ELD II CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST OKI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RN CO.
LOUISVILLE C NASHVILLE Rl CO.
SIABOAfcD COAST LINE fiR CO.
SOUTHERN RI. SYSTEM
ATCIIIUON, TOP UK* t SANTA FB IWI CO.
flUPLINqrON NOUHfRII CO.
CHICAGO C NOETIIHESTEri TRAN5F. CO.
CHICAGO, OIL*.. ST. PAUL 6 PACIFIC Bl CO.
CHICAGO, IOCE ISLAND C PACIFIC BB CO.
COLORADO t SOUTHERN MI CO.
DENtEli C PIO OFANDE HISTEIM ER CO.
DNLUTII. HISSABE C ICON RANGE Rlir CO.
DULUTH. Minima e PACIFIC our
FOIT UOITH t DENVER RN 1 CO.
KANSAS CITI SOOTHEIH OUT CO.
RISSOURI-MNSAS-TEIAS Rft CO.
HISSOUBI I'ACIFIC Bl CO.
HOIlTIINESTERN PACIFIC II. CO.
ST. LOWIS-SAN FRANCISCO RNT CO.
ST. 10IIIS SnUTHNEST«RN TNI CO.
SOO LINE III CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS KEIICAN INT CO.
TOLEDO, PEOBIA t. WESTERN Bl CO.
UNION PACIFIC BB CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC PR CO.
HTON ( SOUIHIRI PI
BELT Bl CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HAIfOB BELT BB CO.
IERRINAL II ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
URinn IB co.
TOaiCSTOHN t. SOUTHERN IWI CO.
BCltlOEIS
1558.
0.
0.
3tS.
0.
0.
1166.
0.
7399.
0.
38S.
3«9.
189.
0.
0.
389.
0.
155B.
0.
389.
389.
0.
0.
0.
179.
779.
17$.
19*7.
179.
2337.
389.
779.
389.
0.
369.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
779.
0.
389.
389.
0.
191(7.
0.
0.
779.
0.
389.
389.
779.
389.
389.
389.
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
183.
(83.
0.
0.
1830.
0.
2561.
183.
0.
0.
183.
183.
183.
183.
183.
1281.
183.
0.
0.
183.
183.
0.
1261.
183.
732.
J6«.
915.
2379.
1281.
2561.
91S,
0.
1U3.
183.
0.
183.
183.
103.
732.
0.
183.
0.
183.
27«4.
0.
183.
34).
183.
0.
0.
183.
183.
0.
0.
SWITCUEBS
«99.
16.
0.
238.
6.
8.
396.
2«.
7762.
150.
0.
79.
333.
396.
8.
63.
87.
1370.
293.
63.
0.
55.
55.
32.
721.
665.
6)7.
855.
566.
2328.
610.
871.
*S7.
55.
m.
n«.
0.
24.
404.
2*4.
14119.
40.
412.
309.
206.
2376.
0.
0.
1053.
48.
95.
214.
475.
277.
5«2.
0.
TOTAL
2057.
16.
183.
810.
8.
8.
3391.
24.
17722.
333.
389.
469.
905.
579.
191.
636.
270.
4209.
476.
4S3.
389.
238.
238.
32.
2780.
1627.
2208.
3168.
2280.
7044.
2280.
4212.
1962.
55.
747.
29*.
6.
207.
587.
397.
3000.
40.
984.
C98.
389.
7068.
0.
183.
2381.
230.
484.
C03.
1437.
850.
952.
389.
tOTAL
                                         30764.
                                                    24334.
                                                                28464.
                                                                           83562.
                                     J-15

-------
                            Table J-6  (Option 2)

                CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY (1979 DOLLARS)
           (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS( REPLACEMENT ASSUMPTION APPLIED
                                                    •OISE SOURCE
IAUIOAD HA US
(ALTIIIORE t OHIO KH CO.
BANGOR t AlOOSTOCr RR CO.
BESSIMEP t LAKE ERIE Rl CO.
BOSTON t MAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IV RAINE)
CENTRAL VERNOII1 SHI CO.
CHESAPtAKE t OHIO IVY CO.
CHICAGO C ILLINOIS HI 01 AND BUI CO.
CONllAIL
DEIAHARE f HUDSON KIT CO.
DliTIIOIT E TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO.
PE1FOIT, TULEUG C IROITOR RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET t EASTERN RHX CO.
GPA«t> TRUNK WESTERN Rl CO.
ILLINOIS TKFitlNAL RR CO.
LCNG ISLAND RR CO.
Him CENTRAL RR CO.
NCSfOLK t ME3TMN RNI CO.
PITTSBURGH R IAXE ERIf RR CO.
RICHMOND, FRt-ttRICKSBURC t POTOHAC «R CO.
UESTRfN HAHTLAIill Rift CO.
CLINCHMEI.D RR CO.
FLORIDA BAST COAST RNI CO.
GEORGIA R* CO.
ILLINOIS CKNTNAL GULF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE 5 NASHVILLE BR CO.
SEABOARD COIST LIRE RR CO.
SOUTHERN Ft. SISTEH
AtCiilSOn, TUPKKA t SANTA FB RHI CO.
BUKLIHGTOM NOL1HERN CO.
CIIICACO t Non-run IST «,1 TRANSP. co.
CHICAGO, nlLK., St. PAUL ( fACll'IC RR CO.
CHICAGO. SOCK ISLAND 1 PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO t 30U1IIERN BUT CO.
DENY Eli £ BIO CHANCE MESTERN RR CO.
DUI.OTII, H135ABK C IRCN RAICB BUT CO.
bULUTII. UIMIirrO ( PACIFIC BUT
PORT VORTH » DENVER RUT CO.
IUI1SAS CITT SOOTH BIN RII CO.
IUSSOURI-HAH3AS-TBIAS BR CO.
HISSnURI PACIIIC RR CO.
RdklllHESTEkN PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. [.OUIS-f.AI FRANCISCO BH( CO.
ST. LOUIS snCTUNESTIRN INI CO.
SCO LIIE RR CO.
SPUTIIERK PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS HEXICAH R«T CO.
TCLEM1, PMPIA t VESTERM RR CO.
OHIOK PACIFIC RR CO.
1TSSTESN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON t SOUTHERN BR
KELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR RELT RR CO.
TERBINAL RR ISSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION RR CO.
TODNGSTONN t SOUTHER* BUI CO.
KETAtCLtS
19H7.
0.
0.
]89.
0.
0.
1SSB.
0.
8951.
0.
389.
389.
3B9.
0.
0.
389.
0.
19H7.
0.
389.
J89.
0.
0.
0.
1168.
H6B.
779.
2337.
1166.
372(.
309.
779.
189.
0.
389.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
179.
0.
389.
389.
0.
2337.
0.
0.
me.
0.
389.
389.
779.
389.
389.
389.
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
183.
183.
0.
0.
2013.
0.
2561.
183.
0.
0.
3«6.
193.
183.
183.
366.
1281.
103.
0.
0.
183.
183.
0.
1291.
366.
911.
360.
91*.
2379.
1231.
2S6I.
915.
0.
18J.
183.
0.
183.
366.
18).
732.
0.
183.
II.
36k.
J7'l«.
0.
183.
tut.
181.
0.
0.
183.
183.
0.
0.
SDITCHBSS
6«2.
Ifc.
0.
301.
8.
a.
507.
32.
99*0.
198.
0.
103.
«2B.
507.
8.
79.
111.
17S8.
372.
79.
0.
71.
71.
40.
9t9.
8«7.
887.
1093.
752.
2978.
78*.
1117.
e«7.
7'.
222.
1«3.
0.
32.
521.
277.
1901.
ss.
511.
196.
261.
30*1.
0.
0.
13*6.
55.
119.
277.
610.
3S6.
721.
0.
TOTAL
2589.
16.
IttJ.
673.
a.
8 .
1077.
32.
21458.
381.
389.
492.
1183.
690.
191.
652.
477.
1986.
555.
469.
389.
2i».
254.
40.
1368.
2382.
2581.
1795.
2835.
8082.
2454.
«4S7.
2152.
71.
794.
326.
0.
215.
BB9.
460.
1411.
55.
1103.
785.
627.
8122.
0.
181.
3064.
218.
508.
667.
1572.
929.
1110.
389.
TOTAL
                                         36216.
                                                    25615.
                                                               36440.
                                                                          98270.
                                      J-16

-------
                            Table J-7  (Option 1)

      PRESENT VALUE OF  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY AT  JANUARY 1, 1980
           (DOLLARS IN  THOUSANDS) REPLACEMENT ASSUMPTION APPLIED
                                                    NOISE SOURCE
RAILROAD NAHE
BALTINORE C OHIO Rll CC.
BAHGOR t AROOSTOCX RR CO.
BtSSEHEH C LANE ERIE FD CO.
postern e 11*1 KB COIP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
dHTML VERRONT RUT CO.
CHESAPEAKE t OHIO RUI CO.
CHICAGO t ILLIIIOIS MIDLAND RKY CC.
CONRAIL
DELAWARE t HUDSON RUt CO.
DETROIT f. TOllBO SHOBELDir M CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO C I BOW TOR M CO.
I10I1I, JOLIET C EASTERN RNt CO.
OAANV TRUNK VESTBRR M CO.
IJLLIHOI3 TBRHIRAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
NORFOLK ( NESTIRN BUI CO.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE ERIE RR CO.
RICHMOND, PREDERICKSBORG C POTOSAC 1R CO.
MESTE8H HARYLAND R«I CO.
CLIRCMFIKLD HP CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RUT CO.
GCORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULI RR CO.
LOUISVILLE t NASHVILLE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN RI. SISTER
ATCUISON. TGPEXA C SANTA H Kill CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO C NORTHHESTERN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HI IV.. ST. PAUL t fACiriC RR CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND C PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO C SOUTHERN RWl CO.
DENVER e CIO GRANDE WSTRRN AR CC.
DUIUTII, MISSkBE * IRON RADGE RHI CO.
OVIUTH, NINNIPEU 6 PACIFIC HI
FORT NORTH t DEHVfR RHI CO.
KANSAS CITT SOUTHERN PHI CO.
HISSOURI'KANSAS-TEIAS RR CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
NOtTHNESTERN PACIFIC BR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAR FRANCISCO RUI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHUCSTRKK RN« CO.
SCO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS NEIICAI IHT CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA C BESTEBK RR CO.
UNIOH PACIFIC RR CO.
NESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON C SOUTHERN RR
BELT RI CO. nr CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UHION RR CO.
TOVHOSTOHN t SOUTHERN RHI CO.
RBTARBERS
1300.
0.
0.
32:.
0.
0.
97S.
0.
£173.
0.
32S.
125.
125.
0.
0.
325.
0.
1300.
0.
323.
32S.
0.
0.
0.
650.
650.
650.
1624.
650.
1919.
325.
650.
325.
0.
325.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
6SO.
0.
3iS.
32!.
0.
1624.
0.
0.
610.
C.
325.
325.
650.
325.
325.
325.
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
135.
1S5.
0.
0.
1310.
0.
1689.
13S.
0.
0.
US.
135.
13S.
135.
V>5.
9*5.
135.
0.
0.
135.
135.
0.
945.
135.
5*0.
270.
675.
1?5«.
9<5.
1889.
675.
0.
135.
135.
0.
135.
135.
135.
5*0.
A.
115.
0.
lib.
2021.
0.
135.
10S.
135.
0.
0.
135.
135.
0.
0.
smrcufcRs
«46.
1«.
0.
213.
7.
7.
35*.
31.
6915.
13S.
0.
71.
298.
3S4.
7.
57.
78.
1226.
262.
57.
0.
50.
SO.
26.
6
-------
                            Table J-7  (Option 2)

      PRESENT VALUE OF  CAPITAL EXPENDITURE  SUMMARY AT JANUARY  1,  1980
           (DOLLARS IN  THOUSANDS) REPLACEMENT ASSUMPTION APPLIED

RAILROAD NARE
EALTIHORE t OHIO fB CO.
BANCO* t AROOSTOCK IB CO.
lESSEHEB C LAKE HIP Rl CO.
BOSTON t NAINE CCIP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CENTRAL IBB DOIT fkt CO.
CHESAPEAKE t OaiC INI CO.
CHICAGO t ILLINOIS IIIDLARD tHf CO.
CONRAIL
DELAHARE t IIUDSOC R8T CO.
DB1ROII t TOLIDO SHORELINE RR CO.
OE1ROIT. TOLEDO t IRORTON P» CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET C LASIEII RUT CO.
GRAND TRUNK HESTER II HI CO.
ILLINOIS TEBIIIHAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND Rt CO.
NAIRE CENTRAL RB CO.
•OKFOLK t HZSTEIN INI co.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE I tit RR CO.
RICHHOND, FIEDERICKSBURG t POT OH AC RR CO.
HBSTEKN ftARILAND RHI CO.
CLINCHHELD RR CO.
FLORIDA EA.ST COAST RHI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CEITRAl GULF RH CO.
LOUISVILLE t NASHVILLE (R CO.
SEABOARD COASI LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN RT. SI5TEI
A1CIIISOI, TOPEKA t, SARTA tl RNI CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO t NORTHHESTEM TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HILH., ST. PAUL t PACIFIC BR CO.
CHICA6O. ROCK ISLAIC ( PACIFIC Rft CO.
COLOPADO t. SOUTHERN RUT CO.
DENIES t RIO GRANDE NISTERN kR CO.
DULU1II, HISSABI ( IRON RANGE INI CO
DULUTII, ymniPto t PACIFIC BHI
FORT NORTH t DENVER RNT CO.
KANSAS CITI SOUTHERN BHf CO.
BISSOURI-KANSAS-TEIAS II CO.
DISSOURI PACIFIC IR CO.
HORTHHESTEXI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN IRANCISCO RVI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTIINESTim BHI CO.
SCO LINE IR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS BMICAN HT CO.
TOLEPO, PEORIA t HESTIRN RR CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
HESTEBN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON t SOUTHERN IR
BELT II CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOB BELT IR CO.
1ERRINAL M ASSN. Ol ST. LOUIS
UNION RR CO.
lOUNGStOHN t SOUTHERN RHt CO.

RETARDERS
1«24.
0.
0.
J2£.
0.
0.
1300.
0.
7473.
0.
325.
325.
325.
0.
0.
325.
0.
1(21.
0.
325.
32!.
0.
0.
0.
975.
975.
650.
1919.
97E.
2274.
329.
650.
325.
0.
32i.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
(50.
0.
32£.
324.
0.
19H9.
0.
0.
971.
0.
325.
325.
650.
325.
325.
32!.
HOI SI! SC
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
135.
135.
0.
0.
1«64.
0.
1669.
135.
0.
0.
270.
135.
135.
135.
270.
945.
135.
0.
0.
135.
135.
0.
9 "45.
270.
675.
270.
675.
I7S«.
9*5.
1889.
675.
0.
135.
135.
0.
135.
270.
135.
5*0.
0.
135.
0.
270.
202«.
0.
135.
405.
135.
0.
0.
115.
135.
0.
0.
IURCE
SWITCHERS
574.
11.
0.
269.
7.
7.
454.
28.
H694.
177.
0.
92.
383.
454.
7.
71.
99.
1573.
333.
71.
0.
£4.
64.
35.
622.
758.
794.
97(1.
673.
2665.
702.
999.
758.
64.
198.
128.
0.
28.
468.
2*8.
1701.
SO.
475.
JS4.
234.
2721.
0.
0.
1295.
50.
106.
2«8.
546.
319
645
0.

TOTAL
219SI.
M.
135.
72*.
7.
7.
3238.
28.
18256.
312.
325.
417.
978.
589.
142.
531.
369.
4142.
466.
39b.
325.
199.
199.
35.
2741.
2003.
2118.
3197.
2323.
6693.
1971.
3536.
1758.
64.
6S8.
263.
0.
163.
738.
383.
2ISIO.
50.
935.
679.
504.
6695.
0.
135.
2S64.
185.
431.
573.
1330.
779.
970.
32S.
TOTAL
                                        302U.
                                                   1(894.
                                                              32607.
                                                                         81716.
                                     J-18

-------
                             Table J-8 (Option 1)

                     INITIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
                            (DOLLARS  IN THOUSANDS)
                                                      NOISE SOOICE
BAILfOAD MINB
BALTIMORE 6 OHIO RR CO.
8ANGOR t AROOSTOCK II CO.
BESSEMER 1 LAKE If It RR CO.
P.OSTON C HAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (II Nine)
CENTRAL VERJIORT RVI co.
CUISAPEAXE C OHIO BUI CO.
CIIICIGO f. IlLIiOIS MIDLAND m CO.
CONRAIL
DELAUAF.E t HUDSON RUT CO.
DMDOIV t TOLEDO SHORELINE tl CS.
DETROIT. TOLEDO t ItCNTON Rl CO.
ELGIN, JOLIR C IASTEIN BUT CO.
GRAND TRUNK HESTER* RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL II CO.
LONG ISLAND IR CO.
IUINE CEITRtL KR CO.
NORFOLK C HESTERN DVT CO.
PJ1TSBURCH 6 LAKE BIIE tl CO.
RICHMOND, FRKDIRICKSBUIO t POTOliC II CO.
HESTERN HAR1LAND R0I CO.
CLIRCUriBLD RR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST MI CO.
CEOtaiA RR CO.
ILLIBOIS CXNTRAL GUlf RR CO.
LOUISVILLE t «ASH»HLB IP. co.
SEABOARD COASI LINK M CO.
SOUTHERN RI. SI STEM
ATCUISOH, TOPERA t SANTA FB RHI CO.
BUKLINUTON RORTIIEIN CO.
CHICAGO t NORTUHf STERN TRAHSP. CO.
CHICAQO, HUM.. ST. PAUL t FACIUC RR CO.
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND C PtClllC II CO.
COLORADO C SOUTHERN RII CO.
DENVER C RIO GRANCE WESTERN RR CO.
DULUTN. HISSABB f- It Of RAI6B RNI CO.
DULUTH. Mimipra t pjiciric R«I
ran KORTH e DENVER R»I co.
KAHSAS CITI SOUTHERN RHI CO.
niSSOURI-KAISAS-TRIAS RR CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
NORTWESTERN PACIFIC IR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAH FRANCISCO ll«I CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHVESTEKN RVI CO.
SCO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TBXAS HBXICAI RMI CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA t HK3TBIN 11 CO.
UNION PACIFIC IR CO.
NESTEIK PACIFIC IR CO.
ILTOH C SOUTHERN II
BELT I* CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIAHA HARBOR BELT RB CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION BR CO.
TOUNOSTOVN C SOUTHER* RNI CO.
KtTAlDUS
1394.
0.
0.
3<|9.
0.
0.
U«t.
(1.
(623.
-0.
3*9.
3«9.
3*9.
0.
0.
319.
0.
1394.
0.
349.
349.
0.
0.
0.
697.
691.
697.
17«3.
697.
2097.
349.
697.
149.
0.
>4».
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
697.
0.
349.
349.
0.
1743.
0.
0.
697.
0.
349.
3*9.
697.
349.
349.
349.
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
96.
98.
0.
0.
975.
0.
136S.
98.
0.
0.
96.
96.
96.
98.
*8.
(83.
98.
0.
0.
98.
96.
0.
683.
98.
390.
195.
488.
1268.
683.
136S.
«ea.
0.
98.
98.
0.
SB.
98.
98.
390.
0.
98.
0.
ill.
1463.
0.
98.
291.
98.
0.
0.
08.
96.
0.
0.
SV1TCHBIS
499.
16.
0.
238.
8.
8.
396.
2«.
7762.
1SO.
0.
79.
333.
396.
8.
63.
87.
1370.
293.
63.
0.
SS.
55.
32.
721.
665.
697.
655.
586.
2328.
610.
671.
657.
55.
'74.
111.
0.
24.
404.
214.
14B9.
40.
«12.
309.
206.
2376.
0,
0.
10S3.
48.
»5.
214.
475.
277.
562.
0.
TOTAL
1893.
16.
96.
6««.
8.
8.
2417.
24.
15750.
246.
349.
428.
779.
49J.
105.
509.
185.
3447.
391.
412.
349.
153.
153.
32.
7100.
14«0.
1784.
2793.
1771.
56<8.
«641.
2933.
1493.
55.
620.
208.
0.
121.
501.
311.
2576.
40.
850.
657.
30).
5581.
0.
90.
2043.
US.
444.
562.
1270.
723.
9«1.
349.
TOTAL
                                          27539.
                                                      129(0.
                                                                 26464.
                                                                            68971.
                                        J-19

-------
                             Table  J-8 (Option  2)

                      INITIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURE  SUMMARY
                            (DOLLARS  IN THOUSANDS)
HOI SB SOURCE
BAILBOAD RAflE
IALTINOBE I OHIO II CO.
BANCO! t AIOOSTOCK IB CO.
BE33EHER ( LAW IRIP. II CO.
BOSTOH 6 HAINE CORF.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (II HI I UK)
CENTRAL VERMONT BNI CO.
CNISAPIKE C OHIO RVt CO.
CHICAGO t I1LIIOIS N1DLANO BUI CO.
COKIAIL
DELiNARE C HUOSOII INT CO.
DETROIT t TOLEDO SHORELINE II CO.
OE1IOIT, TOLEDO I IBONTOH II CO.
UGH, JOIIET C IASTP.IN INI CO.
GRAND THINK NZSTE1N II CO.
ILLINOIS TEBHIBAL II CO.
LONG ISLAND HI CO.
BAINE CENTNAL RR CO.
NORFOLK t NBSTERN INI CO.'
PITTSBURGH C LAKE EBIE It Ct.
RICHNOID. rREOIIICKSBIIIO C POTOHAC (I CO.
NESTEBN HARILAID RWI CO.
CLIICHPIELD IB CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST BUI CO.
GEORGIA RP CO.
ULIBOIS CIMTBAL GULF RB CO.
LOUISVILLE t NASHVIllV KB CO.
SIABOAID COAST LIRE II CO.
SOOTHERR PI. SISTER
ATCaiSON, TOPER* C SAiTA PE (HI CO.
BUILIHGTON *OR1HER« CO.
CHICAGO £ NOBTUNISTIIN TiARSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HIlll., ST. PAUL I PACIFIC Rl CO.
CHICAGO, BOCK 1SLARD C PACIFIC II CO.
COLOMBO t SOUTIUBN «» 1 CO.
DERVEII t BIO ORAIDE ICSTIRR RB CO.
DUI.UTH. HISSABE C IBO* BANGE RBI CO.
DuiuTM, «ri«ms e PACIFIC BUT
fOkT WORTH C DIHIEB BHI CO.
(ABSAS CITI SOUTNEBI RUT CO.
HISSOUII-KAMSAS-TIIAS IB CO.
BISSOURI PACIFIC BB CO.
BOBTUWESTERH PACIFIC BB CO.
ST. LOOIS-SAd FRANCISCO RMf CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHHESTCRH BUT CO.
SOC LIBE BB CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
1FXAS REXICAR tat CO.
TOirpO, PHOBIA E NISTCB* BB CO.
OBIOB PACIFIC RR CO.
VE3TEKB PACIFIC RB 10.
ALTON t SOUTHIIN RB
BELT II CO. OF CHICAGO
IBBIABA HARBOR BELT BB CO.
TERHIBAL Rl ASSN. OF SI. LOUIS
OHIOB Rl CO.
TOOHCSTONB t SOUTHERN RVI CO.
RKTABItBRS
17*3.
0.
0.
3K9.
0.
0.
1394.
0.
BOia.
0.
3«9.
3«9.
3«9.
0.
0.
349.
0.
1743.
0.
3«9.
349.
0.
0.
0.
10*6.
10*6.
697.
2092.
10*6.
2MO.
319.
«97.
3«9.
0.
3*9.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
«97.
0.
3*9.
349.
01
2092.
It.
0.
101«.
0.
349.
349.
»97.
349.
349.
349.
LOAD CELL
TK3T SITES
0.
0.
98.
98.
U.
0.
1073.
0.
136S.
90.
0.
0.
195.
98.
91.
91.
19S.
613.
91.
0.
0.
98.
91.
.0.
613.
195.
488.
190.
40*.
1268.
683.
1165.
408.
0.
98.
98.
0.
98.
195.
98.
390.
0.
98.
0.
195.
1463.
0.
98.
293.
98.
0.
0.
98.
98.
0.
0.
SHITCBEBS
642.
16.
0.
301.
8.
8.
507.
32.
9940.
190.
0.
103.
42H.
507.
a.
79.
111.
1758.
372.
79.
0.
71.
71.
40.
919.
•47.
687.
1093.
757.
2978.
784.
1117.
C47.
71.
i2J.
143.
0.
32.
&23.
277.
1901.
55.
S31.
39b.
2M.
3041.
0.
a.
1346.
55.
119.
277.
CIO.
356.
721.
0.
TOTAL
2385.
U.
98.
747.
8.
a.
2974.
32.
19-122.
295.
3«9.
4S2.
971.
694.
10b.
525.
306.
4184.
470.
428.
349.
169.
169.
40.
2647.
2008.
2072.
3360.
22«b.
6666.
1815.
3179.
H84.
71.
6CU.
240.
0.
129.
718.
175.
2980.
55.
977.
745.
456.
6595.
0.
98.
2605.
153.
467.
626.
1405.
602.
1069.
349.
TOTAL
                                          32420.
                                                     13650.
                                                                 36*40.
                                                                            82509.
                                      J-20

-------
                  OPERATIONS
     Table J-9  (Option  1)

& MAINTENANCE COST SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
     (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
BEFORE TAX
NOISE SOURCE
LOAD CELL
RULBOAD R8TARUERS TEST SITKS SWITCHERS
BAI.TIHORE t onio SB co.
BANGOR f. AROOSTOCK RR CO.
BESSEMER £ Lilt I ERIE lit CO.
BOSTON t RAINS COBP.
CAIIADIAI PACIFIC (IN HAIRE)
CENTPAL VEPIIONT R«T CO.
CIIKSAPIAKE C OHIO RWI CO.
CHICAGO t ILLINOIS -UPLAND RHt CO.
COHRAIL
DELAWARE t HUDSON NHI CO.
DETROIT f. TOLEDO SHORELINE ER CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO f. IRONTON RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET C (ASTERN SHI CO.
GRAND TRUNK NE.STL'RN RR CO.
ItLIHOIS TERHINAL RR CO.
tORC ISLAND RR CO.
HA7N2 CR9TIAL I> CO.
NOIlPOLR T, HES1ERN RUI CO.
PI1TSRURCH t LAKE ERIE RR CO.
PICHHOND, FREDFRICKS8UHG C POTOUAC R
WESTERN lURlfUIIU RHI CO.
CLINCHFIRLD RR CO.
fLCRIDA EAST COAST RRI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL QUIT RR CO.
LOUISVILLE t NASHVILLE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE R* CO.
SOUTHERN RI. SISTEN
ATCIIISOH. TO (-tit A I SANTA It Ml CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHIRN CO.
CHICAGO C DORTHNKSTERN TRANSF. CO.
CHICAGO. Him.. 31. PAUL I PACIFIC R
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND t PACIFIC RB CO
COLORADO C SOUTIIFRR PN» CO.
DEHfER t RIO FRANCE WESTERN RB "'O.
DULUTII. (IISSADE t [RCN RANGE RHI CO.
DULOTII, *I«NIPEG t. PACIFIC KMT
FORT VOHTII I DtNVEl RUI CO.
KANSAS CITT SOUTHERN R«1 CO.
niSSOUBI-KAIISAS'TEXAS IB CO.
HISSOUR1 PACIFIC RR CO.
NOllTUMRSTeUII PACIFIC R> CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RUT CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWKSTIRN RVT CO.
500 LINK RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS 8EXICAN RUT CO.
TCLEDO, PEORII I HESTEHN IR CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON C SOUTUIIH HI
BELT RR CO. OP CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT CR CO.
TERRIHAL RR ASSI. OP ST. LOUIS
UNION RR CO.
TOUieSTOHl t SOUTHERN RHI CO.
656.
0.
0.
161.
0.
0.
492.
0.
3115.
0.
164.
16
-------
                                    Table J-9 (Option  2)

                  OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE  COST SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
                                   (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
BEFOtf TAI
NOISE SOUICE
LOAD CELL
RAILROAD RETARDERS TEST SITES SK1TCUBRS
BALTIMORE 1 OHIO RR CO.
EANGOR C AROOSTCOK RR CO.
CESS EB ER t LAKE ERIE RR CO.
BOSTON C HIINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CENTRAL VERMONT RNI CO.
CHESAPEAKE C OHIO RUT CO.
CHICAGO C ILLINOIS MIDLAND RHI CO.
CCJKRAIL
DELAWARE C HUDSON RNY CO.
DETROIT £ TOLEDO SHORELINE f.E CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO t IPONTON U CO.
ELGIN, JULIET C EASTERN BUT CO.
GRAND TRUNK VESTEBH RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
NORFOLK 6 UESTERN BUI CO.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE ERIE RS CO.
RICIIHOND, FBEDJBICKSB'Jfia 6 POTOMAC R
HESTF.lt N HARILAKD RIT CO.
CLINCIIFIEtD RR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RUT CO.
GEORGIA HR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE « NASHVILLE IB CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN RI. SISTEH
RICH IS OK. TOPEKA t, SANTA FB RVI CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO t NORTHWESTERN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, NILN., SI. PAUL 6 PACIFIC R
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND t PACIFIC BR CO
COLORADO 6 SOUTHERN PHI CO.
DENVER t RIO GRANDE DESTEHN BR CO.
DULIITII, NISSABE t IRCN RANGE INI CO.
DULUTII, WINNIPEG C PACIFIC BUT
FOFT UORTII 1 DENVER BUT CO.
KANSAS C1TI SOUTHERN BUT CO.
niSSOUDI-KAHSAS-TEIAS RR CO.
nissoim PACIFIC RR co.
liORTIIH ESTER N PACIFIC BR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO BNI CO.
St. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN Bill CO.
£00 LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
1EXAS HEIICAR I MI CO.
TOLEDO. PEORIA t NESTERI RR CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
UESTEM PACIFIC CR CO.
ALTON C SOUTHERN RR
PELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIAN* HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TEtNIHAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION BR CO.
lOUNGSTOk'N t SOUTHERN RUT CO.
820.
0.
0.
164.
0.
0.
656.
0.
3771.
0.
164.
164.
164.
0.
0.
164.
0.
820.
0.
164.
164.
0.
0.
0.
492.
492.
326.
984.
492.
1148.
164.
328.
164.
0.
164.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
J2U.
0.
164.
164.
0.
984.
0.
0.
492.
0.
164.
164.
32C.
164.
1(4.
U4.
0.
0.
124.
124.
0.
0.
1367.
0.
1740.
124.
0.
0.
249.
124.
1 24.
124.
249.
870.
124.
0.
0.
124.
124.
0.
870.
249.
622.
249.
622.
1616.
870.
1740.
622.
0.
124.
124.
0.
124.
249.
124.
497.
0.
124.
U.
249.
18d%,
U.
124.
373.
124.
0.
0.
124.
124.
0.
0.
3753.
93.
0.
1760.
4t>.
46.
2965.
185.
58142.
1158.
0.
602.
2502.
2965.
46.
463.
649.
10285.
2177.
463.
0.
417.
417.
232.
5374.
4957.
5189.
6393.
4401.
17420.
4587.
6532.
4957.
417.
1297.
834.
0.
185.
3058.
1622.
11119.
324.
3104.
2316.
1529.
17790.
0.
0.
7876.
324.
695.
1622.
3567.
2085.
4216.
0.
AFTER TAX
NOISE SOURCE
LOAD CELL
TOTAL FETARPF.RS TEST SITES SWITCHERS
4572.
93.
124.
2049.
46.
46.
4988.
185.
63654.
1283.
164.
766.
2914.
3089.
171.
752.
897.
11975.
2302.
627.
164.
541.
541.
232.
6736.
5698.
6138.
7626.
5515.
20183.
5621.
8601.
5743.
417.
1585.
958.
0.
310.
3306.
1146.
11944.
324.
1.192.
24X0.
17T7.
20639.
0.
124.
8741.
449.
855.
1785.
4020.
2373.
4380.
164.
443.
0.
0.
89.
0.
0.
354.
0.
2036.
0.
89.
89.
89.
0.
0.
89.
0.
443.
0.
89.
89.
0.
0.
0.
266.
266.
177.
531.
266.
620.
89.
177.
89.
0.
89.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
177.
0.
A9.
89.
8.
531.
u.
0.
266.
0.
89.
89.
177.
89.
89.
89.
0.
a.
67.
67.
0.
0.
738.
0.
940.
67.
0.
0.
134.
67.
67.
67.
134.
470.
67.
0.
0.
67.
67.
0.
470.
134.
336.
134.
336.
873.
470.
940.
336.
a.
67.
67.
0.
67.
134.
67.
268.
0.
67.
0.
13*.
1007.
0.
67.
201.
67.
0.
0.
67.
67.
0.
0.
2026.
50.
0.
951.
25.
25.
1601.
100.
31397.
625.
0.
325.
1351.
1601.
25.
250.
350.
5554.
1176.
250.
0.
225.
225.
US.
2902.
2677.
2802.
3452.
2J77.
9407.
2477.
3527.
2677.
225.
700.
450.
0.
100.
1651.
876.
6004.
175.
1676.
1251.
826.
9607.
0.
0.
4253.
175.
375.
876.
1926.
1126.
2277.
0.
TOTAL
2469.
SO.
67.
1106.
25.
25.
2694.
100.
34373.
693.
89.
*14.
157«.
1668.
92.
406.

6466.
124).
339.
89.
292.
292.
125.
1638.
307».
3315.
1118.

10a99!
3035.

3101*
225.
BSt>.
517.
0.
167.
1785.
943.
6450.
175
1832.
1339.
960.
11145.

61*
1720*
24J.
164)
96 ».
2171.
1281.
2365.

10IAI
                               15249.
                                               213157.
                                                        245808.
                                                                  8234.
                                                                           9397.
                                                                                   115105.
                                                                                           "2736.
                                              J-22

-------
                                       Table J-10  (Option 1)


                         OUT OF  SERVICE  COST  SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
                                      (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                                             BEFORE TAX
                                                                                          TAB
                                            NOISE SOUSCE
                                                                                 NOISE SOUICI
RAILROAD
                               RETABDERS
                                         LOAD CELL
                                        TEST SUES
                                                   SHITCHEIS
                                                              TOTAL
                                                                       RSTABDERS
 LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
                                                                                          SNITCHEBS
                                                                                                      TOTAL
BALTIMORE T- OHIO RB CO.
PAMGOR C ABOOSTOOK BB CO.
BESSEHEI ( LAKE ERIE RB CO.
BOSTOH C HAINE COBP.
CANADIAN PACIIJC (IN NAINE)
CENTRAL VERMONT BUI CO.
CHESAPEAKE t OHIO RHI CO.
CHICAGO 6 ILLINOIS HIDLAND BIT CO.
CONRAIL
DELAWARE C HUDSON RHI CO.
DETROIT C TCLEDO SHORELINE BR CO.
DETROIT. TCLEDO t IROHTON RB CO.
ELGIN. JOLIET t 1ASTIRN BHI CO.
GIAND TIIURK WESTERN Bt CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
UNO ISLABD RB CO.
MAINE CENTRAL M CO.
•orroi.it c WESTERN RWI co.
PITTSBURGH C LAKE IS IE BB CO.
RICHMOND. FBEDERlCKSBURd C POTOMAC B
WESTERN MARYLAND BVT CO.
CLIICHFIELO BR CO.
fLORIDA EAST COAST FBI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF BB CO.
LOUISVILLE » NASHVILLE BB CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RK CO.
SOUTHERN BT. SYSTEM
A TOO! SOU, TOPEBA C SANTA FE SWI 10.
BURLINGTON NOBTHERR CO.
CHICAGO C NOBTWHISTrRH TtANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HIIW., ST. PAUL t, PACIFIC E
CHICAGO. ROCK ISI.ARC E PACIFIC BB CC
COLORADO 6 SOUTHERN BWI CO.
DENVEB t BIO CBAIIPE WRSTZBB RR CO.
OULUTH, HISSABS 1 IRON BANGE BWI CO.
DULIITH, WINNIPEG t PACIFIC BNI
FOHT WORTH C DENVER RWI CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RHI CO.
N1SSOURI-KANSAS-TEIAS RR CO.
MISSOURI fACIIJC RR CO.
NOIITIIHESTEBN PACIFIC BR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO BNI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOOTIIUESTIRN RHT CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN BWT CO.
TOLEDO, PEOftlA t WESTERN BR CO.
UBION PACIFIC BR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC Bl CO.
ALTOI 6 SOUTH CBN RB
BELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
1C DIANA HARBOR BELT Bl CO.
TERHINAL BB ASSR. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION BB CO.
YOUNGSTOWB C SOUTHERN RWI CO.
388.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
291.
0.
1843.
0.
97.
97.
97.
0.
0.
97.
0.
388.
0.
97.
97.
0.
0.
0.
194.
194.
194.
485.
194.
582.
97.
194.
97.
0.
97.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
194.
0.
97.
97.
0.
485.
0.
0.
194.
0.
S7.
97.
194.
97.
97.
97.

»
f
,

^
B
,
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.
0.
0.
0.
0.
176.
6.
0.
84.
3.
3.
140.
a.
2744.
S3.
0.
28.
118.
140.
3.
22.
31.
484.
104.
22.
0.
20.
20.
11.
255.
235.
246.
J02.
207.
823.
216.
308.
232.
20.
62.
39.
0.
a.
143.
76.
526.
14.
146.
109.
73.
B40.
0.
0.
372.
17.
34.
76.

9a'.
199.
0.
564.
6.
0.
181.
3.
3.
431.
8.
• 587.
S3.
97.
125.
215.
140.
3.
119.
31.
672.
104.
119.
97.
20.
20.
11.
449.
429.
440.
787.
401.
1405.
313.
502.
329.
20.
159.
39
0.
8.
143.
76.
720.
14.
243.
206.
73.
1325.
0.
0.
566.
17.
131.
173.

m'.
29«.
97.
210.
0.
0.
52.
0.
0.
157.
0.
J95.
0.
52.
52.
52.
0.
0.
52.
0.
210.
0.
52.
52.
0.
0.
0.
105.
105.
105.
262.
105.
314.
52.
105.
52.
0.
52.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
105.
0.
52.
52.
0,
262.
0.
0.
105.
0.
52.
52.
105.
52.
52.
52.
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.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
95.
3.
0.
45.
2.
2.
76.
5.
1482.
29.
0.
15.
64.
7t.
2.
•2.
17.
262.
56.
12.
0.
11.
11.
6.
13B.
127.
133.
163.
112.
44$.
111.
166.
125.
11.
33.
21.
0.
5.
77.
41.
284.
a.
79.
SS.
39.
454.
0.
0.
201.
9.
10.
41.
91.
S3.
«07.
0.
305.
3.
0.
98.
2.
2.
233.
5.
2477.
29.
52.
67.
116.
76.
2.
64.
17.
471.
56.
f-t.
52.
11.
11.
t.
242.
232.
238.
425.
217.
759.
169.
271.
178.
11.
86.
21.
0.
5.
77.
41.
389.
8.
131.
111.
39.
715.
0.
0.
306.
9.
71.
93.
195.
105.
160.
52.
TOTAL
                                   7663.
                                                      100(3.
                                                                17726.
                                                                           4138.
                                                                                              5434.
                                                  J-23

-------
                                   Table J-10  (Option  2)

                      OUT OF SERVICE COST SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
                                  (DOLLARS IN  THOUSANDS)
                                         IBIOBI TAX
                                        NOISE SOUECE
    AMKI TAX

NOISE SOURCE
IAILROAD R>
BALTIMORE t OHIO IP CO.
IARGOR 6 AIOOSTOOK II CO.
BESSEMER ( LAKE ERIE RI CO.
FCISTOH 1 MAIN* COIP.
CANADIAN PACIMC (IN MAINE)
CENTRAL IEP.IONT 1*1 CO.
CHISAPEAKE t OHIO INI CO.
CHICAGO C ILLINOIS H1CLAND INI CO.
CONCAIL
DELANARE t HUDSON RHt CO.
DE1ROIT t TOLEDO SHORELINE SR CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO t I RON TON II CO.
ILGIN, JOLIET 6 EASTERN INI CO.
CRAND TRUNK WESTERN RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
IONG ISLAND KB CO.
MAINE CENTRAL BR CO.
NORFOLK t NESTERN RNI CO.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE ERIE IN CO.
RICHHOID, FREOIRICKSBURG t POTOSAC R
«ESTERH HAKIAND 1.1 CO.
CLINCDFIELD RI CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RNI CO.
GEORGIA IR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GUIF RR CO.
LOOISVILLF t NASilFIlLE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE II CO.
SOUTIIEEIt IT. SISTPH
ATCHISCN, TOPEFA t SANTA FE INI CO.
BURLINGTON NOI1UERN CO.
CHICAGO t NORTHIKSTERN TIANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, BUN., ST. PAUL - PACIFIC I
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND C PACIIIC II CO
COLORADO K SOUTHERN RUI CO.
DENVER B RIO OPANCE HBSTERN »l CO.
DOLIITH, B1S3ABI 1 IRON RANGE INI CO.
BULUTH. HINNIPFO G PACIFIC INI
FONT NORTH t DENVER MI CO.
IANSAS CITI SOUTHERN RNI CO.
EISSOURl-KANSAS-TEXAS RR CO.
HlSSOUftl PACIFIC RR CO.
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC Bl CO.
ST. LOtllS-SAH FRANCISCO INI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOU* UK r STEM RUI CO.
SCO IINB II CO.
SOUTHED! PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS NEXICAI INT CO.
TOLEDO, PtOMA t BESTBIN 11 CO.
UNION PACIFIC II CO.
NISTIRN PACIFIC *R CO.
ALTON C SOOTH Ml II
EELT II CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT Bl CO.
TEFMNAL RI ISSN. Ol ST. LOUS
UNION II CO.
IOUNCSTONN f. SOUTHERN PHI CO.
LOAI
HARDENS TEST
415.
0.
0.
97.
0.
0.
388.
0.
2231.
0.
97.
97.
97.
0.
0.
97.
0.
485.
0.
97.
97.
0.
0.
0.
291.
291.
194.
582.
29'.
£79.
97.
194.
97.
0.
97.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
194.
0.
91.
91.
0.
582.
8*.
0.
291.
0.
91.
97.
194.
97.
91.
97.
D CELL
SITES
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.
"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
SWITCHERS TO
227.
6.
0.
106.
3.
1791
1 1.
3514.
7 A
* V»
0.
36.
151.
179.
•
28.
39.
622.
132.
28.
•
25.
•t e
i 3*
325!
300. .
314.
386.
266.
1053.
277.
395.
300.
25.
78.
SO.
0.
1 1*

a»
672!
t A
£ V.
92.
1075.
0.
0.
*76.
20.
42.
98.
216.
126.
255.
0.
HAL RETI
712.
6.
0.
203.
3.
567'.
11.
5745.
70 .
97'.
133.
248.
179.
3*
125!
39.
1107.
132.
125.
97.

25.
1«
616.
591.
508.
968.
557.
1732.
589*.
397.
25.
175.
50.
C.
11 .
185.
98.
8I>«.
28* •
237!
92.

.
0.
767.
20.
139.
195.
223".
352.
97.
LOAI
kIDEBS TEST
262.
0»
0*
52.
0*
0*
210.
A
1205!
0.
52.
52.
52.
0.
52!
0.
262.
0.
52.
52.

0.
0.
157.
157.
105.
1571
367.
52.
105.
52.
0.
52.
0.
.
0.
0.
1 0.
105.
52.
52.
0.
314.
0_

.
157.
0.
52.
52.
105.
52.
52.
52.
» CELL
SITES SH
0.
•
0.
o!
0*
0.
0.
•
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
a.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
e.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
ITCHEIS
122.
0.
57.
2.
2.
97.
6.
1896.
38.
0.
20.
82.
97.
2.
15.
21.
336.
71.
15.
0.

14.
8.
175.
162.
169.
209.
569 !
ISO.
213.
162.
14.
42.
27.
0.
6.
100.
53.
363.
II.
101.
76.
SO.
581.
0.
0.
257.
11.
23.
S3.
116.
66.
136.
0.
TOTAL
384.
o.
110.
2!
306.
4.
3102.
38.
52.
72.
134.
97.
2.
67.
21.
598.
71.
67.
52.
14.
14.
H.
333.
319.
274.
523.
301.
935.
202.
311.
214.
14.
95.
27.
0,
6.
100.
53.
468.
It.
154.
128.
50.*
695.
»
4,
114.
11.
75.
105.
221.
120.
190.
52.
IOTA I
                                 9021.
                                                  12863.
                                                           21904.
                                                                     4871.
                                               J-24

-------
                                   Table J-ll  (Option 1)

                       DEPRECIATION EXPENSE SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
                                  (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
BtrORI TAI
IOISE SOUICE
LOAD CELL
RAILROAD RETARDERS TEST SITES SVITCUERS
BALTIMORE £ OHIO RR CO.
RARGOR C AHOOSTOOK II CO.
a2S3EDBR 1 LAKE Mil RR CO.
30STOH C MAINS CORP.
cmADitH pacific .
157.
151.
0.
157.
157.
157.
629.
d.
157.
0.
157.
2160.
0.
157.
472.
157.
0.
0.
157.
157.
0.
0.
431.
14.
0.
205.
7.
7.
J42.
21.
6702.
130.
0.
66.
2B7.
342.
7.
55.
75.
1183.
253.
55.
a.
48.
46.
27.
622.
b/4.
602.
SJ9.
SOfc.
2011.
527.
752.
568.
48.
150.
96.
0.
21.
349.
185.
1i»t.
14.
JS6.
267.
178.
2052.
0.
0.
910.
11.
82.
185.
410.
239.
486.
0.
AVTK* tAE
NOISE SOUICE
LOAD CSLl
TOTAL RITARPERS TEST SITES SBITC.IZRS
1127.
14.
157.
537.
7
7
2437.
21.
12211.
287.
174.
242.
619.
499.
164.
386.
233.
2981.
410.
229.
174.
205.
205.
27.
2072.
1080.
1S79.
1923.
1641.
5108.
1802.
3303.
1528.
48.
482.
253.
0.
174.
506.
342.
2263.
34.
687.
441.
33S.
5281.
0.
157.
1730.
198.
256.
359.
916.
371.
660.
174. •
320.
0.
0.
80.
0.
0.
240.
0.
1521.
0.
80.
80.
80.
0.
0.
80.
0.
320.
0.
80.
60.
0.
0.
0.
160.
160.
160
400
160
480.
60.
169.
60.
0.
60.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
160.
a.
60.
80.
0.
400.
0.
0.
160.
0.
80.
80.
160.
80.
60.
80.
0.
0.
72.
72.
0.
0.
724.
0.
1013.
72.
0.
0.
72.
7,2.
72.
72.
72.
507.
72.
0.
0.
72.
72.
0.
507.
72.
289.
145.
362.
941.
507.
1013.
362.
a.
72.
72.
0.
12.
13.
li.
2H9.
a.
72.
a.
72.
108«.
0.
72.
217.
7J'
0.
0.
72.
72.
0.
0.
198.
«
6.
0.
94.
3.
3.
157.
S.
3083.
60.
0.
31.
132.
157.
3.
25.
35.
544.
116.
25.
0.
22.
22.
13.
2«6.
264.
277.
340.
233.
92$.
242.
346.
261.
U.
69.
44.
«.
9.
160.
Hi.
591.
16.
164.
123.
82.
944.
0.
0.
418.
It, <
38,
. ,
189.
110.
223.
0.
TOTAL
518.
6.
72,
247.
3.
3.
1121.
9.
5617.
132.
80.
112.
JB5.
230.
76.
178.
107.
1371.
189.
105.
80.
94.
94.
13.
953.
497.
726.
885.
7S5.
2346.
, 829.
1519.
703.
22.
222.
116.
0.
82.
233.
157.
1041.
1*.
316.
203.
154.
2430.
0.
72.
796.
91.
118.
4JC C
- 165.
421.
: 263.
393.
10.
101AL
                               13749.
                                        20924.
                                                24576,
                                                         59251.
                                                                   «32S.
                                                                           9625.
                                                                                    11306.
                                                                                            27255.
                                              J-25

-------
                                     Table  J-ll  (Option 2}

                        DEPRECIATION EXPENSE SUMMARY (1979 DOLLARS)
                                    (DOLLARS  IN THOUSANDS)
BEFOtE TAX
NOISE SOURCE
LOAD CELL
rilLFOAD BRTABOBRS TEST SITES SHIT CHE US
BALTinOtR B OHIO RR CO.
BAHGOR C AROOSTOOK BR CO.
EESSEHER C LIKE ERIE R« CO.
finSTCN C RAIMII CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (I* MAINE)
CENTRAL VERNORT RHT CO.
CUISAPEAKE C OHIO Bill CO.
CHICAGO C III.II10JS H1DLAND RHT CO.
CORP. AIL
PELANABE C MUDS Of RUT CO.
IIBTKOIT t TOLEDO SHORELINE B* co.
DETROIT, TOLEDO C IRORTOR RR CO.
ELGIN. JOLIET 1. EASTERN RNI CO.
GKAHD TRUNK IESTERR RR CO.
I III NO: S TERNIHAL RR CO.
LONG ISLARD RR CO.
MAINE CEHTRAL II B CO.
NORFOLK C NESTL'RR BUI CO.
PITTSBURGH C LAKE ERIE RR CO.
RICHMOND, FREDfRICKSPORC C POTOftAC R
VESTERH HA DTI ADD KVI CO.
CLIHCHFIELD RR CO.
FLORIDA BAST COAST RUT CO.
GEORGIA UR CO.
ILLINOIS CERTRAL GULP BB CO.
LOUISVILLE C RASHriLl! IK CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN BY. SISTBH
ATCH1SON, TOPEKA t SANTA FE Kill CO.
HURLIRGTOR NORTH IRN CO.
CHICAGO f. HOB1IIBESTEBH TBANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HILV., ST. PAUL 1 PACIFIC I
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLARD ( PACIFIC l« CO
COLORADO C SOUTIIIRR 8V T CO.
DRRVER t RIO CRANCE RISTCRB IB CO.
C1LVTH. NISSAB1 t IROB BARGE RHT CO.
DBLUTU, HINRIFEQ C PACIFIC RUT
I'OIIT NOHTH f DRIVER RUt CO.
KARSAS CITT SOUTRBBR Ittl CO.
HISSOUR1-KANSAS-TEXAS II CO.
HISSODRI PACIFIC RB CO.
KONTHHEiiTRRH PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RNI CO,
ST. LOUIS SOUTHMESTFRN RH> ret.
SOO LIME RR fO.
SOUTHERH PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAR RHT CO.
101EDO, FEORIA C WISTEBI BR CO.
UNION PAClriC BB CO.
RISTERN PACIFIC BR CO.
AITOB C SOUTHERN RR
BELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
IUDIAII1 IIARROI BELT II CO.
TEIHINU PR AS5I. Of SI. LOUIS
UN 101 IB CO.
IOUKOSTOKC t SOUTHERN RUT CO.
870.
0.
0.
174.
0.
0.
696.
0.
4003.
0.
174.
174.
174.
0.
0.
174.
0.
870.
0.
174.
174.
0.
0.
0.
522.
522.
34S.
1044.
522.
1218.
174.
348.
174.
0,
174.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
348.
0.
174.
174.
0.
1044.
0.
0.
522.
0.
174.
174.
348.
174.
174.
174.
0.
0.
157.
157.
0.
0.
1731.
0.
2203.
157.
0.
0.
315.
157.
157.
157.
315.
1101.
157.
0.
0.
157.
157.
0.
1101.
315.
787.
315.
787.
2045.
1101.
2203.
787.
0.
157.
157.
0.
157.
315.
157.
629.
0.
157.
0.
315.
2360.
0.
157.
472.
157.
0.
0.
157.
157.
0.
0.
554.
14.
0.
21.0,
7.
7.
438.
27.
8562.
171.
0.
B9.
319.
438.
7.
68.
96.
15*8.
121.
68.
0.
62.
62.
34.
793.
732.
766.
944.
650.
2571.
677.
964.
732.
62.
191.
123.
0.
27.
451.
239.
1641.
48.
458.
342.
226.
2o2C,
0.
0.
1163.
48.
103.
239.
527.
308.
622.
0.
AF1ER TAX
HCISB SOURCE

LOAD CELL
TOTAL RETftRDERS TEST SITES SWITCHERS
1424.
14.
157.
591.
7.
7.
2864.
27.
14788.
32B.
17*.
263.
858.
595.
164.
400.
410.
3490.
479.
242.
174.
219.
219.
34.
2417.
1569.
1901.
2303.
1950.
SR.1"i.
1952.
3515.
1«92.
64.
523.
280.
0.
18ft.
»66.
397.
2t 19.
48,
110.
51C,
540.
6030.
0.
157.
2157.
20S.
277.
413.
1032.
639.
796.
174.
400.
0.
0.
80.
0.
0.
320.
0.
1841.
0.
80.
80.
80.
0.
0.
80.
0.
400.
0.
eo.
80.
0.
0.
0.
240.
240.
160
480
240
560
80,
160.
RO.
0.
80.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
160.
0.
DO.
80.
0.
480,
0.
0.
240.
0.
80.
80.
HO.
ao.
ao.
80.
0.
0.
72.
72.
0.
0.
796.
A.
1013.
72.
0.
t.
145.
72.
72.
72.
145.
507.
72.
0.
0.
72.
12.
0.
507.
145.
362.
145.
362.
941.
507.
1013.
362.
0.
72.
72.
0.
72.
145.
72.
2U9.
0.
72.
0.
145.
1086.
0.
72.
217.
72.
0.
0.
72.
72.
0.
0.
255.
6.
0.
120.
3.
1.
201.
13.
3948.
79.
0.
41.
171).
201.
3.
31.
44.
698.
148.
31.
0.
28.
28.
16.
365.
337.
352.
434.
299.
1183.
311.
444.
337.
28.
If 8.
57.
0.
13.
208.
110.
755.
22.
211.
157.
104.
120U.
0.
0.
535.
n.
47.
110.
242.
142.
286.
0.

TOTAL
655.
6.
72.
272.
3.
3.
1310.
13.
6802.
151.
80.
Ml.
39!..
274.
76.
184.
lay.
UOS.
220.
tl^ .
ao.
101.
101.
U.
1112.
722.
074.
1059.
901.
iftOli.
•98.
1617.
778.
20.
241.
12«J.
0.
85.
»52.
182.
1205,
22.
363.
237.
24». *
2774.
0.
72.
992.
94.
'27. ;
190.
47S.
294
366.
•0.
10TAL
                               16186.
                                        22025.
                                                 31464.
                                                          69675.
                                                                   7446.
                                                                            10132.
                                                                                     14473.
                                                                                             32051.
                                              J-26

-------
                           Table J-12 (Option 1)

              INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT SUMMARY  (1979 DOLLARS)
          (DOLLARS  IN THOUSANDS)  REPLACEMENT ASSUMPTION APPLIED
                                                     HOI SB SOURCE
RAILROAD III HI
EALTIflORE 6 OHIO IB CO.
BlMGOli 6 AROOSTOOE IB CO.
BBSSIBER E LAKl ERIE IB CO.
BOSTOi t MAINE CORP.
email! PACIFIC UN HAIREI
CENTRAL VERIWNT RUT CO.
CIIZSAPIAKE I 08IO BUI CO.
CHICAGO C ILLIIOIS MIDLAND RVI CO.
COIIRAIL
DEL tUt BE t RUDSOM BUI CO.
DB1ROIT t TOLEDO SHORELINE BB CD.
DETROIT. TOLEDO C IBOHTOH BB CO.
ELGIN. JOUBT t IASTERN BUT CO.
GRAND TRUIK HESTER* RR CO.
ILLINOIS TRRHINAL RR CO.
1C KG ISLAND RR CO.
DUNE CERTRAL RR CO.
no iron t vEsmn BUI co.
PI1TSBURGH t UKL ERIE IB CO.
PICHNOND, riEDIRICKSBURG t POTONAC BE CO.
HESTER* RARYLAND SMI CO.
CLINCHFIRLD BR CO.
FLORIDA ERST COAST BUI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CEITRAL GULF RR CO.
LOUISTILLE 1 NASNUUE RB CO.
SEAllOAkD COAST LIRE BR CO.
SOUTHER* RI. SISTEH
ATCHISON, T07EKA C SANT» FB RVI CO.
BURLINGTO* NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO e RORTHVESTEPR TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO. HIV.. ST. PAUL I PACIFIC 1R CO.
CHICAGO. IOCK ISLAND t PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO C SOUTHERN BUI CO.
DENVER C F.IO GRANDE HESTER! RR CO.
DULIIYII, N1SSABE 1 IRON RANGE tVI CO.
DUU1TH. VlllIPEa t PACIFIC Hit
FORT HORTH t DERVER RKI CO.
XARSAS CItt SOUTHERN R«I CO.
H1SSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS SB CO.
RISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
NORTHHESTERN PACIFIC RB CO.
ST. LOUIS- S AH FRANCISCO ONI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOIITIIVISTIRN RHI CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS HEXICAN RUI CO.
TOLEDO, PFORIA « WESTERN HI CO.
UHIOR PACIFIC RR CO.
HESTSRN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON C SOUTHERN RR
BELT RR co. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HftRDOB BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL KR ASS!. 01 ST. LOUIS
UUIOII RR CO.
TOnWGSTORH ( SOUTHER! RHI CO.
RRTARUIES
ISt.
0.
0.
39.
0.
0.
117.
0.
740.
0.
39.
39.
39.
0.
0.
39.
«.
156.
0.
39.
39.
0.
t.
0.
78.
78.
78.
19S.
78.
231.
39.
78.
39.
0.
39.
0.
0.
0.
0.
8.
78.
8.
39.
39.
8.
195.
0.
8.
78.
0.
39.
39.
78.
39.
39.
39.
LOAD CEIL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
18.
18.
0.
0.
183.
0.
256.
18.
0.
a.

-------
                Table J-12  (Option  2)

    INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT SUMMARY  (1979  DOLLARS)
(DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS) REPLACEMENT  ASSUMPTION APPLIED
                                        •01 SB SOUSCt

RAILROAD NAHE
EALTIDORE B OHIO RR CO.
BANGOR B IBOOS10CK Rl CO.
PCSSEIIER ( LIKE ERIE RR CO.
BOSTON B RAINE COIF.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CENTRAL VERMONT RNI CO.
CHESIPIAKE t OHIO RNt CO.
CHICAGO I ILLINOIS HIDIAID INI CO.
COHRAIL
DELAWARE I HUDSON INI CO.
DETROIT £ TOLEDO SHORELINE IR C3.
DETROIT, TOLEDO G IIONTON II CO.
ELGIN, JOUET G CISTERN INI CO.
GRAND TRUNK NESTEPN RR CO.
ILLINOIS TE81IRAL II CO.
LONG ISLAND Rl CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
RORFOLK C NESTERN RNI CO.
PITTSBURGH t LAKE EUR Rl CO.
IICIIWND, FREDIRICKSBURG ( POTORAC 8* CO,
NESTERN MANTLAND INI CO.
CLINCHFIPLD II CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST iNI CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GUIF II CO.
LOUISVILLE £ NASHVILLE Bl CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE II CO.
SOUTHERN Rl. SISTEH
ATCHISON, TOPERA t SANTA PI RHI CO.
EURLINGTON NORTHERR CO.
CHICAGO 6 NOITHNISTIRN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, MIL*., ST. PAUL t PACIFIC BR CO.
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLARD t PACIFIC It CO.
COLORADO C SOUTHIRN RNI CO.
DENVEP t NIO GRANDE NRSTNBN Bl CO.
DULUTH. HISSABE G IRON BARGE INI CO.
DULUTII. NINNIPEG 6 PACIFIC INI
fOFT NORTH t DENVEI RNI CO,
KARStS CITI SOOTHER > RNI CO.
HISSOUII-KANSAS-TEIAS II CO.
MISSOURI PICIIIC RR CO.
NORTHMISTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN riAICISCO INI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTUNgSTWN RNI CO.
SCO LINE II CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS NEIICAN INI CO.
TOLEDO, PBOIIA t IBSTBIN Bl CO.
UNION PACIFIC II CO.
NBSTEKN PACIFIC Kl CO.
ALTON £ SOUTHERN II
CELT Rl CO. 01 CHICAGO
INDIAMA HARBOR BELT IR CO.
TERHIHAL II ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
ON10I II CO.
lOOIOSTOHB C SOUTUEIN III CO.
IOTAL

RBTAIDEIS
195.
0.
0.
39.
0.
0.
156.
0.
196.
D.
39.
39.
39.
0.
0.
39.
0.
195.
0.
39.
39.
0.
0.
0.
117.
117.
78.
23«.
117.
273.
39.
78.
39.
0.
39.
.
s
,

t
78.
0.
39.
39.
0.
234.
0.
0.
117.
0.
39.
39.
78.
39.
39.
39.
3622.
LOAD CELL
TEST SITES
0.
0.
18.
18.
0.
0.
201.
0.
256.
18.
0.
0.
37.
18.
18.
18.
37.
128.
10.
0.
0.
18.
18.
0.
128.
37.
91.
37.
91.
238.
128.
256.
91.
0.
18.
18.
0.
18.
37.
IB.
73.
0.
IB.
0.
37.
2>4.
0.
18.
55.
18.
0.
0.
18.
IB.
0.
0.
2561.

SHITCHEBS
64.
2.
0.
30.
1.
1.
51.
3.
994.
20.
0.
10.
43.
51.
1.
8.
11.
176.
37.
8.
0.
7.
7.
ij^
92.
85.
89.
109.
75.
298.
78.
112.
85.
7.
22.
14.
0.
3,
52.
28.
190.
6.
53.
40.
26.
304.
0.
0.
135.
6.
12.
28.
61.
36.
72.
0.
3644.

TOTAL
259.
2.
18.
87.
1.
1.
408.
3.
2146.
38.
39.
49.
118.
69.
19.
65.
48.
499.
56.
47.
39.
25.
25.
4.
337.
238.
258.
380.
284.
608.
245.
446.
215.
7.
79.
33.
0.
21.
89.
46.
341.
6.
110.
79.
63.
812.
0.
11.
306.
24.
51.
67.
157.
93.
1 1* •
39.
9827.
                          J-28

-------
                                     Table J-13  (Option  1)


                   SUMMARY  OF NET PRESENT  VALUE  OF ABATEMENT CASH FLOW

                                     (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

                                                          HOI SB SOUgCE
                                                 Rff Or INCR2HEIITAL ABATEMENT CASH FiOH
RIILROAD NJkHE
BILTIHORE 6 OHIO RR CO.
BANOOB e AR003TOOK RB CO.
RESSERER t LAKE ERIE RR CD.
BOSTON 6 MAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CENTRAL VERMONT BUI CO.
CHISAPItKE C OHIO RHI CO.
CHICAGO C ILLINOIS MIDLAND RHI CO.
COKRAIL
PELAHARE t HUDSON RHI CO.
DEI80IT C TOLEDO SHORELINE BB CO.
D3TROIT. TOLEDO C IRCNTON RR CO.
FLCIH, JOLIET C EASTERN RHI CO.
GRAND TRUNK NESTERN BR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL BR CO.
NORFOLK (• HESTIRN RHI CO.
PITTSBORUH 1 LAKE ERIE BB CO.
RICHMOND. FRE3ERICKSBURG 6 POTOMAC RR CO.
HESTSRN MARYLAND It VI CO.
CtlUCIiriELD R« CO.
FLORIDA EA3T COAST BHI CO.
G20RGIA RR CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL OULF RR CO.
LOOISIILLE ( IASHIIUE RB CO.
SEABOARD COAST LIRE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PI. SISTER
ATCftlSON, TOPEKA t SANTA FE RHI CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO C NOBtUHESTIRN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HUH., ST. PAUL t PACIFIC RR CO.
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND C PACIFIC RB CO.
COLORADO t SOUTHERN RHI CO.
DENVER £ RIO QBAHDE HESTER* RR CO.
DULOTM, HISSAII t IRON RAN6R BHI CO.
DULUTH. HINNIPEG t PACIFIC RHI
PORT HOITII T. OIHVEIt MI CO.
KANSAS CITI SOOTHERN RHI CO.
RISSOURI-KANSAS-1EIAS RR CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
RORTHHESTER* PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. IOUIS-3AN FRANCISCO RHI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTONESTtRN KHI CO.
SCO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS HEIICAN RHI CO.
TOLRDO, PEORIA t IESTEIN RR CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
IESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON t SOUTHERN RR
BELT Rt CO. OF CHICIOO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
ONION BR CO.
IOONGSTOVN t SCUTIIERN MI CO.
SETARDEFS
1372.
0.
0.
343.
0.
0.
1029.
0.
C519.
0.
343.
343.
343.
0.
0.
343.

13* •
w
343.
343.
0.
0.
0.
686.
636.
686.
1716.
686.
2059.
343.
686.
343.
0.
343

0.
0.
0.
0.
686.
0.
343.
343.
0.
1716.
0.
0.
686.
0.
34).
343.
686.
343.
343.
343.
LCTS
0.
0.
tie.
lie.
0.
0.
1176.
0.

lie!
0.
0.
118.
118.
118.
118.
118.
823.
118.
0.
0.
118.
118.
0.
823.
118.
470.
235.
588.
1529.
823.
1646.
588.
0.
118.
118.
0.
118.
118.
1 18.

118.'
U.
118.
1764.
0.
118.
353.
118.
0.
0.
118.
118.
0.
0.
SHHCHEHS
1338.
4.2.
0.
637.
21.
21.
1062.
£4.
20819.
404.
0.
212.
892.
1062.
21.
170.
234.
3675.
786.
170.
9.
149.
149.
85.
1933.
1784.
1869.
2294.
1572.
6246.
1636.
2337.
1763.
149.
467.
297.
0.
64.
1083.
574.
3994.
106.
1105.
829.
552.
6373.
0.
0.
2825.
127.
255.
574.
1275.
744.
1508.
0.
TOTAL
2711.
42.
118.
1098.
21.
21.
3267.
64.
28984.
521.
343.
556.
1353.
1180.
139.
£31.
351.
5871.
904.
513,
343.
266.
266.
85.
3443.
2588.
3026.
4245.
2846.
9833.
2802.
4669.
2694.
1)9.
928.
415.
0.
101.
1201.
691.
5150.
106.
1S6S.
1172.
670.
9852.
0.
118.
J864.
245.
598.
917.
2078.
1204.
1851.
343.
NPV
OF CASN ILOWS
NUN ABATEMENT
-48930.*
-28757.*
84700.
-1431HO. *
-2277. •
R/A
-41052. *
4072.
M/A
-99359. *
132.
-74333.*
108003.
B/A
-8344.*
-1519625.*
-15799.*
540457.
-61832.*
51564.
-1224C. *
R/A
20560.
N/A
. -479944.*
-253035.*
-273846.*
253269.
-234948.*
-849756.*
-76297.*
-657404.*
-504332.*
-45008.*
77646.
70fc6.
61207.
-18911.*
-32829.*
B/A
453212.
R/A

, 24613K
101423.
-448023.*
«9S.
-5880. »
-738802.*
-322934.*
12402.
-6297.*
-22147.*
-39483.*
813t.
R/A
10TAL

» - ULUE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO ZERO
2710!.
             15639.
                         76351.
                                     119094.
                                                -5038171.
                                                J-29

-------
                                    Table J-13 (Option  2)

                  SUMMARY  OF NET PRESENT VALUE  OF ABATEMENT CASH FLOW
                                    (DOLLARS  IN THOUSANDS)
                                                          101 SB SOU KB
                                                 111 Or INCIEHENTAL ABATERENT CASH FtON
t;All.l>(ur> N*NE
BALTI80RE ( OHIO IB CO.
BANGOR t AROOSTOOK ft CO.
BESSEMER t LIKE ERIE Rl CO.
BOSTOI 6 HAINE COUP.
CANADIAN PACII1C (I* MAINE)
CENTRAL VBIIIM1 SHI CO.
CHESAPfAKF. 6 OHIO Kill CO.
CHICAGO e ILLINOIS MIDLAND BUI co.
CONIAIL
DELAWARE t BODSOM EvI CO.
PBTROIT t TOLEDO SHORELIHE BR CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6 IRONTON IB CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET t EASTERN UNI CO.
GRIND TRUNK VESTCRR RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERRIRAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND ft! CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
NORFOLK C VESTERN HI CO.
riTTSBURGH C LAKE EIII BU CO.
RICHMOND, riEDERICXSBUIG C POTOMAC ER CO.
VEST r UN NARILAID RVI CO.
CLINCHHELD RR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST RHt CO.
6EORUIA BB CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RB CO.
lOUISIIllE t RASHIIILE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN FT. SISTFH
ATCHISON, TOFEKA 1 SAITA FE RVI CO.
eURLIIGTON NORTHER! CO.
CHICAGO e NORTHVBSTFP* TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, NUB., ST. PAUL ( PACIFIC R» CO.
CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND ( PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO f. SOUTHERN RUT CO.
CEMtER I RIO GRANDE VESTERN RR CO.
DULUTH, HISSABE G IROk R1IGE RHI CO.
DULUTH, HHUIIPEO t PACIFIC RUT
FORT NORTH t DENVER RN I CO.
KANSAS CITI SOUTHERN RVI CO.
niSSOUII-KANSAS-TEXAS BB CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOBIS-SAN FRANCISCO RVI CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTNNESTERN BVI CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIIIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN R«( CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA C VESTEgN It CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC KR CO.
ALTON t SOUTHERN Rl
BEIT Rl CO. OF CHICAGO
INr.IAHA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
lEkHIHAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION BR CO.
TOUNQSTODN t SOUTHERN RKI CO.
IETAIDEIS
1716.
0.
0.
303.
0.
0.
1372.
0.
1891.
C.
3«3.
313.
313.
0.
0.
343.
0.
1716.
0.
313.
343.
0.
0.
0.
1029.
1079.
66b.
2 059.
1029.
2*02.
343.
686.
343.
0.
343.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
686.
0.
343.
343.
0.
2 Oil.
0.
0.
1029.
0.
341.
343.
686.
343.
343.
343.
LCTS
0.
0.
118.
118.
0.
0.
1293.
0.
646.
11H.
0.
0.
23S.
118.
118.
lie.
23$.
J2J.
m.
0.
0.
118.
11*.
0.
823.
235.
588.
235.
sea.
1529.
823.
1646.
588.
0.
118.
118.
0.
lid.
23S.
118.
• 70.
0.
118.
0.
t: n.
1/01.
0.
118.
353.
118.
0.
0.
118.
118.
0.
0.
SNUCUBRS
1721.
42.
U.
807.
21.
21.
1360.
85.
26661.
531.
n.
276.
1147.
1360.
21.
212.
2»7.
47»6.
998.
212.
0.
191.
191.
106.
2«64.
2273.
2379.
2932.
2018.
79C8.
2103.
2995.
2273.
191.
595.
362.
0.
85.
1402.
744.
5099.
«49.
1423.
1062.
701.
01SU.
0.
0.
3611.
149.
319.
744.
1636.
956.
1933.
0.
IOTAL
3436.
42.
118.
1268.
21.
21.
4025.
85.
36199.
649.
343.
619.
1725.
1477.
139.
(.73.
533.
7255.
1116.
556.
343.
309.
309.
106.
4317.
3538.
3653.
5225.
3035.
IV18.
3269.
5328.
3204.
191.
1056.
500.
0.
203.
1637.
861.
6255.
149.
1884.
1405.
S3*.
11960.
It.
118.
4994.
266.
662.
1087.
2440.
1417.
2276.
343.
•ri
OF CASH ILOHS
HITH ABATEMENT
-49656.*
-2875 7. •
84700.
-143350. »
-2277.*
N/A
-41810.*
4051.
N/A
-994«7. »
132.
-74397.*
107«-31.
R/A
-8344.*
-1519468.*
-159B1.*
539073.
-62044.*
51522.
-122*6.*
«/A
20S2J.
N/A
480B1B. *
-253964.*
-274474.*
252268.
-235737.*
-851841.*
-76764.*
-658063.*
-SOt 842. »
-45051.*
77518.
6981.
61207.
-18937.*
-33265.*
N/A
452107.
H/A
-12269.*
245898.
101157.
-450151. *
9J»5.
-soeo.t
-739932.*
-3229SS. *
12338.
-6467. *
-2^508.*
-39696.*
7711.
N/A
10TAL

» - VALUE LESS THAN OR EC UAL TO ZERO
                                             31909.
                                                          16462.
                                                                      97743.
                                                                                  146113.
                                                                                             -£057398.
                                               J-30

-------
                        Table J-14 (Option 1)
           RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
RAILROAD NAME
NET PRESENT 7ALOE
BESSBHKH S  LAKE  ERIE RR CO.
CHICAGO * ILLINOIS  MIDLAND RHY CO.
DETROIT S TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLI3T  S  EASTERN RWY CO.
NORFOLK 5 WESTERN RHY CO.
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG 6 POTOMAC RR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST  RWY CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
DENVER 5 RIO GBANEE WESTERN RS CO.
D.JLUTH, MISSABE  & IRON RANGE RHY co.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG &  PACIFIC RWY
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.
SOO LINE HR CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN  RWY CC.
ALTON & SODTHEEN RR
UNION HR CO.
         84700.00
          4072.13
           131.74
        108003
        540457
         51564
         20565
        253268
         77645
          7065.31
         61207.11
        453211
        246131
        101422
          9395
         12401
,06
.25
,32
,77
,62
,75
 56
 44
 94
 00
 82
          8135.89
                                J-31

-------
                        Table J-14  (Option 2)
           RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
EAILEOAD NAME
MET PRESENT VALUE
BESSEMER 6  LAKE  EEIE RE CO.
CHICAGO 6 ILLINOIS  MIDLAND RHY CO.
DETROIT 6 TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET  6  EASTERN RWY CO.
NORFOLK & WESTERN RWY CO.
RICHMOND, FREDIRICKSBURG & POTOMAC EE CO.
FLORIDA EAST CCA31  BKY CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
DENVER & RIO GFAtfDE WESTERN RR CO.
DOLUTH, niSSABE  t IFCN RANGE EHY CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG 5  PACIFIC RWY
MISSOURI PACIFIC SR CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN  RWY CO.
ALTON & SOUTHERN P.R
UNION RR CO.
         84700.00
          4050.89
           131.74
        107630
        539073
         51521
         20523
        252288
         77518
          6980
         61207
        452106
        245897
        101^56
          9395
50
19
83
28
19
25
84
11
87
75
62
00
         12338.09
          7711.01
                                J-32

-------
                         Table J-15 (Option 1)
       RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE OR ZERO NET PRESENT VALUE
RAILROAD NAME
NET PRESENT VALUE
BALTIMORE 5 OHIO EE CO.
BANGOR & AROOSTOCK EE CO.
BOSTCN & MAINE COEP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RWY CO.
DELAWARE e HUDSON RWY CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 8 IRONTON ER CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL ER CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL ER CO.
PITTSBURGH & LAK£ ESIE RR CO.
W3STERN MARYLAND RWY CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE S HASHVILL3 RS CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RWY CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN CO.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, MILW., ST. PAUL & PACIFIC RR CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO B SOUTHERN RWY CO.
FOJT WORTH & DENVER RWY CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RWY CO.
ST. LODIS-SAN FRANCISCO RWY CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA & WESTERN RR CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
BELT 3R CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OP ST. LOUIS
-48930.03
-28757. 3U
-143180.37
-2277. 24
-'41051.67
-99359.44
-74333.25
-8344.13
-1519625.00
-15799.37
-61831.80
-12246.35
-479943.56
-253034.62
-273846.44
-234946.12
-849755.50
-76296.50
-657404.31
-504332.25
-45008.47
-18915.26
-32829.21
-11950.25
-448023.44
-5879.60
-738802.37
-322933.75
-6296.70
-22146.77
-39483.46
                                  J-33

-------
                        Table J-15 (Option 2)
        RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE OR ZERO NET PRESENT VALUE
EAILBOAD NAME
MEI PRESENT VALUE
EALTIMCEE 6  OHIO  RR  CO.
BANGOE 6 AROOSTOOK  ER CO.
BOSTON S KAINE  CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC  (IN  MAINE)
CHESAPEAKE 5  OHIO P.HI CO.
DELAWARE £ HUDSON RWY CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO £ IRONTON  RR CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RE  CO.
LONG ISLAND  RR  CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR  CO.
PITTSBURGH &  LAKE EEIE RR  CO.
WEST2RN MARYLAND  RWY  CC.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL  GULF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE &  NASHVILL2 RR  CO.
SEABOARD COAST  LINE  BR CO.
ATCHISCN, TOPEKA  &  SANTA FE  RWY CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN  CO.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TEANSP.  CO.
CHICAGO, MILK., ST.  PAUL & PACIFIC RS CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND  6 PACIFIC  SR CO.
COLORADO & SOUTHERN  RH Y CO.
FORT WORTH 5  DENVER  RWY CO.
KANSAS CITY  SOUTHERN  RWY CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RWY  CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC  CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA  &  WESTERN RR  CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR  CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC P.R  CC.
3ELT RR CO.  OF  CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR  BELT  RR CO.
TERMINAL RS  ASSN. CI  ST. LOUIS
        -49655.52
        -28757.34
       -143350.31
         -2277.24
        -41809.77
        -99486.87
        -74397.00
         -8344.13
      -1519668.00
        -15980.69
        -62044.24
        -12246.35
       -480817.75
       -253983.94
       -274473.87
       -235737.37
       -851840.56
        -76763.87
       -658062.87
       -504842.12
        -45050.96
        -18936.50
        -33265.46
        -12268.91
       -450151.06
         -5879.60
       -739931.50
       -322955.00
         -6466.65
        -22507.91
        -39695.91
                                 J-34

-------
                        Table J-16  (Option 1)
                RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH .1 >= RATIO > 0


RAILROAD  NAME                                                    RATIO

DETROIT 6  TOLEDO SHORELINE EE  CO.                                0.01
DULUTH, HISSABE &  IECN  RANGE EHY  CO.                             0.08
                                 J-35

-------
                         Table J-16 (Option 2)
                 RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH .1 >= RATIO > 0
RAILROAD  NAME                                                    RATIO

DETROIT &  TOLEDO SHORELINE BR CO.                                0.01
DULOTH, aiSSABE S IRON  RANGE RWY CO.                             0.08
                                 J-36

-------
                         Table J-17  (Option 1}
                   RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH RATIO > .1

HAILSOAD H&HE                                                  RATIO

BESSEMER t LAKE  EEIE RB CO.                                    0.91
CHICAGO 5 ILLINOIS MIDLAND RHY CO.                             0.22
ELGIN, JOLIET £  EASTERN RWY CO.                                1.46
NORFOLK £ WESTERN  RWY CO.                                      0.49
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBORG & POIOMAC ER  CO.                      0.67
fLORIDA EAST COAST RHY CO.                                      0.22
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM                                            0.25
DENVER & RIO GEANDE WESTERN RR CO.                             0.39
EULUTH, WINNIPEG & PACIFIC RWY                                 3.87
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.                                        0.86
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN HWY CO,                                 0.83
SOO LINE RR CO.                                                 0.63
TEXAS MEXICAN RWY  CO.                                          2.30
ALTON 8 SOUTHERN RR                                            0.61
UNION RR CO.                                                    0.17
                                 J-37

-------
                        Table J-17  (Option 2)
                  RAILROAD COMPANIES WI' 3 RATIO > .1
FAILEOAD NAMZ                                                   RATIO

BESSEMER C  LAKE  ERIE RR CO.                                     0.91
CHICAGO 6 ILLINOIS  MIDLAND RWY CO.                              0.22
ELGIN, JOLIET  &  EASTERN RWY CO.                                 1.45
NORFOLK 6 WESTERN  RWY CO.                                       0.49
RICHMOND, FHEDERICKSBUBG 5 POTOMAC  RR  CO.                       0.67
FLORIDA EAST COAST  RWY CO.                                      0.22
SOUTHERN RY. ^ifSTEM                                             0.25
DENVER S RIO GRANDE WESTERN RR CO.                              0.39
DULOTH, WINNIPEG  6  PACIFIC EWY                                  3.87
MISSOURI PACIIIC  RR CO.                                         0.86
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.                                  0.83
SOO LINE RR CO.                                                  0.62
TEXAS MEXICAN  RSY  CC.                                           2.30
ALTON S SOUTHERN  RR                                             0.61
ONION BR CO.                                                     0.16
                                 J-38

-------
                       Table J-18 (Option 1)



                  RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH RATIO <= 0

RAILROAD NAME                                                  RATIO

BALTIMORE & OHIO  BR  CO.                                        -0.07
BANGOR & AROOSTOCK RE  CO.                                      -0.77
BOSTON S MAINE CORP.                                           -2.54
CANADIAN PACIFIC  (IN MAINS)                                    -1.01
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RWY  CO.                                      -0.06
DELAWARE 8 HUDSON RWY  CO.                                      -2.66
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6 IRONTON  RR CO.                               -1.46
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.                                       -0.71
LONG ISLAND RR CO.                                            -13.23
MAIN2 CENTRAL BE  CO.                                           -0.39
PITTSBURGH 6 LAKE EEI3 RR  CO.                                  -0.36
WESTERN MARYLAND  RWY CO.                                       -0.14
ILLINOIS CENTRAL  GOLF  RR  CO.                                  -0.70
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RR  CO.                                  -0.48
SEABOARD COAST LINE  RR CO.                                     -0.25
ATCHISON, TOPEKA  S SANTA  FE RWY CO.                            -0.17
BURLINGTON NORTHERN  CO.                                        -0.49
CHICAGO S NORTHWESTERN TRANSP.  CO.                            -3.58
CHICAGO, HUB., ST.  PAUL  &  PACIFIC RR CO.                      -2.21
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC  RR CO.                         -3.22
COLORADO & SOUTHERN  RWY CO.                                    -0.62
FORT WORTH 6 DENVER  RWY CO,                                    -0.56
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RWY  CO.                                  -0.26
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RWY CO,                               -0.06
SOUTHERN PACIFIC  CO.                                           -0.30
TOLEDO, PEORIA &  WESTERN  RR CO.                               -0.59
UNION PACIFIC RR  CO.                                           -0.29
WESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.                                        -2.98
BELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO                                        -1.05
INDIANA HARBOR 3ELT  RR CO.                                     -1.48
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF SI.  LOUIS                                -38.32
                               J-39

-------
                       Table J-18  (Option 2)
                  RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH RATIO <= 0
RAILROAD NAME                                                  RATIO

BALTIMORE  5  OHIO  RE CO.                                        -0.07
BANGOR C ARCOSTOOK  RE CO.                                      -0.77
BOSTON 5 MAINE  COEP.                                           -2.54
CANADIAN PACIFIC  (IN MAINE)                                    -1.01
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RHY CO.                                      -0.06
DELAWARE & HUDSON RWY CO.                                      -2.67
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6 IRONTON  BE CO.                               -1.46
ILLINOIS TERMINAL EE CO.                                       -0.71
LONG ISLAND  EB  CO.                                            -13.23
MAINE CENTRAL HR  CO.                                           -0.40
PITTSBURGH 6 LAKE EEIE BE  CO.                                  -0.36
WESTERN MARYLAND  EWY CO.                                       -0.14
ILLINOIS CENTRAL  GULF RE  CO.                                  -0.70
LOUISVILLE 8 NASHVILLE HE  CO.                                  -0.48
SEABOARD COAST  LINE EB CO.                                     -0.25
ATCHISON, TOPEKA  6  SANTA  FE RSY CO.                           -0.17
3DELINGTON HOETHERN CO.                                        -0.49
CHICAGO S NORTHWESTEBN TEANSP.  CO.                            -3.60
CHICAGO, HILW., ST.  PAUL  6 PACIFIC ER CO.                     -2.21
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND 5 PACIFIC  RE CO.                         -3.22
COLOBADO S SOOTHEEN EWY CO.                                    -0.62
?OET &OEIH 6 DENVEE EWY CO.                                    -0.56
KANSAS CITY  SOUTHERN RWY  CO.                                  -0.27
ST. LOUIS-SAN FBANCISCO RWY CO.              .                 -0.06
SOUTHERN PACIFIC  CO.                                           -0.30
TOLEDO, PEOBIA  5  WESTERN  RE CO.                               -0.59
UNION PACIFIC RE  CO.                                           -0.29
WESTEEN PACIFIC HE  CO.                                        -2.98
32LT EE CO. OF  CHICAGO                                        -1.08
INDIANA HAEBOR  BELT ER CO.                                     -1.51
TERMINAL RE  ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS                                -38.53
                               J-40

-------
                        Table J-19  (Option 1)
             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE FUTURE CASH FLOW
RAILROAD NAME
FUTURE CASH F10W
EALTIMCRE & OHIO RR  CO.
BANGOR 6 AROOSTOOK RR CO.
BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE HE CO.
CENTRAL VERMONT RWY  CO.
CHESAPEAKE 5 OHIO RWY CO.
CHICAGO S ILLINOIS MIDLAND  RWY  CO.
DETROIT &• TOLEDO SHORELINE  RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET 5 EASTERN RWY CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
N01FOLK & WESTERN RWY CO.
PITTSBURGH 6 LAKE EBIE RR CO.
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG 6  POTOMAC  RH CO.
WESTERN MARYLAND RWY CC.
FLORIDA BAST COAST BWY CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GU1F ER *CO.
LOUISVILLE 8 NASHVILLE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE  RR CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
ATCHISON, TOPEKA 6 SANTA FE RWY CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN  CO.
COLORADO &• SOUTHERN  EWY CO.
DENVER 6 RIO GRANDE  WESTERN RR  CO.
DULUTH, KISSABZ 6 IRON RANGE RWY  CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG & PACIFIC  BHY
FOST WORTH £ DENVER  RWY CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RWY CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RWY CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY  CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN RWY CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA 5 WESTERN RB CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR CO.
ALTON I SOUTHERN BR
BELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
UNION RR CO.
        643733.37
          8807.81
        177621.62
          9226.13
        612287.81
         22489.86
         11775.34
        183572.81
          3610.03
         24988.23
       1646700.00
        111524.81
        129464.00
         74934.56
        114210.37
        211893.75
        280082.12
        832552.56
       1253665.00
       1132298.00
        911217.44
         27766.23
        277075.31
         97928.31
         77035.44
         14913.89
         92510.94
        982705.81
        203640.62
        544778.87
        264058.87
       1069674.00
         13478.66
          4153.15
       1779736.00
         33259.86
           591.66
         57822.81
                                J-41

-------
                        Table J-19 (Option 2)
             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE FUTURE CASH FLOW
RAILROAD NAME
CASH FLOW
BALTIMORE 8 OHIO RR  CO.
BANGOB S AROOSTOCK ER  CO.
BESSEMEF & LAKE ERIE RR  CO.
CENTRAL VERMONT RWY  CO.
CHESAPEAKE 6 OHIO RWY  CO.
CHICAGO 5 ILLIHOIS MIDLAND RWY  CO.
DETROIT & TOLEDO SHCEELINE RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLI3T & EASTERN  3WY  CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RE CO.
.MAINE CENTRAL BR CO.
NORFOLK & HES1IRH SHY  CO.
PITTSBURGH & LAKE EBI2 RR CO.
RICHMOND, FP.SDEHICKSBUSG 5 POTOMAC  ER CO,
HESTEKN MARYLAND RHY CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST BWY CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GOLF  RR CO.
LOUISVILLE £ NASHVIIL2 RE CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE  RR CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
ATCHISON, TOPEKA 5 SANTA FE  RWY CO.
EURLINGTCH NORTHERN  CO.
COLORADO & SOUTHERN  RWY  CO.
DENVER & EIO GEANDE  WESTERN  RE  CO.
DULUTH, MISSABI 5 IBOH RANGE RHY CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG S PACIFIC RHY
FORT WORTH S DENVER  EHY  CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHEBN RBY CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR  CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FHANCISCO  BWY  CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN ROY CO.
SCC LINE RE CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN BBY CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA 6 WESTERN BE  CO.
UNION PACIFIC RE CO.
ALTON & SOUTHERN EB
BELT ER CO. OF CHICAGO
ONION RR CO.
 643733.37
   8807,81
 177621.62
   9226.13
 612287.31
  22439.36
  11775.3U
 183572.81
   3610.03
  24988.23
16U67CO.OO
 11152U.81
 129164.00
  74934.56
 114210.37
 211393.75
 280082.12
 832552.56
1253665.00
1132298.00
 911217.44
  27766.23
 277075.31
  97928.31
  77035.44
  14913.89
  92510.94
 982705.81
 203640.62
 544778.87
 264058.87
1069674.00
  13478.65
   4153,15
1779736.00
  33259.86
    591.66
  57822.81
                                J-42

-------
                        Table J-20 (Option 1)
            RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE FUTURE CASH FLOW
RAILROAD NAME
FUTURE CASH  FLOW
BOSTON 5 MAINE  CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC  (IN  MAINE)
CONRAIL
DELAWARE fi  HUDSON  RWY CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6  IRONTON RR CO.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR  CO.
CLISCHFIELD RR  CO.
GEORGIA RR CO.
CHICAGO S NORTHWESTERN TRANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, HUH., ST.  PAUL 6  PACIFIC RR CO,
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND  S PACIFIC RR CO.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXRS RR CO.
NOF.TKWESTERN PACIFIC  RR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC ER  CC.
INDIAN?. HARBOR  BELT RR CO.
TEEHIHA1 RR ASSN.  OF  ST. LOUIS
YOUNGSTOHN  & SOUTHERN RWY CO.
        -85635.25
              0.0
      -8082216.
        -61525,
00
29
        -22915.12
        -43613.84
      -1404094,
              0,
              0.
        -52165,
       -355566.
       -344808.
        -63406,
        -22762.
       -214292.
         -5140.
00
0
0
12
81
37
58
58
75
01
        -37248.91
      -1095187.00
                                 J-43

-------
                         Table J-20 (Option 2)
             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE FUTURE CASH FLOW
RAILP.OAD NAME
                                          FUTURE CASH FLOH
BOSTOH &
CANADIAN
COUHAIL
DELAWARE
DETROIT,
MAINE CORP.
PACIFIC  (IN MAINE)
                     CO.
         &  HUDSON RHY CO.
         TOLEDO  & IRONTON RR
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
CLINCHFIELD RR CO.
GEORGIA RP  CO.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN TfiANSP. CO.
CHICAGO, MILW.,  ST. PAUL 6 PACIFIC ER
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND 6 PACIFIC RR CO.
MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RR CO.
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC  FR  CO.
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN.  OF ST. LOUIS
YOUNGSTOWN  t SOUTHERN RWY CO.
                                        CO.
  -85635,
        0.
-8082216,
  -61525,
  -22915.
  -43613.
-1404094.
        0,
        0.
  -52165.
 -355566.
 -344808,
  -63406.
  -22762.
 -214292.
   -5140.
,25
 0
 00
 29
 12
 84
 00
 0
 0
 12
 81
 37
 58
 58
 75
 01
                                                           -37248.91
                                                         -1095187.00
                                J-44

-------
                        Table J-21  (Option 1)
             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET INVESTMENT
PAILROAD NAME
NET INVESTMENT
BALTIMORE 6 OHIO RR CO.
BANGCR 6 AHOOSTOOK BE CO.
BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE RB CO.
BOSTON & MAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RWY CO.
CHICAGO 6 ILLINOIS MIDLAND  RWY  CO.
DELAWARE & HUDSON EHY CO.
DETROIT & TOLEDO SHCRELINE  RR CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 8 IRCNTON  RR CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET 6 IAS.TZEN RWY CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RB CO.
LCNG ISLAND RB CO.
MAINE CENTBAL RR CO.
NCEFOLK 6 WESTERN BWY CO.
PITTSBURGH & LAKE E3IE RE  CO.
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG &  POIOMAC  RR  CO.
WESTERN MARYLAND RHY CO.
FLORIDA SAST COAST EHY CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE S NASHVILLE RR  CO.
S3ABOA5D COAST LINE EB CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
ATCHISON, TOPEKA 6 SANTA FE RWY CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHEEN CO.
CHICAGO 6 NORTHWESTERN TRANSP.  CO.
CHICAGO, MILJf., ST. PAUL &  PACIFIC  RR  CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND 6 PACIFIC  RR CO.
COLORADO 5 SOOTHIBN B»Y CO.
DENVER & RIO GRANTS WESTERN RR  CO.
DOLOTH, MISSABE 6 IRON RANGE RHY CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG & PACIFIC  RWY
FOET WORTH & DENVER RWY CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RHY CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RWY CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RHY  CO.
SCO LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TSXAS MEXICAN RWY CC.
TOLEDO, PEORIA 6 WESTERN RR CO.
UNION PACIFIC EP. CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC F.R CO.
ALTON 5 SOUTHERN BE
5ELT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT BE CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION RR CO.
       689952.62
        37522.66
        92804.00
        56447.16
         2256.00
       650072.12
        18354.00
        37313.00
        11300.50
        50862.66
        74216.81
        11815.33
       114901.31
        40436.33
      1100372.00
       172453.00
        77386.62
        86837.81
        93378. 31
       688394.81
       530528.50
      1103373.00
       996151.31
      1364400.00
      1751140.00
        21329.50
       297168.31
       156829.62
        72626.00
       198501.50
        90447.50
        15828.33
        33647.83
       124139.12
       524343.81
       214025.50
       297475.81
       161S66.00
      1507845.00
         U083.67
         9S15.16
      2514674.00
       108396.00
        20260.00
         5S7L66
        14928.33
         1030.33
        47835.50
                                j-45

-------
                           Table J-21  (Option 2)
              RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET INVESTMENT
EAILROAD NAME
NET  INVESTMENT
BALTIMOEE 5 OHIO ER CO.
BANGOR £ AROOSTCCK ER CO.
BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE RR CO.
BOSTON £ HAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAINE)
CHESAPEAKE & OHIO RWY CO.
CHICAGO 5 ILLINOIS MIDLAND EWY CO.
DELAWARE & HUDSON RWY CO.
DETROIT & TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6 IRONTON RE CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET & EASTERN RWY CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND RR CO.
MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
KOEFOLK & WESTERN RWY CO.
PITTSBURGH & LAKE ERIE ER CO.
RICHMOND, FRSDERICKS3URG & POTOMAC £R CO.
WESTERN MARYLAND RWY CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST BWY CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GOLF RR CO.
LOUISVILLE 8 NASHVILLE RR CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE RR CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
ATCHISGN, TOPEKA 6 SANTA FE RHY CO.
BURLINGTON NOETHEEN CO.
CHICAGO & NORTHWESTE3N TRAHSP. CO.
CHICAGO, MILS., ST. PAUL 6 PACIFIC RR CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND S PACIFIC RR CO.
COLORADO & SOUTHERN EWY CO.
DENVER S SIO GRANE2 WESTERN RR CO.
DULDTH, MISSABE & IRON EANG2 EHY CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG 6 PACIFIC RHY
FORT WORTH 5 DENVER RHY CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RWY CO.
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RKY CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.
SCO LINE ER CC.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN RWY CO.
TOLEDO, PEORIA 6 WESTERN BR CO.
UNION PACIFIC EH CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC EB CO.
ALTON & SOUTHEEN FE
BELT RE CC. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT RR CO.
TERMINAL RR ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
UNION ER CO.
J-46
689952.62
37522.66
92804.00
56447.16
2256.00
650072.12
18354.00
37313.00
11300.50
50862.66
74216.81
H815.33
114901.31
40436.33
1100372.00
172453.00
77386.62
86837.81
93378.31
688394.81
530528.50
1103373.00
996151.31
1364400.00
1751140.00
21329.50
297168.31
156829.62
72626.00
198501.50
90447.50
15828.33
33647.83
124139.12
524343.81
214025.50
297475.81
161966.00
1507845.00
4083.67
9915.16
2514674.00
108396.00
20260.00
5971.65
14928.33
1030.33
47835.50


-------
                        Table J-22  (Option 1)

             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE NET INVESTMENT




RAILROAD NAME       •                                 NET  INVESTMENT

CENTRAL VERMONT  RHY CO.                                     -9142.50
CONRAIL                                                     -73S19.31
GRAND TRUNK  WESTERN RR CO.                                -115541.12
CLINCHFIELD  RR  CO.                                               0.0
6SORGIA RR CO.                                                   0.0
MISSOURI-KAHSAS-TEXAS RR CO.                               -24144.83
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.                                -20098.00
YOUNGSTOHN 5 SCUTHEEN RHY CO.                              -14804.16
                                 J-47

-------
                        Table J-22 (Option 2)

             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE NET INVESTMENT




RAILROAD  NAME                                        NET INVESTMENT

CENTRAL VERMONT RWY CO.                                     -9142.50
CONRAIL                                                     -73919.31
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN HB CO.                                -115541.12
CLINCHFIE1D RR CO.                                               0.0
GEORGIA RR  CO.                                                   0.0
MISSODRI-KANSAS-TEXAS HR CO.                               -24144.83
NORTHWESTERN PACIFIC RR CO.                                -20098.00
YOUNGSTOWN  6 SOUTHERN RWY CO.                              -14804.16
                                J-48

-------
                        Table J-23 (Option 1)
           RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
                 OF FUTURE CASH FLOWS BEFORE ABATEMENT
RAILROAD NAME
NE1 PRESENT VALUE
BESSEMER 6  LAKE  ERIE RR CO.
CENTRAL VERMONT  RWY CO.
CHICAGO & ILLINOIS  MIDLAND RWY CO.
DETROIT 6 TOLEDO SHORELINE RR CO,
ELGIN, JOLIET &  EASTERN RWY CO.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RR CO.
NORFOLK & WESTERN RHY CO.
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG 5 POTOMAC RR CO.
FLORIDA EAST COAST  RHY CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM  .
DENVER 6 RIO GRANDE WESTERN RR CO.
DtJLOTH, 3ISSABE  8 IRCH RANGE EWY CO.
DULOTH, WINNIPEG 5  PACIFIC EWY
MISSOURI PACIFIC RR CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN RWY CO.
ALTON 6 SOUTHERN RR
UNION RE CO.
                62
                63
                86
                84
                00
                25
                00
 84817
 18368
  413E
   474
109356
 71927
546328
 52077.37
 20832.06
257513.69
 78573.81
  7400.81
 61207.11
458362.00
247303.06
102092
  9395
 12999
               ,87
               ,00
               ,86
          9987.31
                                J-49

-------
                         Table J-23 (Option 2)


            RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH POSITIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
                  OF FUTURE CASH FLOWS  BEFORE ABATEMENT
RAILROAD NAME
NET PRESENT VALDE
BESSEMER &  LAX2  5EIE RE CO.
CENTRAL VERMONT  RWY CO.
CHICAGO C ILLINOIS  MIDLAND RWY CO.
DETROIT 5 TOLEDO SHORELINE BE CO.
ELGIN, JOLIET  &  EASTERN SHY CO.
GRAND TRUNK WESTERN SR CO.
NORFOLK & WESTERN RWY CO.
RICHMOND, FREDERICKSBURG & PGTOWAC  RR  CO,
FLORIDA EAST COAST  RWY CO.
SOUTHERN RY. SYSTEM
DENVER 6 RIO GRANDE WESTERN RR CO.
DULUTH, MISSABE  8 IRON RANGE RWY CO.
DULUTH, WINNIPEG 8  PACIFIC RHY
MISSOURI PACIFIC EF. CO.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RWY CO.
SOO LINE RR CO.
TEXAS MEXICAN  RWY CO.
ALTON & SOUTHERN RR
UNION SR CO.
         84817
         18368
          4135
           474
        109356
         71927
        546328
         52077
         20832
        257513
         78573
          748C
         61207.11
        458362.00
        247303.06
        102092.87
          9395.00
         12999.86
          9987.31
62
63
86
84
00
25
00
37
06
69
81
81
                                 J-50

-------
                        Table J-24 (Option 1)


           RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH NEGATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
                 OF FUTURE CASH FLOWS BEFORE ABATEMENT
RAILROAD NAME
NET PRESENT VALUE
EALTIKORE 6 OHIO  RE  CO.
BANGOP. & AROOSTOOK RE  CO.
BOSTON 6 MAINE CORP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC  (IN MAINE)
CHESAPEAKE 6 OHIO P.WY  CO.
DELAWARE fi HUDSON EHY  CO.
DETROIT, TOLEDO 6 IBOHTON  BB CO.
ILLINOIS TERMINAL RR CO.
LONG ISLAND BP. CO.
HAINE CENTRAL BE  CO.
PITTSBURGH 6 LAKE ERIE BR  CO.
WESTERN MARYLAND  RWI CO.
ILLINOIS CENTRAL  GULF  RR CO.
LOUISVILLE 6 NASHVILLE 5R  CO.
SEABOARD COAST LINE  RR CO.
ATCHISON, TOPEKA  & SANTA FE  SHY CO.
BURLINGTON NORTHERN  CO.
CHICAGO 6 NOSTHKESTEBN TRANS?.  CO.
CHICAGO, HUH., ST.  PAUL & PACIFIC fifi CO.
CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC  RR CO.
COLORADO G SOUTHERN  EW Y CO.
FORT HOETH 6 DENVER  BWY CO.
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RHY CO.
ST. LOUIS-SAN FEANCISCC RWY  CO.
SOUTHERN PACIFIC  CO.
TOLEDO, PZORIA 8  WESTERN RR  CO.
UNION PACIFIC RR  CO.
WESTERN PACIFIC EE CO.
BSLT RR CO. OF CHICAGO
INDIANA HARBOR BELT  RR CO.
TEEMINAL RB ASSN. OF ST. LOUIS
        -4621S.25
        -28714.85
       -142082.37
         -2256.00
        -37784.31
        -98838.25
        -73777.75
         -8205.30
      -1518395.00
        -15148.11
        -60928,19
        -11903.25
       -476501.06
       -250446.37
       -270820.44
       -232102.00
       -839922.56
        -73494.56
       -652735.12
       -501638.00
        -44859.77
        -18733.94
        -31628.19
        -10384.87
       -438171.00
         -5762.02
       -734938.00
       -322686.75
         -5380.01
        -20068.34
        -38279.24
                                J-51

-------
                            Table J-24  (Option 2)


             RAILROAD COMPANIES WITH  NEGATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE
                    OF FUTURE CASH  FLOWS BEFORE ABATEMENT
PAILPrAO  !T*'1E                                           NET  PRESENT 7AL02
BALTIMORE P- OHIO FP CO.
BAHGOR 5 JP.COSTOOK RF CO.
FOSTfV ?, *AT*TE COPP.
CANADIAN PACIFIC (IN MAIN?)
CPF.SAP3AKE 5 Off 10 RHY CO.
D5I.AWAPE * HDDSOF FWY CO.
PETPQIT, TOLEDO e IRCNTON RF. CO.
ILLINOIS TERMIin.L RR CO.
LONG ISL»HD H? CC.
MAINE CEfTPAL F? CC.
PITTSPUP-JH 6 LAKF EFIE PR CO.
WST15PF "!fi??LA!TD EFT CO.
ILLINOIS 32FTF..U SU1F RR CO.
LOniSVULP f NA5HVILLF PP CO.
S1! ABOARD C?A«!T LTflE PR CO.
ATCHISO", -POPEKA P SATTTI FE H;«I co.
PUPLISGTOR NOFTHFPN CO.
CHICAjO " TOPTnWFST^RF TRANSP. 30.
CHICAGO, MIL?.r ST. PAUL 5 PACIFIC E3 CO.
CHICAGO, POCK ISLAND 3 PACIFIC RP CO.
COIOE^DO ?. SOOTHERS E& Y CO.
FOPT WOPIH ^ DENVER «3Y CO.
KANSAS CT^y SOHTHTPN 5PY CO.
ST. L:rJTS-SA*T FFAVCIS-0 P.WY 3?.
SOUTHFPF PACI^ir CC.
TOLEDO, °EOFIA p. VESTEPN RR CO.
UP I OTT PACIFIC RP. CO.
!7SSTE?r P»CT?IC P.P. CC.
PFLT PP CO. OF CHICXGO
IMDIA"A PARPOP FFLT FF CO.
TF.PHI^AI RF. ASSN. 0? ST. LOUI3
-462^9.25
-2871U.85
-1U2082.37
-2236.00
-37734.31
-98938.25
-73777.75
-8205.30
-1518995.00
-1'5i»48.
-------
                              Table  J-25
         RAILROADS  AND EQUIPMENT  FOR CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
                                                  NOISE SOURCE
KAILROAD IUfl«
                                       RRTARDEKS
                                                   LOAD CELL
                                                  Ii!St SITES
                                                               SWITCHERS
1 BO 01LTIHORE t OHIO RR CO.
2 BAR BANGOR G ARCCS1OOK 68 CO.
3 BLt BISSEI1CR t l«KI ERIE RR CO.
4 en BOSTON e niiRE CORF.
5 CP CANADIAN KClriC (1* HAIVE)
6 CT CENTRAL URRCBT INI CO.
7 co CIIISAPIAKE t OHIO RSI co.
8 C1H CHICAGO e 1 111 HOIS flIDLAND RVI CO.
9 CR CONRMl
10 DH DELANARE € HUDSON RBI CO.
11 DIS DETROIT t TCLEDO SHOREL1RE RR CO.
12 DTI DKTBOI1, 101EDC 6 IKOHTON Bk CC.
13 EJE ELGIN, JClIfT ( EASIER* MI CO.
1* Git GRAlID TRURK NESTERN RR CO.
IS ITC ILLINOIS TERRINAl M CO.
16 II LONG ISLAND RR CO.
17 DEC MAINE CENTRAL RR CO.
IB RM NORFOLK C NZSTIRR Rhl CO.
19 til PI1TSBUBCH E LAKE E(IE RR CO.
20 RfP RICHMOND, FKEDIR1CKSBURQ C POTCHAC Ml CO
21 UH HESTER* RARILAND RVI CO.
22 CCO CLIRCNMtLD SB CO.
23 TEC FLORIDA IAS1 COAST RUT CO.
2« GA GEORGIA R> CC.
25 ICG ILLINOIS CENTRAL GOLF RR CO.
21 LN LOUISVILLE C NASMflLLE HE CO.
27 SCL SEAfOAtD COAST LINE RR CO.
28 SOU SOUTHERN RI. SISTER
29 AlSr ATCIIISCR, TOPE HA 6 SANTA FE RSI CC.
30 DN BURLINGTON RCRIIIEKR CO.
31 CRN CHICAGO t NCRTHVkSlERN TRANSP. CO.
32 niL» CHICAGO, niiv. , ST. PAUL e FACIMC m co
33 at CHICAGO, SOCK ISLAND C PACIIIC til CC.
3< CS COLORADO C SOUllltRN IIVI CO.
35 DBGM DENVER t ftlC GRAKDE NESTtRN RK CO.
36 DHIR DUI.OTH, HIS!ABl C IKON RAR6E RVI CC.
37 DNP UULUTR, NINHIPIG C PACIFIC RHI
38 FKD FORT 1OR1II S DENIES IK I CO.
39 KCS KANSAS C11I SOOTHE EN 11*1 CO.
10 NKT niSSODRI-KARSAS-TCIAS RR CO.
«1 HP niSSOURI PACIIIC RR CO.
«2 NMF NOR1HIIES1CRR PACIFIC RR CO.
*3 SLSP ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RBI co.
t<4 SSU Ml. LCUIS SCUTIIHESTCRN RVI CO.
15 son soo LIRE »a co.
46 SP SOU1HEHN FACIFIC CC.
47 TH TEXAS HEIICAN RVI CO.
18 TPH TOLEDO. PEOR1K 6 11 IS Ti. Sit RR CO.
19 UP IIH1C1 PACIFIC f* CO.
SO «P VESTERR IACIFIC RR CO.
51 A1S AL10* C SOUTHERN RR
52 BRC EZLT RR CO. OP CHICAGO
S3 IBB INDIAIA NARB08 BELT RR CO.
51 TRtA TERHINAL RR ASSR. OF ST. LOUIS
SS UBR U NIC II IR CO.
56 IS IOUNGSTCVR E SOUTHER! RNI CO.
7
0
0
1
0
3
5
3
32
0
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
7
0
2
1
0
3
0
4
«
3
a
«
10
i
3
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
1
0
?
1
0
a
0
0
•>
3
1
2
3
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
U
0
19
1
0
0
2
1
1
1
2
9
1
0
0
1
1
0
y
2
6
3
1
17
9
19
7
3
\
1
0
•
2
1
5
3
1
a
2
24
I)
1
1
1
3
0
1
1
0
II
156
3
i
66
1
?
98
9
2021
42
7
23
63
99
22
.8
19
347
85
16
1
13
11
8
18}
168
2J2
210
178
S62
183
234
161
11
35
33
3
7
84
51
263
13
100
77
60
5!»3
/
4
2ot
13
3
11
22
9
24
2
                                   J-53

-------
                     APPENDIX K
SAMPLE RAILROAD SELECTION PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS

-------
                              APPENDIX K
            SAMPLE RAILROAD SELECTION PROCEDURE AND ANALYSES

Selection Procedure

     In order to obtain the 120 railyards necessary to develop representative
site-specific data, approximately 300 yards were initially chosen from the
SRI1 list of 4169 railyards 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 yards was designed to evenly distribute, as much as possible, the yard
sampling throughout the list and, consequently, throughout the United States.
Roughly, every fourteenth or fifteenth yard on the list was selected for
Inclusion in the sampling, until a total of 279 yards had been chosen.

     These yards were then classified into the twelve cells, representing
combinations of the three place size and four yard type categories.  As shown
in Table K-l, the resulting distribution of yards among the cells was very
uneven.  It would have been ideal to classify all the yards on 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 ap-
proach was taken and additional yards were selected from the list to augment
the deficient cells.

     The procedure for selecting the initial 279 yards was modified somewhat
to select the additional yards because it was felt that it would be too time
consuming to use, given the relatively small overall percentage of some yard
types (e.g., hump yards).  To assure that these additional yards were uniform-
ly 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 additional yards, so the total number of
pages in the list (80) was divided by number of yards 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

                                      K-l

-------
               Table K-l

      DISTRIBUTION OF KAILYARDS
SELECTED FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC EVALUATION BY
       PLACE SIZE AND YARD TYPE
              Place Size (Urban Area Population)
       1 (Small)       2 (Medium)       3 (Large)
Yard Type <50k People 50k-250k People
I. Hump Class Cell #1
6
U. Flat Class Cell #4
42
III. Flat Ind. Cell #7
55
IV. Small Ind. Cell #10
85
Cell #2
0
Cell #5
12
Cell #8
5
Cell #11
10
>250k People
Cell #3
3
Cell #6
20
Cell #9
27
Cell #12
14
                         K-2

-------
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 K-2 presents the initial list of 120 rail-
yards, by cell number, which was developed using the procedures described
above.

     The random selection of 120 railyards, per the procedure described
above, resulted in the initial list presented in Table K-2.  The selection
procedure provided 10 railyards of each of 4 types in each of 3 place size
locations for a total of 120 railyards.  However, due to lack of photographic
imagery, many of the sample railyards were eliminated from the analyses.
Therefore, a substitute list was generated as shown in Table K-3.*  The final
list of the 120 sample railyards analyzed is presented in Table K-4.*

     When this list of 120 railyards 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 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
K-3 presents the substitute yard list by cell number.)
*Refer to Appendix D for railroad symbol code.
                                     K-3

-------
                           Table K-2

             INITIAL LIST OF SELECTED RAILROAD YARDS

                             CELL #1

YARD TYPES:   Hump  Classification  PLACE SIZE:    50k People
STATE     CITY

CO        Grand  Junction
IL        Markham
IN        Elkhart
KY        Russell
KY        Silver Grove
OH        Marion
OH        Portsmouth
PA        Coatesvllle
PA        Morrisville
WA        Pasco
YARD                      RR

Train                     DRGW
Markham SEND              ICG
Robt. P. Young Hump       PC
Coal Class                CO
Stevens                   CO
Westbound                 EL
W. B. Hump                NW
Coateaville               RDG
A                         PC
Train BN
                             CELL  #2

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 Classification   PLACE  SIZE:    250k  People
STATE    CITY
FL       Tampa
IL       Chicago
IL       Chicago
IL       East St. Louis
MI       Detroit
OH       Columbus
OH       Toledo
PA       Allentown
PA       Pittsburgh
WI       Milwaukee
YARD
Rockport
Corwith
59th Street
Madison
Flat Rock
Grandview
Lang
Allentown E. Hump
Monon Junction
Airline
R/R

SCL
ATSF
PC
TRRA
DTS
PC
DTS
LV
URR
CMSPP
                               K-4

-------
                     Table K-2 (Continued)

                           CELL #4

YARD TYPE:  Flat Classification   PLACE SIZE:   50k People
STATE    CITY

IL       Belviderf
IL       Streator
IA       Missouri Valley
MI       Willow Run
MT       Helena
OH       Huron
PA       Sayre
TX       Cleburne
VA       Crewe
WV       Martinsburg
YARD

Train
Train
Train
Industrial
Train
South
Sayre
Cleburne
Train
Gumbo
R/R

CNW
PC
CNW
PC
BN
NW
LV
ATSF
NW
PC
                           CELL 95

YARD TYPE:  Flat Classification  PLACE SIZE:    50k-250k People
STATE    CITY

CA       Stockton
LA       Shreveport
ME       South Portland
MA       Lowell
MA       Worcester
MI       Bay City
OH       Lancaster
OH       Lorain
TX       Port Arthur
WA       Spokane
YARD

Mormon
Deramus
Rigby
Bleachery
Worcester
North
Lancaster
South
Train
Yardley Train.
R/R

ATSF
KCS
PTM
BM
BM
DM
CO
LT
SP
BN
                            CELL  #6

YARD TYPE:  Flat Classification   PLACE SIZE:    250k People
STATE    CITY
AZ       Tucson
FL       Jacksonville
6A       Atlanta
IN       Jasonville
LA       New Orleans
MI       Detroit
MO       St. Louis
OH       Dayton
OR       Portland
TN       Memphis
YARD

Train
Simpson
Howell
Latta
Oliver
Davison Ave.
12th Street
Needmore
Lake
Hollywood
R/R

SP
GSF
SCL
CMSPP
SOU
DT
MP  ,
BO
PRTD
ICG
                                K-5

-------
                     Table K-2  (Continued)

                            CELL  #7
YARD TYPE: Flat Industrial

STATE    CITY

AL       Ensley
CA       E. Pleasanton
FL       Nichols
IL       Chicago Heights
IN       Burns Harbor
MS       Durant
NE       McCook
NY       Troy
OH       Washington Ct. Hse.
TX       Great Southwest
 PLACE  SIZE:    50k  People

 YARD                      R/R

 Ensley                   SOU
 Train                     SP
 Dry Rock                  SCL
^Heights                   BO
 Burns  Harbor              PC
 Durant                   ICG
 Train                     BN
 Troy                      PC
 Train                     BO
 Great  Southwest           GSW
                            CELL  #8

YARD TYPE:  Flat Industrial       PLACE  SIZE:    50k-250k People

STATE    CITY                     YARD                      R/R
CT       Stamford
FL       Pensacola
GA       Columbus
IN       Terre Haute
MI       Ann Harbor
MI       Muskegan
NE       Lincoln
OH       Hamilton
OH       Springfield
OR       Salem
 Stamford
 Whart
 Columbus
 Hulman
 Ann Arbor
 Train
 Train
 Wood
 Int'l Harvester
 Train
PC
LN
SCL
CMSPP
AA
CO
OLB
BO
PC
BN
                            CELL  #9
YARD TYPE:  Flat Industrial

STATE    CITY

CA       San Jose
IL       Chicago
NY       Buffalo
NY       New York
OH       Cincinnati
OH       Youngstown
OK       Tulsa
PA       Philadelphia
PA       Pittsburgh
VA       Richmond
PLACE  SIZE:    250k  People

YARD                      R/R

College Park             SP
43rd Street               CRIP
Hamburg Street           EL
28th Street               EL
West End                  LN
McDonald                  YN
Lafeber                   MIDLV
Midvale                   PC
Neville Island           POV
Belle  Isle                SOU
                               K-6

-------
                      Table K-2 (Continued)

                            CELL #10

YARD TYPE:  Small Industrial Flat  PLACE SIZE:
                                                 50k People
STATE    CITY

CA       Kartell
GA       Vidalia
KS       Durand
MD       Owing3 Mills
NY       Olean
PA       Cementon
SC       Hampton
TX       Menard
WA       Gold Bar
WY       Pulliam
                                  YARD
                                  Train
                                  Vidalia
                                  Train
                                  Maryland
                                  Train
                                  Cementon
                                  Train
                                  Train
                                  Train
                                  Train
R/R

AMC
SCL
MP
WM
EL
LV
SCL
ATSF
BN
BN
                            CELL
YARD TYPE: Small Industrial Flat  PLACE  SIZE:    50k-250k  People
STATE    CITY

AR       Fort Smith
AR       Little Rock
GA       Macon
IL       Joliet
IL       Rockford
KY       Ownesboro
MN       Duluth
MT       Billings
NC       Durham
PA       Erie
                                  YARD

                                  Train
                                  E.  6th Street
                                  Old CG
                                  South Joliet
                                  Rockford
                                  Doyle
                                  Missabi Jet*
                                  Stock
                                  Train
                                  Dock Junction
R/R

MP
MP
CGA
ICG
CNW
ICG
DMIR
BN
DS
PC
                             CELL  #12

YARD TYPE: Small Industrial  Flat   PLACE SIZE:    250k People
STATE    CITY
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
                                  YARD

                                  Ivy City
                                  Western Ave.
                                  Cane  Run
                                  Harahan
                                  Mattcon
                                  Freight House
                                  Train
                                  Cadiz Street
                                  Dollarup
                                  Fourth South
R/R

PC
CMSPP
ICG
ICG
MATTS
UP
MP
CRIP
HBT
DRGW
                                K-7

-------
                        Table K-3

            LIST OF SUBSTITUTE RAILROAD YARDS
CELL "1
CELL "2
CELL #3
CELL #4
CELL #5
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
FA
OH
OK
                               CITY
                       YARD
                 R/R
Blooming ton
Camden
Mechanicvllle
Sllvls
St. Paul
Missoula
Hagerstown
Roanoke
Alexandria
Syracuse
Detroit
Fort Worth
Seattle

New Haven
West Colton
Pavonia
Hump
Silvis
New
Train
West
Roanoke
Potomac
Dewitt
Junction
Centennial Hump
Balmer
(Interbay)
Cedar Hill
SP
PC
BM
GRIP
CMSPP
BN
WM
NW
RFP
PC
PC
TP
BN

PC
Flora
Inner Grove
Fort Reading
Gainsville
Vanderbilt

Binghamton
Charleston
Evansville
Green Bay
Amarillo

Des Koines
Baltimore
Mobile

Brunswick
Livonia
Newark
Douglas
Hopewell

Abilene
Kalamazoo
Reading
Akron
Oklahoma City
Train            BO
Train            CRIP
Port Reading     RDG
North            ATSF
Train            MP

YD               DH
Bridge Jet.      Joint
Harwood          ICG
Train            CMSPP
Train            CRIP

Bell Ave.        CNW
Bayview          PC
Beauregard       ICG

Brunswick        SCL
Middlebelt       CO
Brills           CNJ
Douglas          SP
Train            SCL

Abilene          TP
Train            GTW
East Reading     PC
Mill Street      EL
Turner           MICT
                            K-8

-------
                       Table K-3 (Continued)
CELL #9
CELL #10
CELL #11
CELL #12
STATE

MI
KY
FL
MA
TN
NY
OH

OK
MN
KS
ID
AR

IA
SC
TX
6A
VA
WI
CA

TX
TX
WI
WI
IN
NY
OH
WA
     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
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*
Caren
Charlotte Dock
Fairmont
House
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
                                   K-9

-------
                                 Table K-4
                       RAILYARDS INCLUDED IN EPIC  SURVEY
STATE   CITY
AL
AZ
AR
AR
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CA
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
Ens ley
Tucson
Fort Smsith
Little Rock
N. Little Rock
Pine Bluff
Bloomington
E. Pleasanton
Martell
San Jose
Stockton
Pueblo
Stamford
Nichols
Pensacola
Tampa
W. Palm Beach
Atlanta
Brunswick
Columbus
Mac on
Macon
Savannah
Vidalia
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago
Chicago Heights
E. St. Louis
Flora
Joliet
Markham
Streator
Burns Harbor
Elkhard
Evansville
Jasonville
Terre Haute
               RAIL
 YARD          ROAD

 Ensley        SOU
 Train         SP
 Train         MP
 E.  6th Street MP
 Crest         MP
 Gravity       SSW
 W. Colton     SP
 Train         SP
 Train         AMC
 College       SP
 Mormon        ATSF
 Train         ATSF
 Stamford       PC
 Dry  Rock       SCL
 Wharf         LN
 Rockport       SCL
 W. Palm Beach WPBT
 Ho well         SCL
 Brunswick     SCL
 Columbus       SCL
 Old  CG         CGA
 Brosnan       SOU
 Paper Mill     CGA
 Vidalia       SCL
 Corwith       ATSF
 Western Ave.   CMSPP
 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
La tta          CMSPP
Hulman         CMSPP
 FUNCTION

 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Small Indus.
 Small Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 Small Indus.
 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 Industrial
 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 Industrial
 Small Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Small Indus.
 Small Indus.
 Class./Indus.
 Small Indus.
 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 Class./Indus.
 Classification
 Small Indus.
 Classification
 Class./Indus.
 Industrial

 Class./Indus.
Class./Indus.
Class./Indus.
 Industrial
 YARD
 TYPE

 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Hump
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Hump
 Flat
 Flat
Hump
Flat
Flat

Hump
Flat
Flat
Flat
                                K-10

-------
                           Table K-4 (Continued)
 IA      Des Moines
 IA      Missouri  Valley
 KS      Durand
 KY      Owenaboro
 KY      Russell
 KY      Silver Grove
 LA      New Orleans
 LA      New Orleans
 LA      Shreveport
 ME      South Portland
 MD      Owings Mills
 MA      Boston
 MA      Lowell
 MA      Worcester
 MI      Ann Arbor
 MI      Detroit
 MI      Detroit
 MI      Willow Run
 MN      Duluth
 MN      Inver Grove
 MN      St. Paul
 MN      Sleepy Eye
 MS       Durant
 MO       St. Louis
 MT       Billings
 MT     Helena
NE      Lincoln
 NE      Lincoln
NE      McCook
 NE     Omaha
 NJ      Camden
 NY     Binghamton
 NY      Buffalo
NY      Mechanicville
NY     Olean
 NY       Syracuse
 NY      Troy
OH      Akron
OH      Cincinnati
OH      Dayton
OH      Hamilton
 Bell Avenue   CNW
 Train         CNW
 Train         MP
 Doyle         ICG
 Coal Class    CO
 Stevens        CCO
 Harahan        ICG
 Oliver St.    SOU
 Deramus        KCS
 Rigby         PTM
 Maryland       WM
 Yard 8         BM
 Bleachery      BM
 Worcester      BM
 Ann  Arbor      AA
 Davison Ave.   DT
 Flat Rock      DTI
 Industrial    PC
 Missabi Jet.   DMIR
 Train         CRIP
 New            CMSPP
 Train         CNW
 Durant         ICG
 12th Street    MP
 Stock         BN
 Train         BN
 E. B. Hump    BN
 Train         OLB
 Train         BN
 Freight House  UP
 Pavonia        PC
 YD             DH
 Hamburg St.    EL
 Hump          BM
 Train         EL
 Dewitt         PC
 Troy          PC
 Mill St.       EL
 Fairmont       BO
 Needmore       BO
Wood         HO
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
Small Indus.       Flat
Industrial         Flat
Class./Indus.      Flat
Class./Indus•      Flat
Industrial         Flat
Clas s./Indus.      Flat
Clas s./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
Clas s */Indus.     Hump
Industrial         Flat
Industrial         Flat
Small Indus.       Flat
Clas s./Indus•     Hump
Class./Indus.      Flat
Industrial         Flat
Classification    Hump
Small Indus.       Flat
Classification    Hump
Industrial         Flat
Industrial         Flat
Small Indus.       Flat
Clas s./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat
                                 K-ll

-------
                          Table K-4  (Continued)
OH      Huron
OH      Lancaster
OH      Lorain
OH      Marion
OH      Portsmouth
OH      Springfield
OH      Toledo
OR      Madill
OK      Tulsa
OK      Eugene
OR      Portland
OR      Salem
PA      Allentown
PA      Cementon
Pa      Harrisburg
PA      Philadelphia
PA      Pittsburgh
PA      Pittsburgh
PA       Sayre
SC      Greenville
SC      Hampton
TN       Chattanooga
TN       Knoxville
TN       Memphis
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
South         NW
Lancaster     CO
South         LT
Westbound     EL
W.B. Hump     NW
Int'l Harv.   PC
Lang          DTS
Train         SLSF
Lafeber       M1DLV
Train         SP
Lake          PRTC
Train         BN
Allentown E.  LV
Cementon      LV
Enola West    PC
Midvale       PC
Neville lal.  POV
Monon Jet.    URR
Sayre         LV
South         SOU
Train         SCL
De  Butts      SOU
John Sevier  SOU
Hollywood     ICG
Abilene       TP
Train         MP
Cleburne      ATSF
Birds         ATSF
Great  S.W.    GSW
Bellaire      SP
Dollarup      HBT
Lubbock      ATSF
Train          SP
Fourth South DRGW
Train         NQ
Belle  Isle    SOU
Roanoke       NW
Train          BN
House          UP
 Airline       CMSPP
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
Clas s./Indus•     Hump
Class./Indus.     Flat
Industrial        Flat
Clas s./Indus.     Hump
Small Indus.      Flat
Clas a•/Indus.     Hump
Industrial        Flat
Industrial        Flat
Class./Indus.     Hump
Clas s./Indus•     Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Small Indus.      Flat
Clas s•/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
                                      K-12

-------
Yard Activity Rate Classification

     The FRA/SRI railyard study data were used to estimate the classification
yard area corresponding to the average traffic rates determined for the low,
medium and high activity categories.  This was done by using the average
railcar length of 21m (69 ft) and distance between parallel classification
trucks of 4.6m (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  -;	7	rr~:	r~^—
                                  (number of parallel tracks)
     Equivalent width (W) - (number of tracks) x (distance between
                             tracks).
     Typical area covered (A) - W x L.

     The range of typical areas for the average traffic rates for low,
medium and high activity traffic rates for low, medium and high activity
hump and flat classification yards was also computed in the same manner*
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
*The factor of 2 accounts for the switching areas at end of the classified
 railcar storage area.
                                    K-13

-------
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).

Examples of Sample RallYards

     The study area boundaries around two of the sample railyards are shown
as examples In Figures K-l and K-2.  The corresponding study area land use
analyses by EPIC are shown in Figures K-3* and K-4*.  Also, typical data of
railyard dimensions and noise source locations relative to yard boundaries are
shown in Figures K-5 and K-6.
*Code for symbols in Figures K-3 and K-4:
 Y - railroad
 R - residential land
 C • commercial land
 I » industrial land
 A » agricultural land
 U - undeveloped land
 X - distance to residential land use
                                   K-14

-------
                                                            ^-	:
                                                    c
                             TEff   •
                            iJHI 11/I 4 .
                                SCALE 1.2400C
                         1000                                   0 FEE!



                                                            '
                           CONTOUR INTERVAL  10 FEET

                             DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
FIGURE K-l.   MILL STREET YARD,  AKRON,  OHIO,  WITH STUDY AREA DELINEATED

             ON U.S.G.S. MAP
                              K-15

-------
•^FOXTAN
                                     ...; — ;'•    ;••-..•

                                     '.-— t^  ,  r: -yui^  . •
                    sM., .
          =°
              .
""                P^-s •:

                 .

     ••  -•        -
                                                             . _T^_.


                                                              '
F
15-
"« ' .!•

1
'" >
                                                                                                         -~
                                                                                                 r- -   *     '
                                                                                  •
                                                                                   :i               ^-
                                                                                              "         '   *
                                                                                                        •
                                                                           ^«J. , ,...-..-:.T.<--... . i^.  _ -£. .««*, _„__" _^ U-t--

                                                                              ~  ^': ~4§ -(.- . '-"r.!-1

    li
   r-i -
7  :--;:

s  *?
             .L. :;  ;                S                    ...  ft** I-    «-)     >/      —••..:::::::: ,
                                         •< "S '   ..   .   -••-       .  .:;->•..                      I  '•'".
            ..-;•• •;..: ..                   ...    •—  ..'•••• •• ••••.••.-!' --'   -?•   .-...?!.•••- . • 'S* ,— kia _^_p.-i-.-^LJL—,.-••- -""i---.-!*!*-		v* f-  ;

                                 4il                 i-    tlff/ip                   -

             -;:       ui.™::L-.AC..,!u.Lji.:,,,,j^   ip.llL,      sgM           ^«L        *I  t
             - . •-•;«,-,—\--Y-.-: ••• •*. • ~  +• :• •:•.•••  ---ru .•;..:-•••••.-•-!!  "."::  .??,, \ :T7TTr~      :'•:: = • •!:=   ;       4   !     U1, U^

            },^  h-C^t  ^£"r1r-                   -#m$ ^1  Wjr  P^-W'     ..-.:-» M»«! I

            f£uL'   - ^   '--^• -•••'— -	2-••- n-^•   iluirisitHjiiCffi       4^ r-"  -st*i5     1—'  [ JL--
            -f 7."~- 7 ,~ .Cf'"'"^ ^•T°""' ^ "^'r "- ^VjIi^'BLOOMrNGfe"? *'... J[. ,/..^S^jL^±|^-^^^

            :j^rn—	    !.'*.-^. ""'.'  '        .'....-.. -'^rg^'.';::::;

                                           " ?!         -;i   []'-?;ifc]iitii' '"•• ':              -•' -F^  '" ;- •
             '•'                         lU  :: '! '!il       ir-vr--.^'^"       .;'.-'             i"; p' ;• - M '
             ,-U.                 L. ••-••=:. •-..».!. .-.•..: •••-4'-:: v ,.:-.-.;;,..; Llh:-i'ftS'ST .   . . .  .  • T . .  --^     ... r'j./U^L.S-.?_U^
                   •.:,-"  • rrn:V-V.. ,---^;--- ,^.-..-.-..^-, Si0vE, z_:rjv lu    .-._,_;,.-•. >*  ...    . •         •'.....
                             j  K;          -I   • ^    ii-'ji ii ,'     ^- ••             '     fr   «•• v."
                  ;    T ~\     '^         :lii;   f               ij|        :   -     1'-  •".•,.•!
              U—4-	;    .;;.      •   L   :F    !«, 1  ::--:'"^'ii ^m:                rV^Ai?
             I                       .',- '-4        -f~ ".•;•«,,... '                          -   i-'n ""
                       '             •*.— .    : '-.   . - •      •  Hri,.-          :: :
               1     !    *  -  f   r^^tW-ft^uMfa.;:^;
                                                                                      .

                               i-
                                                            .«.
                                              -:-..         :>-   *

                                                         :  r	l'~
                                                    "    •    '
                                                   :- .   -.      L-ft-^  '    .   •  ••:    ^ .    •        .-   :•'•

                            -Lt_L            iiii-jas-wa*1-!,      "-.*rf'?-.-^'-:..;..!!._... .!L   .: ••   ;        '.-.>
                                                I'

                                                     ^

                                                 -  ..  .«" . ——- '••"'"••.:-•—CPESTMlbRE






                                 \\L             r_&t~
                                                                                              s-twr^'Aw^ -f ' *v€

                                                                                           '•|,>     •-? ; rm-LW-

                                                                                                    5,..,,:  \.|  -
                                                                                                    C K.=s..  ':,,,?

                                                                                                                            .: •
                                                                                                 :^
      -         d--*'        ^ -
     I        ,r? --          <*' \ N


        ;;.-"             vv,,   -.,......
1 •• -• . 1          G'|.-I  -  -      V   	'.

                                                                                   :• .  •   '     ;


                                                                                               \\
                                                                                                      SCALE 1 2'IOCO
                          .  '.  >;j   '..,  •        /                  •!-.!— -        o  »,
                                                                                             )    1000   XX
             FIGURE  K-2.   WEST  COLTON YARD,  BLOOMINGTON,  CALIFORNIA, WITH STUDY AREA DELINEATED  ON U.S.G.S. MAP

-------

                                    SCALE 1:24000

                           1000     2000    3000	j4000  	5000    6000    700'



                   1            5


FIGURE K-3.   TRACING OVERLAY  OF MILL STREET YARDS, AKRON,  OHIO
                                     K-17

-------


                                                                           SCALE
                                                                                          •
FIGURE K-4.  TRACING  OVERLAY OF WEST COLTON YARD, BLOOMINGTON,  CALIFORNIA

-------
    Name  Akron, OH.,  Mill Street Yd.,  Ind.-Flat
Land Use
Boundary
A
B
C
D
E
Yard Dimensions
Width B-B
680'
OZ
90Z
10%
0%
OZ









Length
3080'
                                                       2000'
                                                      Dlst.  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
     220'
No. S.E.    Dlst. B.    Dist* B.

   1         250'        150'
       FIGURE  K-5.  DATA SHEET FOR MILL STREET YARDS, AKRON, OHIO
                                   K-19

-------
    Name  California Bloomington, W. Colton, Class./Ind., Hump
Land Use

    A
    B
    C
    D
    E

Yard Dimensions
         Boundary

           9%
           0%
          69%
           6%
          16%
                Width B-B
Class.
Receiving
Departure

     Total Length
1680' (1290'T-T)
 360'
1390'
Length

 5740'
12010'
 5680'
                   2000'
  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-B
', 495'
, 1450'
Dist. B
130'
165'
1350'
495'
1390'
1190'
495'
595'
760'
820'
860'
689.39


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 St;

3 & 4 stages
• Dist. B.
1550'
1515'
265'
330'
155'
960'
1106.92





      FIGURE  K-6.  DATA SHEET FOR WEST COLTON YARDS, BLOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA
                                          K-20

-------
                  Table K-5

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION, ADJACENT
     TO RAILYARDS, 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
11.1
4.9
49.1
17.8
13.4
10.3
13.2
38.8
23.1
                         K-21

-------
                    Table K-6

AVERAGE PERCENTAGE LAND USE DISTRIBUTION, WITHIN 2000'
   OF RAILYARD 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
9
25
23
                          K-22

-------
         APPENDIX L
DERIVATION OF AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS
    FOR RAILYARD NOISE SOURCES

-------
                              APPENDIX L


                     DERIVATION OF AVERAGE NOISE LEVELS

                         FOR RAILYARD NOISE SOURCES


     The representative or average noise levels used in the noise impact

health and welfare model are discussed in Sections 4 and 5, and are summarized

in Tables 4-1 and 5-4.  The bases for determining the average noise level for
each type of source are presented below.  Reference numbers in this appendix

are for those listed at the end of Section 5.


     Average Maximum Noise Level:


     The references and data shown below were used to obtain the baseline

average maximum noise level for master and group retarders:


     o   EPA-550 /9-74-007, 1974  (1)
         Retarder 1
              energy ave. - 116 dB* @ 100 ft (30 m); 58 measurements.
           (Range:  1^^  - 90 to 140 dB*)
         Retarder 2
              energy ave. - 111 dB* @ 100 ft  (30 m); 37 measurements.
           (Range:  1^^  - 90 to 125 dB*)
     o   Wyle Report 73-5, 1973 (6)
              energy ave. - 108 dB* @ 100 ft (30 m); 38 measurements.
           (Range:  L,^  - 96 to 115 dB*)
     o   BBN RN 2709, 1974 (9)
         MFC Ft. Worth, TX.
              energy ave. - 109.5 dB* @ 100 ft (30 m); 113 measurements.
           (Range:  l^^  - 80 to 119 dB*)
         BN Chicago, IL.
              energy ave. - 108.5 dB* @ 100 ft (30 m); 164 measurements.
     o   Composite L^x energy ave. (Lmax) - 111 dB* @ 100 ft (30 m) ;
         410 measurements.
           (Range:  1^^ - 80 to 140 dB*)
*A-weighted sound level.
                                     L-l

-------
     Average Single Event Level  (SEL):

     The average SEL is dependent on  the  typical durations  for  retarder noise
events.  However, very little data on retarder  SEL values or  effective noise
event durations ( Ateff ) were available.  In one reference  study, a sample
noise-time history indicated durations of 1.5 to 2 sec between  the 20 dB down
points for clearly definable events. 6 This reference study indicated
typical L^x » 110 dB* at 100 ft  (30  m) with a  10 dB down point duration
1 sec and a typical SEL of  107 dB*.   This implies that  Ateff - 0.5 sec
since:
                 SEL " Lmax  + L0
A few other data indicated a typical retarder squeal  (at  100 ft or 30 m distance)
could be represented by an equilateral triangle time-history with a maximum level
of  110 dB* and a duration of 3.6 sec for the 30 dB down points  (t3Q>.6»^
This aso results in ( Ateff ) - 0.5 sec.

     Additional data on retarder noise events were obtained during noise
measurements at railyards conducted for the EPA in 1978. 13  Many of the
clearly definable individual retarder noise events had triangular time-
histories with t3Q values in the 3 to 6 sec. range (the distances between
source and measurement location were not defined).  Longer duration noise
events (8 to 15 sec) were complex patterns of closely spaced multiple
events rather than a single pulse or squeal.  It can be shown analytically
that (for the single triangular shaped pulse) if t3Q » 1, 3, 6 or 9 sec,
then A tgff - 0.15, 0.45, 0.9 and 1.35 sec, respectively.  Visual exami-
nation of the 1978 measurement data indicate typical  Ateff values in the
0.5 sec range (Roseville, Barstow and Brosnan Hump Yards).

     Based on these data and other Independent analytical comparisons, it Is
considered that the typical Ateff is approximately 0.5 sec.  Thus, at 100
ft  (30 m) distance from the retarder, the typical or average SEL value (SEL)
is 108 dB*.
*A-weighted sound level.

                                     L-2

-------
Inert Retarders

     The inert retarder noise level data were obtained from one reference
which presented measured levels for 96 noise events.6  The ranges of maximum
levels measured was from 78 to 101 dB* at 100 ft (30 m), and the energy
average maximum level (Lmax) for the 96 data points was 93 dB*.

     Since there were no data available on inert retarder noise event du-
rations, it was assumed that  Ateff « 0.5 sec (the same as for master and
group retarders).  Thus the reference or typical SEL value at 100 ft (30 m)
was 90 dB*.

Flat Yard Switch Engines

     Data were available from only one reference for noise levels of switch
engines working in flat yard areas.^  Maximum noise levels were measured for
30 events during acceleration passbys ("kicking" railcars) which apparently
were conducted at throttle setting 1 to 2.  The range of maximum noise levels
at 100 ft (30 m) was 73 to 92 dB*, and the energy average level (L^x) was 83
dB*.

     In the noise model it was assumed that Lmax - 83 dB* (at 100 ft or 30 m)
was the representative or typical level for all switchers (MS,IS, CSW, CSE and
SE) except the hump lead switch engine (HS).

Hump Lead Switch Engine

     Only a few data samples were available to Indicate the typical noise
level for hump lead switch engine passbys.6  These data indicated that Ljnax
was in the 76 to 80 dB* range at 100 ft (30 m).  Therefore, an L,^ - 78 dB*
was assumed for the noise impact model.
*A-weighted sound level.
                                    L-3

-------
Idling Locomotives

     Two references contained numerous measurements of noise levels from a
wide variety of types and sizes (HP) of rail locomotives at the stationary
Idle (throttle setting 0) condition.2»6  The measurements were obtained at
distances of 50 to 150 ft (15.2 to 92 m) in railyards under a variety of
operating conditions (Including load tests, special tests near repair shops
and groups of idling locomotives).  These data were examined and, where
required, normalized to the noise level of one locomotive at a distance
of 100 ft (30 m).  In those cases where the measured level was due to a line
or group of locomotives, a standard analytical procedure was used to estimate
the average level for one locomotive.6  One of the references presented data
for "road engines" and "switch engines" without defining either type of
locomotive.6  The other reference listed the power rating (HP) of the
locomotives for which noise levels were measured.2

     A summary of the data from these two references is presented below:

                      Idle Noise Levels at 100 ft (30 m)

Ref. 6   Type of Locomotive   Number*   Lave**(dB***)
Road Engine


Switch Engine


5
7
1
1
1
4
58
70
69
62
64
65
                                                          66 to 73
                                                          63 to 67
*  Number of data points, or number of locomotives in group.
** Energy average noise level for one equivalent locomotive.
***A-weighted sound level.
                                     L-4

-------
Ref. 2     Size of Locomotive     Number*     Lave (dB)**     Lrange (dB)***
              >2500 HP              35          68.3              64.5 to 72
              <2500 HP              12          65.9              61 to 70
35
7
12
1
6
1
1
68.3
68.7
65.9
64.5
68.5
67.0
66.5
    Number of data points
**  Energy average noise level, A-welghted.

     It was assumed that road haul locomotives were In the _>2500 HP category,
while switch engines were in the <2500 HP category.  Then, the energy average
levels for the data from the two references were:

          Lave (<2500 HP) - 66.4 dB***; 27 samples.

          Lave (>2500 HP) - 68.5 dB***; 55 samples.

     However, it appeared that most of the measured levels in this group may
have included the effects of reflecting surfaces (repair shop buildings, rail
cars and locomotives) and high level background noise*  There were several
specific measurement cases where the background noise levels were given, and
the contribution of reflected noise was calculated.2*6  On the average the
combination of these two effects tended to increase the measured locomotive
noise levels by 1.5 dB***.  Therefore, in the absence of reflecting surfaces and
background noise levels (within 15 dB of the locomotive noise level), the
noise levels for idling locomotives (at 100 ft or 30 m) were:

          Lave (<2500 HP) - 65 dB***

          Lave (2:2500 HP) - 67 dB***
***A-weighted sound level.
                                     L-5

-------
     In the railyard noise impact model, it was assumed that switching
operations were performed by a 50/50 mixture of locomotives above and below
2500 HP.  Therefore, the Lave value used in the model for an idling loco-
motive was 66 dB*<
Load Cell Operations

     Noise measurement data for locomotives operating in a stationary
condition at high throttle settings (throttle setting 8) were available from
4 references.l»2»6i9  ^he locomotives were operating under either a self-
load condition or at a load test cell facility.  The majority of the data
samples (51 out of 59) were contained in one of the references.2  The size
of the locomotives ranged from 1500 to 3600 HP, and the noise levels at 100
ft (30 m) ranged from 84 to 94 dB*.  The resulting energy average noise level at
100 ft (30 m) was 90 dB*.

Refrigerator Cars

     Noise levels from the diesel engine powered cooling units on refrigerator
cars are a function of engine speed and which side of the car the measurement
is being made.  The cooling units typically operate at either low or high
engine speed.  Also the noise levels are usually greater on the side of the
railcar where the diesel engine is located, as compared to the opposite side
where the condenser is located.  Several references are available which pre-
sent a total of approximately 100 samples of refrigerator car noise levels.6*12,17
However, much of the data is not defined relative to both engine speed and
side of railcar (engine vs. condenser).  Therefore, only those noise data
(about 23 samples) for which specific operating conditions and measurement
locations were known were used to derive the representative average noise
level for refrigerator cars.6»17  These data were grouped according to
engine speed for both sides of the cooling unit, and the energy average noise
level for each group of data was calculated (the noise levels were measured
at 50 ft or 15 m):
*A-weighted sound level.

                                     L-6

-------
          High Throttle
                Engine side       L - 79.2 dB*(7 samples)
                Condenser side    L - 70.9 dB*(7 samples)
                                  Lave " 77*dB (both sides)
          Low Throttle
               Engine side        L - 73.9 dB*(4 samples)
               Condenser side     L - 65.5 dB*(5 samples)
                                  Lave " 72*dB »9  These two
references provided 133 noise level samples which indicated a maximum noise
level range of 79 to 115 dB* at 100 ft  (30 m), with an energy average level
of 100 dB*.

     Subsequently, however, additional data became available which provided
Impact noise levels  (L^x and SEL) correlated to coupling speeds, and which
indicated the probability distribution for coupling speeds.10*11  Assuming
that the noise level and speed distributions would hold  for all railyards, it
was possible to calculate the expected energy average noise level for car
 *A-weighted sound level.
                                     L-7

-------
impact events.  Essentially, the expected level is the integral of the product
of the noise-speed and speed-probability functions.  Due to the form of the
available data, the value of this integral was obtained using probability and
noise level values in 1 MPH class intervals according to the equation:
               10  log  Z  ioLi(v)/1°  x Pi(v)  ;
                       i

              •  energy  average maximum noise  level  for  car  impact  events
                  in each i speed  class (1  MPH  interval);
              >  the  probability associated  with each  coupling  speed  class
                  interval.
          P±
-------
      The baseline expected noise level values were:

          "ax Lexp - 98.8 dB* at 100 ft (30.5 m).

            SELexp - 93.5 dB* at 100 ft (30.5 m).
                                        *
In addition, two possible Impact noise control options were considered -
limiting coupling speeds to 6 MPH, or to 4 MPH.  Expected noise level values
for these cases were determined by assuming that for the 6 MPH speed limit
case, all couplings above 6 MPH would be redistributed into the 5 to 6 MPH
interval.  And for the 4 MPH speed limit case, all couplings above 4 MPH
would be redistributed into the 3 to 4 MPH interval.  The results were:

          o     6 MPH Speed Limit, Max Lexp - 97.3 dB*
                                     SELexp - 92.0 dB*
                4 MPH Speed Limit, Max Lexp - 91.7
                                     SELexp - 85.8 dB*
*A-weighted sound level.
                                    L-9

-------
    APPENDIX M
POPULATION DENSITY

-------
                              APPENDIX M
                          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, agri-
cultural, 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.
                         I
     Since the number of railyards 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 railyard 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 M-l.

     For the A cells (or groups of railyards) 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-
yards 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.
                                     M-1

-------
                                Table M-l
                 RANGE OF LOCAL AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITIES
                        AROUND SELECTED RAILYARDS
Yard Type
                      Range of Population Density (People/Sq.Mi.)

                             Place Size (Population Range):
1.  Less than
    50,000
2. 50,000 to
    250,000
3.  Greater than
     250,000
Hump Classifi-
   cation
234 to 10,068        90 to 4,520         377 to 21,594
Flat Classifi-
   cation
  9 to 2,580        127 to 6,625
                       4 to 17,507
Flat Classifi-
   cation
143 to 6,833      1,285 to 8,135
Small Industrial       12 to 8,169        549 to 4,581
                      39 to 19,604


                     658 to 17,049
   Local Average.  To convert to people/sq km, multiply by 0.386.
                                    M-2

-------
     Evaluation of the density data Indicated low correlation between yard
type and population density, and a wide distribution of numbers 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 M-2.  A weighted average density was
computed for the rallyards 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:

      AVGP-f Pi/2Ai

The results are shown In Table M-3.  These weighted average density
values were used to represent the local average population densities for
the railyards in each density range.
                                    M-3

-------
                                   Table M-2

                         DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE KAILYARDS
                            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
7
2
2
2
4
5
6
7
10
4
3
<1000
1000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 10,000
10000 to 15000
15000 to 22000
6
10
13
2
2
3
4
                                          M-4

-------
                                  Table M-3

                       AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY FOR EACH
                               DENSITY RANGE CLASS
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
190
780
1580
2510
4070
5810
9480
230
690
1470
2390
4050
5920
7480
<1000
1000 to 3000
3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 10000
10000 to 15000
15000 to 22000
420
1480
3880
5750
8540
11700
19540
                                         M-5

-------
                             Table M-4

                DISTRIBUTION OF HUMP YARDS BY PLACE SIZE,
                  TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY AND POPULATION
                            DENSITY RANGE
     Place Size
(Thousands of People)
  Population
Density Range
(People/Mile2)
    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
Total
<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
                                    M-6

-------
                             Table M-5

              DISTRIBUTION OF  FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS
                  BY  PLACE SIZE,  TRAFFIC RATE CATEGORY
                     AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
   Place Size
(Population Range)
  Population
Density Range
 (People/Mile2)
  Number of Yards By
Traffic Rate Category
Low   Medium   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
                                     M-7

-------
                       Table M-6

          DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARDS
        BY PLACE SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
                          Population
     Place Size          Density Range
(Thousands of People)      (People/Mile2)    Number of Yards



50







50-250








250




<500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000

-500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000

<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-10000
10000-15000
15000-22000

Total
170
128
272
153
42
42
42
849
24
36
36
36
69
19
19
239
44
73
88
23
15
21
29
293
1381
                              M-8

-------
                        Table M-7

           DISTRIBUTION  OF SMALL INDUSTRIAL FLAT
         BY PLACE  SIZE AND POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
     Place  Size
(Thousands  of  People)
 Population
Density Range
 (People/Mile2)
Number of Yards



50







50-250








250




<500
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<500
500-1000
1000-2000'
2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
7000-11000
Total
<1000
1000-3000
3000-5000
5000-7000
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
                             M-9

-------
                            PEMOCRAPtUC PROFILE  REPORT
                                                     PACE  1
HILL ST.  TARD
AKRON. OHIO
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
DEC HIM SEC
 41   7  30
 81  30   0
 4 POINT POLYGON

WEIGHTING PCT   1002


1977
1977
1977
A


POPULATION
HOUSEHOLDS
PER CAP INCOME
NNUAL COMPOUND C
LATEST

3691
1420
$ 3895
ROWTH -3
CHANCE
PROM 70
-893
-166
$ 1064
.Ot
                            1970 CENSUS DATA
POPULATION
TOTAL
WHITE
NEGRO
OTHER

SPAM


4584
3328
1253
3

13


100
72
27
0

0


.02
.62
.32
.12

.32


FAMILY INCOME (000)
$0-5
$5-7
$7-JO
$10-15
$15-25
$25-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN


RENT
$0-100
$100-150
$150-200
$200-250
$250 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN
I RENTER
334
148
259
225
70
4
4
1044

$ 8082
$ 7463



788
162
19
4
1
974

$ 75
$ 62
66.8
32
14
24
21
6
0
0







80.
16.
2.
0.
0.
.02
.22
.82
.62
.72
.42
.42







92
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(ACE)


10.
14.
9.
8.
17.
7.
10.
12.
11.

25.

02
12
02
92
12
12
22
02
62

2

HOME VALUE (000)
$0-10
§10-15
$15-20
$20-25
$25-35
$35-30
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN
2 OWNER


198
208
34
0
1
0
0
441

$10524
$10529
31.2


44.
47.
7.
0.
0.
0.
0.







92
22
72
02
22
02
02







AUTOMOBILES








NONE
ONE
TWO
THKEE+
532
760
230
55
33.
48.
14.
3.
72
22
62
52
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
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
3.42


UNITS IN STRUCTURE
1
2
3-4
5-9
10-49
50 +
MOBILE
             HOUSEHOLDS WITH:
803
275
114
81
209
63
0
52.02
17.82
7.42
5.22
13.52
4.12
0.02
TV
WASHER
DRYER
D1SHWSH
AIKCONl)
FREEZER
2 HOMES
1365
1031
454
56
144
249
49
86.12
65.02
28.62
3.. 52
9.12
15.72
3.12
 HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS
 FAM POP     3714  81.OX
 INDIVIDS     636  13.92
 GRP QTRS     234   5.12
 TOT POP     4584

NO OF H1US     1586
NO OF FAMtS    1098
AVG HH SIZE     2.7
AVC FAM SIZE    3.4
                                                               CACI.1NC
       FIGURE  M-l.  DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT OF MILL STREET
                    YARDS',  AKRON, OHIO
                                M-10

-------
                           DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT
                                                             PACE  1
W. COLTON YARD
BLOOMINCTON. CALIF.
DEC KIN SEC
LATITUDE 34 7 30
LONGITUDE 117 22 30
4 POINT POLYCOM
HEIGHT INC PCT 100Z
POPULATION
TOTAL
WHITE
NEGRO
OTHER

SPAN


8647
8513
27
107

1318


100. OZ
98. SZ
0.3Z
1.2Z

1S.2Z


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
399
264
535
684
225
27
0
2134

$ 9410
$ 9265



449
171
46
1
0
667

$ 88
$ 74
30.4
18. 7Z
12. 4Z
25. 1Z
32. 1Z
10. 5Z
1.3Z
O.OZ







67. 3Z
25. 6Z
6.9Z
0.1Z
O.OZ

1970
AGE AND
LATEST
1977 POPULATION 8964
1977 HOUSEHOLDS 2821
1977 PER CAP INCOME $ 4541
ANNUAL COMPOUND GROWTH
CENSUS
SEX
DATA
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)


11.51
20. SZ
10. 1Z
4.2Z
11. 1Z
11. 5Z
11. 6Z
11. 3Z
8.3Z

24.0

HOME VALUE (000)
$0-10
$10-15
$15-20
$20-25
$25-35
$35-50
$50 +
TOTAL

AVERAGE
MEDIAN
Z OWNER


214
634
420
169
70
14
7
1528

$15443
$14338
69.6


14. OZ
41. 5Z
27.52
11. 1Z
4.6Z
0.9Z
0.5Z





FEMALE
498 11.
80 8 IB.
371 8.
207 4.
572 13.
482 11.
512 11.
499 11.
403 9.
4352
25.

OCCUPATION
MGR/PROF
SALES
CLERICAL
CRAFT
OPERTIVS
LABORER
FARM
SERVICE
PRIVATE


CHANCE
FROM 70
317
331
$ 2163
0.5Z


4Z
6Z
SZ
8Z
1Z
1Z
8Z
5Z
3Z

6


362
181
392
5«2
582
151
52
301
IS


EDUCATION ADULTS


AUTOMOBILES




NONE
ONE
TWO
THREE+
166
1130
941
237
6.7Z
45. 7Z
38. OZ
9.6Z
0-8
9-11
12
13-15
16 +


1151
1175
1378
438
142



TOTAL
11. SZ
19. SZ
9.3Z
4.5Z
12. 1Z
11. 3Z
11. -7Z
11. 4Z
8.8Z

24.9


13. 8Z
6.9Z
15. OZ
22. 2Z
22. 2Z
5.8Z
2.0Z
11. SZ
0.6Z


> 25
26. 9Z
27. 4Z
32. 2Z
10. 2Z
3.3Z


HOUSEHOLD PARAMETERS

UNITS IN
1
2
3-4
5-9
10-49
50 +
MOBILE


STRUCTURE
2113
22
29
18
82
1
206
85. 5 X
0.9Z
1.2Z
0.7Z
3.31
O.OZ
8.3Z



HOUSEHOLDS WITH:
TV
WASHER
DRYKR
DISHWSH
AIRCOND
FREK/.EK
2 HOMES
2359
1732
811
329
1179
602
37
94. 7Z
69.62
32. 6Z
13. 2Z
47. 3Z
24. 2Z
1.5Z
FAM POP
INDIVIDS
GRP QTRS
TOT POP

NO OP HHiS
NO OF FAMiS
AVC 1111 SIZE
AVC FAM SIZE
7996
449
202
8647

92. 5X
5.2Z
2.3Z


2490
2127
3.
3.
4
8
                                                              CACI.INC
   FIGURE M-2.
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE REPORT OF WEST COLTON YARD,
BLOOMINGTON, CALIFORNIA
                              M-ll

-------
          APPENDIX N
SOURCE ACTIVITY AND NOISE LEVEL

-------
                                  APPENDIX N
                       SOURCE ACTIVITY AND NOISE LEVELS

Source Activity Levels

     A significant portion of the yard activity data used as input for the
railyard health/welfare Impact model was based on information presented
in a railroad yard survey conducted for DOT in 1976*• In this study, yard
activity was presented according to yard type, function and level of activity
for hump and flat railyards.  These data have been extracted and presented in
Tables N-l, N-2, N-3, and N-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 geometric center of the grouping*  However, since
the EPIC survey of 120 railyards indicated considerable variation in the
geometric configuration of the 4,169 xailyards, the exact location for each
noise source relative to its corresponding yard boundary cannot be determined*
However, the railyard survey did result in the identification of represent-
ative railyard dimensions.

     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 distributions within the component
yards are presented in Table N-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  railyards*  Refrigerator cars and idling locomotives could
possibly be found in all yard areas*  Load test  facilities  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  retarders,

                                       N-l

-------
                               Table N-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.1
                                      N-2

-------
                            Table N-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                    36       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       2      4        6
 Computed From Yard Activity Data.^
                                      N-3

-------
                 Table N-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 N-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
                            N-4

-------
                                                    Table N-5

                               HUMP YARD NOISE  SOURCE GROUPINGS  AND  DISTRIBUTION BY
                                              COMPONENT YARD TYPE*
                  Receiving Yard                 Classification Yard             Departure Yard


                                                                                             Makeup
                                Hump                      Retarders  (Master                 Switchers
                              Switchers                      and Group)
                Source                      Source                              Source       Industrial
               Location  (a)                Location  (b)                       Location  (d)  Switchers
a                Area         Inbound        Area         Idling Locomotives    Area
b                             Trains                          Load Tests                    Outbound
                                                              Car Impacts                    Trains


                                            Source         Inert Retarders
                                           Location  (c)   Refrigeration Cars
                                             Area            Cap Impacts
               *Except for retarders, source operations and distribution are similar for
                classification flat yards.

-------
which are not usually found in flat yards, the distribution of sources is
similar to that shown for hump yards in Table N-5.  However, the other flat
yards do not perform all of the functions performed in the classification
yards and the noise source types and operation areas will be distributed
differently.  Discussion with rail industry personnel indicated that, in
general, switch engines operate at each end of the yard, and the other
sources are located inside the main yard area*  The noise source location
areas for industrial and small industrial flat yards are indicated in Table
N-6.

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.  The noise generation equations are developed
in  terms of L
-------
                           Table N-6

INDUSTRIAL AND SMALL INDUSTRIAL FLAT YARD NOISE SOURCE GROUPINGS
       Industrial
                               Small Industrial
               Noise
               Source
                                        Noise
                                        Source
Area (a)
Inbound Trains
Switch Engines
Area (a)
Inbound Trains
Switch Engine
Area (b)
Car Impacts
Outbound Trains
Area (b)
Car Impacts
Outbound Trains
                               N-7

-------
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 N-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.  Adjustments were made
to  the L^n values to account for short periods of high-throttle operation
and multiple engine configurations.

     2.  Hump Switch Engine Operations

     Hump engine operations were modeled as moving point sources which
operate  In  the  receiving  yard  component of the hump yard complex at a speed
of  approximately four miles per hour.  In determining  the number of engine
pass-bys  it was assumed that the average cut of cars to be humped contained 50
cars,  since  that is the practical  limit indicated for  a single switch engine.
The number  of pass-bys per hump engine "trick"  (work-shift)  is computed
by  dividing the average number of  cars classified per  hump engine trick
by  50  and multiplying by  two.  The factor of two accounts for the number
of  passes required  by each hump operation, one  to get  into position to
push the  cut of cars and  another to perform  the push.

     As an  example, the computation of the number of hump engine pass-bys
for the  low activity category  hump yard will be presented.   Table N-l shows
that on a daily basis, there are 689 cars classified by three hump engine
tricks.   It is  assumed that  the yard operates  24-hours per day 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.
                                      N-8

-------
     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 N-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 two groups of 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 one-half the
number of cars classified per day  (see Table N-l), and that  the impact noise
events were evenly distributed  during day and night periods.6  The final
section of this appendix discusses  the basis for the  impact  event rate.

     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
                                      N-9

-------
yard complex at a speed of approximately four miles per hour.   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.  Assum-
ing 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 performed, multiplying the
result by 2.  The total number of pass-bys per day was determined by multiply-
ing 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 L^n was developed from a truncated line  source model  which trans-
formed 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:
     Ldn " Leq  +  10 Io8  -25-(NHd+10NHn)  + 8 ^(1.33^) - 20 log(-j-)
                        + 10  log(NR) - K(D)

where Ldn           - baseline day-night average  noise  level, dB
      Leq           " average noise level  (per  1-hour period) of  a
         H            single  locomotive or refrigeration car at a
                      distance of  100 feet (30  m),  dB
      NI            - number  of locomotives or  refrigeration cars
                      per row
      NHd and NHn   - number  of hours of operation  during daytime (d)
                      and nighttime (n)
      NR            - number  of rows of locomotives or  refrigeration cars
      D0            - 100 feet (30 m)
      D             • distance from source to yard  boundary
      K(D)          - air and ground absorption

                                    N-10

-------
     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
are shown below:*»2

                              IDLING                     REFRIGERATION
     TRAFFIC                LOCOMOTIVES                       CARS
      RATE               NUMBER     NUMBER             NUMBER      NUMBER
     CATEGORY            OF ROWS    PER ROW            OF ROWS     PER ROW
     Low                   22                 25
     Medium                3           2                 4            5
     High                  32                 6            5

     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 con-
ducted 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 occurr-
ing 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 five miles per hour*  The number of
local and outbound road-haul train operations was combined and treated as a
single source type.  The.number of train operations for the three flat class-
ification yard activity categories is shown in Table N-2.  It was assumed that
all train operations are uniformly distributed over the daytime and nighttime
periods*
                                      N-ll

-------
         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 ap-
proximately four miles per hour.  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 two groups of stationary point sources
located in the classification yard component.  It was assumed that the
total number of car Impacts Is equal to one-half the number of cars switched
or classified per day6. (See Table N-2, and last section of this appendix.)

     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
-------
OF ROWS
2
3
3
OF CARS
2
3
3
OF ROWS
2
4
6
OF CARS
5
5
5
                           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 outbound 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 N-3.  It
was assumed that all train arrivals and departures are uniformly distributed
over the daytime and nighttime periods.

     2.  Switch Engine Operations

     Switch engine operations were modeled as moving point sources at a
speed of approximately four miles per hour.  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
                                     N-13

-------
engine tricks per day is shown in Table N-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 N-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 five miles per hour.  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 N-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 oper-
ational parameters is the same as that discussed for Industrial switch engine
operations in hump yards.  The number of switch engine tricks per day is shown
on Table N-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.
                                     N-14

-------
     3.   Car Impacts

     Car impacts were modeled as stationary point sources located at the
center of the yard complext   It was assumed that the total number of car
impacts is equal to the total number of cars switched per day (see Table N-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 atte-
nuation 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 characteristically 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 (30 and 152 m)
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 railyard 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 discussed earlier in the sub-
section  on railyard 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 railyard  noise
sources  than for  the  road traffic noise.

     Therefore, an  analysis was conducted  to determine air  and ground
attenuation factors  for  each  type of noise  source in  the railyards,  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  fol-
lowing paragraphs.   The  resulting attenuation factors  apply to the  railyard

                                     N-15

-------
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  diver-
gence loss, i.e., spreading of noise energy over larger  and larger areas, for
stationary (individual and grouped) sources in the  railyards is a  function of
20 log^o (distance ratio)  assuming that  the sources radiate in the normal
hemispherical pattern.  Since  the determination  of L^n values for  the
stationary sources is based on Leq or SENEL values which are dependent  only
on noise event durations,  the  decrease in  Ljn  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 (L^x) during the pass-by:
     SENELi  - Lmaxi + 10 log  (*yi
where:
          D! « distance from source to observer (m), and-
          V  = source speed (m/sec).
Then at any other distance D£:
                              /   \2           /    \
     SENEL2  - Lmavi - 10 log f ^-J  + 10 log  fw ^)
However, this reduces to:

     SENEL2  - L^X, + 10 log (* =^)- 10 log  2 ,
                                                  or
     SENELo  • SENELi  - 10 log  *.
                                    N-16

-------
Therefore, the divergence loss applicable to L^ values for moving sources
Is a function of 10 log (distance ratio) rather than 20 log (distance ratio).

Air and Ground Absorption Factors

     The rallyard noise sources have been Identified, or simplified, as
either moving point sources or stationary (virtual point) sources.  The noise
level reduction with distance is a function of the type of source, (stationary
or moving), and its characteristic noise spectrum.  Thus, in addition to the
usual divergence or spreading loss, the noise energy Is dissipated in the air
medium and absorbed along the ground surfaces*  The air attenuation and ground
absorption are dependent mainly on the predominant frequencies in the noise
spectrum and also on the relative humidity and air temperature.  For these
analyses, it was assumed that the average conditions would be a typical day
with an air temperature of 60° F and a relative humidity of 60 to 70 per-
cent. Nominal expressions for air and ground attenuation developed by DOT,
FAA, and other sources are:
      Aground-

      Aground"   °» fo* " <. 4xl05,
where:
       A  -    attenuation, dB
       f  •    sound frequency, Hertz, and
       d  -    distance from source, feet.
     However, since the noise model must compute L
-------
     However, since the noise model must compute L^ values, and since the
    n°ise rating scale is based on A-weighted sound levels, it is more con-
venient to use a combined air and ground attenuation factor representing the
attenuation of the A-weighted noise levels with distance*  Thus, the railyard
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 (15 or 30 m).
For each typical source the air and ground attenuation was calculated for 100
to 2000 foot (30 to 610 m) 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 (Aa+g) in dB attribut-
able to air and ground absorption.  An approximation to the average extra attenu-
ation factor (1/2| JIQQQ* +  2000 I) * was obtained b7 inspecting the values
for the source at the 1000 and 2000 foot (610 and 1220 m) distances.

     A review of octave band spectra for the seven major types of railyard
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 calculated to be 10 dB per 1000 feet
(305 m).  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(305 m) 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 (305 m).  The
resulting combined air and ground absorption factors are shown for each noise
source-type on Table N-7.
                                     N-18

-------
                             Table N-7
           COMBINED AIR AND GROUND ATTENUATION FACTOR FOR
                   MAJOR RAIL YARD NOISE SOURCES
                                         Combined Air and Ground
       Noise Source                   Attenuation Factor* (dB/ft)
Retarders
Switch Engines
Car Impacts
Idling Locomotives
Locomotive Load Tests
Refrigeration Cars
Road-Haul Locomotives
0.01 (dB/ft)
0.001
0.005
0.0025
0.002
0.0035
0.002
0.033(dB/m)
0.0033
0.0016
.0008
.0066
.0115
.0066
*Based on A-Weighted SPL

Insertion Loss Due to Buildings

     The DOT railyard survey indicated that the 4000 railyards 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 railyard complexes were situated in central business districts charact-
erized 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 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.?»8  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,
                                     N-19

-------
or when the conditions are similar to those for which  the factors were de-
veloped.  In the general case of the railyards 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 railyards and their surroundings.  The
data used to obtain the insertion loss values in FHWA/NCHRP Reports II7
and 144 and in other sources to obtain the insertion loss values we*.
viewed.^»8  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 dB for low-density residential areas
(single-floor dwellings), and 8 dB for higher-density  areas of multi-floor
buildings.  Since the distances to the buildings are not known for railyards
noises, average losses of 5 dB per 1000 feet (305 m) and 8 dB per 1000 feet
(305 m) were used for the lower and higher density areas, respectively.  The
resulting insertion loss coefficients for each place size and population
density range are listed in Table N-8.

                               Table N-8
       BUILDING INSERTION LOSS COEFFICIENTS AS A FUNCTION OF
         PLACE SIZE AND AVERAGE POPULATION DENSITY RANGE
 Place Size           Population Density      Insertion Loss Coefficient
(Population)          Range (people/sq mi )       dB/ft          dB/m
<500
5000 to 1000
<50,000 1000 to 2000
and 2000 to 3000
50,000 to 250,000 3000 to 5000
5000 to 7000
7000 to 11000
<1000
1000 to 3000
>250,000 5000 to 7000
7000 to 10000
10000 to 15000
15000 to 22000
0
0
.005
.005
.008
.008
.008
0
.005
.005
.008
.008
.008
0
0
.016
.016
.026
.026
.026
0
.016
.016
.026
.026
.026
                                    N-20

-------
Car Impact Event Rate

     During the initial stages of the development of the railyard noise
impact model, the only data available to indicate railcar traffic rates (and
thus car coupling event rates) were in the SRI/FRA railyard study report.2
This reference indicated only the average traffic rate (number of railcars
classified per day) for low, medium and high traffic categories of hump and
flat classification yards.  One assumption that could be made was that the
number of car impacts equaled the number of cars classified per day*  However,
it was known that often more than one car was "humped" or "kicked" at times.

     Subsequently, during the model development additional studies of railyard
configuration (EPIC analyses, see Section 4 and Appendix K) and railyard
noise environments were completed.6  Although 120 sample railyards (of all
types) were examined during the EPIC analyses, no activity rate parameters
were obtained.

     Also, the railyard noise survey did not include any substantial data
regarding yard activity parameters for correlation with measured noise levels.
However, in a few instances the 24-hour noise-time history records obtained
provided indications of the number of car coupling events audible at measure-
ment locations near railcar classification areas.

     Car input noise events were Identified on time-history traces at a total
of  15 measurement locations covering 8 railcar classification yards  (3 hump
and 5 flat yards).  In general, at the hump yards there was one measurement
location at the master retarder  (receiving) end and one at the inert retarder
(departure) end of the classification area, and at the flat yards there was
one measurement location near each of the opposite ends of the classification
area.  Unfortunately, not all noise events on the records were marked or
identified, many different  types of events produced similar patterns and were
intermixed (in time sequence), not all of the hourly records were complete and
some car inpact events probably appeared on the records of both measurement
locations at a yard while some car impact events may not have been recorded
(due to distance or low noise levels).  Therefore, there is a high degree of

                                     N-21

-------
uncertainty associated with  counting the car inpact  events (spikes)  on the
noise-time history  traces.   Additionally,  the sample sizes are not sufficiently
large  (3 hump yards out  of 124,  and 5 flat classification yards out  of 1113)
to  represent the yard population with statistical confidence.   Finally,  in no
case was the actual traffic  counted at the yards on  the measurement  days,  and
in  many instances the traffic  category for the yards had to be inferred  from
auxiliary information (maps, number of tracks, etc.)*   However, it was con-
sidered that the use of  the  available data would provide some  improvement  in
the accuracy of traffic  rate estimates beyond the initial assumption that
car impact rates equaled car classification rates.   Thus a summary of the
number of car impacts counted  from the noise survey  data is presented below.
Kailyard
Type Name
Hump

Hump

Hump

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat

Flat
Roseville

Bars tow

Brosnan

Richmond

Mays

Settegast

Dillard

Johnston
Traffic
Category
High

Medium

High

Medium

High

High

High

High
Avg. Traffic
Rate
(Cars/Day)
4000*/2390**

1470**

2390**

710**

1340**

1340**

1340**

1500*/1340**
Car Impacts Counted
Per Meas. Site Total
(Events/Day) (Events/Day)
1:570
3:160
. 1:375
(2: assume 200)
2:790
3:395
1:600
3:250
1:455
3:415
1: 	
3: 	
1: 	
3: 	
i . ___
A •
730

575

1185

850

950

565

645

1145
                                                   3:	
                       TOTAL
12320**
6645
 *Per Ref. 6
**Per Ref. 2

     The average ratio of counted impacts per day to traffic category rate for
both types of yards is 6645/12320 » 0.54.  Therefore, based on this limited
amount of data it was assumed for the noise Impact model that the number of
                                    N-22

-------
car coupling noise events per day was equal to one-half the typical traffic
rate (cars classified per day) for the respective traffic category.  However,
since there were no measured data at the industrial and small industrial type
yards, it was assumed that for these smaller yards the number of coupling
events equaled the number of railcars classified.

Distribution of Car Couplings in Kailyards

     There were no survey data available to indicate typical spatial distri-
butions of railcar coupling events in classification yards, which cover
relatively large areas.  The results of the EPIC analyses (See Section 3)
indicated the typical classification areas were 120 to 240 m (400 to 800 ft)
wide and 760 to 2130 m (2500 to 7000 ft) long, and the SRI/FRA study indicated a
range of 14 to 57 parallel tracks for the smaller to larger yards, respectively.
It could be reasonably assumed, however, that car couplings would occur random-
ly, over a long time period (weeks to months), in a large portion of the
classification areas.  Also, examination of the railyard noise survey data
discussed above provided some indication of widely separated coupling events
in the classification areas.  Thus, although there was insufficient data to
typify coupling distributions in any detail, it was considered more reasonable
to assume two virtual (concentrated event) sources rather than placing all
coupling events at one point (or area)•  Therefore, in the case of hump and
flat classification yards, car coupling events were divided into two indepen-
dent noise source groups (virtual sources).  Each of the smaller industrial
flat yards were assumed to have one virtual source representing car coupling
events.
                                     N-23

-------
                             REFERENCES

1.   Background Document for Railroad Noise Emission Standards. EPA
     #550/9-74-005, March 1974.

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

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

4.   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.

5.   Railroad Regulation Docket Response Letters from AAR to EPA.

6.   Railyard Noise Measurements, BBN, 1978.

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

8»   Highway Noise - A Field Evaluation of Traffic Noise Reduction
     Measures. Kugler, B.  A. and Pierson,  A. G., NCHRP Report 144,
     1973.
                                   N-24

-------
               APPENDIX 0
YARD IDENTIFICATION AND ACTIVITY RATES

-------
             Table 0-1




U.S AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION YARDS
Company
ALS
ATSF



BO
BETH STL
BN






CO

MILW


CR










Location
East St. Louis, 111.
Pueblo, Colo.
Cor with Yd., Chicago, 111.
Eastbound Argentine Yd., Kansas City, Mo.
Bar stow 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.
Pas co, 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.
GranoView Columbus, Ohio
59th Street, Chicago, 111.
Pavonia, N.J.
A.E. Perlman Yd., Selkirk, N.Y.
Buckeye Yd., Columbus, Ohio
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
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
                    0-1

-------
             Table 0-1




U.S AUTOMATED CLASSIFICATION YARDS (Continued)
Company
DRGW
DTI
DTS
CR
EJE
ICG
1KB
LRT
LN
MP
NW
PLE
RFP
SLSF
Location
Grand Junction, Colo.
Flat Rock Yd., Detroit, Mich.
Lang Yd., Toledo, Ohio
Bison Yd., Buffalo, N.Y.
Kirk Yd., Gary, Ind.
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
Supplier
GRS
ABEX
WABCO
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
Year
1953
1967
1974
1963
1952
1950
1964
1953
1977
1957
1958
1963
1976
1959
1962
1971
1953
1967
1971
1952
1958
1959
1972
1957
1958
                    0-2

-------
                                Table 0-1




               U.S  AUTOMATIC  CLASSIFICATION YARDS  (Continued)
Company
SSW
SCL


SOU







SP





TNO
TRRA
UP


Location
Pine Bluff Yd., Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Hamlet, N.C.
East Bay Yd., Tampa, Fla.
Rice Yd., Way cross, 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, N.C.
Richmond, Calif.
City of Industry, Los Angeles, Calif*
Eugene , Oregon
Beaumont, Texas
West Colton, Calif.
Strang Yd., Houston, Texas
Englewood Yd., Houston, Texas
Eastbound Madison Yd., Madison, 111.
North Platte, Neb.-i- *,
North Platte, Neb 'flalley
East Los Angeles, Calif.
Hinkle Yd., Hinkle, Oregon
Supplier
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
GRS
WABCO
GRS
ABEX
ABEX
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
WABCO
WABCO
WABCO
GRS
GRS
Year
1958
1955.
1970
1976
1950
1952
1955
1957
1966
1973
1973
1978
1964
1966
1966
1967
1973
1977
1956
1974
1956
1968
1971
1977
URR
Mon. Southern Yd., Pittsburgh, Pa.
WABCO
1954
                                      0-3

-------
                                Table  0-2

              ACTIVITY RATES  FOR HUMP  CLASSIFICATION YARDS*
Traffic Rate Category
Activity Parameter
No. of Classification Tracks
Receiving Tracks
Departure Tracks
Standing Capacity of Classification Yard
Standing Capacity 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
*Railroad Classification Yard Technology
Low
(<1000)**
26
11
9
1447
977
862
689
86
74
632
94
74
38

36
21
8
8
2
3
3
2
2
, A Survey
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
and Assessment, S.
High
(>2000)**
57
13
14
2443
1545
1594
2386
315
220
2297
275
149
153

39
22
27
25
5
6
11
10
4
J. Petroc
  Stanford Research Institute, Final Report, 0FRA-ORD-76/304 for DOT,  January 1977.
**Range of number of rail cars classified per day.
                                       0-4

-------
                                 Table 0-3

              ACTIVITY RATES FOR FLAT CLASSIFICATION YARDS*
Traffic Rate Category
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
*Railroad Classification Yard Technology,
Low
(<500)**
14
643
288
72
47
218
60
14
13

22
19
3
3
2
2
0
4
A Survey
Medium
(500 to 1000)**
20
983
711
93
69
472
196
21
28

22
19
6
7
3
3
1
7
and Assessment.
High
(>1000)**
25
1185
1344
182
121
942
348
16
31

76
18
10
11
2
4
2
10
S. J. Petrocek
  Stanford Research Institute, Final  Report, 0FRA-ORD-76/304 for DOT, January 1977.
**Range of number of rail cars classified per day*
                                           0-5

                                              
-------